National Trends in Cycling in Light of the Norwegian Bike Traffic Index
Abstract
:1. Introduction
2. Methods and Accuracy
2.1. Bike Traffic Data
2.2. Population Density
2.3. Included Counters
2.4. The Counters
2.5. Missing Data
2.6. Traffic Pattern
2.7. Principle of the Index
2.8. Calculation of Confidence Intervals for Traffic Indices
3. Results
Regional and Local Trends in Bike Traffic
4. Discussion
4.1. The Present Bike Traffic Index Compared to the National Travel Survey
4.2. Sensitivity Analyses
4.3. Strengths and Limitations
5. Conclusions
Author Contributions
Funding
Institutional Review Board Statement
Informed Consent Statement
Data Availability Statement
Acknowledgments
Conflicts of Interest
Appendix A. Sensitivity Models of the National Bike Traffic Index
Year | Model 1 | Model 2 | Model 3 | Model 4 | Model 5 | Model 6 | Model 7 | Model 8 |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
2018 | 100.0 | 100.0 | 100.0 | 100.0 | 100.0 | 100.0 | 100.0 | 100.0 |
2019 | 95.4 | 94.6 | 95.4 | 94.7 | 93.9 | 97.2 | 93.1 | 94.5 |
References
- Høie, B. Sammen om Aktive liv. Handlingsplan for Fyisk Aktivitet 2020–2029; Ministry of Health and Care Services: Oslo, Norway, 2020. Available online: https://www.regjeringen.no/contentassets/43934b653c924ed7816fa16cd1e8e523/handlingsplan-for-fysisk-aktivitet-2020.pdf (accessed on 7 June 2021).
- Larsen, B.-I. Global Strategi for Kosthold, Fysisk Aktivitet og Helse; IS-1213; Ministry of Health and Care Services: Oslo, Norway, 2004.
- Rasmussen, M.G.; Grøntved, A.; Blond, K.; Overvad, K.; Tjønneland, A.; Jensen, M.K.; Østergaard, L. Associations between recreational and commuter cycling, changes in cycling, and type 2 diabetes risk: A cohort study of Danish men and women. PLoS Med. 2016, 13, e1002076. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Patterson, R.; Panter, J.; Vamos, E.P.; Cummins, S.; Millett, C.; Laverty, A.A. Associations between commute mode and cardiovascular disease, cancer, and all-cause mortality, and cancer incidence, using linked Census data over 25 years in England and Wales: A cohort study. Lancet Planet. Health 2020, 4, e186–e194. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Celis-Morales, C.A.; Lyall, D.M.; Welsh, P.; Anderson, J.; Steell, L.; Guo, Y.; Maldonado, R.; Mackay, D.F.; Pell, J.P.; Sattar, N. Association between active commuting and incident cardiovascular disease, cancer, and mortality: Prospective cohort study. BMJ 2017, 357, j1456. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
- Nordengen, S.; Andersen, L.B.; Solbraa, A.K.; Riiser, A. Cycling and cardiovascular disease risk factors including body composition, blood lipids and cardiorespiratory fitness analysed as continuous variables: Part 2-systematic review with meta-analysis. Br. J. Sports Med. 2019, 53, 879–885. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Nordengen, S.; Andersen, L.B.; Solbraa, A.K.; Riiser, A. Cycling is associated with a lower incidence of cardiovascular diseases and death: Part 1—Systematic review of cohort studies with meta-analysis. Br. J. Sports Med. 2019, 53, 870–878. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Zhao, Y.; Hu, F.; Feng, Y.; Yang, X.; Li, Y.; Guo, C.; Li, Q.; Tian, G.; Qie, R.; Han, M.; et al. Association of Cycling with Risk of All-Cause and Cardiovascular Disease Mortality: A Systematic Review and Dose–Response Meta-analysis of Prospective Cohort Studies. Sports Med. 2021. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Andersen, L.; Riiser, A.; Rutter, H.; Goenka, S.; Nordengen, S.; Solbraa, A.K. Trends in cycling and cycle related injuries and a calculation of prevented morbidity and mortality. J. Transp. Health 2018, 9, 217–225. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Cavill, N.; Kahlmeier, S.; Rutter, H.; Racioppi, F.; Oja, P. Economic analyses of transport infrastructure and policies including health effects related to cycling and walking: A systematic review. Transp. Policy 2008, 15, 291–304. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Schweizer, J.; Rupi, F. Performance evaluation of extreme bicycle scenarios. Procedia-Soc. Behav. Sci. 2014, 111, 508–517. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Samferdselsdepatementet. Nasjonal Transportplan 2018–2029; Samferdselsdepatementet: Oslo, Norway, 2017. [Google Scholar]
- Amundsen, K.; Espeland, M. National Cycling Strategy 2014–2023; Vegdirektoratet: Oslo, Norway, 2012.
