International Journal of Transportation Science and Technology 5 (2016) 210–225

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

International Journal of Transportation

Science and Technology
journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/ijtst

Towards an index of city readiness for cycling

Mohamed Anwer Zayed
Department of Architecture Engineering, Cairo University, Cairo, Egypt

a r t i c l e i n f o a b s t r a c t

Article history: After decades of overdependence on motorized means of transport, and in acknowledge-
Received 7 October 2016 ment of major environmental challenges, most of the world’s cities are recognizing the
Received in revised form 12 January 2017 importance of adopting non-motorized means of transport to enhance their quality of life.
Accepted 15 January 2017
Local authorities are interested in providing facilities that enable city residents to effi-
Available online 23 January 2017
ciently traverse the urban fabric. Cycling, as an important non-motorized mode of trans-
port, is considered to be an efficient alternative to motor vehicles. Establishing safe and
Keywords:
convenient cycle routes has become one of the main development tasks in contemporary
Non-motorized transport
Cycling
cities. Indeed, converting today’s traditional cities into bicycle-friendly ones is considered
Bicycle-friendly city to be one of the principal goals of development plans. This paper addresses the urban readi-
Urban attributes ness of cities to be bicycle-friendly. It focuses on the socioeconomic and urban character-
Cycle routes istics that have to be present in a city for cycling to be adopted as a primary mode of
transport. Through statistical analysis of 20 bicycle-friendly cities, the paper identifies
the main requirements for urban cycling. Finally, it evaluates the readiness of Egyptian
cities to become bicycle-friendly.
Ó 2017 Tongji University and Tongji University Press. Publishing Services by Elsevier B.V.
This is an open access article under the CC BY-NC-ND license (http://creativecommons.org/
licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/).

Introduction

After decades of motorized mobility dominance in urban areas, the world is witnessing a revival of the notion of using
bicycles as the main transport mode in cities. In fact, non-motorized transport as a whole is starting to receive special atten-
tion. This is due to the great environmental, health and social challenges that are threatening the liveability of contemporary
cities. Developing cities to be more suitable for bicycle use and more encouraging of cycling is considered to be one of the
most important urban trends, not only at the level of academic research but also in professional practice. The notion of the
bicycle-friendly city (BFC) is emerging internationally as one of the main targets of urban development plans in the twenty-
first century, especially in European countries. This is mainly as a result of recognizing the benefits of this efficient means of
transport. The development of contemporary cities into BFCs firstly requires identification of the basic urban attributes that
generally facilitate cycling. This will help to determine the priorities of development. The cities with cycling physical poten-
tials will be nominated to be developed before those without. After determining these cities, the second step will start. This
step will focus on the socio-economic and cultural characteristics of local communities in the chosen cities in order to orient
the developing to BFC to fit it.
The current research had two main goals. The first was to identify the principal urban attributes of the city that affect
utilitarian cycling. The second goal was to evaluate the readiness of Egyptian cities to be developed into BFCs so that cycling

Peer review under responsibility of Tongji University and Tongji University Press.
E-mail address: fagrofmaz@yahoo.com

http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ijtst.2017.01.002
2046-0430/Ó 2017 Tongji University and Tongji University Press. Publishing Services by Elsevier B.V.
This is an open access article under the CC BY-NC-ND license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/).
 M.A. Zayed / International Journal of Transportation Science and Technology 5 (2016) 210–225 211

will be one of the main modes of transport. To achieve these two goals, a quantitative deduction methodology was adopted.
A statistical tool, principal component analysis, was used to quantitatively investigate the attributes of the built environment
of pioneer BFCs. It was then used again to evaluate the readiness of Egyptian cities to be developed into BFCs and rank them
according to the urban attributes identified for utilitarian cycling. The research consists of three main parts. A literature
review forms the first part, where the background to bicycle use as a principal mode of transport in cities is introduced.
In this part, a cycling overview, the benefits of cycling, the characteristics of bicycle-friendly environments and the pioneer
BFCs all over the world are considered. Then, in part two, a selected set of urban, environmental and social attributes in these
pioneer BFCs are statistically investigated to identify urban attributes for utilitarian cycling, from which an index of city
readiness for cycling is proposed. Based on these results, the research then highlights the status of cities in Egypt in terms
of their readiness to adopt cycling. The availability of the required urban attributes is assessed for a selected set of Egyptian
cities.

