Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 5 minor 1 cited by

Network analysis of the Danish bicycle infrastructure: Bikeability across urban-rural divides

T0 review · 3 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-11 · deepseek-v4-flash

Challenge this review Re-run · record.json Download PDF Read on arXiv ↗ Review JSON

Pith's one-line read Denmark's low-stress bicycle network is fragmented into thousands of isolated islands, so national bikeability statistics overstate what cautious cyclists can reach.

desk verdict A useful national-scale LTS bikeability analysis; the rural fragmentation result is plausible but needs sensitivity checks on classification thresholds. read the letter →

arxiv 2412.06083 v1 pith:LR7C4UT5 submitted 2024-12-08 physics.soc-ph cs.CY

Ane Rahbek Vier{o} , Michael Szell This is my paper · ORCID
classification physics.soc-phcs.CY
keywords bikeabilitylevelsoftrafficstressbicyclenetworkanalysisfragmentationreachruralcyclingOpenStreetMapDenmark
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

The reading

Denmark looks bike-friendly on paper: about 53 percent of its road network is classified as low-stress. The paper argues that this national number hides a network that is fragmented into thousands of isolated pieces, so that a cyclist who avoids high-stress roads can typically go only a few kilometers before the safe route ends. Using a four-level traffic-stress classification on the entire Danish road network, the authors find the lowest-stress network splits into 13,903 disconnected components, and the combined low-stress network splits into 41,247 components with a median reach of only 2.7 kilometers within a 5-kilometer threshold. The consequence is that most rural and many suburban residents have almost no connected low-stress route to meaningful destinations, even though the country as a whole has plenty of low-stress kilometers. That matters because cycling rates are already low and falling outside the largest cities, and the paper's cluster analysis shows the latent rural cycling potential is largely unmet.

What carries the argument

The machinery is the Levels of Traffic Stress (LTS) classification applied to every segment of Denmark's 130,214 km road and path network: each segment is assigned one of four stress levels from a small set of OSM and GeoDanmark attributes (bicycle class, speed limit, road type, lane count, and bus-route presence), with missing speed limits and lane counts imputed from road type and urban versus rural location. From these link-level labels the analysis builds nested networks (LTS 1, then LTS≤2, LTS≤3, LTS≤4) and evaluates them with three metrics: density (km of network per square kilometer), fragmentation (number of disconnected components and size of the largest connected component), and reach (the amount of network reachable from a cell up to a distance threshold). These metrics, aggregated on an H3 hex grid and combined by k-means clustering into five bikeability clusters, are what expose the pattern that low-stress infrastructure is locally well connected but regionally fragmented into islands.

What would settle it

Collect actual traffic counts, speeds, and lane widths for a random sample of rural Danish segments classified LTS 1 or LTS 2, re-run the LTS labeling with these measured values, and recompute the LTS≤2 network's median reach and component count; if the 2.7 km median reach or the 41,247 component count changes substantially, the fragmentation result depends on the proxy rather than on the roads themselves.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is that bikeability in Denmark is spatially concentrated and that the low-stress bicycle network is heavily fragmented, making the country's aggregate share of low-stress infrastructure (LTS 1 and LTS 2 together, about 53 percent of total network length) misleading as a measure of actual cycling conditions. For the LTS 1 network, the largest connected component contains only about 20 percent of its length (4,106 km of 20,164 km), and for the LTS≤2 network the largest component is 13,507 km of roughly 69,000 km, also about 20 percent. The paper reports 41,247 disconnected components for LTS≤2 and a median reach of 2.7 km within a 5 km threshold, whereas including LTS 3 roads raises median reach to 26.7 km; only when LTS 4 roads are included does connectivity approach the car network's level. Both high and low bikeability are strongly spatially clustered, with the highest bikeability cluster covering 0.7 percent of the area while holding 24.3 percent of the population, and the lowest cluster covering 85.9 percent of the area with 27.4 percent of the population.

Load-bearing premise

The whole result rests on treating road type, speed limits, lane counts, and bus-route presence as reliable stand-ins for how stressful a road actually feels to ride on, an assumption the paper acknowledges is weakest in rural areas.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • The reported 53 percent low-stress share is not a measure of bikeability: fragmentation and reach must be reported alongside length, or policies will overestimate safe access.
  • Adding LTS 2 infrastructure does not stitch LTS 1 islands together; the component count rises to 41,247, so low-stress additions need to be planned as connections rather than merely as extra kilometers.
  • Only when LTS 4 roads are included does network connectivity approach the car network's level, meaning risk-averse cyclists effectively experience a much smaller network than the map suggests.
  • Rural areas are not uniformly bad: some low-density corridors with protected tracks achieve large reach increases over 5-10 km, showing that targeted long-distance connections can work outside cities.
  • Prioritizing urban-rural cycling connections is the paper's main policy consequence, since the two lowest bikeability clusters contain about 43 percent of the population despite covering most of the country's area.

Reading between the lines

Editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • The paper does not test actual cycling volumes or stated comfort, so its fragmentation result is a proxy claim; linking reach or component metrics to observed trip data or crash locations would reveal whether the 2.7 km median reach translates into suppressed cycling.
  • The same analysis could be applied to other national road networks, and the Danish result suggests that country-level 'share of low-stress' league tables elsewhere are likely misleading in the same way.
  • Because e-bikes extend feasible trip distances, the small connected low-stress components could become far more useful if even a few gaps per island were closed; the paper's 1-15 km reach thresholds make this a concrete intervention target.
  • Traffic-volume data, which the paper lacks, is the most plausible source of misclassification: adding measured volumes could shrink or dissolve some rural low-stress islands and change the cluster map in lower-density areas.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Signed reviews

No signed human review yet.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, and a circularity audit.

Referee Report

3 major / 5 minor

Summary. This paper presents a countrywide network analysis of bicycle infrastructure in Denmark. Using OpenStreetMap enriched with GeoDanmark data, the authors classify the bikeable road network into four Levels of Traffic Stress (LTS), then compute absolute and relative network density, fragmentation (disconnected components, largest connected component), and network reach at an H3 hex-grid scale, and finally apply k-means clustering to identify bikeability clusters. The central finding is that although low-stress infrastructure (LTS 1-2) makes up roughly 53% of the network length nationally, it is highly fragmented and spatially concentrated: the LTS 1 network consists of 13,903 disconnected components with an LCC of only 20% of its length; the LTS≤2 network has 41,247 components and a median reach of 2.7 km at a 5 km threshold; and high bikeability is concentrated in the largest cities, while most rural areas fall into low-bikeability clusters. The authors conclude that the national share of low-stress infrastructure is misleading as a bikeability measure and recommend prioritizing investments in urban-rural cycling connections.