- Pucher, J.; Buehler, R.; Bassett, D.R.; Dannenberg, A.L. Walking and cycling to health: A comparative analysis of city, state, and international data. Am. J. Public Health 2010, 100, 1986–1992. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Heinen, E.; Van Wee, B.; Maat, K. Commuting by bicycle: An overview of the literature. Transp. Rev. 2010, 30, 59–96. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Dill, J.; Carr, T. Bicycle commuting and facilities in major US cities: If you build them, commuters will use them. Transp. Res. Rec. J. Transp. Res. Board 2003, 1828, 116–123. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Dill, J. Bicycling for transportation and health: The role of infrastructure. J. Public Health Policy 2009, 30, S95–S110. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Fraser, S.D.; Lock, K. Cycling for transport and public health: A systematic review of the effect of the environment on cycling. Eur. J. Public Health 2011, 21, 738–743. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
- Dingil, A.E.; Schweizer, J.; Rupi, F.; Stasiskiene, Z. Updated models of passenger transport related energy consumption of urban areas. Sustainability 2019, 11, 4060. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Kelly, P.; Williamson, C.; Baker, G.; Davis, A.; Broadfield, S.; Coles, A.; Connell, H.; Logan, G.; Pell, J.P.; Gray, C.M.; et al. Beyond cycle lanes and large-scale infrastructure: A scoping review of initiatives that groups and organisations can implement to promote cycling for the Cycle Nation Project. Br. J. Sports Med. 2020, 54, 1405–1415. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Moller, N.C.; Ostergaard, L.; Gade, J.R.; Nielsen, J.L.; Andersen, L.B. The effect on cardiorespiratory fitness after an 8-week period of commuter cycling—A randomized controlled study in adults. Prev. Med. 2011, 53, 172–177. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Sallis, J.F.; Bull, F.; Guthold, R.; Heath, G.W.; Inoue, S.; Kelly, P.; Oyeyemi, A.L.; Perez, L.G.; Richards, J.; Hallal, P.C. Progress in physical activity over the Olympic quadrennium. Lancet 2016, 388, 1325–1336. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Moltved, N.E.; Clausen, F.; Jagielska, Z.; Hansen, C.O.; Nielsen, T.A. Monitoring change in cycling with the Danish bike-traffic index. Proc. Annu. Transp. Conf. Aalb. Univ. 2017, 1–15. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Miranda-Moreno, L.F.; Nosal, T.; Schneider, R.J.; Proulx, F. Classification of Bicycle Traffic Patterns in Five North American Cities. Transp. Res. Rec. J. Transp. Res. Board 2013, 2339, 68–79. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Minge, E.; Falero, C.; Lindsey, G.; Petesch, M.; Vorvick, T. Bicycle and Pedestrian Data Collection Manual; Minnesota Department of Transportation: St. Paul, MN, USA, 2017.
- Proulx, F.R.; Schneider, R.J.; Miranda-Moreno, L.F. Performance evaluation and correction functions for automated pedestrian and bicycle counting technologies. J. Transp. Eng. 2016, 142, 04016002. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- NPRA. Metodikk for Beregning av Byindeks; Norwegian Public Road Administration: Trondheim, Norway, 2020.