Literature review

Since the second half of the twentieth century, urban mobility has witnessed increasing motorization rates, which have
resulted in negative impacts (Castillo-Manzano et al., 2015). Environmental pollution, increased fuel consumption, contin-
uous traffic congestion and health deterioration are some of the main consequences that are threatening human life in cities
(Stanley et al., 2011; Rybarczyk and Wu, 2010). In such circumstances, the world pursues sustainable transport as a principal
goal of urban development plans (Blickstein, 2010; Kassens, 2009). Sustainable transport is defined as ’satisfying current
transport and mobility needs without compromising the ability of future generations to meet these needs’ (Biack, 1996).
It offers to the local community the opportunity to feel free to reach a destination with minimum environmental, social
and health impacts (Passafaro et al., 2014). It encompasses restructuring of current transport systems that are mainly depen-
dent on private motorized transport means (Gössling, 2013). One of the main elements of sustainable transport systems is
the facilitation of non-motorized modes such as walking and cycling (Rietveld and Daniel, 2004; European Commission,
2011). In particular, there is an international recommendation to adopt bicycles as a primary means of urban transport
(European Commission, 2012; Eryiğit and Ter, 2014; Lanzendorf and Busch-Geertsema, 2014; Heinen et al., 2011). This is
due to the exceptional potential of cycling (Blair, 2002). Compared to private cars, the bicycle is an inexpensive door-to-
door means of transport. Compared to walking, cycling is faster and requires less energy to transport someone the same dis-
tance. In fact, urban cycling is 3.6 times faster than walking (David and Sullivan, 2005; Bernardi and Rupi, 2015). For the
same distance, cycling requires only 35% of the calories that are required for walking (Suzuki and Hanington, 2012; Lowe,
1989). Furthermore, there are various types of bicycles (Roman, 2014) to accommodate different characteristics of users
(Stallard, 2004) (male vs. female and children vs. adults) and also different activities. Tandem, pedi-cab, cargo-bike and
police-bike are all well-known types of utilitarian cycling means in many cities across the world. Fig. 1 presents some of
the best-known types of bicycles.
In the twentieth century, many theories of urban planning and development addressed the importance of restructuring
the urban fabric of cities to support better non-motorized urban mobility, especially cycling (Bickis, 2003). Ebenezer Howard
in the theory of garden cities, Jane Jacobs in The Death and Life of Great American Cities, Christopher Alexander et al. in A Pat-
tern Language: Towns, Buildings, Construction and Kevin Lynch in Good City Form were all directly or indirectly addressing how
to make cities suitable for cycling. Today, many cities, especially in Europe, America and Australia, are adopting urban devel-
opment policies to revive cycling as a primary transport mode (Buehler and Pucher, 2012). Bicycle master plans are an
important element in urban restructuring strategies (Lowry et al., 2016). These plans are mainly aimed at creating a bike-
friendly environment that will facilitate cycling in the city (Joo and Oh, 2013). Two main approaches are adopted to this
end (Rietveld and Daniel, 2004). The first is to enhance the attractiveness of cycling as a mode of sustainable transport, to
be achieved by both infrastructural development and strengthening of cycle culture (Lanzendorf and Busch-Geertsema,
2014). The second approach is to deter the competing modes (such as private car) through either financial (Sterner, 2007)
or engineering constraints.
Research highlights the benefits of adopting bicycles as a primary transport means in urban areas. Utilitarian cycling is
considered to be a sustainable and efficient mode of transport (Marshall and Garrick, 2011), especially for short-distance
trips (Drumheller et al., 2001). The benefits of utilitarian cycling are clear and wide-ranging (Bauman et al., 2008). Generally,
urban mobility, environmental, health and social benefits are realised as a result of replacing motor vehicles with bicycles
(Rissel et al., 2013; Lindsay et al., 2011). These benefits not only directly affect users who are cycling to their destinations,
but also indirectly affect the whole community (Krizec, 2007). For cyclists, health improvements, better mobility opportu-
nities and economic savings are some of the main benefits. Utilitarian cycling offers a real opportunity for a routine physical
activity that results in many potential health benefits for both adults and children (Oja et al., 2011). In particular, it helps the
healthy growth of children’s and adolescents’ bodies and prevents many diseases, especially those affecting heart and blood
vessels in adults (Bauman and Rissel, 2009). In addition, weight control and the minimization of obesity are positively asso-
ciated with cycling (Bassett et al., 2008; Brown et al., 2008). In terms of the conditions for mobility, bicycles require a rel-
atively small space to move in and park in Buehler (2012), as each lane on a typical road accommodates 14,000 bicycles per
hour compared to only 2000 cars per hour (Proulx and Baron, 2015). Thus, cyclists are freed from traffic congestion and trip
duration is relatively short. Furthermore, cycling offers an efficient transport mode at a relatively low monetary and time
212 M.A. Zayed / International Journal of Transportation Science and Technology 5 (2016) 210–225

Fig. 1. (Up) Different types of bicycles to suit various types of users (male, female, elderly, children, single user and group), (Down) different types of
bicycles to suit various types of activities (taxi, cargo, vendor, commuter and police).

cost. A bicycle is considered to be more affordable than a car because it does not require fossil fuel to move, so cyclists can
save the cost of fuel (Tiwari et al., 2015) in addition to maintenance and parking costs. As a result of adopting utilitarian
cycling as a primary mode of transport, the whole community will also experience many benefits (Pedestrian and Bicycle
Information Center, 2010). One of the most important of these is the improvement in quality of environment (Ma and
Dill, 2015). Cycling helps in reducing both air pollution (Barwaldt et al., 2014) and traffic noise caused by motor vehicles
(Cui et al., 2014; Reynolds et al., 2009). Bicycle-based urban development has positive ecological impacts by reducing the
need for additional land development and lowering urbanization rates, preserving biodiversity and habitat (Meng et al.,
2014). The routine physical activity of cyclists has a positive net effect on community public health (Rastogi, 2011;
Pucher and Dijkstra, 2003) and generally alleviates chronic diseases (Taddei et al., 2015). Urban mobility is considered to
gain a lot of benefits as a result of mass cycling (Dondi et al., 2011). There is clear evidence that community use of bicycles
instead of automobiles helps to relieve traffic congestion (Stewart and Moudon, 2014; Alliance for Biking & Walking, 2014),
saving time and cost in trips. In addition, road safety is enhanced in cities with higher cycling rates (Marshall and Garrick,
2011). The increase of cycling is correlated to a decrease in both automobile use and traffic speed as motorists change their
behaviours, leading to reductions in road fatalities (Schepers and Heinen, 2013). Other researches highlights another urban
benefit of cycling, as it supports other modes of urban transport through efficient integration between bicycle and public
transit means in the same trip (Cui et al., 2014; Flamm et al., 2014). In addition, some social benefits can be recognized, such
as liveability enhancement (Krizec, 2007), improved sense of community (Rissel et al., 2013) and promotion of healthier life-
styles (Owen et al., 2010). The economic advantage of all these community-level benefits is notable. In 2010, the gross eco-
nomic benefit of cycling in the European Union achieved around US$1.80 per kilometre of cycled distance (Küster and
Blondel, 2013). This includes the economic impacts of health, environmental and urban benefits. Other research identifies
the net profit for every kilometre cycled as 23 US cents, compared to a net loss of 16 cents for every car-driven kilometre
(Moonen and Clark, 2013). It should be acknowledged that there are some risks associated with cycling in cities. Despite
the fact that injuries and air pollution inversely correlate with cycling rates, it still presents a risk to the individual, especially
 M.A. Zayed / International Journal of Transportation Science and Technology 5 (2016) 210–225 213

in cities with low cycling rates (Pucher et al., 1999). Overall, however, the benefits outweigh these risks (Lindsay et al., 2011;
Winters et al., 2007).

Bicycle-friendly cities

In recognition of the importance of cycling as a sustainable transport mode, the term ’bicycle-friendly city’ has started to
emerge across the world. Developing the city to a bicycle-friendly one is considered to be one of the most important goals of
urban development plans in many regions of the world. The definition and the characteristics of BFCs are considered here,
followed by an introduction to the measurement initiatives that determine the cities that best exemplify BFCs across the
world.

Definition

The term bicycle-friendly city, or bike-friendly city as used in North America, refers to a city that has efficient infrastruc-
ture, transportation policies and societal consensus to make cycling a main transport mode. It is where local authorities are
focused on making the city people-friendly and environment-friendly rather than car-friendly (Kristinsdottir, 2012). This
type of city shows a dedication to creating more suitable spaces for cycling (Williams, 2015). As a result, the bicycle is a real-
istic means of transport for the city’s residents, especially for short-distance trips (Joo et al., 2015).

