See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/323237649

Bicycle Lane Condition and Distance: Case Study of Public Bicycle System in
Xi’an, China

Article  in  Journal of Urban Planning and Development · June 2018

DOI: 10.1061/(ASCE)UP.1943-5444.0000436

CITATIONS READS
7 549

6 authors, including:

Yuanqing Wang Yuanyuan Liu

Chang'an University GuangDong University of Technology
50 PUBLICATIONS   273 CITATIONS    20 PUBLICATIONS   82 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

Sun Sheng Han Liu Yang

University of Melbourne Northwest University
98 PUBLICATIONS   1,714 CITATIONS    11 PUBLICATIONS   84 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

Urban Form and Travel Patterns by Commuters: Comparative Case Study of Wuhan and Xi’an, China View project

APN：The impact of spatial parameters on GHG emission: a comparative study between cities in China and India View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Liu Yang on 20 August 2018.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

 Case Study

Bicycle Lane Condition and Distance:

Case Study of Public Bicycle System in Xi’an, China
Yuanqing Wang 1; Yuanyuan Liu 2; Shujuan Ji 3; Lixing Hou 4;
Sun Sheng Han 5; and Liu Yang 6

Abstract: Urban road infrastructure has significantly affected the popularity and use of public bike-sharing systems in many cities. Using the
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by University Of Florida on 02/05/18. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

bike-sharing system of Xi’an, China, as a case study, this paper aims to discuss how the cycling lane condition and road network density affect
the cycling distances, on the basis of the data obtained from 803 questionnaires. Five types of cycling lanes in single cycling routes and
neighborhood zones of the route were geocoded and defined using a geographic information system (GIS) tool. The statistical results showed
that cyclists preferred to ride on the lane isolated with a barrier and mixed with bus traffic when the lengths of various cycling lanes had the
same proportion of the road network. The results of a Tobit regression analysis indicated that the cyclists were more affected by the cycling
condition of the neighborhood zone around their cycling routes than by the condition of a single cycling route. In the lower-density neighbor-
hoods (<4.303 km=km2 ), as the value of the network density increased, the degree of influence of the density on the cycling distance could
increase. The findings could provide guidance and serve as a reference for the decision makers to develop a road infrastructure that provides a
better cycling experience. DOI: 10.1061/(ASCE)UP.1943-5444.0000436. © 2018 American Society of Civil Engineers.
Author keywords: Cycling lane; Road network density; Neighborhood zone; Public bicycle system.

Introduction 140.99 million in 2015 (National Bureau of Statistics of China

The public bike-sharing system is a convenient and energy-efficient
means of transportation that can be integrated into urban develop-
ment. The benefits of bike-sharing include reducing carbon-dioxide
emissions, smoothing traffic flows, and encouraging a healthier
commute to and from work (Shaheen et al. 2010; Zhang et al.
2015). In this context, China has joined the wealthy countries in
developing bike-sharing schemes, and many Chinese cities have
introduced public bicycle-sharing systems.
China was a bicycle kingdom in the 1980s, when almost every-
body had a bicycle and it was the major means of travel for most
people. Accordingly, many cities created a good cycling environ-
ment with smooth connections and wide bike lanes of 3–7 m in the
downtown area. During in the years 1980–1999, the annual gross
domestic product (GDP) and the industrial growth rate stayed at
more than 10%, and when the increase in living standards led to
a growing demand for more convenient and flexible transportation
systems, private cars became the preferred choice (Gan 2003).
National car ownership increased from 45.74 million in 2009 to
1 modes. The bike-sharing system used in Xi’an is classified as a
Professor, Dept. of Transport Engineering, Chang’an Univ., Xi’an
710064, China. E-mail: wyq21@vip.sina.com
2
Dept. of Transport Engineering, Chang’an Univ., Xi’an 710064, China
(corresponding author). E-mail: yuanyuan5340@163.com
3 future, this system could be classified as a fourth-generation ser-
Graduate Student, Dept. of Transport Engineering, Chang’an Univ.,
Xi’an 710064, China. E-mail: jsjksxshl@163.com
4
Graduate Student, Dept. of Transport Engineering, Chang’an Univ.,
Xi’an 710064, China. E-mail: houlixing7@sina.com
5
Professor, Faculty of Architecture, Building and Planning, Univ. of
Melbourne, VIC 3010, Australia. E-mail: sshan@unimelb.edu.au
6
College of Urban and Environmental Sciences, Northwest Univ., Xi’an
710064, China. E-mail: liu.yang688@qq.com
Note. This manuscript was submitted on March 6, 2017; approved on
September 19, 2017; published online on January 31, 2018. Discussion
period open until June 30, 2018; separate discussions must be submitted
for individual papers. This paper is part of the Journal of Urban Planning
and Development, © ASCE, ISSN 0733-9488.
2016). The rapid process of motorization has resulted in a series
of problems including urban traffic congestion, environmental pol-
lution, and climate change. Under this situation, both the national
and local governments began to rethink cycling policies in 1998,
and some strategies were sought to oppose the restrictions on
bicycle use and to overcome cycling barriers. One measure was
to launch public bike-sharing systems. Beijing was the first Chinese
city to launch public bicycles in 2007 (Zhang et al. 2015), and
Hangzhou launched the first information technology–based public
bike-sharing program in 2008 (Campbell et al. 2016). Xi’an was
the first western city to establish a public bike-sharing system.
The role of the public bike-sharing system varies among
Chinese cities, both in the user base (tourists versus residents) and
in the interaction with transit (feeder versus replacement) (Shaheen
et al. 2011). Xi’an introduced a public bicycle-sharing system in
2013 to bridge the gap in existing transportation networks and
to encourage individuals to use multiple transportation modes.
Using bicycles to connect with buses, the metro, or other transpor-
tation systems can increase bicycles use or public transit use and
solve the problem of traveling the last mile in the public transit
third-generation bike-sharing program, because it uses smartcards,
automated check-in and check-out, and distinguishable bicycles
located at special docking stations (Shaheen et al. 2010). In the
vice, because it is integrated with other public transport modes
(Shaheen et al. 2011). By the end of 2015, there were 52,399 bi-
cycles and 1971 docking stations. In general, docking stations are
placed near the bus stops, metro stations, and large offices, and in
residential and commercial communities and parks, covering the
main urban areas at 47.86% within 500 m of a docking station.
Xi’an is a historical city that is the capital of Shaanxi Province.
With a main urban area of 403 square km that is encircled by the
Xi’an expressway, the city housed over 8.5 million permanent
residents in 2015 (Shaanxi Provincial Bureau of Statistics 2016).
In Xi’an, the number of motor vehicles has grown rapidly in recent

