Providing bicyclists favorable and comfortable riding environments is an important objective for transportation professionals. This study investigated the factors that contribute to bicyclists’ perception of comfort on physically separated bicycle paths and quantified their impacts. A survey was conducted on 29 physically separated bicycle paths in the metropolitan area of Nanjing, China. A factor analysis and an ordered probit model were used to analyze the data. The results showed that the mean perception of comfort was significantly different between age groups, but not significantly different between gender groups and between users of electric bicycles and conventional bicycles. The model performance indicated that the ordered probit model with factor analysis addressed the correlation between independent variables and outperformed the ordered probit model without factor analysis. The model estimates showed that bicyclists’ perception of comfort on physically separated bicycle paths was significantly influenced by physical environmental factors, including the width of the bicycle pathway, the width of the shoulder, the presence of grade, the presence of a bus stop, the surrounding land use, and the flow rate of electric and conventional bicycles. The findings yielded insights into bicyclists’ psychological perception of comfort on physically separated bicycle paths. This research can help inform the design and planning of these facilities.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
XingY., HandyS. L., and MokhtarianP. L.Factors Associated with Proportions and Miles of Bicycling for Transportation and Recreation in Six Small U.S. Cities. Transportation Research Part D, Vol. 15, No. 2, 2010, pp. 73–81.
2.
PucherJ., and BuehlerR.Analysis of Bicycling Trends and Policies in Large North American Cities: Lessons for New York. Final report. University Transportation Research Center, 2011.
3.
SuJ.G., WintersM., NunesM., and BrauerM.Designing a Route Planner to Facilitate and Promote Cycling in Metro Vancouver, Canada. Transportation Research Part A, Vol. 44, No. 7, 2010, pp. 495–505.
4.
MartensK.The Bicycle as a Feedering Mode: Experiences from Three European Countries. Transportation Research Part D, Vol. 9, No. 4, 2004, pp. 281–294.
5.
PucherJ., and BuehlerR.Making Cycling Irresistible: Lessons from the Netherlands, Denmark and Germany. Transport Reviews, Vol. 28, No. 4, 2008, pp. 495–528.
6.
MeeusenR., de GeusB., De BourdeaudhuijI., and JannesC.Psycho-social and Environmental Factors Associated with Cycling for Transport Among a Working Population. Health Education Research, Vol. 23, No. 4, 2008, pp. 697–708.
7.
ShanX. A Research on Urban Bicycle Transportation Rational Ridership and Road Resource Allocation. PhD dissertation. Southeast University, Nanjing, China, 2007.
8.
ChenX.H., WenX., HuangZ. Y., and YangH.Planning Bicycle Corridor for Shanghai Central City. Presented at 86th Annual Meeting of the Transportation Research Board, Washington, D.C., 2007.
9.
YangC., WangW., ShanX., JinJ., LuJ., and LiZ.Effects of Personal Factors on Bicycle Commuting in Developing Countries: Case Study of Nanjing, China. In Transportation Research Record: Journal of the Transportation Research Board, No. 2193, Transportation Research Board of the National Academies, Washington, D.C., 2010, pp. 96–104.
10.
WardmanM., TightM., and PageM.Factors Influencing the Propensity to Cycle to Work. Transportation Research Part A, Vol. 41, No. 4, 2007, pp. 339–350.
11.
WintersM., and TeschkeK.Route Preferences Among Adults in the Near Market for Bicycling: Findings of the Cycling in Cities Study. American Journal of Health Promotion, Vol. 25, No. 1, 2010, pp. 40–47.
12.
LuskA.C., FurthP. G., MorencyP., Miranda-MorenoL. F., WillettW. C., and DennerleinJ. T.Risk of Injury for Bicycling on Cycle Tracks Versus in the Street. Injury Prevention, Vol. 17, No. 2, 2011, pp. 131–135.
13.
LandisB.W., VattikutiV. R., and BrannickM. T.Real-Time Human Perceptions: Toward a Bicycle Level of Service. In Transportation Research Record 1578, TRB, National Research Council, Washington, D.C., 1997, pp. 119–126.
14.