Characteristics

A BFC is mainly characterized by high-density urban development, diversified land-use planning and a safe and comfort-
able transport network (Stewart and Moudon, 2014; Alliance for Biking & Walking, 2014; Schepers and Heinen, 2013; Flamm
et al., 2014; Owen et al., 2010; Küster and Blondel, 2013; Moonen and Clark, 2013; Pucher et al., 1999; Winters et al., 2007;
Kristinsdottir, 2012; Williams, 2015; Joo et al., 2015; Majumdara and Mitra, 2013). Both high-density development and
diversified land use give rise to nearby destinations. Thus, many residents’ destinations will be located within small catch-
ment areas; which means short trip distances from home to each destination. This encourages people to use non-motorized
transport means, especially bicycles. A safe and comfortable transport network incorporates many other qualities. Secured
paths especially with physical separation from the motorized network (Li et al., 2012), efficient facilities (Schoner et al.,
2015; Basu and Vasudevan, 2013) and gently graded topography (Majumdara and Mitra, 2013) are the main qualities of such
a network. Other geo-environmental characteristics such as temperature, precipitation and wind are of significance (Spencer
et al., 2013). Warmer and drier climates are more suitable for cycling (Winters et al., 2007). The application of transport poli-
cies and strategies that prioritize non-motorized transport also characterizes BFCs (Sayers et al., 2012). Such policies are
mainly focused on restricting motorized transport, promoting efficient cycling education, developing traffic-calmed neigh-
bourhoods and considering people’s perceptions and psychologies (Pucher and Buehler, 2006; Habib et al., 2014).
It is important to note that the previously mentioned characteristics of BFCs seem to be at various levels. It includes
macro scale characteristics such as land use spatial distribution in city and on the other hand micro scale ones such as bicycle
facilities. So, these characteristics could be classified in two main groups. The first group could be described as the passive
characteristics. This group includes the macro scale characteristics that mostly are general urban and environmental attri-
butes of city. It indicates to how much the physical realm of city is ready to adopt cycling. It indicates the readiness of a city
for cycling. On the other hand, the second group represents the active characteristics. It includes some micro scale charac-
teristics of urban, landscape, transportation and economic aspects in city that are essential to satisfy some of essential
requirements of safe, comfortable and efficient utilitarian cycling. Secured bicycle parking racks is one of these characteris-
tics. These micro-scale characteristics are depending on the socio-economic and cultural aspects of the local community. The
passive characteristics determine whether the city has the potentials to adopt utilitarian cycling. They will be used to pre-
liminary select the cities. Then, the active characteristics will be created by intended development programs or projects.

The most bicycle-friendly cities

Despite much research and professional practice having been devoted to the evaluation of bicycle environments (Joo
et al., 2015) and their relationship to bicycle use rates (Schoner et al., 2015), only a limited number of them have focused
on the city scale. Most existing indices are concerned with bicycle routes and infrastructure. Three city-scale measures have
been identified. Two of these are limited to North American cities: the Bike Score index and the Bicycle-Friendly Community
award. Only one index evaluates the bicycle-friendliness level of world cities: the Copenhagenize Index of bicycle-friendly
cities (Vanoutrive, 2014). In 2011, the Copenhagenize Design Company, together with a technology consultant, developed
the index and now run it every two years (Moonen and Clark, 2013). The index is basically calculated according to 13 param-
eters. These parameters are advocacy, bicycle culture, bicycle facilities, bicycle infrastructure, bike-sharing programmes,
gender split, modal share for bicycles, modal share increase since 2006, perception of safety, politics, social acceptance,
urban planning and traffic calming (Copenhagenize Design Company, 2016). To calculate the score for a city, a value between
zero and four is awarded for each parameter, after which up to 12 bonus points can be awarded. Thus each city will be
214 M.A. Zayed / International Journal of Transportation Science and Technology 5 (2016) 210–225

assigned a score to a maximum of 64 points. Table 1 presents the 20 highest-scoring BFCs across the world according to this
index.

Identifying the urban attributes of BFCs

Here the research focuses on the main urban attributes of BFCs. It examines the key requirements for selecting cities to be
developed into bicycle-friendly ones. Such attributes can help decision-makers to identify the existence of genuine cycling
potential in their cities. As a result, the development of policies and strategies can be determined according to the status of
these attributes.

Analysis methodology

Statistical analysis was used to identify the urban attributes required of a BFC. Through the application of principal com-
ponent analysis, a proposed set of urban attributes was examined for the selected case studies. The analysis extracted those
variables that showed closest correlation with cycling.

Case studies

The top 20 BFCs around the world according to the 2015 Copenhagenize Index list were used as case studies. These cities
have a worldwide reputation for adopting bicycles as one of their main means of transport.

Variables

A group of 12 variables has been selected. The variables are related to one or more of the passive group of characteristics
of BFCs previously introduced. A brief description of each of these variables follows:

1. City Area. The gross area of the city as declared by the local authorities. The area is measured in square kilometres. Area
is considered to be a clear indicator of average trip length. The smaller the city area, the shorter the length of trips.
2. City Population. The number of people who are living in the city according to the national census. It is measured in
thousands of inhabitants and indicates the daily traffic volume in the city.
3. City Population Density. This is calculated by dividing city population by city gross area. It is measured in persons per
square kilometre and indicates the crowdedness of city dwellers in the urban fabric.
4. City Form. This is a variable that indicates the compactness of a city’s urban form. Compact urban form results in rel-
atively shorter trip lengths. It is a ratio that is calculated by dividing the perimeter of a city by its gross area. The higher
the ratio, the less compacted the city is and the longer the trip length. Fig. 2 illustrates different geometric forms with
different perimeters for the same area.

Table 1
Top 20 BFCs according to Copenhagenize Index.

Rank 2011 2013 2015

1 Amsterdam* Amsterdam Copenhagen
2 Copenhagen Copenhagen Amsterdam
3 Barcelona Utrecht Utrecht
4 Tokyo Seville Strasbourg
5 Berlin Bordeaux Eindhoven
6 Munich Nantes Malmö
7 Paris Antwerp Nantes
8 Montréal Eindhoven Bordeaux
9 Dublin Malmö Antwerp
10 Budapest Berlin Seville
11 Hamburg Dublin Barcelona
12 Guadalajara Tokyo Berlin
13 Portland Munich Ljubljana
14 Stockholm Montréal Buenos Aires
15 Helsinki Nagoya Dublin
16 London Rio De Janeiro Vienna
17 San Francisco Barcelona Paris
18 Rio De Janeiro Budapest Minneapolis
19 Vienna Paris Hamburg
20 New York Hamburg Montréal
*
Cities in bold have appeared in list on three successive occasions.
 M.A. Zayed / International Journal of Transportation Science and Technology 5 (2016) 210–225 215

Fig. 2. Sketches of different city form ratios for the same area.