Significance. If the central findings hold, this is an important and genuinely novel contribution: it extends LTS-based bikeability analysis beyond city boundaries to an entire country, shows why an aggregate low-stress network share is insufficient as a bikeability metric, and identifies concrete rural locations where long low-stress connections exist. The study is methodologically transparent: the pipeline is publicly available, the LTS criteria are adapted from established frameworks (Mekuria et al. 2012; Wasserman et al. 2019), and the network results are benchmarked against external data sources. The main risk to significance is that the headline fragmentation and reach numbers are first-order outputs of a proxy-based LTS classification whose accuracy is explicitly acknowledged to be weakest in the rural areas where the paper's new conclusions lie; this risk is addressable with a sensitivity analysis or validation against traffic data.

major comments (3)
  1. [Section 3.2 and Section 5] The LTS classification underlying the central results uses road type, imputed speed limits and lane counts, and bus-route presence as proxies for traffic stress, without traffic volumes or lane widths. The Discussion acknowledges that the classification 'in some locations simply becomes a proxy for road type' and that missing traffic-volume data can give roads a better or worse LTS than warranted, especially on small Danish islands. Because the fragmentation and reach results in Tables 4 and 6 are computed on these labels, and because the novel part of the paper concerns exactly the rural low-stress network, this uncertainty is load-bearing. The manuscript should quantify how sensitive the headline numbers are to plausible misclassification, for example by reclassifying a range of rural LTS3/LTS4 roads with likely low traffic as LTS2, or by validating against Danish traffic-count data, and report the resulting component counts, LCC shares, and median reach values.
  2. [Section 3.3, Tables 4 and 6] The preprocessing choices that determine the main fragmentation metrics are based on manual assessment: gaps of up to 30 m are closed, components up to 100 m without dedicated bicycle infrastructure are dropped, and track/footway components up to 500 m are dropped. The authors state that the gap-closing threshold does not change the general fragmentation pattern (Fig. S12), but no equivalent sensitivity analysis is provided for the component-dropping rules, and no alternative-threshold values are reported for the headline counts (13,903 LTS 1 components; 41,247 LTS≤2 components) or the median LTS≤2 reach of 2.7 km. Please add a quantitative sensitivity analysis varying these thresholds (e.g., 10-50 m for gaps and 50-200 m / 250-1000 m for drops) so readers can judge how robust the central fragmentation and reach claims are.
  3. [Section 4.4] The k-means clustering uses k = 5 selected by the elbow method, and the clusters are ranked 1-5 by bikeability based on cluster means. Because the cluster labels ('High stress', 'Local low stress connectivity', 'Regional low stress connectivity', etc.) are used to support the population-share statements in Section 5 (e.g., '~43% of the population lives in cluster 1 and 2'), the stability of the clustering should be checked, for example by reporting the change in cluster means or assignments when k = 4 or k = 6 or when the set of input variables is slightly varied. At present the reader cannot tell whether the cluster-level conclusions are robust to these standard tuning choices.
minor comments (5)
  1. [Table 1] In the LTS 1 row for bicycle class 3, 'speed limit ≤ 20 h AND lanes ≤ 3' should read '20 km/h' instead of '20 h'.
  2. [Fig. 7 caption] The caption repeats the letters C-D for LTS 3 and LTS 4 after already using C-D for LTS 2; the lettering should be sequential: A-B for LTS 1, C-D for LTS 2, E-F for LTS 3, and G-H for LTS 4.
  3. [Section 4.1] The phrase 'areas with highlow stressdensities tend to have fairly lowhigh stressdensities' is missing spacing and hyphens; it should read 'high low-stress densities' and 'low high-stress densities'.
  4. [Fig. 13 caption] 'no spatial constrains' should be 'no spatial constraints'.
  5. [Abstract] The abstract contains a typographical run-on: 'fragmentationoflow-stressinfrastructureresults' should be separated into 'fragmentation of low-stress infrastructure results'.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the analysis is an empirical measurement with externally sourced LTS criteria and transparent preprocessing choices; the cited prior work by the same authors is not load-bearing.

full rationale

The paper's central claims are descriptive measurements of network density, fragmentation, and reach for different Levels of Traffic Stress (LTS). The LTS classification criteria originate from the cited external frameworks of Mekuria et al. (2012) and Wasserman et al. (2019), not from the present authors, and the paper explicitly states that its criteria are 'inspired by the OSM compatible criteria developed by Wasserman et al. (2019), but further simplified and adjusted to a Danish context.' The reported component counts, largest-connected-component shares, and reach values are computed directly from these classifications and the network geometry; they are not derived from a fitted model, from a target quantity, or from the authors' own prior results. Preprocessing choices, such as closing gaps of at most 30 meters and dropping very small components, are stated thresholds accompanied by a sensitivity check (Fig. S12), so they are not fitted parameters renamed as predictions. The self-citations that appear (Vierø et al. 2024a, 2024b) support data-enrichment methods and data-quality claims, but the novel quantitative outcomes do not depend on accepting these citations as load-bearing evidence; no uniqueness theorem or restrictive ansatz is imported from the authors' prior work. The acknowledged limitation that LTS classification in rural areas can become 'a proxy for road type' and that missing traffic-volume data can misclassify roads is a validity concern about the input proxy, not a circular step: the derivation chain does not reduce to its own inputs by construction, and the paper itself flags the extent to which results would depend on that proxy.

