Table 1 Study characteristics of infrastructural interventions to promote cycling

Aittasalo [23] (Finland)

Environmental improvements made to the main and connecting walking and cycling paths

No

Employees working at workplaces in the area where new infrastructure was introduced

Survey

Time between measurements; 18–24 months

Time exposed; 2 months

Cycling frequency as part of the journey to work (days/week)

Difference over time, tested by Wilcoxon Signed Rank Test

Unadjusted

Not in favor of the intervention, not significant

A: Not applicable

R: Not applicable

Cycling distance as part of the journey to work (km/trip)

Not in favor of the intervention, not significant

A: Not applicable

R: Not applicable

Cycling time as part of the journey to work (min/trip)

Not in favor of the intervention, not significant

A: Not applicable

R: Not applicable

Cycling frequency as part of the journey from work (days/week)

Not in favor of the intervention, not significant

A: Not applicable

R: Not applicable

Cycling distance as part of the journey from work (km/trip)

Not in favor of the intervention, not significant

A: Not applicable

R: Not applicable

Cycling time as part of the journey from work (min/trip)

Not in favor of the intervention, not significant

A: Not applicable

R: Not applicable

Aldred [24] (UK)

Infrastructural interventions in 3 neighborhoods, transforming local environments for walking and cycling

Yes

Residents living in the intervention areas vs control areas

Travel diary

Time between measurements; 12 months

Time exposed; not specified but could range from 1 to 12 months

Made a bike trip in the past week (yes-no)

Difference-in-difference, tested by regression models

Demographic variables, socioeconomic variables, health indicator, and car ownership

In favor of the intervention, not significant

A: 3.2%-point

R: 16%

Cycling time (min/week)

In favor of the intervention, not significant

A: 4 min/week

R: 14%

Yes

Residents living in low-dose or high-dose areas (defined by stakeholders involved in implementation) in the intervention areas vs control areas

Travel diary

Time between measurements; 12 months

Time exposed; not specified but could range from 1 to 12 months

Made a bike trip in the past week (yes-no)

Difference-in-difference, tested by regression models

Demographic variables, socioeconomic variables, health indicator, and car ownership

All comparisons in favor of the intervention

Low-dose area: not significant

A: 0.7%-point

R: 10%

High-dose area: significant

A: 7.2%-point

R: 24%

Cycling time (min/week)

All comparisons in favor of the intervention:

Low-dose area:

not significant

A: 1 min/week

R: 5%

High-dose area: not significant

A: 9 min/week

R: 30%

Brown [25] (US)

Complete street intervention including the completion of an incomplete bike lane (10.7 km), connecting the airport to down town districts

Yes

Residents living near (≤0.8 km) vs far (0.8–2 km) from the new infrastructure

GPS and accelerometers

Time between measurements; 12 months

Time exposed; 1–8 months

Made a bike trip on the intervention road (yes-no)

Difference-in-difference, but no statistical test conducted

Demographic and socioeconomic variables

Not in favor of the intervention, significance not tested

A: 0%-point

R: −11%

Brown [26] (US)

Same as above

No

Residents living within 2 km of the new infrastructure

GPS and accelerometers

Time between measurements; 12 months

Time exposed; 1–8 months

Cycling time on the intervention road among those who cycled (min/week)

Difference tested by paired t-test

Unadjusted

In favor of the intervention, not significant

A: 7 min/week

R: 38%

Cycling time off the intervention road among those who cycled (min/week)

In favor of the intervention, not significant

A: 6 min/week

R: 15%

Burbidge and Goulias [27] (US)

Installation of a multi-use trail, creating a 4-km loop connecting two currently existing sidewalks, serving as transportation and recreation facility

No

Residents living within 1.6 km of the new infrastructure

Travel diary

Time between measurements; 12 months

Time exposed; 5 months

Total cycling trips (trips/day)

Difference tested by fixed effects regression models

Not reported

In favor of the intervention, not significant

A: 0.01 trips/day

R: 33%

Chowdhury [28] (New Zealand)

Introduction of a 3 cycle ways linking suburbs with the central business district, and the associated promotional campaigns