© ASCE 05018001-1 J. Urban Plann. Dev.

J. Urban Plann. Dev., 2018, 144(2): 05018001

 years, and car ownership increased from 0.45 million in 2002
(Shaanxi Provincial Bureau of Statistics 2004) to 2.39 million in
2015 (Shaanxi Provincial Bureau of Statistics 2016). To relieve
the problem of traffic congestion and to meet the demand for park-
ing caused by the large number of vehicles, some cycling lanes
have been narrowed to accommodate parking, to widen the auto-
mobile lanes, or to increase the number of auto lanes, resulting in
cycling lanes that are separated by dashes, barriers, or a greenbelt.
Some cycling paths have been taken over for parking or driving,
and some narrow streets have no space for setting up bike lanes,
which has produced cycling lanes that mix with motor (automobile)
traffic. In addition, bicycle lanes have been affected by the common
acceptance of a bus priority policy that can effectively improve
the public transport service in cities (Lu and Jose 2008). In Xi’an,
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by University Of Florida on 02/05/18. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

a bus priority measure was to set up a bus lane, so some cycling

lanes were changed into bus lanes in which buses and cyclists have
to contend for road access. Fig. 1 shows the five types of bike lanes
mentioned here.
The five types of cycling lanes in different districts provided a
unique background for analyzing the factors associated with the
characteristics of cycling behavior. The different cycling lanes
could have a greater or a lesser attraction to some public bike users
than to other users. This paper draws on the distance-related cycling
behavior among the public bike users, examining several personal
characteristics that include the trip purpose, the cycling lane’s con-
dition, and the road network density in the neighborhood of the
cycling route in order to explain the impact of distance on cycling
behavior. Tobit regression analysis was used to identify the factors
that were significantly related to distance. The combination of stat-
istical analysis and Tobit regression analysis presented a specific
approach to studying the cycling-based activity of public bike
users. The results were expected to provide guidance and reference
for the subsequent improvement of bicycle facilities and to promote
the sustainable and healthy development of public bicycle use.

Literature Review

The cycling distance has a significant effect on cycling behavior.

Some researchers (Emond and Handy 2012) found the perceived
distance to be an important deterrent to bicycling; for example,
when students perceived that their school was too far away for bi-
cycling, they were not likely to bicycle. Hu and Schneider (2014)
found that the distances between 1.6 and 7.9 km (1.0 and 4.9 miles)
from campus were viewed as favorable for bicycle commuting.
Raha and Taweesin (2013) added short-distance travel: when the
cost of travel, the travel time, the distance traveled, and the monthly
income increased, the use of bicycles decreased. The distance can
be a barrier to cycling to some but not to all individuals. Winters
et al. (2011) argued that a distance to the destination of 10 km or Fig. 1. The 5 types of cycling lanes: (a) cycling lane mixed with motor;
more was a strong deterrent for potential cyclists but that it had no (b) cycling lane mixed with bus; (c) cycling lane separated with dashes;
influence on regular cyclists. (d) cycling lane separated with barrier; (e) cycling lane separated with
Some studies have proven that the demographic characteristics greenbelt in Xi’an [(a)–(e) images by Shujuan Ji]
and the trip purpose have an influence on the distance. Wuerzer
and Mason (2015) found that age mediated the negative effect of
distance on the likelihood of cycling. Mindell et al. (2011) counted
the riding distances of all ages in 2007 to 2009. The riders aged 21 to cyclists with a high use of the bicycle were not significantly affected
59 cycled a longer distance, whereas the male cyclists younger than by a change in the distance to work but that bicycle commuters
20 and older than 60 rode a shorter distance. The distances of the might switch to the nonwork cycling profile when the distance to
males aged 40–49 were 2.7 times higher than of males over 60 years. work increased. Larsen and El-Geneidy (2011) found the frequent
Pucher et al. (2011) found in the inner areas of both Melbourne and cyclists traveling greater distances on average than the occasional,
Sydney that most cyclists between the ages of 20 and 50 were most regular, and recreational cyclists.
likely to cycle for work, shopping, and other utilitarian purposes, The density of the network can also influence the cycling dis-
especially on weekdays. Kroesen and Handy (2014) found that tance. Many city governments are currently trying to expand their