5. City Sectors. This variable indicates the existence of natural separators of the urban form such as rivers and water
canals. These natural elements divide the city’s urban fabric into smaller regions. As a result, accessibility within
the city is affected and so too, indirectly, is trip length. Measured by a simple count, this variable specifies the number
of divisions in the city. Fig. 3 presents an example of the analysis of natural dividers in one BFC.
6. Land Use Geography. This variable addresses the distribution of land uses in the city fabric. It indicates to what extent a
mixture of land uses exists within the city. By using the land-use maps of the case study cities, this variable examines
the existence of mixed land uses (mainly residential and commercial) within a catchment area of five kilometres’
radius. This distance is considered as the average suited to cycling in urban areas (Blair, 2002; Lindsay et al., 2011).
Fig. 4 presents an example of the analysis of land use geography for one BFC.
7. Road Network Length. This is the total length of the network of main roads in the city. It is measured in kilometres from
maps of the case study cities. This variable indicates the potential infrastructure that may accommodate any future
cycling transport.
8. Motorized Transport Modal Split. This is a ratio between the public and private modes of transport in the city. It provides
an indication of the urban mobility culture of a city’s residents. The higher the ratio, the more dependence on public
transport exists.
9. Motorization Rate. This is the number of cars per 1,000 inhabitants. It indicates the level of car ownership in the city
and, as a result, the crowdedness of city roads by private motor vehicles for urban mobility.
10. Terrain Slope. This is the average slope of the city terrain. It is calculated in percentage terms through measurement of
elevation profiles in Google Earth software (Pro version). It generally indicates the slope of potential and existing cycle
routes in the city.

Fig. 3. An analysis of natural dividers in the city of Nantes, France.

216 M.A. Zayed / International Journal of Transportation Science and Technology 5 (2016) 210–225

Fig. 4. An analysis of the geography of land use in the city of Malmö, Sweden.

11. Annual Temperature. This is the average annual temperature of a city. It is calculated in degrees Celsius from the max-
imum and minimum annual temperature records of each city.
12. Yearly Precipitation. This is the average precipitation level across the year for a city and is measured in millimetres.

Table 2 presents the list of the coded variables and associated BFC characteristics, and Table 3 presents the descriptive
statistics of the variables.

Results

The factor analysis was applied on the 12 selected variables for the 20 case study cities. By using principal component
analysis as an extraction method, it took only one round to derive the final set of effective variables. In this round, the

Table 2
List of variables and related characteristics.

Code Variable High-density urban Diversified land-use Safe & comfortable transport Geo-environmental
development planning network characteristics
V01 City Area d
V02 City Population d
V03 City Population Density d
V04 City Form d
V05 City Sectors d
V06 Land Use Geography d
V07 Road Network Length d
V08 Motorized Transport d
Modal Split
V09 Motorization Rate d
V10 Terrain Slope d
V11 Annual Temperature d
V12 Yearly Precipitation d
 M.A. Zayed / International Journal of Transportation Science and Technology 5 (2016) 210–225 217

Table 3
Descriptive statistics of variables.

Var. Measurement unit Min. Max. Mean Std. deviation Rel. std. deviation
V01 km2 49.4 891.6 218.6 227.8 104.2
V02 Inhabitants (000s) 223.2 3292.4 1051.6 969.9 92.2
V03 Person/km2 1702.0 21153.0 5854.7 5277.8 90.1
V04 Ratio 0.2 0.8 0.5 0.2 36.9
V05 Count 1.0 65.0 9.2 13.6 148.9
V06 % 75.0 100.0 93.8 7.7 8.2
V07 km 165.0 717.0 325.3 192.3 59.1
V08 Ratio 0.1 1.9 0.5 0.4 82.0
V09 Cars/1000 inhabitants 226.0 719.0 399.7 114.4 28.6
V10 % 0.1 4.2 0.7 1.0 142.5
V11 °C 7.0 18.5 11.2 3.1 27.9
V12 mm 523.0 1368.0 780.5 212.4 27.2

analysis extracted only four components with initial eigenvalues greater than 1.0. The percentages of explained variance for
these components were 31%, 21%, 14% and 11%, respectively. The first component’s power is greatest and the difference
between it and the second one is also the largest between the four components. Thus, component one was used to filter
the variables according to their loadings. The selected cut-off threshold was 0.5, which satisfies most of the cut-off criteria
(Matsunaga, 2010; Yong and Pearce, 2013). As a result, five variables were extracted, and Table 4 presents the classification
of the variables after the first round of analysis.
For verification, a second run was applied after eliminating variables with weak loadings. This time, only one component
with initial eigenvalue greater than 1.0 was extracted. It is a very strong component as it alone accounts for 66% of the vari-
ance. In addition, there were no further weak variables to be eliminated. The results of both tests of the analysis sample ade-
quacy – which were the Kaiser–Meyer–Olkin (KMO) measure of sampling adequacy and Bartlett’s Test of Sphericity (Field,
2005) – produced better scores in comparison to the initial round. Table 5 presents the evolution of the main results across
the two rounds of factor analysis.
It should be noted that the extracted values of communalities for the five variables are high and this indicates that they
are well positioned in the common factor space.

Discussion

According to the results of the factor analysis, only five variables are strongly correlated with cycling rates in cities.
Together, these variables account for 66% of the readiness of cities for cycling as a primary mode of transport. The resultant
component structure could be used as an index of cycling readiness. Table 6 presents these five variables sorted according to
their loadings and communalities.
A brief discussion of each variable follows:

 City Population was the most influential variable that was positively correlated. It achieved the highest score in the com-
ponent loadings. It could be used to indicate the volume of passengers in the city. In the original sample, city population
values ranged between 0.2 and 3.2 million inhabitants. Fig. 5 presents the scatter diagram for the City Population variable
with the factor score of readiness index. The R2 value, which was 0.87, scored the highest among all extracted variables.
 Road Network Length was the second influential variable that was also positively correlated. It expresses the total length of
the main roads in the city, which indicates the potential space to establish cycle routes as well as the level of accessibility
in the city. Thus, the longer the main roads are, the better the opportunities to setup cycle routes. Fig. 5 presents the scat-
ter diagram for the Road Network Length variable with the factor score for readiness index. The R2 value of 0.8 was the
second highest among all of the extracted variables.

Table 4
Classification of variables after the first round of factor analysis.

