Multiuser perspectives on separated, on-street bicycle infrastructure

Transportation Research Record

Volumn , Issue 2314, 2012, Pages 22-30

  Monsere, Christopher ^a   McNeil, Nathan ^b   Dill, Jennifer ^c  

^a Department of Electrical and Computer Engineering   (United States)

^b Nohad A Toulan School of Urban Planning   (United States)

^c PORTLAND STATE UNIVERSITY   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

AUTOMOBILE DRIVERS; PEDESTRIAN SAFETY; SEPARATION; SURVEYS;

ALTERNATIVE ROUTES; BICYCLE INFRASTRUCTURES; BICYCLE RIDERS; INTERCEPT SURVEYS; MOTOR VEHICLE; MULTIUSERS; NEW FACILITIES; TRAVEL DELAYS; VEHICLE TRAFFIC;

BICYCLES;

EID: 84872971110     PISSN: 03611981     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.3141/2314-04     Document Type: Article

References (29)

1. Pucher, J., J. Dill, and S. Handy. Infrastructure, Programs, and Policies to Increase Bicycling: An International Review. Preventive Medicine, Vol. 50, Suppl. 1, 2010, pp. S106-S125.
2. Pucher, J., R. Buehler, and M. Seinen. Bicycling Renaissance in North America? An Update and Re-Appraisal of Cycling Trends and Policies. Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice, Vol. 45, No. 6, 2011, pp. 451-475.
3. Nelson, A. C., and D. Allen. If You Build Them, Commuters Will Use Them: Association Between Bicycle Facilities and Bicycle Commuting. In Transportation Research Record 1578, TRB, National Research Council, Washington, D. C., 1997, pp. 79-83.
4. Dill, J., and T. Carr. Bicycle Commuting and Facilities in Major U. S. Cities: If You Build Them, Commuters Will Use Them. In Transportation Research Record: Journal of the Transportation Research Board, No. 1828, Transportation Research Board of the National Academies, Washington, D. C., 2003, pp. 116-123.
5. Buehler, R., and J. Pucher. Cycling to Work in 90 Large American Cities: New Evidence on the Role of Bike Paths and Lanes. Transportation, Vol. 39, No. 2, 2012, pp. 409-432.
6. Shafizadeh, K., and D. Niemeier. Bicycle Journey-to-Work: Travel Behavior Characteristics and Spatial Attributes. In Transportation Research Record 1578, TRB, National Research Council, Washington, D. C., 1997, pp. 84-90. (Pubitemid 127550657)
7. Rose, G., and H. Marfurt. Travel Behaviour Change Impacts of a Major Ride to Work Day Event. Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice, Vol. 41, No. 4, 2007, pp. 351-364. (Pubitemid 44914720)
8. Emond, C. R., W. Tang, and S. L. Handy. Explaining Gender Difference in Bicycling Behavior. In Transportation Research Record: Journal of the Transportation Research Board, No. 2125, Transportation Research Board of the National Academies, Washington, D. C., 2009, pp. 16-25.
9. Winters, M., and K. Teschke. Route Preferences Among Adults in the Near Market for Bicycling: Findings of the Cycling in Cities Study. American Journal of Health Promotion, Vol. 25, No. 1, 2010, pp. 40-47.
10. Tilahun, N. Y., D. M. Levinson, and K. J. Krizek. Trails, Lanes, or Traffic: Valuing Bicycle Facilities with an Adaptive Stated Preference Survey. Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice, Vol. 41, No. 4, 2007, pp. 287-301. (Pubitemid 44929383)
11. Stinson, M. A., and C. R. Bhat. Commuter Bicyclist Route Choice: Analysis Using a Stated Preference Survey. In Transportation Research Record: Journal of the Transportation Research Board, No. 1828, Transportation Research Board of the National Academies, Washington, D. C., 2003, pp. 107-115.