© ASCE 05018001-2 J. Urban Plann. Dev.

J. Urban Plann. Dev., 2018, 144(2): 05018001

 bicycle networks (Buehler and Pucher 2012). A denser road struc-
ture is more suitable for nonmotorized transportation, because the
distances are generally smaller; the more fine-grained the network
is, the less difference there is between the network distance and the
straight-line distance. However, a number of studies such as Parkin
et al. (2008) found that higher densities led to a higher cycling
share. Moreover, the higher densities are related to lower levels
of car ownership and car use, which has a positive effect on cycling
(Litman 2005).
Krizek and Johnson (2006) found that off-street bicycle trails
had no effect on bicycle use but that on-street bicycle lanes signifi-
cantly increased the odds of bicycle use when people could access
such a lane within 400 m. Buehler and Pucher (2012) confirmed
that cities with a greater supply of bike paths and lanes have sig-
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by University Of Florida on 02/05/18. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
nificantly higher bike commute rates, whereas Nelson and Allen
(1997) found that commuters used bicycle pathways intended
merely for recreational purposes. Stinson and Bhat (2003) con-
ducted an internet survey of bicycle commuters and found that
the presence of bicycle lanes strongly influenced the routes chosen.
Nuworsoo and Cooper (2013) claimed that bicycle lanes were often
rated more desirable than bicycle paths by those who wanted to
cycle frequently. Larsen and El-Geneidy (2011) and Shafizadeh
and Niemeier (1997) suggested that the greater separation from
vehicle traffic offered by off-street and separated paths tended to
result in significantly longer cycling distances. In practice, quali-
tative descriptions of bicycle facility network characteristics and
planning priorities are prevalent. However, the application of quan-
tified network structure indicators to bicycle infrastructure and re-
search is nascent. This paper aims to fill this gap by evaluating the
bicycle infrastructure network structures. Understanding these re-
lationships between cycling distances and bicycle network features
Fig. 2. Distribution of samples
© ASCE 05018001-3
J. Urban Plann. Dev., 2018, 144(2): 05018001
will enable transportation and planning agencies to target the in-
vestment in infrastructure components to have the optimum impact
on the existing riders and the potential future bicyclists.
Material and Methods
Data Sources and Samples
Trip data were obtained from the questionnaires of the bicycle
travel survey, a population-based survey of public bike users con-
ducted in January to March 2016 across the main region of Xi’an.
In the main urban area, the coverage rate of bike stations within
300 and 500 m was 28.57 and 47.86%, respectively. The coverage
rate of areas enclosed by the 1st Ring Road and the 2nd Ring Road
within 500 m was as high as 93.93 and 86.61%, respectively, so that
it was easier to access the public rental bicycles (Fig. 2). Especially
in the Xi’an high-tech zone, an important research and development
base and innovative service-industry base with a large number of
highly educated young people, bicycle use was high. In this district
in 2010, the coverage rates of bike stations within 300 and 500 m
were 39.73 and 60.88%, respectively.
As shown in Fig. 2, in order to meet the requisite sampling rate
of 10–20%, the docking stations were selected proportionate to the
total number of docking stations in the study area. The number of
questionnaires was determined by the bicycle usage times, and an
average of 5 questionnaires were collected at each selected docking
station. The questionnaires were completed by the users between
9:00 am and 6:00 pm every day. The survey was conducted by the
students of Chang’an University in Xi’an. The participants were
asked about their demographic characteristics and their cycling
J. Urban Plann. Dev.
 routes, including the origin, the destination, the trip purpose, and Δl ¼ jL − L 0 j ¼ jðr1 þ R þ r2 Þ − ðr10 þ R þ r20 Þj
the cycling segments in the previous two days. The survey collected
data on 1,009 trips travelled by 803 public biker users at 228 public ¼ jr1 þ r2 − r10 − r20 j ð2Þ
bike stations in the research area.
In the research, the Xi’an road network that was based on the where r1 or r2 = shortest distance between the O or D and the
map in the GIS software was updated by the Bus Rapid Transit closest road segment to the O or D.
(BRT) research center of Chang’an University. The network con- The length of each type of cycling lane was calculated sepa-
tained an expressway, an arterial road, a trunk road, and a branch rately for each cycling route. The ratio of each cycling route to
way, excluding the streets in residential areas. The length of each the cycling distance was used as an index to analyze the cycling
road segment could be calculated using the Calculate Geometry lane conditions of the route that users cycled
tool in the ArcGIS software package. According to the current sit- P
lkc
uation of the cycling lanes in Xi’an, the five types of cycling lanes rc ¼ ðc ¼ 1; 2; 3; 4; 5Þ ð3Þ
L
were visually identified using the street view in the electrical maps
(e.g., Amap), and geocode accordingly on each segment in the GIS. where c = 1, 2, 3, 4, or 5, respectively, representing the cycling lane
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by University Of Florida on 02/05/18. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

