01151108

Component

https://doi.org/10.3141/2190-01

http://scholar.google.com...auer&publication_year=2010

Current travel demand models are calibrated for motorized transportation and do not perform as well for nonmotorized modes. Little evidence exists on how much, and for what reasons, the routes people travel deviate from the shortest-path or least-cost routes generated by transportation models. This paper investigates differences in total distance, road type used, and built environment features for shortest-path routes versus actual routes for utilitarian bicycle trips (n = 50) and car trips (n = 67) in Metro Vancouver, Canada. Bike trips were, on average, 360 m longer than the shortest possible route; car trips were 540 m longer. Regardless of mode, people do not detour far off the shortest route: detour ratios (actual distance/shortest distance) were similar, with three-fourths of trips within 10% of the shortest distance and at least 90% within 25%. Differences in the built environment measures en route suggest why bike commuters chose to detour: the actual routes had significantly more bicycle facilities (traffic-calming features, bike stencils, and signage) than did the shortest-path routes. Compared with shortest-path routes, cyclists spent significantly less of their travel distance along arterial roads and significantly more along local roads, off-street paths, and routes with bike facilities. As expected, car trips were more likely to be along highways and less likely to be along local roads than predicted by the shortest route. The results illustrate factors that might be included in travel models to more accurately model nonmotorized transportation and provide guidance for how dense bike facilities need to be when infrastructure to support cycling is designed.

01326539

10-1552

English

pp 1-10

2010

Transportation Research Record: Journal of the Transportation Research Board

9780309160643

Print

Figures (3) ; References (33) ; Tables (5)

Bicycle commuting; Bicycle facilities; Built environment; Cyclists; Nonmotorized transportation; Route choice; Shortest path algorithms; Travel demand; Trip length

Vancouver (Canada)

Design; Highways; Pedestrians and Bicyclists; Planning and Forecasting; I20: Design and Planning of Transport Infrastructure; I72: Traffic and Transport Planning

TRIS, TRB, ATRI

Jan 25 2010 10:41AM

• Automated Bicycle Counts: Lessons from Boulder, Colorado
• Effects of On-Street Bicycle Facility Configuration on Bicyclist and Motorist Behavior
• Latent Bicycle Commuting Demand and Effects of Gender on Commuter Cycling and Accident Rates
• Multimodal Travel Choices of Bicyclists: Multiday Data Analysis of Bicycle Use in Germany
• Parking Lane Width and Bicycle Operating Space