12. Hunt, J. D., and J. E. Abraham. Influences on Bicycle Use. Transportation, Vol. 34, No. 4, 2007, pp. 453-470. (Pubitemid 47023688)
13. Akar, G., and K. J. Clifton. The Influence of Individual Perceptions and Bicycle Infrastructure on the Decision to Bike. In Transportation Research Record: Journal of the Transportation Research Board, No. 2140, Transportation Research Board of the National Academies, Washington, D. C., 2009, pp. 165-172.
14. Jackson, M. E., and E. O. Ruehr. Let the People Be Heard: San Diego County Bicycle Use and Attitude Survey. In Transportation Research Record 1636, TRB, National Research Council, Washington, D. C., 1998, pp. 8-12.
15. Garrard, J., G. Rose, and S. Lo. Promoting Transportation Cycling for Women: The Role of Bicycle Infrastructure. Preventive Medicine, Vol. 46, No. 1, 2008, pp. 55-59.
16. Krizek K. J. P. J. Johnson N. Tilahun. Conference Proceedings 35: Gender Differences in Bicycling Behavior and Facility Preferences Transportation Research Board of the National Academies Washington D. C. 2005 31-40.
17. How Bike Paths and Lanes Make a Difference. Bureau of Transportation Statistics, U. S. Department of Transportation 2004.
18. Lusk, A. C., P. G. Furth, P. Morency, L. F. Miranda-Moreno, W. C. Willett, and J. T. Dennerlein. Risk of Injury for Bicycling on Cycle Tracks Versus in the Street. Injury Prevention, Vol. 17, No. 2, 2011, pp. 131-135.
19. Jensen, S. U. Bicycle Tracks and Lanes: A Before-and-After Study. Presented at 87th Annual Meeting of the Transportation Research Board, Washington D. C. 2008.
20. Wachtel, A., and D. Lewiston. Risk Factors for Bicycle-Motor Vehicle Collisions at Intersections. ITE Journal, Vol. 64, No. 9, 1994, pp. 30-35.
21. Duthie, J., J. F. Brady, A. F. Mills, and R. B. Machemehl. Effects of On-Street Bicycle Facility Configuration on Bicyclist and Motorist Behavior. In Transportation Research Record: Journal of the Transportation Research Board, No. 2190, Transportation Research Board of the National Academies, Washington, D. C., 2010, pp. 37-44.
22. Duncan, M. J., J. C. Spence, and W. K. Mummery. Perceived Environment and Physical Activity: A Meta-Analysis of Selected Environmental Characteristics. International Journal of Behavioral Nutrition and Physical Activity, Vol. 2, 2005, p. 11.
23. Parkin, J., M. Wardman, and M. Page. Models of Perceived Cycling Risk and Route Acceptability. Accident Analysis and Prevention, Vol. 39, No. 2, 2007, pp. 364-371. (Pubitemid 44854775)
24. Monsere, C. M., N. McNeil, and J. Dill. Evaluation of Innovative Bicycle Facilities: SW Broadway Cycle Track & SW Stark/Oak Street Buffered Bike Lanes. Portland State University, Portland, Ore., 2011.
25. Manfreda, K. L., M. Bosnjak, J. Berzelak, I. Haas, and V. Vehovar. Web Surveys Versus Other Survey Modes: A Meta-Analysis Comparing Response Rates. International Journal of Market Research, Vol. 50, No. 1, 2008, pp. 79-104.
26. Shih, T. H., and X. T. Fan. Comparing Response Rates from Web and Mail Surveys: A Meta-Analysis. Field Methods, Vol. 20, No. 3, 2008, pp. 249-271.
27. Schaller B. TCRP Synthesis 63: On-Board and Intercept Transit Survey Techniques: A Synthesis of Transit Practice Transportation Research Board of the National Academies Washington D. C. 2005.
28. Portland Bicycle Count Report. Portland Bureau of Transportation, Portland, Ore., 2010.
29. Highway Capacity Manual TRB National Research Council, Washington D.C. 2000.