Excluded variables Included variables

# Code Name # Code Name
1 V01 City Area 1 V03 City Population Density
2 V02 City Population 2 V05 City Sectors
3 V04 City Form 3 V06 Land Use Geography
4 V07 Road Network Length 4 V09 Motorization Rate
5 V08 Motorized Transport Modal Split 5 V10 Terrain Slope
6 V11 Annual Temperature
7 V12 Yearly Precipitation
218 M.A. Zayed / International Journal of Transportation Science and Technology 5 (2016) 210–225

Table 5
The evolution of factor analysis results across the two rounds.

Item Run 1 Run 2

No. of variables excluded 7 0
% of variance explained by first two components 31 66
KMO measure of sampling adequacy 0.5 0.7
Bartlett’s Test of Sphericity 131.2 54.4

Table 6
Variables of city readiness for cycling.

Code Name Component 1 loadings Communalities

V02 City Population 0.926 0.858
V07 Road Network Length 0.894 0.799
V04 City Form 0.819 0.671
V01 City Area 0.799 0.639
V08 Motorized Transport Modal Split 0.586 0.343

 City Form was an important variable that had a high loading in the principal extracted component. The City Form ratio
indicates the compactness of the city form. As compacted urban forms encompass shorter trip lengths than other urban
forms, the ratio value decrease for a compacted urban form confers a negative correlation on the loading for this variable.
Fig. 5 presents the scatter diagram for the City Form variable with the factor score of readiness index. The R2 value, which
was 0.78, scored the third highest among all extracted variables.
 City Area was also an important variable. It ranked fourth in correlation strength. It indicates the average length of trips in
the city, which is one of the main factors in cycling in cities. In the original sample, city area values ranged between 50
and 890 square kilometres approximately. Fig. 5 presents the scatter diagram for the City Area variable with the factor
score of readiness index. The R2 value of 0.71 was the fourth highest among all extracted variables.
 Motorized Transport Modal Split was the last correlated variable. There was a relatively wide gap between its loading and
that of its predecessor. This variable indicates the level of public transport use compared to private. It is suggested that
cities with high public transport modal splits have better opportunities to adopt cycling as a principal mode of transport.
Fig. 5 presents the scatter diagram for the Motorized Transport Modal Split variable with the factor score of readiness
index. The R2 value, which was 0.36, was the lowest among the extracted variables.

This suggests that city population is the most important indicator of a city’s readiness for cycling, followed by the length
of the main road network. Urban form and city area come next followed, lastly, by the motorized transport modal split.
It should be noted that other important variables were excluded by factor analysis, such as Land Use Geography (V06),
Yearly Precipitation (V12) and Annual Temperature (V11). The first of these is an indication of the diversity of land use
around users, and the others are indicative of climate conditions. In reviewing the descriptive statistics table (Table 3), these
variables appear to exhibit the lowest values of relative standard deviation. Thus the variance within these variables is lim-
ited and cannot be extracted in the first component. This limitation in variance suggests that the top 20 BFCs have similar
conditions in relation to these characteristics. As a result, these three attributes almost certainly have a role to play in eval-
uating the readiness of cities for cycling, despite their exclusion through the statistical analysis.

Evaluating the readiness of Egyptian cities for cycling

This element of the research analyzed the readiness of Egyptian cities for utilitarian cycling. Using the statistical analysis
of the attributes of the top 20 BFCs, the research investigated the potential of cycling in Egyptian cities according to the sta-
tus of urban attributes derived from the previous analysis.

Variables

At the outset, the analysis was intended to be based on five variables – City Population, City Area, City Form, Road Net-
work Length and Motorized Transport Modal Split – because these were the best-correlated with the adoption of cycling in
cities. However, because of a lack of requisite data, the analysis was applied on just four variables: there are no data in Egypt
about transport modal split other than for the Greater Cairo region and this is no more recent than the year 2000. In addition,
three other variables were considered in order to provide extra analysis of the case studies. These variables were Terrain
Slope, Annual Temperature and Yearly Precipitation. Despite these three variables having been excluded in the analysis of
the top 20 BFCs, they do have a direct effect on bicycle use.
M.A. Zayed / International Journal of Transportation Science and Technology 5 (2016) 210–225 219

Fig. 5. Scatter diagrams of the five excluded variables with factor score of readiness index.
220 M.A. Zayed / International Journal of Transportation Science and Technology 5 (2016) 210–225

Case studies

A set of 42 cities was selected. The selection criterion was based on city population (a lower threshold of 100,000 inhab-
itants). These cities are located in 24 of Egypt’s 27 administrative governorates.

Analysis methodology

The statistical analysis was applied at two levels. Firstly, a descriptive analysis was applied to the three extra variables in
relation to the cities, and then compared with the results of the analysis of the world’s top 20 BFCs. Table 7 presents the
results of this comparison.
According to the comparison, both the average terrain slope and the yearly precipitation in the selected Egyptian cities
are below that of most of the world’s top 20 BFCs. However, the average annual temperature of the selected cities in Egypt
is higher than that of the 20 BFCs although still below the maximum optimal temperature for cycling of 28 °C (Ahmed et al.,
2010). Thus these three natural characteristics of Egyptian cities are suited to cycling.
For the second level, factor analysis was used again, but this time to rank the Egyptian cities according to their readiness
for cycling. This was done by calculating a numerical readiness index for each city according to the proposed index structure
of the four remaining principal variables.

Findings

The results of the first run of factor analysis demonstrated the high level of adequacy of the sample. A KMO measure and
Bartlett’s Test produced scores of 0.77 and 150.66 respectively. Only one component with initial eigenvalue greater than 1.0
was extracted. This component was a substantial one as it alone accounted for 77.6% of the variance in the selected set.
According to this component, the four variables were strongly correlated and there were no excluded variables. A second
run of the analysis was then applied in order to calculate the factor score of each case study city according to the variables
structure of the extracted component. Table 8 presents the ranking of the selected Egyptian cities according to their readi-
ness to adopt cycling as a primary mode of transport.

