Trails, lanes, or traffic: Valuing bicycle facilities with an adaptive stated preference survey

Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice

Volumn 41, Issue 4, 2007, Pages 287-301

  Tilahun, Nebiyou Y ^a   Levinson, David M ^a   Krizek, Kevin J ^b  

^a University of Minnesota   (United States)

^b UNIVERSITY OF MINNESOTA   (United States)

Author keywords

Adaptive stated preference; Bicycling; Bike lane; Stated preference; Trail

Indexed keywords

BEHAVIORAL RESEARCH; BICYCLES; PARKING; STREET TRAFFIC CONTROL; TRAFFIC SURVEYS;

BIKE-LANE; OFF-ROAD TRAIL; SIDE-STREET PARKING;

NONMOTORIZED TRANSPORTATION;

PARKING; TRAFFIC MANAGEMENT; TRANSPORTATION MODE; TRAVEL BEHAVIOR; TRAVEL TIME;

EID: 33845595953     PISSN: 09658564     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1016/j.tra.2006.09.007     Document Type: Article

References (16)

1. Abraham, J., McMillan, S., Brownlee, A., Hunt, J.D., 2004. Investigation of cycling sensitivities. Presented at 81st Annual Meeting of the Transportation Research Board, Washington, DC.
2. Agresti A. Categorical Data Analysis. second ed. (2002), John Wiley & Sons, Inc., Hoboken, New Jersey
3. Aultman-Hall, L., Hall, F., Baetz, B., 1997. Analysis of bicycle commuter routes using geographic information systems: Implications for bicycle planning. Transportation Research Record: Journal of the Transportation Research Board, No, 1578, TRB, National Research Council, Washington, DC., pp. 102-110.
4. Bergantino, A., Bolis, S., 2002. An adaptive conjoint analysis of freight service alternatives: Evaluating the maritime option. In: IAME 2002 Conference Proceedings, Panama.
5. Bovy, P., Bradley, P., 1985. Route choice analyzed with stated preference approaches. Transportation Research Record 1037, TRB, National Research Council, Washington, DC.
6. Dill, J., Carr, T., 2003. Bicycle commuting and facilities in major U.S. cities: If you build them, commuters will use them - another look. CD-ROM. Transportation Research Board, National Research Council, Washington, DC.
7. Efron B., and Tibshirani R. An Introduction to the Bootstrap (1993), Chapman and Hall, New York
8. Falzarno, S., Hazlett, R., Adler, T., 2000. Quantifying the value of transit station and access improvements for Chicago's rapid transit system. Presented at 80th Annual Meeting of the Transportation Research Board, Washington, DC.
9. Hopkinson P., and Wardman M. Evaluating the demand for new cycle facilities. Transport Policy 2 4 (1996) 241-249
10. Nelson, A.C., Allen, D., 1997. If you build them, commuters will use them. Transportation Research Record: Journal of the Transportation Research Board, No, 1578, TRB, National Research Council, Washington, DC., pp. 79-83.
11. R Development Core Team 2004. R: A language and environment for statistical computing. R Foundation for Statistical Computing, Vienna, Austria. ISBN 3-900051-07-0, URL .
12. SAS/NLMIXED software, Version 9 of the SAS System for Windows. Copyright © 2004 SAS Institute Inc., Cary, NC, USA.
13. Shafizadeh, K., Niemeier, D., 1997. Bicycle journey-to-work: travel behavior characteristics and spatial attributes. Transportation Research Record: Journal of the Transportation Research Board, No. 1578, TRB, National Research Council, Washington, DC., pp. 84-90.
14. Smalkoski B., and Levinson D. Value of time for commercial vehicle operators. JTRF 44 1 (2005)
15. Stinson A.S., and Bhat C.R. An Analysis of Commuter Bicyclist Route Choice Using a Stated Preference Survey. CD-ROM. Transportation Research Board (2003), National Research Council, Washington, DC
16. Taylor, D., Mahmassani, H. 1996. Analysis of stated preference for intermodal bicycle-transit interfaces. In: Transportation Research Record: Journal of the Transportation Research Board, No. 1556, TRB, National Research Council, Washington, DC., pp. 86-95.