The O (origin) and D (destination) offered by the participants mixed with motor or bus traffic, separated by a dashed marking, a
were not always accurate enough to mark, so the OD (origin and barrier, or a greenbelt; rc = ratio of the length of type c to the length
destination) pairs were replaced by the closest intersections, of the cycling route in the route; and lkc = length of segment k with
marked as new O 0 D 0 pairs (Fig. 3). Then the routes cycled were type c in the route.
entered into the GIS for calculating the cycling distance and ana- In order to analyze how the cycling lane conditions in the
lyzing the cycling lane condition. For the routes with the name of neighborhoods of the route affected the cycling distance, a circle
the road segment offered by users (78.49%), the cycling routes di- was created for each route with half of the straight-line length of
rectly connected each O 0 D 0 pair along the road network; for the each O 0 D 0 pair as the radius and the mid-point of the straight line
routes without the name of the road segment offered by users connecting the O 0 D 0 pair as the center, using buffer analysis in
(21.51%), the cycling routes were generated between O 0 D 0 pairs ArcGIS (Fig. 3). The circle was used to indicate the neighborhood
using the shortest street network distance; they were not permitted of the cycling route, in which the neighborhood network density
to cross nature reserves, parks, or informal paths. This study fo- was calculated
cused on the routes along the road network and omitted the parts P 0
not on the road network. As shown in Fig. 3, a cyclist rode from lk
De ¼ ðk ¼ 1; 2 : : : n 0 Þ ð4Þ
O 0 through segment k to reach D 0 . The distance of the route was S
defined as the sum of the lengths of the segments cycled
where De = road network density in the neighborhood; lk0 = length
X of segment k 0 ; n 0 = number of segments; and S = area of the neigh-
L0 ¼ lk ðk ¼ 1; 2 : : : nÞ ð1Þ borhood. Before the replacement of OD, the circle was created in
the way previously mentioned.
According to the process of calculating the cycling lane condi-
where lk = length of segment k in the route; L 0 = total length of the tions in the route cycled, the ratio of the five types of cycling lanes
cycling route; and n = total number of segments cycled in the route. was calculated in the neighborhood
Due to the replacement of the OD pairs with O 0 D 0 pairs, there was P 0
a certain error for calculating the length of the route (Fig. 3). L is l
the length of the route connecting OD pairs. Δl is the length error rc0 ¼ P kc ð5Þ
lk0
between the L and L 0
0
where lkc = length of segment k 0 with type c in the neighborhood;
lk = length of segment k 0 ; and rc0 = ratio of the cycling lane with
0

type c.

Tobit Regression Model

Tobit regression was used to explain how the cycling lane condi-
tions affected the trip distance cycled. As the statistics results
showed, the distribution of the distance cycled did not meet
the normal distribution [Fig. 4(e)], and the distance was a positive
number and limited to greater than 0. The Tobit model supposes
that there is a latent variable yi . This variable linearly depends
on xi via a parameter β, which determines the relationship between
the independent variable xi and the latent variable yi , just as in
a linear model. In addition, there is a normally distributed error
term ui to capture the random influences on this relationship.
The observable variable yi is defined to be equal to the latent
variable whenever the latent variable is above zero, and to be zero
otherwise
 
yi if yi > 0
yi ¼
0 if yi ≤ 0
Fig. 3. Neighborhood zones of cycling route
where yi = latent variable

© ASCE 05018001-4 J. Urban Plann. Dev.

J. Urban Plann. Dev., 2018, 144(2): 05018001

Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by University Of Florida on 02/05/18. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