Assumptions & free parameters 4 free parameters · 5 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The paper introduces no new physical or conceptual entities; it applies existing categories (LTS, population density, urban zones) to a new study area. The main epistemic burden sits on the free parameters listed above and on the domain assumptions that LTS accurately captures stress and that OSM-derived proxies are adequate outside cities.

free parameters (4)
  • Gap-closing distance threshold (30 m) = 30 m
    Chosen 'based on a manual assessment of LTS network gaps' (Section 3.3); it directly controls the number of disconnected components and therefore fragmentation and reach results.
  • Component-drop length thresholds (100 m and 500 m) = 100 m / 500 m
    Disconnected components under 100 m without dedicated bicycle infrastructure, and track/footway components under 500 m, are dropped (Section 3.3); this directly shapes fragmentation counts and LCC shares.
  • Number of bikeability clusters k = 5
    k = 5 is set by the elbow method on the same data used for the clustering (Section 4.4); the cluster interpretation and population-share conclusions depend on this choice.
  • k-nearest neighbors for spatial weights = 6
    Moran's I and LISA are computed with k = 6 nearest neighbors (Section 3.3); this is a methodological choice with no independent empirical justification.
assumptions (5)
  • domain assumption LTS categories are a valid proxy for experienced traffic stress and cyclist comfort.
    The entire study rests on classifying links into LTS 1-4; the paper itself notes the criticism of LTS's empirical basis (Section 2.1) and the uncertainty of rural classifications (Section 5).
  • domain assumption OSM tags plus the authors' imputation rule are sufficient for LTS classification in rural areas.
    Missing speed limits and lane counts are interpolated from road type and urban/non-urban status (Section 3.2); cited evidence shows this is less accurate in rural areas, which the Discussion concedes.
  • domain assumption Network length computed from link geometries ignoring lanes and direction is a valid measure of density and reach.
    The paper acknowledges that length is non-trivial to compute on routing-optimized OSM data (Section 3.3); the choice ignores lane counts and direction, which affects reach for divided roads.
  • domain assumption Starting reach from the node closest to the hex centroid in the largest component intersecting the cell is representative.
    This sampling choice (Section 3.3) could bias reach values for irregularly shaped cells or edge cells, but it is a standard simplification.
  • standard math Standard spatial statistics assumptions: Moran's I with k-NN weights and the elbow method choice for k-means.
    These are standard statistical tools, but the robustness of conclusions to the weight matrix and cluster count is not fully explored.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Network analysis of the Danish bicycle infrastructure: Bikeability across urban-rural divides." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/LR7C4UT5

@misc{pith2026241206083,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Network analysis of the Danish bicycle infrastructure: Bikeability across urban-rural divides},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/LR7C4UT5}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2412.06083}
}
read the original abstract

Research on cycling conditions focuses on cities, because cycling is commonly considered an urban phenomenon. People outside of cities should, however, also have access to the benefits of active mobility. To bridge the gap between urban and rural cycling research, we analyze the bicycle network of Denmark, covering around 43,000 km2 and nearly 6 mio. inhabitants. We divide the network into four levels of traffic stress and quantify the spatial patterns of bikeability based on network density, fragmentation, and reach. We find that the country has a high share of low-stress infrastructure, but with a very uneven distribution. The widespread fragmentation of low-stress infrastructure results in low mobility for cyclists who do not tolerate high traffic stress. Finally, we partition the network into bikeability clusters and conclude that both high and low bikeability are strongly spatially clustered. Our research confirms that in Denmark, bikeability tends to be high in urban areas. The latent potential for cycling in rural areas is mostly unmet, although some rural areas benefit from previous infrastructure investments. To mitigate the lack of low-stress cycling infrastructure outside of urban centers, we suggest prioritizing investments in urban-rural cycling connections and encourage further research in improving rural cycling conditions.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2412.06083 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Study area: Denmark. A) The total Danish road and path network. B) Population density. C) Urban areas aggregated at a hex grid level, as classified by the Danish Agency for Climate Data and Danmarks Miljøportal (The Danish Environmental Portal). 2 Literature review The field of bicycle research has been in rapid development in the past decade, with an especially large increase in research projects that use quantitat… view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Examples of bicycle classes and LTS classifications. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Overview of LTS shares, population and area distribution. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p010_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (12 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: LTS networks. A) LTS 1. B) LTS≤2. C) LTS≤3. D) LTS≤4. E) Car. F). Full network. The LTS 1 network only include LTS 1 infrastructure, whereas LTS≤2 include LTS 1-2, LTS≤3 include LTS 1-3, and LTS≤4 include LTS 1-4. The car network include all network links which allow f…
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Illustrations of network metrics. A) Network density is computed for each hex grid cell. B) Network fragmentation is measured as the size and spatial distribution of disconnected components. Each color represent a separate component. C) Network reach is measured from a…
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: Data processing A) Hex grid used for aggregation of results. The 6 nearest cells to each hex cell are considered its neighbors in the spatial weight matrix. Except for hexagons along edges of the study area, the 6 nearest neighbors will be the 6 adjacent hexagons shari…
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: Network density. A) LTS 1 – absolute density. B) LTS 1 – relative density. C) LTS 2 – absolute density. D) LTS 2 – relative density. C) LTS 3 – absolute density. D) LTS 3 – relative density. E) LTS 4 – absolute density. F) LTS 4 – relative density. Values for absolute …
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: Component size ranking. A) Zipf plot ranking the length of components grouped by LTS level in descending order on a log-log scale. B) Comparison of network length and component count. The component count increases when moving from LTS 1 to LTS≤2. The network fragmentat…
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: Largest component length. Length of the LCC (km) at the hex grid level. A) LTS 1. B) LTS≤2. C) LTS≤3. D) LTS≤4. E) Car. F) Illustration of disconnected components for LTS 1. The sizes of the LCCs for lower stress infrastructure are spatially clustered, with larger LCCs…
Figure 10
Figure 10. Figure 10: Comparison of network reach. A) Mean network reach for each network level at distance thresholds 1, 2, 5, 10, and 15 km. B) KDE plot comparing network reach between 1 and 5 km distance thresholds. Many locations have no reach improvement for the low-stress network whe…
Figure 11
Figure 11. Figure 11: Network reach. Network reach (km) within a 5 km distance threshold. A) LTS 1. B) LTS≤2. C) LTS≤3. D) LTS≤4. E) Car. F) Detail map of LTS 1 network reach in the Greater Copenhagen area. 22 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p022_11.png]
Figure 12
Figure 12. Figure 12: Network reach increase with increased distance threshold. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p023_12.png]
Figure 13
Figure 13. Figure 13: Bikeability clusters. The clusters form clear spatial patterns based on urban areas and pop￾ulation densities despite using a clustering algorithm with no spatial constrains and not using population density as input. The location and extent of the bikeability clusters…
Figure 14
Figure 14. Figure 14: Detail map of bikeability clusters. Bikeability clusters in the Greater Copenhagen area [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p026_14.png]
Figure 15
Figure 15. Figure 15: Total area and population in each cluster. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p026_15.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Forward citations

Cited by 1 Pith paper

Reviewed papers in the Pith corpus that reference this work. Sorted by Pith novelty score. Full citation record

  1. Strategic Persuasion with Trait-Conditioned Multi-Agent Systems for Iterative Legal Argumentation

    cs.MA 2026-04 unverdicted novelty 7.0 of 10

    Trait-conditioned LLM prosecution/defense teams in a simulated courtroom show heterogeneous traits and an RL Trait Orchestrator outperforming static homogeneous teams across thousands of synthetic trials.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

