IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/osf/socarx/q69rv_v1.html

FASTrack: A co-designed cloud-based planning support system for interactive cycling infrastructure scenario assessment

Author

Listed:
  • Turner, Ryan
  • Jafari, Afshin
  • Tiwari, Sapan

    (RMIT University)

  • Both, Alan
  • Singh, Dhirendra
  • Pemberton, Steve
  • De Gruyter, Chris

Abstract

Testing transport interventions using city-scale transport models is typically resource intensive, requiring specialist expertise, substantial data and computational capacity. As a result, such modelling is often concentrated on major projects and larger metropolitan areas, while smaller interventions and mid-sized regional cities have limited access to comparable modelling capabilities. This is particularly relevant to active travel, where cycling infrastructure decisions frequently need to be made with relatively limited modelling and decision-support capacity. This study presents FASTrack, a cloud-based planning support software system that integrates agent-based modelling, behavioural simulation, and interactive scenario visualisation to enable proposed cycling infrastructure assessment. A case study is applied to the City of Greater Bendigo, a mid-sized regional Australian city representative of the planning contexts that existing platforms often overlook. FASTrack was developed through a co-design process over three years with local government planning partners, to address the need to rapidly assess infrastructure scenarios, quantify changes in cycling demand and behaviour, and inform infrastructure planning and investment appraisal. These requirements underpin its design, including the use of probabilistic modelling and a cloud-based workflow designed to support rapid, on-demand scenario testing with minimal specialist modelling expertise. Scenario outcomes are presented through interactive dashboard-style interfaces that detail estimated changes in network use, level of traffic stress, mode shift, cycling usage, emissions, and cost-benefit analysis aligned with national appraisal guidelines. This study demonstrates how co-design can directly shape the development of planning support systems by translating practitioner requirements into accessible modelling platforms for cycling infrastructure planning

