If we build it, who will benefit? A multi-criteria approach for the prioritization of new bicycle lanes in Quebec City, Canada

Abstract

Many cities across the world are actively promoting cycling through investments in cycling infrastructure, yet ensuring that the benefits from these investments are distributed equally in a region and not benefiting only one group is an important social goal. The aim of this study is to develop a methodology that can help in identifying where new bicycle facilities can be built in a region while prioritizing investments for those who need them most. The study uses Quebec City, Canada, as an example since the city has recently made a strong commitment to provide safe and attractive bicycle infrastructure to its residents. It also uses a GIS-based grid cell model to identify priority areas for cycling investment in different parts of the city. This is followed by a proposal for a new set of facilities based on a multi-criteria approach. These proposed facilities are then evaluated through a level of usage analysis to determine which routes will provide the maximum benefit to existing and potential cyclists. Finally, an equity analysis is conducted to evaluate whether the new facilities will meet some of the travel needs of individuals residing in socially deprived neighborhoods. This step in the evaluation process proposes a new social equity component in bicycle planning processes. This research can be of value to planners, engineers and policymakers working toward investments in bicycle facilities because it shows the full process of planning and evaluating different cycling facilities while incorporating social equity principles.

Appraisal of cycling and pedestrian projects

“…Conventional reductionist approaches have been criticized for leading to sub-optimal decisions due to the inherent complexity of sustainability dilemmas, such as transport policies ( Browne and Ryan, 2011 ; Gasparatos et al, 2008 ; Omann, 2000 ). In this perspective, MCA is increasingly being proposed as a viable alternative also in the field of walking and cycling appraisal ( Glavic et al, 2019 ; Grisé and El-Geneidy, 2018 ) since: There is a need to include and deal with effects that are typically difficult to quantify and monetize yet relevant for planning walking and cycling infrastructure (such as comfort, aesthetic quality etc.) as well as addressing equity questions.…”

“…Criteria included in walking and cycling MCA range depending on the planning scale, the method used, the available data and the study design. Usually, at a strategic level (such as in Grisé and El-geneidy, 2018 ; Milakis et al, 2012 ) network characteristics, mobility demand patterns, socio-economic features, proximity to destinations, characteristic of the landscape and built environment are observed. At a tactical-operational level (such as in Canu et al, 2018 ), more detailed criteria related to the specific context as well as technical aspects are included.…”

“…At a tactical-operational level (such as in Canu et al, 2018 ), more detailed criteria related to the specific context as well as technical aspects are included. Some studies have also explicitly included equity criteria in their own analysis (examples are Grisé and El-geneidy, 2018 ; Kent and Karner, 2018 ).…”

Impact of land use on bicycle usage: A big data-based spatial approach to inform transport planning

“…Using the social network analysis method, Shi, Si, Wu, Su, and Lan (2018) identify the stakeholder-associated critical factors and their interactions to provide implications for FFBS sustainability. Some other studies pay attention to rebalancing problems (Faghih-Imani, Hampshire, Marla, & Eluru, 2017), infrastructure investment (Grisé & El-Geneidy, 2018) and so on. These system-level efforts can provide useful references for program installing decision and management while coordinating existing systems.…”

Geographical Assessment of Low-Carbon Transportation Modes: A Case Study from a Commuter University

“…Automobile transportation dependents on fossil fuels is the primary sources of CO 2 emissions and is growing at faster rate than any other energy sector in the United States [8] mainly due to the unlimited desire for personal mobility [9]. As part of the reversion process, a descent investment in LCT infrastructures has been ongoing not only in American college and university campuses, but almost in every urban areas of the United States [5,[10][11][12][13].…”