No

Residents living in the city where the new infrastructure was introduced

Survey

Time between measurements; 4 years

Time exposed; 12 months

Cycling at least weekly (yes-no)

Difference, but no statistical test conducted

Unadjusted

In favor of the intervention, significance not tested

A: 10%-point

R: 40%

Crane [29] (Australia)

A new cycle way (2.4 km) linking a new urban renewal area with the central business district

Yes

Residents living in the intervention area (suburbs surrounding the cycle way) vs a control area (matched for demographic characteristics)

Survey

Time between measurements; 23–25 months

Time exposed; 15–17 months

Cycling at least weekly (yes-no)

Difference-in-difference tested by regression models that included a two-way interaction term between

time and proximity

Demographic variables

In favor of the intervention, not significant

A: 44%-point

R: 179%

Yes

Residents living closer (< 1 km, 1–3 km)

vs further (> 3 km) from the new infrastructure

Travel diary

Time between measurements; 23–25 months

Time exposed; 15–17 months

Cycling duration (min/week)

Those living < 1 km of the intervention: not in favor of the intervention, not significant

A: −37 min/week

R: −21%

Those living 1–3 km from the intervention: in favor of the intervention, significant

A: 96 min/week

R: 54%

Deegan [30] (UK)

Extension of a city-wide cycling network aiming for 900 km, unfinished

No

Residents living in 31 intervention areas. Area-wide cycling trends in 2 control areas are presented for comparison

Survey (census data)

Time between measurements; 10 years

Time exposed; not specified but could range from 1 to 10 years

Proportion of commuting trips made by bike (%)

Difference-in-difference, but no statistical test conducted

Not reported

In favor of the intervention, significance not tested

Average in 31 areas:

A: not reported

R: 87%

Average in 2 control areas:

A: not reported

R: 75%

Dill [31] (US)

Installation of 8 bicycle boulevards (1.4 km to 6.7 km long)

Yes

Residents living within 0.3 km of the 8 intervention streets vs residents living within 0.3 km of the 11 control streets (selected to be similar in urban form and demographic characteristics)

GPS and accelerometers

Time between measurements; 12 months

Time exposed; 2–12 months

Cycling at least 10 min a day (yes-no)

Difference-in-difference tested by regression models that included a two-way interaction term between treatment and period

Demographic variables, weather conditions, distance to downtown, bike attitudes and car safety attitudes

In favor of the intervention, not significant

A: 9%-point

R: 22%

Cycling time (min/day) for those cycling at least 10 min/day

Not in favor of the intervention, significant

A: − 1 min/day

R: − 1%

Made a bike trip (yes-no)

Not in favor of the intervention, not significant

A: −8%-point

R: −15%

Number of bike trips (trips/day) for those that made a bike trip

Not in favor of the intervention, not significant

A: −0.4 trips/day

R: −9%

Evenson [32] (US)

Extension of an existing trail (4.5 km), along with a spur (3.2 km) passing by schools, shopping areas, apartment buildings, and residential areas

No

Residents living in census blocks that are crossed by the intervention

Telephone interview

Time between measurements; 19–28 months

Time exposed; 2 months

Median cycling time (min/week)

Difference tested by Wilcoxon nonparametric test for differences

Unadjusted

Not in favor of the intervention, not significant

A: 0 min/week

R: 0%

Median cycling time for transportation (min/month)

Not in favor of the intervention, not significant

A: 0 min/week

R: 0%

Goodman [33] (UK)

Construction of new walking and cycling infrastructure and improvement of existing routes in 3 cities plus a modest amount of promotion activities

Yes

Residents living within 5 km of the new infrastructure using proximity for comparison (per 1 km closer to the intervention)

7-day recall instrument

Time between measurements; 24 months

Time exposed; 7–21 months

Cycling time for transport (min/week)

Difference-in-difference tested by regression models

Demographic variables, socioeconomic variables, health indicator, and car ownership

Not in favor of the intervention, not significant

A: −0.2 min/week

R: not reported

Survey

Cycling time for recreation (min/week)

In favor of the intervention, significant

A: 2.5 min/week

R: not reported

Song [34] (UK)