Discussion

According to the factor scores of city readiness to adopt cycling, the Egyptian cities vary widely in their readiness. Scores
ranged between 436 (the maximum) and -99 (the minimum). Three distinct sets of cities could be identified. Set 1 incorpo-
rated those 11 cities that achieved positive scores. Set 2 covers the two cities that scored zero, which could therefore be con-
sidered as neutral for cycling adoption. One of them, Mansoura, is located in the Nile Delta, and the other one, Asyut, is
located in Upper Egypt. By contrast, Set 3 incorporates the 29 cities that achieved negative scores. The 11 cities of Set 1,
which have higher levels of cycling readiness, are Cairo, Alexandria, 6th October, New Cairo, 10th of Ramadan, Giza, Suez,
Shubra el-Kheima, Ismailia, Port Said and Hurghada. Fig. 6 illustrates the geographical distribution of these cities.
Nine of these 11 cities are located in a triangle-shaped area that lies between the Suez Canal and the Greater Cairo region.
The other two cities are located on the coast. With the exceptions of Giza and Shubra el-Kheima, all of the cities are located in
urban governorates. It is notable that the readiness scores of these 11 cities vary widely, with the top-ranked city (Cairo)
achieving a score of 436 and the eleventh-ranked city (Hurghada) achieving a score of just 3. Fig. 7 presents scatter diagrams
illustrating the relationships between the readiness index and the four key variables. On the basis of these diagrams, the 11
cities could be classified into three sub-groups: Group 1 includes Cairo alone; Group 2 includes Alexandria, 6th October, New
Cairo, 10th of Ramadan and Giza; Group 3 includes Suez, Shubra el-Kheima, Ismailia, Port Said and Hurghada. It seems likely
that converting these cities to BFCs may require different approaches, frameworks and plans to adapt to the circumstances of
each city group or individual city.
On the other hand, the 29 cities that have lower levels of cycling readiness are mainly scattered across the Delta and
Upper Egypt governorates. All of these cities are located in rural governorates. In contrast to the first set, these cities achieved
relatively convergent scores. Many cities had very close and sometimes identical factor scores, such as Benha, Girga, Luxor,
Shibin el-Kom and Minya, which achieved scores of 53, 54, 55, 56 and 56, respectively. As a result, it is hard to clas-
sify them further into sub-categories in the manner of the first set. Fig. 8 presents scatter diagrams for the relationships
between the readiness index and the variables.

Table 7
Comparison of natural characteristics between Egyptian cities and the top 20 BFCs.

Natural characteristic Terrain slope Annual temperature Yearly precipitation

Min. Max. Mean Min. Max. Mean Min. Max. Mean
Egyptian cities 0.1 2.7 0.8 20.0 27.0 21.3 0.0 183.0 42.8
World’s top 20 BFCs 0.1 4.2 0.7 7.0 18.5 11.2 523.0 1368.0 780.5
 M.A. Zayed / International Journal of Transportation Science and Technology 5 (2016) 210–225 221

Table 8
Ranking of selected Egyptian cities according to the Cycling Readiness Index.

Rank City Factor score Rank City Factor score

1 Cairo 436 22 Damietta 27
2 Alexandria 207 23 Zagazig 29
3 6th October 193 24 Damanhour 30
4 New Cairo 158 25 Khusus 36
5 10th of Ramadan 140 26 Fayoum 39
6 Giza 123 27 Bilbeis 50
7 Suez 25 28 Benha 53
8 Shubra el-Kheima 20 29 Girga 54
9 Ismailia 19 30 Luxor 55
10 Port Said 18 31 Shibin el-Kom 56
11 Hurghada 3 32 Minya 56
12 Asyut 0 33 Kafr el-Sheikh 58
13 Mansoura 0 34 Kafr ad-Dawwar 59
14 Mersa Matruh 7 35 Desouk 61
15 Qena 12 36 Abu Kabir 62
16 Mahalla el-Kubra 12 37 Mallawi 70
17 Arish 13 38 Mit Ghamr 73
18 Beni Suef 22 39 Hawamidiyah 76
19 Aswan 22 40 Qalyub 77
20 Sohag 23 41 Akhmim 85
21 Tanta 26 42 Matareya 99

Fig. 6. Locations of the positively scoring Egyptian cities (Set 1).

222 M.A. Zayed / International Journal of Transportation Science and Technology 5 (2016) 210–225

Fig. 7. Scatter diagrams of the four key variables with the factor score of readiness index for the positively scoring cities (Set 1).

Conclusion

In response to major environmental, socioeconomic and transport challenges in contemporary cities, the world has rec-
ognized the importance of reviving non-motorized transport means and, in particular, cycling. A sustainable transport
framework that is mainly dependent on non-motorized means is now one of the principal goals of urban development pro-
grammes in many countries of the developed world. Utilitarian cycling offers many important benefits at the levels of urban
mobility, environment, health and social life. Replacing motor vehicles with bicycles in daily urban mobility positively affects
both the individual user and the community. The bicycle-friendly city, or BFC, is a well-established worldwide term that
describes the existence of suitable infrastructure, transportation policies and societal awareness to prioritize and encourage
the use of bicycles instead of other, motorized means. According to the Copenhagenize Index, the majority of BFCs are in
Europe. Statistical analysis of the urban and environmental attributes of BFCs identifies a set of five primary indicators of
city readiness to adopt cycling. These indicators are city population, road network length, city form, city area and motorized
transport modal split. All of these indicators are positively correlated with cycling with the exception of city form, which is
negatively correlated as linear urban forms result in longer trip distances that are harder to cycle. These five indicators
together form an index of city readiness for cycling. When this index is applied to Egyptian cities they can be classified into
three main sets. The first is cities with higher levels of readiness. Most of these cluster in a triangle-shaped region extending
from the Suez Canal (base) to Greater Cairo (head) within a group of urban governorates. The second set consists of cities
 M.A. Zayed / International Journal of Transportation Science and Technology 5 (2016) 210–225 223

Fig. 8. Scatter diagrams of the four key variables with the factor score of readiness index for the negatively scoring cities (Set 3).

with neutral cycling readiness. The third set, the largest one, represents cities with lower levels of readiness. Such cities are
mainly scattered throughout the Nile Delta and Upper Egypt, and lie within rural governorates. Future research work in this
field should spotlight the potential approaches, frameworks and plans for developing cities into BFCs according to their level
of readiness.