Fig. 4. Trip distance distributions of (a) gender; (b) age; (c) yearly income (US$); (d) trip purpose; (e) cycling distance (km)

yi ¼ βxi þ ui ; ui ∼ Nð0; σ2 Þ ð6Þ
In this study, the distance was used as the dependent variable
yi ði ¼ 1,2; 3; : : : ; 1,009Þ, and the six independent variables xi in-
cluded the gender, age, trip purpose, cycling lane conditions in the
route, cycling lane conditions in the neighborhood, and network
density in the neighborhood.
Results
Cyclist Profiles
Table 1 provides the descriptive characteristics of the bicycle users
and the distances cycled by users with different demographic char-
acteristics, and Fig. 4 describes the cycling distance distributions
of the demographic variables.
The mean cycling distance was 2.95 km, (longest = 16.94 km;
shortest = 0.15 km), and the cycling distance of 77.6% participants
was 1–4.5 km. In general, the gender difference was obvious
(males 58.45% versus females 41.55%), and the distances the
males cycled were typically longer than the distances females
cycled (mean distances 3.12 versus 2.71 km, respectively). In
addition, as Fig. 4(a) shows, the distance females cycled was differ-
ent from the males’ in different travel ranges; the females preferred
to travel shorter distances within 4 km, but the males cycled longer
distances that were more than 4 km. Specifically, 80.7% of females
cycled less than 4 km, and the young females (19–45 years old),
the employees of private enterprises, persons with less education,
and those who were middle- and low-income were more likely to
ride less than 4 km than the other females.
The average cycling distance was different among all ages. The
cyclists aged above 60 tended to ride longer than those under the
age of 18, because the older people had free time and paid attention
to exercise, especially those who had had a cycling habit when they
were young in the period of the bicycle kingdom in China. Fig. 4(b)
shows that 45.85% of cyclists aged 19–45 concentrated on distan-
ces of 1–5 km, whereas 19.45% of the cyclists aged 46–60 mainly
rode distances of 2–3 km.
The public bikers were highly educated (43.81% with a
Bachelor degree or above) and came from low- and middle-income
families (68.29% with $3,600–7,200 income). As shown in
Fig. 4(c), the people with low–middle income mostly rode public
bikes less than 5 km, but the distances that the high-income group

© ASCE 05018001-5 J. Urban Plann. Dev.

J. Urban Plann. Dev., 2018, 144(2): 05018001

 Table 1. Descriptive Characteristics of Participants and Cycling Condition Table 2. Tobit Regression Coefficients (Significance) of Models
Represented Average Independent variables Full factor model
in survey distance
Gender
Variable n (%) (km)
Male 0.30 (0.039)
Gender (2 missing) Age
Male 716 58.45 3.12 0–18 −1.167 (0.000)
Female 509 41.55 2.71 19–45 −0.70 (0.007)
Age (62 missing) 46–60 −0.63 (0.029)
0–18 32 3.17 2.09 >60 —
19–45 636 63.03 2.91 Trip purpose
46–60 230 22.79 2.94 Commuting 0.56 (0.001)
>60 86 8.52 3.52 Transfer −0.82 (0.001)
Employment status (24 missing) Household chores −0.47 (0.007)
Employee of state-owned enterprise 126 12.49 3.12 Leisure/entertainment —
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by University Of Florida on 02/05/18. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

Employee in private sector 285 28.25 3.03 Official affairs —

Worker in institutional organization 255 25.27 2.75 Cycling lane conditions in the route
Student 83 8.23 2.58 Dashes separated −1.49 (0.000)
Individual business 68 6.74 2.3 Barrier separated −1.78 (0.004)
Retiree 110 10.9 3.3 Greenbelt separated −1.43 (0.004)
Others 57 5.65 2.91 Mixed with motor traffic −1.96 (0.000)
Education (23 missing) Mixed with bus traffic —
Under middle-school academic 551 54.61 3 Network conditions in the neighborhood
qualification Dashes separated 3.43 (0.000)
Bachelor or above 435 43.11 2.9 Barrier separated 4.63 (0.000)
Income per year (US$) (17 missing) Greenbelt separated 3.20 (0.000)
<3,600 143 14.17 2.89 Mixed with motor traffic 3.98 (0.000)
3,600–7,200 375 37.17 3.06 Mixed with bus traffic —
7,200–10,800 314 31.12 2.85 Neighborhood network density (km=km2 )
10,800–14,400 112 11.1 3.04 <2.726 1.40 (0.000)
14,400–18,000 29 2.87 2.83 [2.726,4.303) 1.47 (0.000)
>18,000 19 1.88 3.61 [4.303–5.879) 1.13 (0.00)
Trip purpose (91 missing) >5.879 —
Commuting 468 46.38 3.38 F 92.72
Leisure and entertainment 129 12.78 3.04 Prob: > F 0
Household chores 236 23.39 2.36 Log pseudolikelihood at zero −3,180.44
Official affairs 28 2.78 3.31 Log pseudolikelihood at convergence −1,953.52
Transfer 57 5.65 2.08 Pseudo-R2 0.39
Neighborhood network density (km=km2 ) Number of observations 889
<2.726 136 13.48 2.87
Note: Prob. = Probability.
[2.726, 4.303) 438 43.41 3.29
[4.303–5.879) 290 28.74 3.02
>5.879 145 14.37 1.87
Cycling lane conditions in the route of the users cycling for official affairs, 5–6 km was the preferred
Dash separated 720 71.36 1.43 distance.
Barrier separated 376 37.26 0.85 Table 1 also provides the network density in the neighborhood
Greenbelt separated 691 68.48 1.5 of the cycling routes, and the cycling condition on the cycling
Mixed with motor 410 40.63 0.78 routes or in the neighborhood of the cycling routes. Based on
Mixed with bus 206 20.42 0.88 the calculation of the network density in this study, 43.41%
Network conditions in the neighborhood of the participants cycled where the network density was 2.726
Dashes separated 913 90.49 9.11 to 4.303 km=km2 , and they cycled the longest distance, an aver-
Barrier separated 599 59.37 3.37 age of 3.29 km. The participants cycled a shorter distance, an
Greenbelt separated 856 84.84 6.4
average of 1.87 km when the network density was greater than
Mixed with motor traffic 894 88.6 9.54
Mixed with bus traffic 388 38.45 2.29 5.879 km=km2 .