122 extracted references · 73 canonical work pages · cited by 1 Pith paper

  1. [1]

    Anderson, M. K. (2019). Dataanalyse og modellering af transportadfærden i Moving People projektet - Forskeranalysen , Moving People . Technical report, DTU, Lyngby, Denmark

    2019

  2. [2]

    Anselin, L. (1995). Local Indicators of Spatial Association — LISA . Geographical Analysis , 27(2):93--115. \_eprint: https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/pdf/10.1111/j.1538-4632.1995.tb00338.x

    arXiv 1995

  3. [3]

    M., González, V

    Arellana, J., Saltarín, M., Larrañaga, A. M., González, V. I., and Henao, C. A. (2020). Developing an urban bikeability index for different types of cyclists as a tool to prioritise bicycle infrastructure investments. Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice , 139:310--334

    2020

  4. [4]

    and Tomalty, R

    Assunçao-Denis, M.-E. and Tomalty, R. (2019). Increasing cycling for transportation in Canadian communities: Understanding what works. Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice , 123:288--304

    2019

  5. [5]

    A., Satinsky, S

    Aytur, S. A., Satinsky, S. B., Evenson, K. R., and Rodríguez, D. A. (2011). Pedestrian and bicycle planning in rural communities: tools for active living. Family & Community Health , 34(2):173--181

    2011

  6. [6]

    and Millard-Ball, A

    Barrington-Leigh, C. and Millard-Ball, A. (2017). The world's user-generated road map is more than 80\ PloS one , 12(8):e0180698. Publisher: Public Library of Science

    2017

  7. [7]

    Bearn, C., Mingus, C., and Watkins, K. (2018). An adaption of the level of traffic stress based on evidence from the literature and widely available data. Research in Transportation Business & Management , 29:50--62

    2018

  8. [8]

    Beecham, R., Yang, Y., Tait, C., and Lovelace, R. (2023). Connected bike ability in London : Which localities are better connected by bike and does this matter? Environment and Planning B: Urban Analytics and City Science , page 23998083231165122. Publisher: SAGE Publications Ltd STM

    2023

Show all 122 references
  1. [9]

    and Sheller, M

    Behrendt, F. and Sheller, M. (2024). Mobility data justice. Mobilities , 19(1):151--169. Publisher: Routledge \_eprint: https://doi.org/10.1080/17450101.2023.2200148

    2024

  2. [10]

    and Silvestri, M

    Bella, F. and Silvestri, M. (2017). Interaction driver–bicyclist on rural roads: Effects of cross-sections and road geometric elements. Accident Analysis & Prevention , 102:191--201

    2017

  3. [11]

    W., and Dill, J

    Berrigan, D., Pickle, L. W., and Dill, J. (2010). Associations between street connectivity and active transportation. International Journal of Health Geographics , 9:20

    2010

  4. [12]

    Borgatti, S. P. (2005). Centrality and network flow. Social Networks , 27(1):55--71

    2005

  5. [13]

    E., Cooper, A

    Bourne, J. E., Cooper, A. R., Kelly, P., Kinnear, F. J., England, C., Leary, S., and Page, A. (2020). The impact of e-cycling on travel behaviour: A scoping review. Journal of Transport & Health , 19:100910

    2020

  6. [14]

    and Dill, J

    Buehler, R. and Dill, J. (2016). Bikeway Networks : A Review of Effects on Cycling . Transport Reviews , 36(1):9--27. Publisher: Routledge \_eprint: https://doi.org/10.1080/01441647.2015.1069908

    2016

  7. [15]

    and Pucher, J

    Buehler, R. and Pucher, J. (2012). Cycling to work in 90 large American cities: new evidence on the role of bike paths and lanes. Transportation , 39(2):409--432

    2012

  8. [16]

    and Kim, A

    Cabral, L. and Kim, A. M. (2022). An empirical reappraisal of the level of traffic stress framework for segments. Travel Behaviour and Society , 26:143--158

    2022

  9. [17]

    Carstensen, T. A. and Ebert, A.-K. (2012). Cycling Cultures in Northern Europe : From ‘ Golden Age ’ to ‘ Renaissance ’. In Parkin, J., editor, Cycling and Sustainability , volume 1 of Transport and Sustainability , pages 23--58. Emerald Group Publishing Limited

    2012

  10. [18]

    L., Hunter, W

    Carter, D. L., Hunter, W. W., Zegeer, C. V., Stewart, J. R., and Huang, H. (2007). Bicyclist Intersection Safety Index . Transportation Research Record , 2031(1):18--24. Publisher: SAGE Publications Inc

    2007

  11. [19]

    Castañon, U. N. and Ribeiro, P. J. G. (2021). Bikeability and Emerging Phenomena in Cycling : Exploratory Analysis and Review . Sustainability , 13(4):2394. Number: 4 Publisher: Multidisciplinary Digital Publishing Institute

    2021

  12. [20]

    Cervero, R., Denman, S., and Jin, Y. (2019). Network design, built and natural environments, and bicycle commuting: Evidence from British cities and towns. Transport Policy , 74:153--164

    2019

  13. [21]

    C., Wang, H., Wang, Y., Vogt, R., and Hernandez, S

    Chen, C., Anderson, J. C., Wang, H., Wang, Y., Vogt, R., and Hernandez, S. (2017). How bicycle level of traffic stress correlate with reported cyclist accidents injury severities: A geospatial and mixed logit analysis. Accident; Analysis and Prevention , 108:234--244

    2017

  14. [22]

    and Baescu, O

    Christiansen, H. and Baescu, O. (2023). The Danish National Travel Survey : Annual Statistical Report for Denmark for 2022. Technical report, DTU, Lyngby, Denmark

    2023

  15. [23]

    B., Cerin, E., Badland, H., Kerr, J., Davey, R., Troelsen, J., van Dyck, D., Mitáš, J., Schofield, G., Sugiyama, T., Salvo, D., Sarmiento, O

    Christiansen, L. B., Cerin, E., Badland, H., Kerr, J., Davey, R., Troelsen, J., van Dyck, D., Mitáš, J., Schofield, G., Sugiyama, T., Salvo, D., Sarmiento, O. L., Reis, R., Adams, M., Frank, L., and Sallis, J. F. (2016). International comparisons of the associations between ob...