References

Ahmed, F., Rose, G., Jacob, C., 2010. Impact of weather on commuter cyclist behaviour and implications for climate change adaptation, in: Proceedings of the
33rd Australasian Transport Research Forum, Canberra, Australia, pp. 593–601.
Alliance for Biking & Walking, 2014. Bicycling and Walking in The United States – 2014 Benchmarking Report. Alliance for Biking & Walking, Washington,
DC.
Barwaldt, M., Franzin, R., Casarin, V., Santos, A., 2014. Using the theory of graphs on the implementation of bike lane in small towns. Procedia Soc. Behav. Sci.
162, 350–358.
Bassett, D., Pucher, J., Buehler, R., Thompson, D., Crouter, S., 2008. Walking cycling, and obesity rates in Europe, North America, and Australia. J. Phys. Act.
Health 5 (6), 795–814.
Basu, S., Vasudevan, V., 2013. Effect of bicycle friendly roadway infrastructure on bicycling activities in urban India. Procedia Soc. Behav. Sci. 104, 1139–
1148.
Bauman, A., Rissel, C., 2009. Cycling and health: an opportunity for positive change? Med. J. Aust. 190 (7), 347–348.
224 M.A. Zayed / International Journal of Transportation Science and Technology 5 (2016) 210–225

Bauman, A., Rissel, C., Garrard, J., Ker, I., Speidel, R., Fishman, E., 2008. Cycling: getting Australia moving – barriers, facilitators and interventions to get more
Australians physically active through cycling, in: Proceedings of the 31st Australasian Transport Research Forum, Gold Coast, Australia, pp. 593–601.
Bernardi, S., Rupi, F., 2015. An analysis of bicycle travel speed and disturbances on off-street and on-street facilities. Transp. Res. Procedia 5, 82–94.
Biack, W., 1996. Sustainable transportation: a US perspective. J. Transp. Geogr. 4 (3), 151–159.
Bickis, L., 2003. An Investigation of Best Practices for Improving Urban Cycling Conditions in Canada (Unpublished thesis). Queen’s University, Canada.
Blair, T., 2002. The Bicycle Compatibility of Streets in Downtown Calgary (Unpublished thesis). University of Calgary, Canada.
Blickstein, S., 2010. Automobility and the politics of bicycling in New York City. Int. J. Urban Reg. Res. 34 (4), 886–905.
Brown, B., Smith, K., Hanson, H., Fan, J., Kowaleski-Jones, L., Zick, C., 2008. Neighborhood design for walking and biking - physical activity and body mass
index. Am. J. Prev. Med. 44 (3), 231–238.
Buehler, R., 2012. Determinants of bicycle commuting in the Washington DC region: the role of bicycle parking, cyclist showers, and free car parking at
work. Transp. Res. D Transp. Environ. 17 (7), 525–531.
Buehler, R., Pucher, J., 2012. Big city cycling in Europe, North America, and Australia. In: Buehler, R., Pucher, J. (Eds.), City Cycling. MIT Press, Cambridge, MA,
pp. 287–318.
Castillo-Manzano, J., Castro-Nuño, M., López-Valpuesta, L., 2015. Analyzing the transition from a public bicycle system to bicycle ownership: a complex
relationship. Transp. Res. D Transp. Environ. 38, 15–26.
Copenhagenize Design Company, 2016. The Criteria for the Copenhagenize Index. Copenhagen. www.copenhagenize.eu/index/criteria.html, (Accessed 30
March 2016).
Cui, Y., Mishra, S., Welch, T., 2014. Land use effects on bicycle ridership: a framework for state planning agencies. J. Transp. Geogr. 41, 220–228.
David, K.S., Sullivan, M., 2005. Expectations for walking speeds: standards for students in elementary schools. Pediatr. Phys. Ther. 17 (2), 120–127.
Dondi, G., Simone, A., Lantieri, C., Vignali, V., 2011. Bike lane design: the context sensitive approach. Procedia Eng. 21, 897–906.
Drumheller, B., Quaid, A., Wyman, M., Liljenwall, J., Young, A., 2001. Sustainable transportation options for protecting the climate. International Council for
Local Environmental Initiatives, Berkeley, CA.
Eryiğit, S., Ter, Ü., 2014. The effects of cultural values and habits on bicycle use – Konya sample. Procedia Soc. Behav. Sci. 140, 178–185.
European Commission, 2011. Roadmap to a Single European Transport Area – Towards a Competitive and Resource Efficient Transport System. European
Commission, Brussels.
European Commission, 2012. Towards Low Carbon Transport in Europe. European Commission, Luxembourg.
Field, P., 2005. Discovering statistics using SPSS. SAGE Publications, London.
Flamm, B., Sutula, K., Meenar, M., 2014. Changes in access to public transportation for cycle-transit users in response to service reductions. Transp. Policy 35,
154–161.
Gössling, S., 2013. Urban transport transitions: Copenhagen City of cyclists. J. Transp. Geogr. 33, 196–206.
Habib, K., Mann, J., Mahmoud, M., Weiss, A., 2014. Synopsis of bicycle demand in the city of Toronto: Investigating the effects of perception, consciousness
and comfortability on the purpose of biking and bike ownership. Transp. Res. A Policy Pract. 70, 67–80.
Heinen, E., Maat, K., Wee, B., 2011. The role of attitudes toward characteristics of bicycle commuting on the choice to cycle to work over various distances.
Transp. Res. D Transp. Environ. 16, 102–109.
Joo, S., Oh, C., 2013. A novel method to monitor bicycling environments. Transp. Res. A Policy Pract. 54, 1–13.
Joo, S., Oh, C., Jeong, E., Lee, G., 2015. Categorizing bicycling environments using GPS-based public bicycle speed data. Transp. Res. C Emerg. Technol. 56,
239–250.
Kassens, E., 2009. Sustainable transportation: an international perspective. Projections 9, 7–9.
Kristinsdottir, S., 2012. A Bicycle Friendly City, a Possibility or a Dream? (Unpublished thesis) Lund University, Sweden.
Krizec, K., 2007. Estimating the economic benefits of bicycling and bicycle facilities: an interpretive review and proposed methods. In: Coto-Millan, P.,
Inglada, V. (Eds.), Essays on Transport Economics. Physica-Verlag, Heidelberg, Germany, pp. 219–248.
Küster, F., Blondel, B., 2013. Calculating the economic benefits of cycling in EU-27. European Cyclists’ Federation, Brussels.
Lanzendorf, M., Busch-Geertsema, A., 2014. The cycling boom in large German cities–empirical evidence for successful cycling campaigns. Transp. Policy 36,
26–33.
Li, Z., Wang, W., Liu, P., Ragland, D., 2012. Physical environments influencing bicyclists’ perception of comfort on separated and on-street bicycle facilities.
Transp. Res. D Transp. Environ. 17 (3), 256–262.
Lindsay, G., Macmillan, A., Woodward, A., 2011. Moving urban trips from cars to bicycles: impact on health and emissions. Aust. N. Z. J. Public Health 35 (1),
54–60.
Lowe, M., 1989. The Bicycle: Vehicle for a Small Planet. Worldwatch Institute, Washington, DC.
Lowry, M., Furth, P., Hadden-Loh, T., 2016. Prioritizing new bicycle facilities to improve low-stress network connectivity. Transp. Res. A Policy Pract. 86,
124–140.
Ma, L., Dill, J., 2015. Associations between the objective and perceived built environment and bicycling for transportation. J. Transp. Health 2, 248–255.
Majumdara, B., Mitra, S., 2013. Investigating the relative influence of various factors in bicycle mode choice. Procedia Soc. Behav. Sci. 104, 1120–1129.
Marshall, W., Garrick, N., 2011. Evidence on why bike-friendly cities are safer for all road users. Environ. Pract. 13, 16–27.
Matsunaga, M., 2010. How to factor–analyze your data right: do’s dont’s, and how-to’s. Int. J. Psychol. Res. 3 (1), 97–110.
Meng, M., Koh, P., Wong, Y., Zhong, Y., 2014. Influences of urban characteristics on cycling: experiences of four cities. Sustain. Cities Soc. 13, 78–88.
Moonen, T., Clark, G., 2013. The Business of Cities 2013: What Do 150 City Indexes and Benchmarking Studies Tell us About the Urban World in 2013? Jones
Lang LaSalle, London.
Oja, P., Titze, S., Bauman, A., De Geus, B., Krenn, P., Reger-Nash, B., et al, 2011. Health benefits of cycling: a systematic review. Scand. J. Med. Sci. Sports 21,
496–509.
Owen, N., De Bourdeaudhuij, I., Sugiyama, T., Leslie, E., Cerin, E., Van Dyck, D., et al, 2010. Bicycle use for transport in an Australian and a Belgian city:
associations with built-environment attributes. J. Urban Health 87 (2), 189–198.
Passafaro, P., Rimano, A., Piccini, M., Metastasio, R., Gambardella, V., Gullace, G., et al, 2014. The bicycle and the city: desires and emotions versus attitudes,
habits and norms. J. Environ. Psychol. 38, 76–83.
Pedestrian and Bicycle Information Center, 2010. The National Bicycling and Walking Study: 15-Year Status Report. Pedestrian and Bicycle Information
Center, Chapel Hill, NC.
Proulx, D., Baron, S., 2015. Transportation Infrastructure Capacity Guidelines Metrics for Designing Infrastructure. Slow Streets Group, Vancouver.
Pucher, J., Buehler, R., 2006. Why Canadians cycle more than Americans: a comparative analysis of bicycling trends and policies. Transp. Policy 13, 265–279.
Pucher, J., Dijkstra, L., 2003. Promoting safe walking and cycling to improve public health: lessons from the Netherlands and Germany. Am. J. Public Health
93 (9), 1509–1516.
Pucher, J., Komanoff, C., Schimek, P., 1999. Bicycling renaissance in North America? Recent Trends and Alternative Policies to Promote Bicycling. Transp. Res.
A Policy Pract. 33, 625–654.
Rastogi, R., 2011. Promotion of non-motorized modes as a sustainable transportation option: policy and planning issues. Curr. Sci. India 100 (9), 1340–1348.
Reynolds, C., Harris, M., Teschke, K., Cripton, P., Winters, M., 2009. The impact of transportation infrastructure on bicycling injuries and crashes: a review of
the literature. Environ. Health 8 (47), 1–19.
Rietveld, P., Daniel, V., 2004. Determinants of bicycle use: do municipal policies matter? Transp. Res. A Policy Pract. 38, 531–550.
Rissel, C., Greaves, S., Wen, L., Capon, A., Crane, M., Standen, C., 2013. Evaluating the transport, health and economic impacts of new urban cycling
infrastructure in Sydney, Australia – protocol paper. BMC Public Health 13 (1), 1–8.
Roman, M., 2014. Bicycle transport as an opportunity to develop Urban tourism – Warsaw example. Procedia Soc. Behav. Sci. 151, 295–301.
 M.A. Zayed / International Journal of Transportation Science and Technology 5 (2016) 210–225 225