- Raods, Parking Spaces, Road Lights, Bus Stops (M) 2015–2020. Available online: https://www.ssb.no/en/statbank/table/11845 (accessed on 15 January 2021).
- Nordengen, S.; Ruther, D.C.; Riiser, A.; Andersen, L.B.; Solbraa, A. Correlates of commuter cycling in three Norwegian counties. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2019, 16, 4372. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
- Panter, J.; Guell, C.; Humphreys, D.; Ogilvie, D. Can changing the physical environment promote walking and cycling? A systematic review of what works and how. Health Place 2019, 58, 102161. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Cervero, R.; Denman, S.; Jin, Y. Network design, built and natural environments, and bicycle commuting: Evidence from British cities and towns. Transp. Policy 2018, 74, 153–164. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Heesch, K.C.; Giles-Corti, B.; Turrell, G. Cycling for transport and recreation: Associations with the socio-economic, natural and built environment. Health Place 2015, 36, 152–161. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
- Sallis, J.F.; Owen, N.; Fisher, E. Ecological models of health behavior. Health Behav. Theory Res. Pract. 2015, 5, 465–485. [Google Scholar]
- Campisi, T.; Basbas, S.; Skoufas, A.; Akgün, N.; Ticali, D.; Tesoriere, G. The Impact of COVID-19 Pandemic on the Resilience of Sustainable Mobility in Sicily. Sustainability 2020, 12, 8829. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Dingil, A.E.; Esztergár-Kiss, D. The Influence of the Covid-19 Pandemic on Mobility Patterns: The First Wave’s Results. Transp. Lett. 2021, 1–13. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Buehler, R.; Pucher, J. COVID-19 Impacts on Cycling, 2019–2020. Transp. Rev. 2021, 1–8. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Möllers, A.; Specht, S.; Wessel, J. The Impact of the Covid-19 Pandemic and Government Interventions on Active Mobility; Working Paper; Westfällische Wilhelms-Universität: Münster, Germany, 2021. [Google Scholar]
- NPRA. National Travel Survey (RVU) 2018; Norwegian Publich Road Administration: Trondheim, Norway, 2019.
- NPRA. National Travel Survey (RVU) 2019; Norwegian Publich Road Administration: Trondheim, Norway, 2020.
- Nordback, K.; Kothuri, S.; Johnstone, D.; Lindsey, G.; Ryan, S.; Raw, J. Minimizing annual average daily nonmotorized traffic estimation errors: How many counters are needed per factor group? Transp. Res. Rec. 2019, 2673, 295–310. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Region | Local Area | Number of Counters | Mean Population Density |
---|---|---|---|
Southern Norway | 3 | 24,780 | |
Kristiansand | 3 | 24,780 | |
Northern Norway | 3 | 23,474 | |
Bodø | 2 | 16,876 | |
Tromsø | 1 | 30,073 | |
Mid Norway | 6 | 20,964 | |
Steinkjer | 2 | 10,245 | |
Trondheim | 2 | 32,547 | |
Verdal | 2 | 8519 | |
Eastern Norway | 48 | 29,670 | |
Hamar | 1 | 20,252 | |
Elverum | 1 | 8012 | |
Oslo | 6 | 93,176 | |
Sande | 1 | 3618 | |
Porsgrunn | 6 | 10,043 | |
Skien | 14 | 18,195 | |
Tønsberg | 4 | 16,204 | |
Drammen | 2 | 25,865 | |
Fredrikstad | 3 | 25,325 | |
