Trails, Lanes, or Traffic: Value of Different Bicycle Facilities Using Adaptive Stated-Preference Survey
AbstractThis study evaluates individual preferences for five different cycling environments by trading off a higher travel time as a cost incurred when choosing a better facility while letting the user have the option of selecting a less attractive facility at a lower travel time. The tradeoff of travel time to amenities of a particular facility informs our understanding of the value attached to different attributes such as bike-lanes, off-road trails, or side-street parking. The facilities considered here are off-road facilities, in-traffic facilities with bike-lane and no side street parking, in-traffic facilities with a bike-lane and side street parking, in-traffic facilities with no bike-lane and no side street parking and in-traffic facilities with no bike-lane but with parking on the side. We find that respondents are willing to travel up to twenty minutes more to switch from an unmarked on-road facility with side parking to an off-road bicycle trail, with smaller changes associated with less dramatic improvements. ) presented at 84th Annual Meeting of Transportation Research Board in Washington, DC, January 9-13th 2005.
Download InfoIf you experience problems downloading a file, check if you have the proper application to view it first. In case of further problems read the IDEAS help page. Note that these files are not on the IDEAS site. Please be patient as the files may be large.
Bibliographic InfoPaper provided by University of Minnesota: Nexus Research Group in its series Working Papers with number 200701.
Date of creation: 2007
Date of revision:
Publication status: Published in Transportation Research: A Policy and Practice 41 (4) 287-301
Contact details of provider:
Postal: Dept. of Civil Engineering, 500 Pillsbury Drive SE, Minneapolis, MN 55455
Phone: +01 (612) 625-6354
Fax: +01 (612) 626-7750
Web page: http://nexus.umn.edu
More information through EDIRC
Find related papers by JEL classification:
- R40 - Urban, Rural, Regional, Real Estate, and Transportation Economics - - Transportation Economics - - - General
- D10 - Microeconomics - - Household Behavior - - - General
- D83 - Microeconomics - - Information, Knowledge, and Uncertainty - - - Search, Learning, and Information
- C91 - Mathematical and Quantitative Methods - - Design of Experiments - - - Laboratory, Individual Behavior
This paper has been announced in the following NEP Reports:
Please report citation or reference errors to , or , if you are the registered author of the cited work, log in to your RePEc Author Service profile, click on "citations" and make appropriate adjustments.:
- Angela S. Bergantino & Simona Bolis, 2003. "An Adaptive Conjoint Analysis of Freight Service Alternatives: Evaluating the Maritime Alternative," ERSA conference papers ersa03p428, European Regional Science Association.
- Hopkinson, P & Wardman, M, 1996. "Evaluating the demand for new cycle facilities," Transport Policy, Elsevier, vol. 3(4), pages 241-249, October.
- Ipek Sener & Naveen Eluru & Chandra Bhat, 2009. "An analysis of bicycle route choice preferences in Texas, US," Transportation, Springer, vol. 36(5), pages 511-539, September.
- Broach, Joseph & Dill, Jennifer & Gliebe, John, 2012. "Where do cyclists ride? A route choice model developed with revealed preference GPS data," Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice, Elsevier, vol. 46(10), pages 1730-1740.
- Björklund, Gunilla & Isacsson, Gunnar, 2013. "Forecasting the impact of infrastructure on Swedish commuters’ cycling behaviour," Working papers in Transport Economics 2013:36, CTS - Centre for Transport Studies Stockholm (KTH and VTI).
- Kevin Krizek & Ahmed El-Geneidy & Kristin Thompson, 2007. "A detailed analysis of how an urban trail system affects cyclists’ travel," Transportation, Springer, vol. 34(5), pages 611-624, September.
- Ehrgott, Matthias & Wang, Judith Y.T. & Raith, Andrea & van Houtte, Chris, 2012. "A bi-objective cyclist route choice model," Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice, Elsevier, vol. 46(4), pages 652-663.
For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: (David Levinson).
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 references are entirely missing, you can add them using this form.
If the full references list an item that is present in RePEc, but the system did not link 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 profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.
Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.