Network design, built and natural environments, and bicycle commuting: Evidence from British cities and towns

Exploring Dockless Bikeshare Usage: A Case Study of Beijing, China

“…Earlier research already suggested that neighborhoods with high density, diversity and destination accessibility are commonly associated with lower levels of automobile usage and a higher proportion of nonmotorized trips [29,30]. In an analysis of cycling behavior in 36 British cities and towns, Cervero, Denman [31] did not find one single specific factor that was significantly associated with higher commute cycling, but rather, these authors found that commute cycling was collectively influenced by several factors including supportive bicycle networks (e.g., low-stress and noncircuitous bike paths), land use mix, urban amenities and specific local cycling culture and policy environments. Likewise, regarding the usage of docked bikeshare systems, frequently examined built environment characteristics around bikeshare docking stations, involving population density, job density, bicycle and public transit infrastructures, street designs, land-use mix, and proximity to central areas, were found to significantly influence the adoption or usage of docked bikeshare systems.…”

Bicycle Level of Service for Route Choice—A GIS Evaluation of Four Existing Indicators with Empirical Data

“…Bicycle Level of Service methods are used to generate potential route choices using a modification of the approach from Cervero et al, 2019 in which a Level of Traffic Stress (LTS)-classified transport network is used to allocate additional impedance (together with travel time) for streets and intersections poorly suited for cycling [53]. The approach involves the distribution of impedance (as an additional length) based on BLOS score.…”

“…The second stage of Cervero et al's impedance allocation occurs at intersections. This approach creates buffers of varying sizes around intersections in order to transfer the LTS attributes of the poorest standard link in an intersection to the buffer length of other links in the intersection [53]. The rationale behind this is to transfer some of the traffic stress involved in crossing an intersection onto the links in the intersection with lower traffic stress.…”

“…For example, at the intersection of an LTS2 and LTS3 link, the penalty length applied to the LTS2 link would be equal to the difference in maximum penalty lengths, i.e., 1.67 − 0.42 = 1.25 m (using the sample numbers from Table 3). The LTS3 link in this example is the link with the highest level of traffic stress and will therefore receive no additional penalty length, in the same manner as the original method from Cervero et al [53]. Table 3.…”

“…The maximum impedance factor of 1.15 used in Table 3 is not empirically founded, and is used to demonstrate the procedure for calculating penalty length [53]. The impedance factor to be multiplied with link length is shown for Level of Traffic Stress in Table 4 below as a function of the 11 detour rates.…”