Moss | 5 | 10,512 | |
Sarpsborg | 5 | 13,970 | |
Western Norway | 29 | 15,148 | |
Bergen | 12 | 25,113 | |
Flora | 3 | 4203 | |
Førde | 8 | 5245 | |
Egersund | 2 | 4221 | |
Kristiansund | 1 | 10,982 | |
Bø | 1 | 4266 | |
Haugesund | 1 | 18,368 | |
Stavanger | 1 | 840 | |
Norway | 89 | 22,631 |
Number of Counters | 2018 | 2019 | 2020 | |
---|---|---|---|---|
National | 89 | 100 | 97.0 (94.1–99.8) | 111.0 (106.2–115.1) |
Regional | ||||
Southern Norway | 3 | 100 | 103.5 (101.2–105.7) | 123.2 (106.5–140.0) |
Northern Norway | 3 | 100 | 104.8 (61.3–148.4) | 91.7 (71.6–111.8) |
Western Norway | 29 | 100 | 102.0 (96.5–107.6) | 111.3 (101.4–120.9) |
Eastern Norway | 48 | 100 | 93.6 (89.6–97.3) | 111.3 (104.5–117.0) |
Mid Norway | 6 | 100 | 94.2 (85.7–102.6) | 103.4 (95.7–111.1) |
Local | ||||
Kristiansand | 3 | 100 | 103.5 (101.2–105.7) | 123.2 (106.6–140.0) |
Elverum | 1 | 100 | 87.8 | 78.0 |
Hamar | 1 | 100 | 91.2 | 108.8 |
Kristiansund | 1 | 100 | 108.6 | 106.9 |
Bodø | 2 | 100 | 106.7 (−78.9–292.2) | 89.3 (24.4–154.2) |
Oslo | 6 | 100 | 94.3 (87.5–100.6) | 118.8 (91.7–144.3) |
Egersund | 2 | 100 | 101.5 (79.5–123.6) | 108.4 (81.7–135.1) |
Tromsø | 1 | 100 | 96.1 | 100.7 |
Steinkjer | 2 | 100 | 91.3 (51.7–130.9) | 113.6 (49.6–177.6) |
Trondheim | 2 | 100 | 94.2 (1.2–187.1) | 100.9 (96.1–105.6) |
Verdal | 2 | 100 | 96.6 (95.6–97.6) | 113.0 (2.5–223.5) |
Porsgrunn | 6 | 100 | 87.1 (80.4–93.8) | 104.9 (95.0–114.9) |
Sande | 1 | 100 | 93.4 | 119.6 |
Skien | 14 | 100 | 95.3 (90.4–100.2) | 106.2 (100.6–111.8) |
Tønsberg | 4 | 100 | 97.1 (92.1–102.0) | 109.2 (101.6–116.8) |
Bergen | 12 | 100 | 103.8 (92.4–115.5) | 117.9 (99.8–136.1) |
Kinn | 3 | 100 | 95.0 (91.8–98.1) | 86.5 (72.9–100.2) |
Førde | 8 | 100 | 104.0 (92.1–115.9) | 104.6 (83.8–125.4) |
Drammen | 2 | 100 | 120.9 (−935.9–1177.7) | 253.8 (−150.5–658.0) |
Fredrikstad | 3 | 100 | 68.1 (9.6–126.8) | 81.4 (−12.5–175.5) |
Moss | 5 | 100 | 91.8 (83.0–100.5) | 106.1 (88.9–123.4) |
Sarpsborg | 5 | 100 | 92.4 (89.7–95.2) | 108.8 (101.1–116.6) |
Stavanger | 1 | 100 | 84.0 | 120.8 |
Haugesund | 1 | 100 | 93.2 | 96.0 |
Bø | 1 | 100 | 96.1 | 98.7 |
Publisher’s Note: MDPI stays neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations. |
© 2021 by the authors. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).
Share and Cite
Nordengen, S.; Andersen, L.B.; Riiser, A.; Solbraa, A.K. National Trends in Cycling in Light of the Norwegian Bike Traffic Index. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2021, 18, 6198. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph18126198
Nordengen S, Andersen LB, Riiser A, Solbraa AK. National Trends in Cycling in Light of the Norwegian Bike Traffic Index. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health. 2021; 18(12):6198. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph18126198
Chicago/Turabian StyleNordengen, Solveig, Lars Bo Andersen, Amund Riiser, and Ane K. Solbraa. 2021. "National Trends in Cycling in Light of the Norwegian Bike Traffic Index" International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health 18, no. 12: 6198. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph18126198