    2016

  16. [24]

    Clayton, W., Parkin, J., and Billington, C. (2017). Cycling and disability: A call for further research. Journal of Transport & Health , 6:452--462

    2017

  17. [25]

    Crist, K., Schipperijn, J., Ryan, S., Appleyard, B., Godbole, S., and Kerr, J. (2019). Fear Factor : Level of Traffic Stress and GPS Assessed Cycling Routes . Journal of Transportation Technologies , 9(1):14--30. Number: 1 Publisher: Scientific Research Publishing

    2019

  18. [26]

    Planlægning zonekort

    Danmarks Miljøportal (2024). Planlægning zonekort

    2024

  19. [27]

    Metodehåndbog - Kommunal kvalificering af Danmarks rekreative cykelnetværk

    Dansk Kyst- og Naturturisme (2024). Metodehåndbog - Kommunal kvalificering af Danmarks rekreative cykelnetværk. Fra planlægningsnetværk til digital visning. Technical report, Dansk Kyst- og Naturturisme, Aabybro

    2024

  20. [28]

    Dill, J. (2004). Measuring Network Connectivity for Bicycling and Walking . In 83rd Annual Meeting of the Transportation Research Board , volume 83, page 19, Washington, DC

    2004

  21. [29]

    and Carr, T

    Dill, J. and Carr, T. (2003). Bicycle Commuting and Facilities in Major U . S . Cities : If You Build Them , Commuters Will Use Them . Transportation Research Record , 1828(1):116--123. Publisher: SAGE Publications Inc

    2003

  22. [30]

    and McNeil, N

    Dill, J. and McNeil, N. (2016). Revisiting the Four Types of Cyclists : Findings from a National Survey . Transportation Research Record , 2587(1):90--99. Publisher: SAGE Publications Inc

    2016

  23. [31]

    Doran, A., El-Geneidy, A., and Manaugh, K. (2021). The pursuit of cycling equity: A review of Canadian transport plans. Journal of Transport Geography , 90:102927

    2021

  24. [32]

    J., and Saxe, S

    Faghih Imani, A., Miller, E. J., and Saxe, S. (2019). Cycle accessibility and level of traffic stress: A case study of Toronto . Journal of Transport Geography , 80:102496

    2019

  25. [33]

    and Zhang, W

    Feng, C. and Zhang, W. (2019). Algorithms for the parametric analysis of metric, directional, and intersection reach. Environment and Planning B: Urban Analytics and City Science , 46(8):1422--1438. Publisher: SAGE Publications Ltd STM

    2019

  26. [34]

    Ferster, C., Fischer, J., Manaugh, K., Nelson, T., and Winters, M. (2020). Using OpenStreetMap to inventory bicycle infrastructure: A comparison with open data from cities. International Journal of Sustainable Transportation , 14(1):64--73

    2020

  27. [35]

    Ferster, C., Nelson, T., Manaugh, K., Beairsto, J., Laberee, K., and Winters, M. (2023). Developing a national dataset of bicycle infrastructure for Canada using open data sources. Environment and Planning B: Urban Analytics and City Science , page 23998083231159905. Publisher...

    2023

  28. [36]

    Filho, F. E. M., Ploegmakers, H., and de Kruijf, J. (2024). Cycle highway effects: Assessing modal choice to cycling in the Netherlands . Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice , 189:104216. Publisher: Pergamon

    2024

  29. [37]

    C., Antoniou, V., Bastin, L., Estima, J., Jokar Arsanjani, J., Laso Bayas, J

    Fonte, C. C., Antoniou, V., Bastin, L., Estima, J., Jokar Arsanjani, J., Laso Bayas, J. C., See, L., and Vatseva, R. (2017). Assessing VGI Data Quality . In Foody, G. M., See, L., Fritz, S., Mooney, P., Olteanu-Raimond, A.-M., Fonte, C. C., and Antoniou, V., editors, Mapping a...

    2017

  30. [38]

    Fosgerau, M., Łukawska, M., Paulsen, M., and Rasmussen, T. K. (2023). Bikeability and the induced demand for cycling. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences , 120(16):e2220515120. Publisher: Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences

    2023

  31. [39]

    Friel, D., Wachholz, S., Werner, T., Zimmermann, L., Schwedes, O., and Stark, R. (2023). Cyclists’ perceived safety on intersections and roundabouts – A qualitative bicycle simulator study. Journal of Safety Research , 87:143--156

    2023

  32. [40]

    G., Mekuria, M

    Furth, P. G., Mekuria, M. C., and Nixon, H. (2016). Network Connectivity for Low - Stress Bicycling . Transportation Research Record , 2587(1):41--49. Publisher: SAGE Publications Inc

    2016

  33. [41]

    A preliminary review of rural cycling

    Gardner and Gray (1998). A preliminary review of rural cycling. Technical report, Transport Research Laboratory - Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions

    1998

  34. [42]

    Danmarks Geografi - GeoDanmark

    GeoDanmark (2023). Danmarks Geografi - GeoDanmark

    2023

  35. [43]

    Our Download Server

    Geofabrik (2020). Our Download Server

    2020

  36. [44]

    edge effects

    Gil, J. (2017). Street network analysis “edge effects”: Examining the sensitivity of centrality measures to boundary conditions. Environment and Planning B: Urban Analytics and City Science , 44(5):819--836. Publisher: SAGE Publications Ltd STM

    2017

  37. [45]

    and McRae, S

    Gössling, S. and McRae, S. (2022). Subjectively safe cycling infrastructure: New insights for urban designs. Journal of Transport Geography , 101:103340

    2022

  38. [46]

    K., and Rich, J

    Hallberg, M., Rasmussen, T. K., and Rich, J. (2021). Modelling the impact of cycle superhighways and electric bicycles. Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice , 149:397--418

    2021

  39. [47]

    Hill, C., Young, M., Blainey, S., Cavazzi, S., Emberson, C., and Sadler, J. (2024). An integrated geospatial data model for active travel infrastructure. Journal of Transport Geography , 117:103889

    2024

  40. [48]

    H., Zielstra, D., and Neis, P

    Hochmair, H. H., Zielstra, D., and Neis, P. (2015). Assessing the Completeness of Bicycle Trail and Lane Features in OpenStreetMap for the United States : Completeness of Bicycle Features in OpenStreetMap . Transactions in GIS , 19(1):63--81

    2015

  41. [49]

    Houde, M., Apparicio, P., and Séguin, A.-M. (2018). A ride for whom: Has cycling network expansion reduced inequities in accessibility in Montreal , Canada ? Journal of Transport Geography , 68:9--21