Analysis of Influencing Factors

cycled fell into the two extremes of 2–3 km and above 10 km.
For the public bike trips, the usual purposes were to work or school
(46.38%), household chores (23.39%), and leisure or entertain-
ment (12.78%). The high-income (>US$10,800=year) groups
were most likely to ride for recreation and fitness, and the low-
income group (<US$3,600=year) tended to ride for transportation,
especially commuting, which indicated that public bikes could
be a good means of transport for all income levels. Fig. 4(d) shows
that the distance of participants cycling for transfer was 1 to 4 km
and that 22.8% of users traveling for leisure and entertainment
cycled 4–5 km. For 25.3% of the users cycling for household
chores, 1–2 km was the preferred distance, whereas for 29.8%
The Tobit regression model modeled the relationship between the
cycling distance and the factors of sociodemographics, the cycling
lane conditions, and the network density in the neighborhood of the
route cycled. The Prob of 92.72 with a p-value of 0.0001 indicated
that the model as a whole fit significantly. Table 2 presents the var-
iables with a significance less than 0.05.
The males were less insensitive to the distance than females,
consistent with previous studies (Garrard et al. 2008). The estima-
tion results showed that age had a negative effect on the distance
and that individuals traveled longer distances as they become older,
as opposed to the findings of Manoj and Verma (2016). Consider-
ing the cyclists aged over 60 as the control group, the other groups

© ASCE 05018001-6 J. Urban Plann. Dev.

