Effects of Cycling Facilities– Results from a Survey and Choice Experiment on Cycling in Norway



Effects of Cycling Facilities– Results from a Survey and Choice Experiment on Cycling in Norway

Authors

Ingunn Opheim Ellis, Urbanet Research, Tanja Loftsgarden, Urbanet Research, Arnstein Øvrum, Urbanet Research

Description

This paper presents the results of a study on how to promote bicycle activity in Norway. Survey including choice experiment conducted during fall 2014. Total sample of more than 4000 adult respondents.

Abstract

This paper presents the results of a comprehensive study on how to promote bicycle activity in Norway. The study consisted of a survey on bicycle use and satisfaction, and a choice experiment on effects of various bicycle facilities. The study was conducted as an internet survey during fall 2014, with a total sample of more than 4000 adult respondents from four city regions in Norway. The first part of the study focuses on comparing bicycle activity and standards in the four city regions, including frequency of cycling, socio-demographic characteristics of frequent and infrequent cyclists, satisfaction with bicycle infrastructure (bicycle lane, bicycle path), reasons for not bicycling, etc. The second part of the study focuses on results from the choice experiment, which included the following attributes; travel time, infrastructure (bicycle lane, bicycle path, no facilitation), traffic volume and junctions. Each respondent conducted two choice experiments (6 choices between 2 bike trips in each). Our results suggest that bicycle infrastructure is the most important measure to increase cycling among both frequent and infrequent cyclists. On average, the respondents are willing to cycle 2.6 minutes on a separate bicycle path per minute cycled in the roadway together with cars with no cycle infrastructure. About 90 percent of the sample would choose a 15 minutes bike trip with cycle infrastructure along the whole trip over a 10 minutes bike trip with no cycle infrastructure. Cycle infrastructure is particularly important among the infrequent cyclists, while the frequent cyclists to a greater extent also consider other factors, including travel time, when choosing between bike trips. Our results highlight the need for conducting bicycle surveys and analyses when planning to improve the facilitations for cycling in Norway. The study shows which measures are most important to both the cyclist and the non-cyclists, and difference in preferences between the cities. Thus, our study provides new knowledge on how to plan for increasing the modal split for cycling in different cities.

Publisher

Association for European Transport