IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/eee/trapol/v3y1996i4p241-249.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Evaluating the demand for new cycle facilities

Author

Listed:
  • Hopkinson, P
  • Wardman, M

Abstract

There are many studies which report attitudes to cycling and factors affecting the propensity to cycle but very few which evaluate the detailed costs and benefits of new cycle facilities. As part of a review of cycle facility provision in Bradford, West Yorkshire, a large scale survey of current and potential cyclists was conducted in 1994. A stated preference survey design was used to estimate the value placed on the different attributes of four alternative cycle routes under consideration. The results found that safety is more highly valued than time and that some new cycle schemes can be economically justified on the basis of benefits to current cyclists, even in circumstances of relatively low cycle use. The findings are important in the context of the current promotion of cycle facilities and highlights the need for further research and monitoring.

Suggested Citation

  • Hopkinson, P & Wardman, M, 1996. "Evaluating the demand for new cycle facilities," Transport Policy, Elsevier, vol. 3(4), pages 241-249, October.
    • Handle: RePEc:eee:trapol:v:3:y:1996:i:4:p:241-249
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0967-070X(96)00020-0
    Download Restriction: Full text for ScienceDirect subscribers only
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. May, A. D. & Roberts, M, 1995. "The design of integrated transport strategies," Transport Policy, Elsevier, vol. 2(2), pages 97-105, April.
    2. Noland, Robert B & Kunreuther, Howard, 1995. "Short-run and long-run policies for increasing bicycle transportation for daily commuter trips," Transport Policy, Elsevier, vol. 2(1), pages 67-79, January.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Ma, Liang & Ye, Runing, 2019. "Does daily commuting behavior matter to employee productivity?," Journal of Transport Geography, Elsevier, vol. 76(C), pages 130-141.
    2. Filipe, Luis N. & Macário, Rosário, 2013. "A first glimpse on policy packaging for implementation of BRT projects," Research in Transportation Economics, Elsevier, vol. 39(1), pages 150-157.
    3. Araz Taeihagh, 2017. "Network-centric policy design," Policy Sciences, Springer;Society of Policy Sciences, vol. 50(2), pages 317-338, June.
    4. Santos, Georgina & Behrendt, Hannah & Teytelboym, Alexander, 2010. "Part II: Policy instruments for sustainable road transport," Research in Transportation Economics, Elsevier, vol. 28(1), pages 46-91.
    5. Ruiz, Tomás & Bernabé, José C., 2014. "Measuring factors influencing valuation of nonmotorized improvement measures," Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice, Elsevier, vol. 67(C), pages 195-211.
    6. Vieira, João & Moura, Filipe & Manuel Viegas, José, 2007. "Transport policy and environmental impacts: The importance of multi-instrumentality in policy integration," Transport Policy, Elsevier, vol. 14(5), pages 421-432, September.
    7. Li, Zhibin & Wang, Wei & Yang, Chen & Ragland, David R., 2013. "Bicycle commuting market analysis using attitudinal market segmentation approach," Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice, Elsevier, vol. 47(C), pages 56-68.
    8. Majumdar, Bandhan Bandhu & Mitra, Sudeshna, 2018. "Analysis of bicycle route-related improvement strategies for two Indian cities using a stated preference survey," Transport Policy, Elsevier, vol. 63(C), pages 176-188.
    9. May, A. D. & Shepherd, S. P. & Minken, H. & Markussen, T. & Emberger, G. & Pfaffenbichler, P., 2001. "The use of response surfaces in specifying transport strategies," Transport Policy, Elsevier, vol. 8(4), pages 267-278, October.
    10. Nkurunziza, Alphonse & Zuidgeest, Mark & Brussel, Mark & Van Maarseveen, Martin, 2012. "Examining the potential for modal change: Motivators and barriers for bicycle commuting in Dar-es-Salaam," Transport Policy, Elsevier, vol. 24(C), pages 249-259.
    11. Verma, Meghna & Rahul, T.M. & Vinayak, Pragun & Verma, Ashish, 2018. "Influence of childhood and adulthood attitudinal perceptions on bicycle usage in the Bangalore city," Journal of Transport Geography, Elsevier, vol. 72(C), pages 94-105.
    12. May, Anthony D. & Kelly, Charlotte & Shepherd, Simon, 2006. "The principles of integration in urban transport strategies," Transport Policy, Elsevier, vol. 13(4), pages 319-327, July.
    13. Galit Cohen-Blankshtain & Eran Feitelson, 2011. "Light rail routing: do goals matter?," Transportation, Springer, vol. 38(2), pages 343-361, March.
    14. Ralph Buehler & John Pucher, 2012. "Cycling to work in 90 large American cities: new evidence on the role of bike paths and lanes," Transportation, Springer, vol. 39(2), pages 409-432, March.
    15. Sælensminde, Kjartan, 2004. "Cost-benefit analyses of walking and cycling track networks taking into account insecurity, health effects and external costs of motorized traffic," Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice, Elsevier, vol. 38(8), pages 593-606, October.
    16. May, A. D. & Milne, D. S., 2000. "Effects of alternative road pricing systems on network performance," Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice, Elsevier, vol. 34(6), pages 407-436, August.
    17. Wong, Dan & Baker, Douglas, 2014. "Improving US airport taxicab services through governance arrangements," Journal of Air Transport Management, Elsevier, vol. 40(C), pages 126-131.
    18. Mora, Rodrigo & Truffello, Ricardo & Oyarzún, Gabriel, 2021. "Equity and accessibility of cycling infrastructure: An analysis of Santiago de Chile," Journal of Transport Geography, Elsevier, vol. 91(C).
    19. Frondel, Manuel & Vance, Colin, 2017. "Cycling on the extensive and intensive margin: The role of paths and prices," Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice, Elsevier, vol. 104(C), pages 21-31.
    20. Kocak, Nazan A. & Jones, Peter & Whibley, David, 2005. "Tools for road user charging (RUC) scheme option generation," Transport Policy, Elsevier, vol. 12(5), pages 391-405, September.

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:eee:trapol:v:3:y:1996:i:4:p:241-249. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Catherine Liu (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.elsevier.com/wps/find/journaldescription.cws_home/30473/description#description .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.