15
views
0
recommends
+1 Recommend
2 collections
    0
    shares
      • Record: found
      • Abstract: found
      • Article: found
      Is Open Access

      Provisional COVID-19 infrastructure induces large, rapid increases in cycling

      research-article

      Read this article at

      Bookmark
          There is no author summary for this article yet. Authors can add summaries to their articles on ScienceOpen to make them more accessible to a non-specialist audience.

          Significance

          Active travel makes people healthier and creates a wide range of additional social and environmental benefits. The provision of dedicated infrastructure is considered a crucial policy to increase cycling. However, evaluating the impact of this type of intervention is difficult because infrastructure changes are typically slow. The rollout of so-called pop-up bike lanes during the COVID-19 pandemic is a unique empirical context to estimate the pull effect of new cycling infrastructure. We show that the policy has worked. We find large increases in cycling. This result is robust for a variety of empirical counterfactuals. Further research is needed to investigate whether this change is persistent and whether similar results can be achieved in situations outside the context of a pandemic.

          Abstract

          The bicycle is a low-cost means of transport linked to low risk of transmission of infectious disease. During the COVID-19 crisis, governments have therefore incentivized cycling by provisionally redistributing street space. We evaluate the impact of this new bicycle infrastructure on cycling traffic using a generalized difference in differences design. We scrape daily bicycle counts from 736 bicycle counters in 106 European cities. We combine these with data on announced and completed pop-up bike lane road work projects. Within 4 mo, an average of 11.5 km of provisional pop-up bike lanes have been built per city and the policy has increased cycling between 11 and 48% on average. We calculate that the new infrastructure will generate between $1 and $7 billion in health benefits per year if cycling habits are sticky.

          Related collections

          Most cited references37

          • Record: found
          • Abstract: not found
          • Article: not found

          The ERA5 Global Reanalysis

            Bookmark
            • Record: found
            • Abstract: not found
            • Article: not found

            Aggregated mobility data could help fight COVID-19

              Bookmark
              • Record: found
              • Abstract: found
              • Article: not found

              Infrastructure, programs, and policies to increase bicycling: an international review.

              To assess existing research on the effects of various interventions on levels of bicycling. Interventions include infrastructure (e.g., bike lanes and parking), integration with public transport, education and marketing programs, bicycle access programs, and legal issues. A comprehensive search of peer-reviewed and non-reviewed research identified 139 studies. Study methodologies varied considerably in type and quality, with few meeting rigorous standards. Secondary data were gathered for 14 case study cities that adopted multiple interventions. Many studies show positive associations between specific interventions and levels of bicycling. The 14 case studies show that almost all cities adopting comprehensive packages of interventions experienced large increases in the number of bicycle trips and share of people bicycling. Most of the evidence examined in this review supports the crucial role of public policy in encouraging bicycling. Substantial increases in bicycling require an integrated package of many different, complementary interventions, including infrastructure provision and pro-bicycle programs, supportive land use planning, and restrictions on car use.
                Bookmark

                Author and article information

                Journal
                Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A
                Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A
                pnas
                pnas
                PNAS
                Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America
                National Academy of Sciences
                0027-8424
                1091-6490
                13 April 2021
                29 March 2021
                29 March 2021
                : 118
                : 15
                : e2024399118
                Affiliations
                [1] aMercator Research Institute on Global Commons and Climate Change , 10829 Berlin, Germany;
                [2] bDepartment Economics of Climate Change, Technical University of Berlin , 10623 Berlin, Germany;
                [3] cPotsdam Institute for Climate Impact Research , 14473 Potsdam, Germany
                Author notes
                1To whom correspondence may be addressed. Email: kraus@ 123456mcc-berlin.net .

                Edited by Susan Hanson, Clark University, Worcester, MA, and approved February 18, 2021 (received for review November 26, 2020)

                Author contributions: S.K. and N.K. designed research; S.K. analyzed data; and S.K. and N.K. wrote the paper.

                Author information
                http://orcid.org/0000-0003-1161-2988
                Article
                202024399
                10.1073/pnas.2024399118
                8053938
                33782111
                d4db378a-8022-4ff3-a77a-66b92a552cd0
                Copyright © 2021 the Author(s). Published by PNAS.

                This open access article is distributed under Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives License 4.0 (CC BY-NC-ND).

                History
                Page count
                Pages: 6
                Categories
                9
                535
                Social Sciences
                Sustainability Science
                Custom metadata
                free

                urban planning,active travel,generalized difference in differences

                Comments

                Comment on this article