    2018

  42. [50]

    Isaksson-Hellman, I. (2012). A Study of Bicycle and Passenger Car Collisions Based on Insurance Claims Data . Annals of Advances in Automotive Medicine / Annual Scientific Conference , 56:3--12

    2012

  43. [51]

    and Töreki, J

    Isaksson-Hellman, I. and Töreki, J. (2019). The effect of speed limit reductions in urban areas on cyclists’ injuries in collisions with cars. Traffic Injury Prevention , 20(sup3):39--44. Publisher: Taylor & Francis \_eprint: https://doi.org/10.1080/15389588.2019.1680836

    2019

  44. [52]

    Jones, E. G. and Carlson, T. D. (2003). Development of Bicycle Compatibility Index for Rural Roads in Nebraska . Transportation Research Record , 1828(1):124--132. Publisher: SAGE Publications Inc

    2003

  45. [53]

    Jordahl, K., Bossche, J. V. d., Fleischmann, M., McBride, J., Wasserman, J., Badaracco, A. G., Gerard, J., Snow, A. D., Tratner, J., Perry, M., Farmer, C., Hjelle, G. A., Cochran, M., Gillies, S., Culbertson, L., Bartos, M., Ward, B., Caria, G., Taves, M., Eubank, N., sangarsh...

    2021

  46. [54]

    Kamel, M. B. and Sayed, T. (2021). The impact of bike network indicators on bike kilometers traveled and bike safety: A network theory approach. Environment and Planning B: Urban Analytics and City Science , 48(7):2055--2072. Publisher: SAGE Publications Ltd STM

    2021

  47. [55]

    K., Spengler, J

    Kellstedt, D. K., Spengler, J. O., Foster, M., Lee, C., and Maddock, J. E. (2021). A Scoping Review of Bikeability Assessment Methods . Journal of Community Health , 46(1):211--224

    2021

  48. [56]

    Kircher, K., Forward, S., and Wallén Warner, H. (2022). Cycling in rural areas : an overview of national and international literature . Statens väg- och transportforskningsinstitut

    2022

  49. [57]

    Knight, P. L. and Marshall, W. E. (2015). The metrics of street network connectivity: their inconsistencies. Journal of Urbanism: International Research on Placemaking and Urban Sustainability , 8(3):241--259. Publisher: Routledge \_eprint: https://doi.org/10.1080/17549175.2014.909515

    2015

  50. [58]

    Krizek, K. J. and Roland, R. W. (2005). What is at the end of the road? Understanding discontinuities of on-street bicycle lanes in urban settings. Transportation Research Part D: Transport and Environment , 10(1):55--68

    2005

  51. [59]

    J., Sener, I

    Lee, R. J., Sener, I. N., and Jones, S. N. (2017). Understanding the role of equity in active transportation planning in the United States . Transport Reviews , 37(2):211--226. Publisher: Routledge \_eprint: https://doi.org/10.1080/01441647.2016.1239660

    2017

  52. [60]

    and Taylor, C

    Leichenko, R. and Taylor, C. (2024). Promoting rural sustainability transformations: Insights from U . S . bicycle route and trail studies. Journal of Rural Studies , 106:103205

    2024

  53. [61]

    and Loh, T

    Lowry, M. and Loh, T. H. (2017). Quantifying bicycle network connectivity. Preventive Medicine , 95:S134--S140

    2017

  54. [62]

    B., Callister, D., Gresham, M., and Moore, B

    Lowry, M. B., Callister, D., Gresham, M., and Moore, B. (2012). Assessment of Communitywide Bikeability with Bicycle Level of Service . Transportation Research Record , 2314(1):41--48. Publisher: SAGE Publications Inc

    2012

  55. [63]

    Lucas-Smith, M. (2019). Is the OSM data model creaking?

    2019

  56. [64]

    K., To, T

    Macpherson, A. K., To, T. M., Parkin, P. C., Moldofsky, B., Wright, J. G., Chipman, M. L., and Macarthur, C. (2004). Urban/rural variation in children’s bicycle-related injuries. Accident Analysis & Prevention , 36(4):649--654

    2004

  57. [65]

    Marshall, S., Gil, J., Kropf, K., Tomko, M., and Figueiredo, L. (2018). Street network studies: from networks to models and their representations. Networks and Spatial Economics , 18(3):735--749. Publisher: Springer

    2018

  58. [66]

    Martens, K., Bastiaanssen, J., and Lucas, K. (2019). 2 - Measuring transport equity: Key components, framings and metrics. In Lucas, K., Martens, K., Di Ciommo, F., and Dupont-Kieffer, A., editors, Measuring Transport Equity , pages 13--36. Elsevier

    2019

  59. [67]

    McAndrews, C., Okuyama, K., and Litt, J. S. (2017). The Reach of Bicycling in Rural , Small , and Low - Density Places . Transportation Research Record: Journal of the Transportation Research Board , 2662(1):134--142

    2017

  60. [68]

    McAndrews, C., Tabatabaie, S., and Litt, J. S. (2018). Motivations and Strategies for Bicycle Planning in Rural , Suburban , and Low - Density Communities : The Need for New Best Practices . Journal of the American Planning Association , 84(2):99--111. Publisher: Routledge \_e...

    2018

  61. [69]

    C., Furth, P

    Mekuria, M. C., Furth, P. G., and Nixon, H. (2012). Low- Stress Bicycling and Network Connectivity . Technical Report 11-19, Mineta Transportation Institute

    2012

  62. [70]

    Mueller, N., Rojas-Rueda, D., Salmon, M., Martinez, D., Ambros, A., Brand, C., de Nazelle, A., Dons, E., Gaupp-Berghausen, M., Gerike, R., Götschi, T., Iacorossi, F., Int Panis, L., Kahlmeier, S., Raser, E., and Nieuwenhuijsen, M. (2018). Health impact assessment of cycling ne...

    2018

  63. [71]

    G., Battiston, F., Iñiguez, G., and Szell, M

    Natera Orozco, L. G., Battiston, F., Iñiguez, G., and Szell, M. (2020). Data-driven strategies for optimal bicycle network growth. Royal Society Open Science , 7(12):201130

    2020

  64. [72]

    Nielsen, T. A. S. and Skov-Petersen, H. (2018). Bikeability – Urban structures supporting cycling. Effects of local, urban and regional scale urban form factors on cycling from home and workplace locations in Denmark . Journal of Transport Geography , 69:36--44

    2018

  65. [73]

    Noël, N., Leclerce, C., and Lee-Gosselin, M. (2003). Compatibility of Roads for Cyclists in Rural and Urban Fringe Areas . In TRB 2003 Annual Meeting

    2003

  66. [74]

    Pedregosa, F., Varoquaux, G., Gramfort, A., Michel, V., Thirion, B., Grisel, O., Blondel, M., Prettenhofer, P., Weiss, R., Dubourg, V., Vanderplas, J., Passos, A., Cournapeau, D., Brucher, M., Perrot, M., and Duchesnay, E. (2011). Scikit-learn: Machine Learning in Python . J. ...