Same as above

No

Residents living within 5 km of the new infrastructure

7-day recall instrument

Time between measurements; 24 months

Time exposed; 7–21 months

Cycling time for utility purpose (min/week)

Difference over time tested by paired sample t-test

Unadjusted

In favor of the intervention, not significant

A: 0.4 min/week

R: 2%

Cycling distance for utility purpose (km/week)

In favor of the intervention, not significant

A: 0.4 km/week

R: 7%

Hirsch [35] (US)

Expansion of two trails (16.3 km), including a bicycle and pedestrian bridge connecting residential areas to employment centers downtown and at the university

No

Residents living in 116 areas of the city with the new infrastructure. Historical time trends are presented for comparison

Survey (census data) Time between measurements; 10 years

Time exposed; not specified but could range from 3 to 10 years

Proportion of workers who commuted by bike (%)

Difference over time, but no statistical test conducted

Not reported

In favor of the intervention, significance not tested

A: 2.3%-point

R: 130%

Historical trend:

A: 0.1%-point

R: not reported

Yes

Residents living in 116 areas of the city with the new infrastructure using distance to the intervention for comparison (results presented for the 25th, 50th and 75th percentiles)

Proportion of workers who commuted by bike (%)

Difference-in-difference tested by regression models that included a two-way interaction term between

time and treatment

Demographic variables, socioeconomic variables, cycling infrastructure characteristics, total work-related trips, proportion of trips that cross the trail system

All comparisons in favor of the intervention, and all significant

25th percentile (1.1 km):

A: 2.0%-point

R: 115%

50th percentile (2.8 km):

A: 1.9%-point

R: 107%

75th percentile (5.9 km):

A: 1.6%-point

R: 92%

Yes

Residents living in 116 areas of the city with the new infrastructure using proportion of commuting trips crossing the trail for comparison (results presented for the 25th, 50th and 75th percentiles)

Proportion of workers who commuted by bike (%)

Difference-in-difference tested by regression models that included a two-way interaction term between

time and treatment

Demographic variables, socioeconomic variables, cycling infrastructure characteristics, total work-related trips, distance to the trail

All comparisons in favor of the intervention, and all significant

25th percentile (11%):

A: 1.0%-point

R: 54%

50th percentile (29%):

A: 1.9%-point

R: 107%

75th percentile (42%):

A: 2.6%-point

R: 146%

Yes

Residents living in 116 areas of the city with the new infrastructure using the joined effect of distance and trips crossing the trail for comparison

Proportion of workers who commuted by bike (%)

Difference-in-difference tested by regression models that included a two-way interaction term between

time and treatment

Demographic variables, socioeconomic variables, cycling infrastructure characteristics, total work-related trips, proportion of trips that cross the trail system, distance to the trail

In favor of the intervention

The increase in bicycle commuting was restricted to tracts that were close to the intervention, and had a higher proportion of commuting trips that crossed the trails

Krizek [36] (US)

Installation of multiple bicycle facilities and major bridge improvements to enhance accessibility to major employment centers

No

Residents living in areas within 1.6 km of the geographical centroids of a new facility. Area-wide cycling trends are presented for comparison

Survey (census data)

Time between measurements; 10 years

Time exposed; not specified but could range from 1 to 10 years

Bicycle mode share (%)

Difference tested by regression models

Not reported

In favor of the intervention, significant

A: 0.2%-point

R: 14%

Whole area:

A: 0.02%-point

R: 5%

Residents living in areas within 1.6 km of the geographical centroids of a new facility, or within 0.8 km from the endpoints of a facility

In favor of the intervention, significant

A: 0.5%-point

R: 46%

No

Bicycle mode share crossing the river. Cycling trends that remained on the same side of the river are presented for comparison

Survey (census data)

Time between measurements; 10 years

Time exposed; not specified but could range from 1 to 10 years

Bicycle mode share crossing the river (%)

Difference tested by regression models

Not reported

In favor of the intervention, significant

Crossing river:

A: 1.6%-point

R: 52%

Average that remained at the same side of the river:

A: 0.6%-point

R: 28%

Lanzendorf [37] (Germany)

