Skip to main content

Table 2 Overview of cited studies

From: Assessing cyclists’ routing preferences by analyzing extensive user setting data from a bike-routing engine

Author Year Variables used in the model Type of analysis Country Investigation area Local cycle mode share
Bernardi, La Paix Puello, Geurs 2018 Link type [type of road or bike infrastructure], Link quality, Link beauty, Link traffic nuisance Revealed preference Nether-lands Countrywide Not stated
Ghanayim, Bekhor 2018 Total route length, Route length on streets with bike paths, Route length on urban arterials and highways, Average street length, Dwelling units / m, Route length “near sea”, Route length “near park” Revealed preference Israel Tel Aviv metropolitan area 1,6%
Prato, Halldórsdóttir, Nielsen 2018 Distance, Wrong way, Left turns, Right turns, Bicycle infrastructure type, Bicycle facility type, Cumulative elevation gain, Surface type, Number of intersections, Motorized road type, Motorized free speed, Number of motorized traffic lanes, Land-use designations Revealed preference Denmark Copenhagen 37% commuting trips
Vedel, Jacobsen, Skov-Petersen 2017 Road environment, Cycle track, Green surroundings, Crowding (other cyclists on the route), Stops (on the route), Route length Stated preference Denmark Copenhagen 35% of all trips
Aldred, Elliott, Woodcock, Goodman 2016 Varying Review on stated preference surveys Varying Varying Varying
Buehler, Dill 2016 Varying Review World Varying Varying
Mertens, Van Dyck, Ghekiere, De Bourdeaudhuij, Deforche, Van de Weghe, Van Cauwenberg 2016 Type of cycle path, speed limit, speed bump, vegetation, evenness of the cycle path surface, general upkeep, traffic density Stated preference Belgium Flanders 14% of trips shorter than 5 km
Winters, Teschke, Brauer, Fuller 2016 Bike Score (10-unit change), Destinations/Connectivity Score, (10-unit change), Bike Lane Score (10-unit change), Hill Score (10-unit change), Bike Score (categorical), City Cross-sectional US/ Canada 24 cities 1,9% (mean) commuting trips
Nielsen, Olafsson, Carstensen, Skov-Petersen 2013 Distance to retail concentration, Train station within 1 km, Population density within 1.5 km, Public transport departures within 500 m, Retail jobs/resident within 500 m, Topology as elevation range within 1.5 km, Intersection pr. Network dist. Within 1.5 km, Intersection pr. Network dist. Within 500 m (Ln), Residence is a flat, Copenhagen or Frederiksberg (Place dummy), City of Odense (Place dummy), Respondent has driver’s license, Occupation: student, Occupation: full time employment, Education: medium, Education: long (academic), Family type: single, Household income/adult, Personal income, Gender Cross-sectional Denmark Denmark 23% Individuals who cycle
Broach, Dill, Gliebe, 2012 Bridge with on-street bike lane, Proportion of route along links with [varying] upslope, Distance of route, Path size, Left turn without traffic signal and parallel [varying] traffic volume, Proportion of route on designated bicycle boulevard, Proportion of route on off-street, regional bike path, Proportion of route on streets with [varying] traffic volume without a bike lane, Left turns and straight movements through traffic signals per mile, Turns or straight movements through stop signs per mile, Left and right turns per mile, Right turns at unsignalized intersections with cross traffic volume 10,000+ per day, Left turns and through movements at unsignalized intersections with [varying] cross traffic volume Revealed preference USA Portland Not stated
Caulfield, Brick, McCarthy 2012 Adjacent traffic speed (km/h), Type of infrastructure, Travel time (min), Number of junctions on route, Cycle traffic on route Stated preference Ireland Dublin Not stated
Buehler, Pucher 2011 Bike share of commuters, Bike commuters per capita, Bike lane supply, Bike path supply, Cycling safety, College students, Car access, Sprawl index, Public transport supply, Gasoline price, Hot weather, Cold weather, Annual precipitation Cross-sectional USA 90 cities 0,8% (mean) Commuting trips
Winters, Teschke 2010 Major streets, residential streets, rural roads and highways, off-street paths, cycle paths next to major roads but physically separated from traffic, road markings, bicycle lanes, traffic calming, route surfaces, car parking Stated preference Canada Vancouver metropolitan area ~ 2%
Winters, Teschke, Grant, Setton, Brauer 2010 Gross population density, % of land area with green cover, average air pollution (ppb NO2), variation in elevation, % of road segments > 10% slope, traffic calming features, stencils, bike route signs, traffic crossings with bike activated signals, ratio of 4 way intersections: all intersections, % of land area with use: (agriculture, commercial, education, entertainment, industrial, office, park, single family residence, multifamily residence, land use mix) Revealed preference (shortest) Canada Vancouver metropolitan area 1,7% for work trips
Garrard, Rose, Lo 2008 Type of bicycle facilities (path, lane, no) Observing Australia Melbourne 1,2%
Hunt, Abraham 2007 Availability of showers at destination, Availability of secure parking at destination, Minutes riding on roadways in mixed traffic, Minutes riding on designated bike lanes on roadways, Minutes riding on bike paths shared with pedestrians Stated preference Canada Edmonton Not stated
Moudon, Lee, Cheadle, Collier, Johnson, Schmid, Weather 2005 Age in years, Gender, Race, Marital status, General health, Income, Own a bicycle?, Number of cars in household, Vehicle miles traveled per month, Exercise at home?, Use transit?, Work hours per week, Vigorous activity, Number of facilitators of cycling mentioned, Total household location factors -Proximity to recreational destinations, Perceived presence of, Benefits of physical activity, Presence of amenities for cycling and jogging in the neighborhood, High social support for walking and cycling in the neighborhood, High visual quality of the neighborhood, Presence of destinations in neighborhood, Presence of auto-oriented facilities in the neighborhood, Problems related to automobiles in neighborhood, Percentage of streets lined with bicycle lanes, Distance to the closest trail, Number of parks within the 3 km buffer, Number of destinations within the closest NC6 (sports facility and school), Size of the closest NC3 (grocery and restaurant), Area of convenience stores within the 3 km buffer, Number of parcels within the closest NC10 (office, fast food, and clinic/hospital) Cross-sectional USA King County, Washington < 1%
Stinson, Bhat 2003 Roadway class, Parallel parking permitted, Bicycle facility type, Bridge type, Hilliness, Riding surface, Travel time, Facility continuity, Number of stop signs per mile, Number of red lights, Number of major cross-streets Stated preference USA / Canada Countrywide varying
Abraham, McMillan, Brownlee, Hunt 2002 Total cycling time including stops at red lights and stop signs, time on arterial roads, time on arterial roads with wide curb lane, time on arterial roads with bicycle lane, time on residential roads, time on bike route consisting of residential roads, time on bicycle pathways alongside arterial road, time on bicycle pathways in park area, Parking facility available at destination, Cost for parking facility, Other facilities available at destination, Cost for other facilities Stated preference Canada Calgary Not stated
Aultmann-Hall 1996 Turns, Turns per km, Signals, Signals per km, Major signals, Proportion of movements between a major and minor road with a signal, Proportion of movements from a minor/path to a minor/path with a signal, Proportion of route on arterial roads, Proportion of route on collector roads, Proportion of route on local roads, Proportion of route off-road, Road bridges, Travel on grade (km), Level railway crossings Revealed preference (shortest) Canada Guelph, Toronto, Ottawa Not stated