This document outlines a study investigating different bike infrastructure cases through a web-based survey. The goal is to assess knowledge about the effects of different bike infrastructure typologies. Case studies were selected that were less than 5 years old, had distinct typologies, and local governments interested in sharing information. Data was collected through web surveys, bike counts, interviews, observations, and images. The document structures the analysis by city scale and infrastructure scale factors. It provides before and after images and descriptions of the street designs and traffic calming measures investigated. It analyzes respondents' residential locations, bike parking, signage, counts, and satisfaction. Final considerations discuss the importance of connectivity and safety in bike infrastructure design.

1. BIKEINFRASTRUCTURES
Victor Andrade, Ole B. Jensen, Henrik Harder, Jens Madsen

2. Goal
To investigate bike infrastructure cases – based on a web-
based questionnaire.
To make an assessment with respect to the state of
knowledge as well as evidence of effects.

3. Case studies
Selection criteria
Less than last 5 years old.
Distinct typologies between the cases
Local government interested to share information
Significant cases

4. Vestergade Vest Hans Broges Gade Bryggebro
& Mageløs

5. Data Collection
Web survey
Bike counting
Interview and e-mails
Field observational survey & image collection
16-12-2010 5

6. Structure
City Scale
•Municipality vision
•Bicycle network
Infrastructure Scale
•Before and after
•The costs of the infrastructure
•Design characteristics and streetscape
•Cyclist countings
•The web survey
•Main findings
•Residential location of respondents
•Descriptive statistics
•Relations between socio-demographic variables and web-
survey answers

8. Before
After

9. Street Design

10. Street Design

12. Traffic Calming

13. Shared-use Space

14. Respondents Residential Location

15. Bike Parking

16. Signage

17. Counting

18. Biking more often
Satisfaction with the infrastructure

19. Chi2 test
to identify possible relations between socio-demographics
(independent variables) and the variables originated from the
web survey questions (dependable variables).
20

20. 21

21. Final Considerations
The findings highlight important factors as
such the relevance of fast connectivity and
safety for cyclists.
Fast connectivity and safety are strategic
dimensions of a design solution that must
be taken in consideration.

22. Final Considerations
Shared-used spaces seem to present more
challenges for the cyclists who need to ride
their bikes and, at the same time, negotiate
their space with pedestrians.
Shared-use spaces are not common in
Denmark, but they can be an alternative
way to create more lively cities enhancing a
variety of experiences.
The findings indicate that purpose-built
bicycle-only facilities are perceived by
cyclists as safer environments to ride a bike.

23. Final Considerations
The three studied typologies have both
advantages and disadvantages and there is
not one better than another, the choice
depend on the political goal behind.
When deciding to implement or improve a
bike infrastructure, the particular qualities
and potentials of each typology should be
analyzed in order to decide what kind of
bike infrastructure would be appropriate to
be implemented.

24. Final Considerations
The majority of respondents in the cases
answered that they ride a bike in their
respectively infrastructures with the main
purpose to go to work.
The result indicates that different typologies
or a conjugation of typologies can be
efficiently used for commuting.
What seems to be important is how fast the
infrastructure connects the cyclists to their
destination and how safe it is to ride a bike
in the infrastructure.

25. Delivery
March 2011
Bike Infrastructures Report
(final version)
June 2011
Paper 01
Design characteristics &
socio-demographics
September 2011
Paper 02
Shared-use space & public
domain