Cycling infrastructure improvements and marketing campaigns in 4 cities

No

Residents living in cities with the new infrastructure. Cycling trends in big cities are presented for comparison

Survey enriched with regional data

Time between measurements; 6 years

Time exposed; not specified but could range from 1 to 6 years

Cycling frequency (trips/day)

Difference over time, tested by Mann-Whitney U-test

Not reported

In favor of the intervention, significant

Average of 4 cities:

A: 0.07 trips/day

R: 27%

Big cities:

A: 0.09 trips/day

R: 31%

Bicycle mode share (%)

Difference over time, but no statistical test conducted

Not reported

In favor of the intervention, significance not tested

Average of 4 cities:

A: 1.8%-point

R: 21%

Big cities:

A: 2.4%-point

R: 24%

Merom [38] (US)

The construction of a cycle way (16.5 km) and the associated promotional campaigns

Yes

Residents living near (< 1.5 km) vs far (1.5–5 km) from the new infrastructure

Telephone interviews

Time between measurements; 4 months

Time exposed; 3 months

Cycling time among those who cycled (min/week)

Difference-in-difference tested by ANOVA

Unadjusted

In favor of the intervention, significant

A: 26 min/week

R: 147%

Panter [39] (UK)

New bus network and an adjacent traffic-free walking and cycling route (22 km)

Yes

Residents working in the city with the new infrastructure, and living within ~ 30 km of work using proximity for comparison (results presented comparing those living 4 km from the intervention vs 9 km)

7-day recall instrument

Time between measurements; 3 years

Time exposed; 9–14 months

Likelihood of an increase in cycling time for commuting (yes-no)

Difference-in-difference tested by regression models

Demographic variables, socioeconomic variables, health indicators, car ownership and work related variables

In favor of the intervention, significant

A: 87 min/week (among those who reported more cycling for commuting at follow-up)

R: 34%

Survey

Likelihood of an increase in total cycling time (yes-no)

In favor of the intervention, significant

A: 115 min/week (among those who reported more cycling at follow-up)

R: 32%

Pedroso [40] (US)

Infrastructure expansion in bicycle lanes (147 km) and improvements in bicycle signage, parking, and cyclist awareness, and the addition of a bike share program

No

Residents living in the city with the new infrastructure

Survey (census data)

Time between measurements; 9 years

Time exposed; not specified but could range from 1 to 7 years

Proportion of workers who commuted by bike (%)

Difference over time tested by regression models

Not reported

In favor of the intervention, significant

A: 1.5%-point

R: 167%

Smith [41] (US)

Bicycle lane expansion (> 160 km), and the introduction of bicycle share programs

No

Residents living in the city with the new infrastructure

Survey (census data)

Time between measurements; 5 years

Time exposed; 4 years

Number of cyclist

Difference over time tested by t-test

Not reported

In favor of the intervention, significant

A: 4388 cyclist

R: 262%

Wilmink and Hartman [42] (The Netherlands)

Improvements to an existing cycle route network, creating a comprehensive and interconnected network

No

Residents living in two neighborhoods with the new infrastructure

Home interview

Time between measurements; 3 years

Time exposed; not specified but could range from 1 to 3 years

Proportion of trips made by bike (%)

Difference-in-difference, no statistical test conducted

Not reported

In favor of the intervention, significance not tested

A: 3%-point

R: 7%

Yes

Residents living in two neighborhoods with the new infrastructure vs one control neighborhood without the new infrastructure

Cycling frequency (trips per person per day)

In favor of the intervention, significance not tested

A: not reported

R: 4%

Cycling distance (distance per person per day)

In favor of the intervention, significance not tested

A: not reported

R: 8%

Aittasalo [23] (Finland)

Environmental improvements made to the main and connecting walking and cycling paths

No

4 locations in the study area

Automatic counters

Time between measurements; 24 months

Time exposed; 2 months

Bikes per day during afternoon peak hour

Difference, no statistical test conducted

Not reported

In favor of the intervention, significance not tested

Average of the 4 locations:

A: 367 bikes/peak hour

R: 57%

Barnes [43] (US)

Complete street redesign of a gateway to the university to improve the conditions for non-motorized users