Rybarczyk, G., Wu, C., 2010. Bicycle facility planning using GIS and multi-criteria decision analysis. Appl. Geogr. 30, 282–293.
Sayers, S., LeMaster, J., Thomas, I., Petroski, G., Ge, B., 2012. Bike, walk, and wheel: a way of life in Columbia Missouri, revisited. Am. J. Prev. Med. 43 (5S4),
S379–S383.
Schepers, J., Heinen, E., 2013. How does a modal shift from short car trips to cycling affect road safety? Accid. Anal. Prev. 50, 1118–1127.
Schoner, J., Cao, J., Levinson, D., 2015. Catalysts and magnets: built environment and bicycle commuting. J. Transp. Geogr. 47, 100–108.
Spencer, P., Watts, R., Vivanco, L., Flynn, B., 2013. The effect of environmental factors on bicycle commuters in Vermont: influences of a northern climate. J.
Transp. Geogr. 31, 11–17.
Stallard, S. (Ed.), 2004. Bike Sense: The British Columbia Bicycle Operator’s Manual. Greater Victoria Cycling Coalition, Vancouver.
Stanley, J., Hensher, D., Loader, C., 2011. Road transport and climate change: stepping off the greenhouse gas. Transp. Res. A Policy Pract. 45, 1020–1030.
Sterner, T., 2007. Fuel taxes: an important instrument for climate policy. Energy Policy 35, 3194–3202.
Stewart, O., Moudon, A., 2014. Using the built environment to oversample walk, transit, and bicycle travel. Transp. Res. D Transp. Environ. 32, 15–23.
Suzuki, D., Hanington, I., 2012. Everything Under the Sun: Toward a Brighter Future on a Small Blue Planet. Greystone, Vancouver.
Taddei, C., Gnesotto, R., Forni, S., Bonaccorsi, G., Vannucci, A., Garofalo, G., 2015. Cycling promotion and non-communicable disease prevention: health
impact assessment and economic evaluation of cycling to work or school in Florence. PLoS One 10 (4), 1–22.
Tiwari, G., Jain, D., Rao, K., 2015. Impact of public transport and non-motorized transport infrastructure on travel mode shares, energy, emissions and safety:
case of Indian cities. Transp. Res. D Transp. Environ. 44, 277–291.
Vanoutrive, T., 2014. The modal split of cities: a workplace-based mixed modelling perspective. Tijdschr Econ. Soc. Geogr. 106 (5), 503–520.
Williams, S., 2015. New platinum, new gold bicycle friendly communities. The League of American Bicyclists. http://www.bikeleague.org/content/new-
platinum-new-gold-bicycle-friendly-communities. (Accessed 31 March 2016).
Winters, M., Friesen, M., Koehoorn, M., Teschke, K., 2007. Utilitarian Bicycling: A Multilevel Analysis of Climate and Personal Influences. Am. J. Prev. Med. 32
(1), 52–58.
Yong, G., Pearce, S., 2013. A Beginner’s guide to factor analysis: focusing on exploratory factor analysis. Tutor. Quant. Methods Psychol. 9 (2), 79–94.