J. Urban Plann. Dev., 2018, 144(2): 05018001

 had a negative effect on the distance. Older persons were more
likely to cycle with public bikes than the young. One explanation
of the results is that most of the elderly are retired and have a con-
siderable amount of time to exercise. The docking stations were
placed around large residential commutes as well as some parks
and sports venues in Xi’an, which provided a great convenience
for exercising regardless of the distance. The findings indicated that
the bike-sharing system had a great significance for the countries
and regions with ageing people. People aged younger than 18, jun-
ior high or high school students, were not likely to ride the public
bikes, and when they cycled, they preferred the shortest trips. Users
with different trip purpose had different perceptions of the distance,
which was the opposite of the results of Wuerzer and Mason
(2015). The cyclists who traveled for commuting appeared to ride
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by University Of Florida on 02/05/18. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
longer than those traveling for transfer to other transportation or for
household chores. The propensity for cycling for commuting medi-
ated the negative effect of distance, whereas the propensity for
cycling for transfer or for household chores invoked the negative
effect of distance on using public bikes.
The cycling lane condition of the route was a significantly neg-
ative factor, which suggested that no type of bike lane could lessen
the perceived distance. However, the cycling lane condition in the
neighborhood of the route was a positive factor. Cyclists might
have been more affected by the cycling conditions around their cy-
cling route rather than the cycling lanes they cycled on their chosen
routes. The entrances of residential areas were usually located on
narrow streets, where there was no space to allocate bike lanes with
priority to cyclists and there were only motorways. In that case, the
cyclists rode their bicycles on the motorway, identified here as the
cycling lane mixed with motor traffic. A barrier between the motor-
way and the cycling lane was usually installed to separate the cy-
clist flow and the traffic flow at the intersections, as a measure to
guarantee the road’s capacity for motor vehicles. The bus stations
were always located at intersections with bus lanes. In these cases,
the cyclists did not subjectively select the types of cycling lanes to
use but rather which they were most likely to use.
From the model results, on the routes the condition of the cy-
cling lanes separated with a greenbelt and the lanes with dashes had
a less negative effect on the distance cycled than the lanes separated
with a barrier and the lanes mixed with motor traffic. In the neigh-
borhood of the route, the cyclists were most affected by the cycling
lanes separated with a barrier, followed by the lanes mixed with
motor, the dashes-separated lanes, and the greenbelt-separated
lanes.
Fig. 5 shows a histogram that describes the p1 , which is the ratio
of the length of each type of bicycle lane to the total length of the
Fig. 5. Ratio of five cycling conditions on road network (the
histogram) and the relative choice index of bicycle infrastructures
(line chart)
© ASCE 05018001-7
J. Urban Plann. Dev., 2018, 144(2): 05018001
road network in Xi’an. p2 is the ratio of the length of each type of
bicycle lane chosen by users to the total length of the bicycle lanes
chosen by users, and the line chart of the choice index is the ratio of
p2 to p1 .
Fig. 5 shows a line chart of the statistics results, which shows
that cyclists were more likely to consider the condition of the lane
separated with a barrier and the lanes mixed with bus traffic than
the lanes mixed with motor traffic, the lanes separated with dashes,
and the lanes separated with a greenbelt. These results were af-
fected by the length rations of the bike lanes in the road network
of Xi’an and by the people’s travel behavior. The bike lanes mixed
with motor traffic had the highest length ratio; the next highest were
the cycling lanes isolated with dashes or a greenbelt, followed by
the lanes separated with a barrier; and the lowest were the lanes
mixed with bus traffic (shown in the histogram of Fig. 5). If the
different types of cycling lanes had the same length rations, most
cyclists rode in the lane isolated with a barrier, and then the lane
mixed with bus traffic. In that case, the trend of the cycling lane
condition revealed by the condition in the neighborhood of the
routes was similar to the statistical results, which proved the effect
of the factor calculated by using the data about the neighborhoods
of the routes. Dill (2009) explained that where participants rode
was determined to some extent by where they live, and therefore
that neighborhoods where participants lived with more bicycle in-
frastructure affected their bicycle use.
When the network density was less than 4.303 km=km2 , the de-
gree of its influence on the cycling distance increased as the value
of the network density increased. However, when the network den-
sity was greater than 4.303 km=km2 , the degree of its influence on
the cycling distance decreased. The areas with higher network den-
sity usually had convenient connectivity to the transportation sys-
tem. In that case, the public bike-sharing system was brought into
the system and the users needed to ride only a short distance to
transfer to other means of transportation. The higher density offers
many alternative segments from the origin to the destination, and
the high-density network has better connectivity, which allows cy-
clists to reach whatever destination they want, thereby encouraging
people to ride bicycles. Litman (2005) suggested that a higher
density had a positive effect on cycling.
Conclusions
The objective of this research was to study the important factors
affecting the cycling distances in relation to the public bike users.
The related factors were obtained from the questionnaires with re-
vealed preference (RP) surveys and the calculations using a GIS
tool. Statistical analysis was performed, and the distance-cycled
model was developed on the basis of the Tobit method.
It was found that the distance females cycled was different from
the males’ distances in different travel ranges. The females pre-
ferred to travel shorter distances within 4 km, but the males cycled
longer distances that were more than 4 km; the young females
(19–45 years old), the employees of private enterprise, persons with
the less education, and middle- and low-income persons were more
likely to ride less than 4 km than the other females. It also suggested
that the users rode longer distance as they become older. Policies
could be made to encourage the elderly and females to cycle more,
according to the regional demographic characteristics.