No

1 location on the study road, for 2 directions of travel

Direct observation

Time between measurements; 6 months

Time exposed; not specified but could range from 1 to 6 months

Bikes per hour

Difference, no statistical test conducted

Not reported

In favor of the intervention, significance not tested

Average of the 2 directions:

A: 63 bikes/hour

R: 83%

Crane [29] (Australia)

A new cycle way (2.4 km) linking a new urban renewal area with the central business district

No

2 locations on the study road. City-wide cycling trends and historic time trends are presented for comparison

Automatic counters

Time between measurements; 36 months

Time exposed; 16 months

Bikes per day during peak hours (6 h/day)

Difference, no statistical test conducted

If adjusted, estimated were adjusted for population growth

In favor of the intervention, significance not tested

Average of the 2 locations:

A: 144 bikes/peak hours (unadjusted)

R: 4% (adjusted)

City as a whole:

A: −80 bikes/peak hours (unadjusted)

R: −2% (adjusted)

Historical trend:

A: 300 bikes/peak hours (unadjusted)

R: 126% (unadjusted)

Historical trend, city as a whole:

A: 300 bikes/peak hours (unadjusted)

R: 111% (unadjusted)

Dill [31] (US)

Installation of 8 bicycle boulevards (1.4 km to 6.7 km long)

No

10 locations on the study roads

Method not described

Time between measurements; 3 years

Time exposed; 18 months

Number of bikes

Difference, but no statistical test conducted

Not reported

In favor of the intervention, significance not tested

Average of the 10 locations:

A: not reported

R: 22%

Fitzhugh [44] (US)

Retrofıtting a neighborhood with an urban trail (4.6 km) that enhanced connectivity to retail and school destinations

Yes

1 location in the intervention neighborhood vs 2 locations in 2 control neighborhoods (matched along socioeconomic dimensions)

Direct observation

Time between measurements; 2 years

Time exposed; 14 months

Median number of bikes per 2 h

Difference-in-difference tested by Wilcoxon rank sums test

Not reported

In favor of the intervention, significant

A: 2.2 bikes/2 h

R: 224%

Goodno [45] (US)

The installation of two linked bicycle facilities serving downtown

No

4 locations on the study roads. City-wide cycling trends are presented for comparison

Methods not described;

Time between measurements; 18–20 months

Time exposed; 7–12 months

Bikes during peak hour

Difference, but no statistical test conducted

Not reported

In favor of the intervention, significance not tested

Average of 4 locations:

A: 124 bikes/peak hour

R: 438%

City as a whole:

A: 20 bikes/peak hour

R: 32%

Hans [46] (Denmark)

Improvements made to two large, interconnected bicycle infrastructures (18 km and 15 km) in city suburbs to enhance connectivity

No

2 locations on the study roads

Automatic counters, calibrated by visual counts

Time between measurements; 35 months

Time exposed; 16–22 months

Bikes per hour on weekdays during the rush hour in day light

Difference over time, but no statistical test conducted

Seasonal, weather and temporal variables

In favor of the intervention, significance not tested

Average of the 2 locations:

A: 43 bikes/hour

R: 47%

Bikes per hour on weekdays during the rush hour in dark

In favor of the intervention, significance not tested

Average of the 2 locations:

A: 38 bikes/hour

R: 72%

Bikes per hour on weekdays during the non-rush hour in day light

In favor of the intervention, significant

Average of the 2 locations:

A: 11 bikes/hour

R: 19%

Bikes per hour on weekend days in day light

In favor of the intervention, significant

Average of the 2 locations:

A: 10 bikes/hour

R: 29%

Heesch [47] (Australia)

The opening of three new segments of a cycling lane (1.4 km, 0.9 km, 2.3 km) connecting the suburbs and the city center

No

1 location on the study road before the intervention, 2 locations on the study road after the intervention

Direct observation

Time between measurements;

4 years and 1 month

Time exposed; 3–38 months

Bikes per 2.5 h

Difference over time, but no statistical test conducted

Not reported

In favor of the intervention, significance not tested

A: 376 bikes/2.5 h

R: 276%

The opening of the last segment of a cycling lane (2.3 km) connecting the suburbs and the city center