    2011

  67. [75]

    Peer, S., Gangl, K., Spitzer, F., and van der Werff, E. (2023). Which policy measures can motivate active mobility in rural and semi-rural areas? Transportation Research Part D: Transport and Environment , 118:103688

    2023

  68. [76]

    Peponis, J., Bafna, S., and Zhang, Z. (2008). The Connectivity of Streets : Reach and Directional Distance . Environment and Planning B: Planning and Design , 35(5):881--901. Publisher: SAGE Publications Ltd STM

    2008

  69. [77]

    Pereira, R. H. M. and Karner, A. (2021). Transportation Equity . In Vickerman, R., editor, International Encyclopedia of Transportation , pages 271--277. Elsevier, Oxford

    2021

  70. [78]

    pgRouting Project — Open Source Routing Library

    pgRouting Project (2024). pgRouting Project — Open Source Routing Library

    2024

  71. [79]

    Phuksuksakul, N., Haque, M., and Yasmin, S. (2024). The role of posted speed limit on pedestrian and bicycle injury severities: An investigation into systematic and unobserved heterogeneities. Analytic Methods in Accident Research , 44:100351

    2024

  72. [80]

    PSC, P. (2023). PostGIS

    2023

  73. [81]

    L., and Hoogendoorn, S

    Reggiani, G., Van Oijen, T., Hamedmoghadam, H., Daamen, W., Vu, H. L., and Hoogendoorn, S. (2022). Understanding bikeability: a methodology to assess urban networks. Transportation , 49(3):897--925

    2022

  74. [82]

    Reggiani, G., Verma, T., Daamen, W., and Hoogendoorn, S. (2023). A multi-city study on structural characteristics of bicycle networks. Environment and Planning B: Urban Analytics and City Science , 50(8):2017--2037

    2023

  75. [83]

    Rey, S. J. and Anselin, L. (2007). PySAL : A Python Library of Spatial Analytical Methods . Review of Regional Studies , 37(1)

    2007

  76. [84]

    J., Arribas-Bel, D., and Wolf, L

    Rey, S. J., Arribas-Bel, D., and Wolf, L. J. (2020). Geographic Thinking for Data Scientists — Geographic Data Science with Python

    2020

  77. [85]

    S., and Mabit, S

    Rich, J., Myhrmann, M. S., and Mabit, S. E. (2023). Our children cycle less - A Danish pseudo-panel analysis. Journal of Transport Geography , 106:103519

    2023

  78. [86]

    Scappini, B., Zucca, V., Meloni, I., and Piras, F. (2022). The regional cycle network of Sardinia : upgrading the accessibility of rural areas through a comprehensive island-wide cycle network. European Transport Research Review , 14(1):10

    2022

  79. [87]

    Schiavina, M., Freire, S., and MacManus, K. (2023). GHS - POP R2023A - GHS population grid multitemporal (1975-2030)

    2023

  80. [88]

    B., Elmose-Østerlund, K., and Schipperijn, J

    Schmidt, T., Top Klein-Wengel, T., Christiansen, L. B., Elmose-Østerlund, K., and Schipperijn, J. (2024). Identifying the potential for increasing cycling in Denmark : Factors associated with short-distance and long-distance commuter cycling. Journal of Transport & Health , 38:101870

    2024

  81. [89]

    Schoner, J. E. and Levinson, D. M. (2014). The missing link: bicycle infrastructure networks and ridership in 74 US cities. Transportation , 41(6):1187--1204

    2014

  82. [90]

    Schön, P., Heinen, E., and Manum, B. (2024a). A scoping review on cycling network connectivity and its effects on cycling. Transport Reviews , 0(0):1--25. Publisher: Routledge \_eprint: https://doi.org/10.1080/01441647.2024.2337880

    2024

  83. [91]

    R., and Manum, B

    Schön, P., Heinen, E., Rangul, V., Sund, E. R., and Manum, B. (2024b). The impact of street network connectivity on active school travel: Norway ’s HUNT study. Environment and Planning B: Urban Analytics and City Science , page 23998083241235978. Publisher: SAGE Publications Ltd STM

    2024

  84. [92]

    Semler, C., Sanders, M., Buck, D., Dock, S., Cesme, B., and Wang, S. (2018). The Keys to Connectivity : The District of Columbia ’s Innovative Approach to Unlocking Low - Stress Bicycle Networks . Transportation Research Record , 2672(36):63--72. Publisher: SAGE Publications Inc

    2018

  85. [93]

    Semler, C., Sanders, M., Buck, D., Graham, J., Pochowski, A., and Dock, S. (2017). Low- Stress Bicycle Network Mapping : The District of Columbia ’s Innovative Approach to Applying Level of Traffic Stress . Transportation Research Record , 2662(1):31--40. Publisher: SAGE Publi...

    2017

  86. [94]

    Shi, C., Wei, B., Wei, S., Wang, W., Liu, H., and Liu, J. (2021). A quantitative discriminant method of elbow point for the optimal number of clusters in clustering algorithm. EURASIP Journal on Wireless Communications and Networking , 2021(1):31

    2021

  87. [95]

    B., Vedel, S

    Skov-Petersen, H., Jacobsen, J. B., Vedel, S. E., Thomas Alexander, S. N., and Rask, S. (2017). Effects of upgrading to cycle highways - An analysis of demand induction, use patterns and satisfaction before and after. Journal of Transport Geography , 64:203--210

    2017

  88. [96]

    and Walsh, T

    Sorton, A. and Walsh, T. (1994). Bicycle Stress Level as a Tool To Evaluate Urban and Suburban Bicycle Compatibility . Transportation Research Record , 1438

    1994

  89. [97]

    Mere end seks ud af ti familier råder over bil

    Statistics Denmark (2023). Mere end seks ud af ti familier råder over bil

    2023

  90. [98]

    Szell, M., Mimar, S., Perlman, T., Ghoshal, G., and Sinatra, R. (2022). Growing urban bicycle networks. Scientific Reports , 12(1):6765. Number: 1 Publisher: Nature Publishing Group