The cycling lane condition on the route was a significantly neg-
ative factor, and the cycling lane condition in the neighborhood
of the route was a positive factor affecting the cycling distance.
Cyclists were likely to choose the cycling lane they perceived fa-
vorably in the neighborhood to ride and were less likely to consider
J. Urban Plann. Dev.
 the single cycling lane they cycled in their chosen routes. When the
lengths of different types of cycling lane drew the same perception,
the cyclists most often rode in the lanes isolated with a barrier, the
next most often in the lanes mixed with bus traffic, and the least
often in other types of cycling lanes.
In the lower-density networks of the cycling routes
(<4.303 km=km2 ), the cyclists rode longer distances than in the
higher-density (>4.303 km=km2 ). In particular, a lower road net-
work density in the neighborhood of the route had more influence
on cycling than a high network density. When the network density
is less than 4.303 km=km2 , the degree of influence of the density
on the cycling distance could increase with the increase in value of
the network density.
In the future, more research work will be undertaken to identify
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by University Of Florida on 02/05/18. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
and quantify other influences on the cycling environment, such
as land use and the cultural and economic determinants of using
bicycles, in order to conduct more comprehensive analysis for
the construction and planning of infrastructure.
Acknowledgments
This study was financially supported by the ARUP project, the
Fundamental Research Funds for the Central Universities of China
(310821171003, 310821172201, and 310821172202), the Special
Fund for Basic Scientific Research of Central Colleges of Chang’an
University (310821175025) and Scientific Research Start-Up
Foundation of College of Urban and Environmental Science,
Northwest University. The authors also thank the students partici-
pating in the survey.
References
ArcGIS version 10.2 [Computer software]. ESRI, Redlands, CA.
Buehler, R., and Pucher, J. (2012). “Cycling to work in 90 large American
cities: New evidence on the role of bike paths and lanes.” Transporta-
tion, 39(2), 409–432.
Campbell, A. A., Cherry, C. R., Ryerson, M. S., and Yang, X. (2016).
“Factors influencing the choice of shared bicycles and shared electric
bikes in Beijing.” Transp. Res. Part C: Emerging Technol., 67,
399–414.
Dill, J. (2009). “Bicycling for transportation and health: The role of infra-
structure.” J. Public Health Policy, 30(S1), S95.
Emond, C. R., and Handy, S. L. (2012). “Factors associated with bicycling
to high school: Insights from Davis, CA.” J. Transp. Geogr., 20(1),
71–79.
Gan, L. (2003). “Globalization of the automobile industry in china:
Dynamics and barriers in greening of the road transportation.” Energy
Policy, 31(6), 537–551.
Garrard, J., Rose, G., and Lo, S. K. (2008). “Promoting transportation cy-
cling for women: The role of bicycle infrastructure.” Preventive Med.,
46(1), 55–59.
Hu, L., and Schneider, R. J. (2014). “Shifts between automobile, bus, and
bicycle commuting in an urban setting.” J. Urban Plann. Dev., 10.1061
/(ASCE)UP.1943-5444.0000214, 04014025.
Krizek, K. J., and Johnson, P. J. (2006). “Proximity to trails and retail:
Effects on urban cycling and walking.” J. Am. Plann. Assoc., 72(1),
33–42.
© ASCE 05018001-8
View publication stats J. Urban Plann. Dev., 2018, 144(2): 05018001
Kroesen, M., and Handy, S. (2014). “The relation between bicycle commut-
ing and non-work cycling: Results from a mobility panel.” Transpor-
tation, 41(3), 507–527.
Larsen, J., and El-Geneidy, A. (2011). “A travel behavior analysis of urban
cycling facilities in Montréal, Canada.” Transp. Res. Part D: Transp.
Environ., 16(2), 172–177.
Litman, T. (2005). Land use impacts on transport: How land use factors
affect travel behavior, Victoria Transport Policy Institute, Victoria, BC,
Canada.
Lu, B., and Jose, V. (2008). “A bus priority measure demonstrated in
Lisbon.” China Control Conf., IEEE, New York, 564–567.
Manoj, M., and Verma, A. (2016). “Effect of built environment measures
on trip distance and mode choice decision of non-workers from a city of
a developing country, India.” Transp. Res. Part D: Transp. Environ.,
46, 351–364.
Mindell, J. S., Leslie, D., and Wardlaw, M. (2011). “Exposure-based, ‘like-
for-like’ assessment of road safety by travel mode using routine health
data.” PLoS One, 7(12), e50606.
National Bureau of Statistics of China. (2016). 2016 China statistics year-
book, China Statistics, Beijing.
Nelson, A. C., and Allen, D. (1997). “If you build them, commuters will use
them.” Transp. Res. Rec., 1578, 79–83.
Nuworsoo, C., and Cooper, E. (2013). “Considerations for integrating bi-
cycling and walking facilities into urban infrastructure.” Transp. Res.
Rec., 2393, 125–133.
Parkin, J., Wardman, M., and Page, M. (2008). “Estimation of the deter-
minants of bicycle mode share for the journey to work using census
data.” Transportation, 35(1), 93–109.
Pucher, J., Garrard, J., and Greaves, S. (2011). “Cycling down under: A
comparative analysis of bicycling trends and policies in Sydney and
Melbourne.” J. Transp. Geogr., 19(2), 332–345.
Raha, U., and Taweesin, K. (2013). “Encouraging the use of non-motorized
in Bangkok.” Procedia Environ. Sci., 17, 444–451.
Shaanxi Provincial Bureau of Statistics. (2004). “Statistical communique of
national economic and social development of Xi’an in 2002.” 〈http://
www.shaanxitj.gov.cn/site/1/html/126/132/142/5114.htm〉 (Apr. 28,
2004).
Shaanxi Provincial Bureau of Statistics. (2016). “Statistical communique of
national economic and social development of Xi’an in 2015.” 〈http://
www.shaanxitj.gov.cn/site/1/html/126/132/142/12706.htm〉 (Apr. 18,
2006).
Shafizadeh, K., and Niemeier, D. (1997). “Bicycle journey-to-work: Travel
behavior characteristics and spatial attributes.” Transp. Res. Rec., 1578,
84–90.
Shaheen, S. A., Guzman, S., and Zhang, H. (2010). “Bikesharing in
Europe, the Americas, and Asia: Past, present, and future.” Transp.
Res. Rec., 2143, 159–167.
Shaheen, S. A., Zhang, H., Martin, E., and Guzman, S. (2011). “China’s
Hangzhou public bicycle.” Transp. Res. Rec., 2247, 33–41.
Stinson, M. A., and Bhat, C. R. (2003). An analysis of commuter bicyclist
route choice using a stated preference survey, Transportation Research
Board, Washington, DC.
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.
Wuerzer, T., and Mason, S. G. (2015). “Cycling willingness: Investigating
distance as a dependent variable in cycling behavior among college
students.” Appl. Geogr., 60, 95–106.
Zhang, L., Zhang, J., Duan, Z. Y., and Bryde, D. (2015). “Sustainable bike-
sharing systems: Characteristics and commonalities across cases in
urban China.” J. Cleaner Prod., 97, 124–133.
J. Urban Plann. Dev.