Suggested Citation

  • Turner, Ryan & Jafari, Afshin & Tiwari, Sapan & Both, Alan & Singh, Dhirendra & Pemberton, Steve & De Gruyter, Chris, 2026. "FASTrack: A co-designed cloud-based planning support system for interactive cycling infrastructure scenario assessment," SocArXiv q69rv_v1, Center for Open Science.
    • Handle: RePEc:osf:socarx:q69rv_v1
    DOI: 10.31235/osf.io/q69rv_v1
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://osf.io/download/6aa8b8dbc5bcc36982eeca61/
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.31235/osf.io/q69rv_v1?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Rosa Aguilar & Johannes Flacke & Daniel Simon & Karin Pfeffer, 2023. "Stakeholders Engagement in Noise Action Planning Mediated by OGITO: An Open Geo-Spatial Interactive Tool," Journal of Urban Technology, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 30(3), pages 23-46, May.
    2. Asker, Chloe & McGuire, Laura & Pollard, Tessa & Barr, Stewart & Green, Judith & Phoenix, Cassandra & Guell, Cornelia, 2025. "Manoeuvring rural mobility policy for active and sustainable travel," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 377(C).
    3. Maryam Bostanara & Hao Wu & Lee Roberts & Christopher Pettit & Jinwoo (Brian) Lee, 2025. "Planning for cycling: are current transport models fit for purpose?," Transport Reviews, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 45(3), pages 413-432, May.
    4. Markus Rittenbruch & Marcus Foth & Peta Mitchell & Rajjan Chitrakar & Bryce Christensen & Christopher Pettit, 2022. "Co-Designing Planning Support Systems in Urban Science: The Questions They Answer and the Questions They Raise," Journal of Urban Technology, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 29(2), pages 7-32, April.
    5. Gary Bosworth & Liz Price & Martin Collison & Charles Fox, 2020. "Unequal futures of rural mobility: Challenges for a “Smart Countrysideâ€," Local Economy, London South Bank University, vol. 35(6), pages 586-608, September.
    6. Oliver Lock & Michael Bain & Christopher Pettit, 2021. "Towards the collaborative development of machine learning techniques in planning support systems – a Sydney example," Environment and Planning B, , vol. 48(3), pages 484-502, March.
    7. John Pucher & Ralph Buehler, 2017. "Cycling towards a more sustainable transport future," Transport Reviews, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 37(6), pages 689-694, November.
    8. Tiwari, Sapan & Jafari, Afshin & Pemberton, Steve & Both, Alan & Singh, Dhirendra & Turner, Ryan & De Gruyter, Chris, 2025. "Modelling cycling route choice using a map-based public participatory survey in a regional city," SocArXiv tdras_v1, Center for Open Science.
    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. Castañeda, Paola, 2021. "Cycling case closed? A situated response to Samuel Nello-Deakin's “Environmental determinants of cycling: Not seeing the forest for the trees?”," Journal of Transport Geography, Elsevier, vol. 90(C).
    2. Alvaro Rodriguez-Valencia & Jose Agustin Vallejo-Borda & German A. Barrero & Hernan Alberto Ortiz-Ramirez, 2022. "Towards an enriched framework of service evaluation for pedestrian and bicyclist infrastructure: acknowledging the power of users’ perceptions," Transportation, Springer, vol. 49(3), pages 791-814, June.
    3. Sagaris, Lake, 2018. "Citizen participation for sustainable transport: Lessons for change from Santiago and Temuco, Chile," Research in Transportation Economics, Elsevier, vol. 69(C), pages 402-410.
    4. Radzimski, Adam & Dzięcielski, Michał, 2021. "Exploring the relationship between bike-sharing and public transport in Poznań, Poland," Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice, Elsevier, vol. 145(C), pages 189-202.
    5. Sabogal-Cardona, Orlando & Dávila, Julio D. & Oviedo, Daniel, 2025. "Lycra and guardian angels: Can leisure cycling induce travel behaviour changes?," Journal of Transport Geography, Elsevier, vol. 124(C).
    6. Doctor S. Nkosi & Thembani Moyo & Innocent Musonda, 2022. "Unlocking Land for Urban Agriculture: Lessons from Marginalised Areas in Johannesburg, South Africa," Land, MDPI, vol. 11(10), pages 1-17, October.
    7. Asker, Chloe & McGuire, Laura & Pollard, Tessa & Barr, Stewart & Green, Judith & Phoenix, Cassandra & Guell, Cornelia, 2025. "Manoeuvring rural mobility policy for active and sustainable travel," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 377(C).
    8. Aryana Soliz, 2021. "Creating Sustainable Cities through Cycling Infrastructure? Learning from Insurgent Mobilities," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(16), pages 1-21, August.
    9. Safdar, Sarah & Ren, Minglun & Chudhery, Muhammad Adnan Zahid & Huo, Jiazhen & Rehman, Hakeem-Ur & Rafique, Raza, 2022. "Using cloud-based virtual learning environments to mitigate increasing disparity in urban-rural academic competence," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 176(C).
    10. Levy, Nadav & Golani, Chen & Ben-Elia, Eran, 2019. "An exploratory study of spatial patterns of cycling in Tel Aviv using passively generated bike-sharing data," Journal of Transport Geography, Elsevier, vol. 76(C), pages 325-334.
    11. repec:osf:socarx:8w7bg_v1 is not listed on IDEAS
    12. Selima Sultana & Hyojin Kim & Nastaran Pourebrahim & Firoozeh Karimi, 2018. "Geographical Assessment of Low-Carbon Transportation Modes: A Case Study from a Commuter University," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 10(8), pages 1-23, August.
    13. Tiwari, Sapan & Jafari, Afshin & Pemberton, Steve & Ziemke, Dominik, 2026. "Behaviourally informed bicycle route assignment for activity-based and agent-based travel demand modelling," SocArXiv kt94s_v1, Center for Open Science.
    14. Tiznado-Aitken, Ignacio & Yin, Zehui & Farber, Steven, 2026. "Tracking cycling behaviour and comfort perceptions in Toronto: Trends from 1999 to 2023," Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice, Elsevier, vol. 210(C).
    15. Gao, Ming & Fang, Congying, 2025. "Decoding the impact of audiovisual street environment features on cycling volumes: Insights from street view imagery and machine learning," Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice, Elsevier, vol. 199(C).
    16. Ballo, Lukas & de Freitas, Lucas Meyer & Meister, Adrian & Axhausen, Kay W., 2023. "The E-Bike City as a radical shift toward zero-emission transport: Sustainable? Equitable? Desirable?," Journal of Transport Geography, Elsevier, vol. 111(C).
    17. João Valsecchi Ribeiro de Souza & Adriana Marotti de Mello & Roberto Marx, 2019. "When Is an Innovative Urban Mobility Business Model Sustainable? A Literature Review and Analysis," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 11(6), pages 1-18, March.
    18. Dan Zhao & Shengrui Zhang & Bei Zhou & Shuaiyang Jiao & Ling Yang, 2020. "Risk Perception Sensitivity of Cyclists Based on the Cox Risk Perception Model," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 12(7), pages 1-23, March.
    19. Ben Beck & Meghan Winters & Trisalyn Nelson & Chris Pettit & Simone Z Leao & Meead Saberi & Jason Thompson & Sachith Seneviratne & Kerry Nice & Mark Stevenson, 2023. "Developing urban biking typologies: Quantifying the complex interactions of bicycle ridership, bicycle network and built environment characteristics," Environment and Planning B, , vol. 50(1), pages 7-23, January.
    20. Elzbieta Szymanska & Zofia Koloszko-Chomentowska, 2022. "Sustainable Innovative Mobility Solutions Preferred by Inhabitants of Rural Areas—The Case of Lithuania and Poland," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 14(11), pages 1-21, May.
    21. Médard de Chardon, Cyrille, 2019. "The contradictions of bike-share benefits, purposes and outcomes," Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice, Elsevier, vol. 121(C), pages 401-419.

    More about this item

    NEP fields

    This paper has been announced in the following NEP Reports:

    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:osf:socarx:q69rv_v1. 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: OSF (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://socarxiv.org .

    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.