    2022

  91. [99]

    Danske stednavne - Grunddata

    The Danish Agency for Climate Data (2024). Danske stednavne - Grunddata

    2024

  92. [100]

    Tribby, C. P. and Tharp, D. S. (2019). Examining urban and rural bicycling in the United States : Early findings from the 2017 National Household Travel Survey . Journal of Transport & Health , 13:143--149

    2019

  93. [101]

    h3-py: Uber 's H3 Hexagonal Hierarchical Geospatial Indexing System in Python

    Uber (2023). h3-py: Uber 's H3 Hexagonal Hierarchical Geospatial Indexing System in Python . original-date: 2018-06-12T22:39:59Z

    2023

  94. [102]

    Uijtdewilligen, T., Baran Ulak, M., Jan Wijlhuizen, G., and Geurs, K. T. (2024). Effects of crowding on route preferences and perceived safety of urban cyclists in the Netherlands . Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice , 183:104030

    2024

  95. [103]

    van der Meer, L., Werner, C., and Loidl, M. (2024). Assessment of bicycle accessibility to mobility hubs under different criteria for cycling network quality. AGILE: GIScience Series , 5:1--7. Publisher: Copernicus GmbH

    2024

  96. [104]

    and Vlastos, T

    Vassi, A. and Vlastos, T. (2014). A review and critical assessment of cycling infrastructures across Europe . In WIT Transactions on Ecology and the Environment , pages 757--768, Siena, Italy

    2014

  97. [105]

    E., Jacobsen, J

    Vedel, S. E., Jacobsen, J. B., and Skov-Petersen, H. (2017). Bicyclists’ preferences for route characteristics and crowding in Copenhagen – A choice experiment study of commuters. Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice , 100:53--64

    2017

  98. [106]

    Vierø, A. R. (2024). Bicycle Suitability

    2024

  99. [107]

    R., Vybornova, A., and Szell, M

    Vierø, A. R., Vybornova, A., and Szell, M. (2024a). BikeDNA : A tool for bicycle infrastructure data and network assessment. Environment and Planning B: Urban Analytics and City Science , 51(2):512--528

    2024

  100. [108]

    R., Vybornova, A., and Szell, M

    Vierø, A. R., Vybornova, A., and Szell, M. (2024b). How Good Is Open Bicycle Network Data ? A Countrywide Case Study of Denmark . Geographical Analysis , page gean.12400

    2024

  101. [109]

    Vybornova, A., Cunha, T., Gühnemann, A., and Szell, M. (2022). Automated Detection of Missing Links in Bicycle Networks . Geographical Analysis , n/a(n/a)

    2022

  102. [110]

    Wang, H., Palm, M., Chen, C., Vogt, R., and Wang, Y. (2016). Does bicycle network level of traffic stress ( LTS ) explain bicycle travel behavior? Mixed results from an Oregon case study. Journal of Transport Geography , 57:8--18

    2016

  103. [111]

    Wang, K., Akar, G., Cheng, L., Lee, K., and Sanders, M. (2022). Investigating tools for evaluating service and improvement opportunities on bicycle routes in Ohio , United States . Multimodal Transportation , 1(4):100040

    2022

  104. [112]

    E., Levitt, D., and Benjamin, M

    Wasserman, D., Rixey, A., Zhou, X. E., Levitt, D., and Benjamin, M. (2019). Evaluating OpenStreetMap ’s Performance Potential for Level of Traffic Stress Analysis . Transportation Research Record , 2673(4):284--294. Publisher: SAGE Publications Inc

    2019

  105. [113]

    Werner, C., van der Meer, L., Kaziyeva, D., Stutz, P., Wendel, R., and Loidl, M. (2024). Bikeability of road segments: An open, adjustable and extendible model. Journal of Cycling and Micromobility Research , 2:100040

    2024

  106. [114]

    Willberg, E., Tenkanen, H., Poom, A., Salonen, M., and Toivonen, T. (2021). Comparing spatial data sources for cycling studies: a review. In Transport in Human Scale Cities , pages 169--187. Edward Elgar Publishing. Section: Transport in Human Scale Cities

    2021

  107. [115]

    M., and Teschke, K

    Winters, M., Brauer, M., Setton, E. M., and Teschke, K. (2013). Mapping Bikeability : A Spatial Tool to Support Sustainable Travel . Environment and Planning B: Planning and Design , 40(5):865--883. Publisher: SAGE Publications Ltd STM

    2013

  108. [116]

    Winters, M., Davidson, G., Kao, D., and Teschke, K. (2011). Motivators and deterrents of bicycling: comparing influences on decisions to ride. Transportation , 38(1):153--168

    2011

  109. [117]

    Winters, M., Zanotto, M., and Butler, G. (2020). At-a-glance - The Canadian Bikeway Comfort and Safety ( Can - BICS ) Classification System : a common naming convention for cycling infrastructure. Health Promotion and Chronic Disease Prevention in Canada : Research, Policy and...

    2020

  110. [118]

    Winters, M., Zanotto, M., and Butler, G. (2022). The Canadian Bikeway Comfort and Safety metrics ( Can - BICS ): National measures of the bicycling environment for use in research and policy. Health Reports , 33(82):13

    2022

  111. [119]

    and Purves, R

    Wysling, L. and Purves, R. S. (2022). Where to improve cycling infrastructure? Assessing bicycle suitability and bikeability with open data in the city of Paris . Transportation Research Interdisciplinary Perspectives , 15:100648

    2022

  112. [120]

    v., Ogilvie, D., Patterson, R., and Panter, J

    Xiao, C., Sluijs, E. v., Ogilvie, D., Patterson, R., and Panter, J. (2022). Shifting towards healthier transport: carrots or sticks? Systematic review and meta-analysis of population-level interventions. The Lancet Planetary Health , 6(11):e858--e869

    2022

  113. [121]

    and Michelaraki, E

    Yannis, G. and Michelaraki, E. (2024). Review of City - Wide 30 km/h Speed Limit Benefits in Europe . Sustainability , 16(11):4382. Number: 11 Publisher: Multidisciplinary Digital Publishing Institute

    2024

  114. [122]

    K., Jensen, A

    Łukawska, M., Paulsen, M., Rasmussen, T. K., Jensen, A. F., and Nielsen, O. A. (2023). A joint bicycle route choice model for various cycling frequencies and trip distances based on a large crowdsourced GPS dataset. Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice , 176:103834

    2023

Pith tools

Reviewed August 11, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.