Yes

GPS tracking information on the study road vs 3 other routes surrounding the intervention

Mobile phone application

Time between measurements;

1 year

Time exposed; 6 months

Trend in monthly bike trips on the intervention road

Interrupted time-series

Seasonal variables

In favor of the intervention, significant

A: 225 bike trips/month

R: not applicable

No

GPS tracking information on the major routes between suburbs and city center, including the intervention

Trend in monthly bike trips between suburbs and the city center

In favor of the intervention, significant

A: 90 bike trips/month

R: 102%

The introduction of superhighways for cyclists creating continuous cycling routes in the city center, and a public bike sharing system

No

21 locations in the intervention area

Direct observations (before) and automatic counters (after)

Time between measurements; 9 years

Time exposed; not specified but could range from 1 to 9 years

Bikes per hour

Difference over time, test not described

Not reported

In favor of the intervention, significant

Average of the 21 locations:

A: 154 bikes/hour

R: 432%

Marques [49] (Spain)

Introduction of a cycling network in the city (164 km)

No

2000–2005: data from 2006 extrapolated

2006–2010: counts made in the city

2011–2013: algorithm based on count data and the number of rental bikes

Count data, changing methodology over time

Time between measurements; 14 years

Time exposed;

not specified but could range from 1 to 7 years

Million bike trips per year

Difference, no statistical test conducted

Seasonal variables

In favor of the intervention, significance not tested

A: 13.3 million trips/year

R: 435%

McCartney [50] (UK)

Construction of a new pedestrian and cyclist bridge across the river towards the city center

No

5 locations to enter the city from the side of the bridge. City-wide cycling trends are presented for comparison

Direct observation;

Time between measurements; 4 years

Time exposed; 2 years

Bikes counted per 2 days

Difference over time, but no statistical test conducted

Not reported

In favor of the intervention, significance not tested

Average of the 5 locations:

A: 500 bikes/2 days

R: 62%

Rest of the city:

A: 1700 bikes/2 days

R: 48%

Merom [38] (US)

The construction of a cycle way (16.5 km) and the associated promotional campaigns

No

4 locations along the new infrastructure

Automatic counters

Time between measurements; 5 months

Time exposed; 3 months

Bikes per day

Difference, tested by regression models

Weather variables, day of the week and holiday season

In favor of the intervention, significant

Average of the 4 locations:

A: Not reported

R: 31%

Nguyen [51] (Singapore)

Improvement of 20 street segments (4.8 km in total) to complete a well-developed cycling network

Yes

20 intervention street segments vs 55 control street segments

Direct observation

Time between measurements; 2 years

Time exposed; 12 months

Bikes per hour

Difference-in-difference, but no statistical test conducted

Not reported

In favor of the intervention, significance not tested

Average of the 20 locations:

A: 18 bikes/hour

R: 62%

Parker [52] (US)

Introduction of a bike lane (5.0 km) with multiple bus stops, schools, businesses, a police station and private residences located along the intervention

No

1 location on the study road

Direct observation

Time between measurements; 12 months

Time exposed; 6 months

Bikes per day

Difference tested by regression models

Not reported

In favor of the intervention, significant

A: 53 bikes/day

R: 58%

Parker [53] (US)

Introduction of a bike lane (1.6 km) with multiple schools, churches and businesses located along the intervention

Yes

1 location on the study road vs 1 location at 2 control streets

Direct observation

Time between measurements; 12 months

Time exposed; 3 months

Bikes per day

Difference-in-difference, but no statistical test conducted

Not reported

In favor of the intervention, significant

A: 196 bikes/day

R: 385%

Wilmink and Hartman [42] (The Netherlands)

Improvements to an existing cycle route network, creating a comprehensive and interconnected network

Yes

Counts made along roads in the intervention neighborhoods vs counts made in the control neighborhood

Count data, methods not described

Time between measurements; 3 years

Time exposed;

not specified but could range from 1 to 3 years

Bike counts

Difference-in-difference, no statistical test conducted

Not reported

In favor of the intervention, significance not tested

A: Not reported

R: 14%