HarkeyD., ReinfurtD., SortonA., KnuimanM., and StewartJ.The Bicycle Compatibility Index: A Level-of-Service Concept. Report No. FHWA-RD-98-095. FHWA, McLean, Va., 1998.
15.
SortonA., and ThomasW.Bicycle Stress Level as a Tool to Evaluate Urban and Suburban Bicycle Compatibility. In Transportation Research Record 1438, TRB, National Research Council, Washington, D.C., 1994, pp. 17–24.
16.
EppersonB.Evaluating Suitability of Roadways for Bicycle Use: Toward a Cycling Level-of-Service Standard. In Transportation Research Record 1438, TRB, National Research Council, Washington, D.C., 1994, pp. 9–16.
17.
Highway Capacity Manual 2010. Transportation Research Board of the National Academies, Washington, D.C., 2010.
18.
BotmaH.Method to Determine Level of Service for Bicycle Paths and Pedestrian–Bicycle Paths. In Transportation Research Record 1502, TRB, National Research Council, Washington, D.C., 1995, pp. 38–44.
19.
HummerJ.E., RouphailN. M., TooleJ.L., PattenR.S., SchneiderR.J., GreenJ. S., HughesR. G., and FainS. J.Evaluation of Safety, Design, and Operation of Shared-Use Paths: Final Report. U.S. Department of Transportation, 2006.
20.
LiF.The Capacity and Level of Service of Bicycle Traffic on Bicycle Facility in China. China Municipal Engineering, Vol. 3, 1995, pp. 11–14.
21.
ShanX., WangW., WangH., and XuS.Properties of Bicycle Flow in Non-Congested Road. Computer and Communications, Vol. 24, No. 6, 2006, pp. 41–43.
22.
ChenJ., and XieZ.Cycle Traffic Conflict Model on Urban Pedestrian–Bicycle Paths. Journal of Jilin University, Vol. 39, No. 2, 2009, pp. 121–125.
23.
LiZ., WangW., ShanX., JinJ., LuJ., and YangC.Analysis of Bicycle Passing Events for LOS Evaluation on Physically Separated Bicycle Roadways in China. Presented at 89th Annual Meeting of the Transportation Research Board, Washington, D.C., 2010.
24.
LinS., HeM., TanY., and HeM.Comparison Study on Operating Speeds of Electric Bicycles and Bicycles: Experience from Field Investigation in Kunming, China. In Transportation Research Record: Journal of the Transportation Research Board, No. 2048, Transportation Research Board of the National Academies, Washington, D.C., 2008, pp. 52–59.
25.
WashingtonS., KarlaftisM., and ManneringF.Statistical and Econometric Methods for Transportation Data Analysis. Chapman & Hall/CRC, Boca Raton, Fla., 2003.
26.
DeakinE. A.Utilitarian Cycling: A Case Study of the Bay Area and Assessment of the Market for Commute Cycling. Research report. University of California, Berkeley, California Department of Transportation, and FHWA, 1985.
27.
WilliamsJ. J. L.Promoting Bicycle Commuting: Understanding the Customer. Transportation Quarterly, Vol. 50, 1996, pp. 67–78.
28.
CherryC.R., and CerveroR.Use Characteristics and Mode Choice Behavior of Electric Bike Users in China. Transport Policy, Vol. 14, No. 3, 2007, pp. 247–257.
29.
WeinertJ.X., MaC., YangX., and CherryC.R.Electric Two-Wheelers in China: Effect on Travel Behavior, Mode Shift, and User Safety Perceptions in a Medium-Sized City. In Transportation Research Record: Journal of the Transportation Research Board, No. 2038, Transportation Research Board of the National Academies, Washington, D.C., 2007, pp. 62–68.
30.
CerinE., SaelensB. E., SallisJ.F., and FrankL.D.Neighborhood Environment Walkability Scale: Validity and Development of a Short Form. Medicine and Science in Sports and Exercise, Vol. 38, No. 9, 2006, pp. 1682–1691.
31.
PikoraT., Giles-CortiB., BullF., JamrozikK., and DonovanR.Developing a Framework for Assessment of the Environmental Determinants of Walking and Cycling. Social Science and Medicine, Vol. 56, No. 8, 2003, pp. 1693–1703.
