Table 3.
Characteristics of included evaluation studies.
| ID | Author & year | Intervention location & period | Intervention type | Intervention description/definition of population and groups | Population/groups (n) | Baseline age (years) | Female (%) | Outcome Type(s) analyzed | Outcomes stratified; groups |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | Bhatia et al. (2016) | Toronto, CAN 1993–2008 | SC: cycling infrastructure; bike lanes (unprotected) | Seven lane segments in which a bicycle lane was painted between 1991 and 2010. The lane segments also had a higher collision cycle lane (i.e., Minimum of 100 cycle-motor vehicle collisions between 1991 and 2010). Population: Cycle-motor vehicle collisions reported on the 7 lane segments with newly marked bike lanes |
Mainly Adults Collisions (329) |
Unclear | Unclear | Injury (n = 3) | No |
| 2 | Boarnet et al. (2005) | Murrieta, USA unclear | MC: cycling infrastructure; bike lanes (unprotected) | Bicycle facilities including on-street bike lanes were installed at one site i.e., at Murrieta Elementary. “New sidewalks and sidewalk gap closures” were also constructed around the school. [p.308] Population: Adult and child cyclists using the new bike lanes |
Combined adults & children Cyclists/Pre (4) Post (14) |
Unclear | Unclear | Active transit trips (n = 1) | No |
| 3 | Brown et al. (2016) | Salt Lake City, USA 2013 | MC: cycling infrastructure; bike lanes (unclear) | The complete streets intervention included the completion of a sporadic bike lane and involved widening sections to make it a designated “high comfort” bike lane (with speed limit reduced to 50 km/h) on the city bike map. The bike lanes were painted on both sides of the street and the sidewalks were improved and widened to create a shared bike and pedestrian path. The intervention also included a light rail line extension, narrowing of automotive lanes and the creation of wider and better lit sidewalks. Intervention (near) group: Adults living (≤800 m) from the complete street renovation Control (far) group: Adults living 801–2000m from complete street renovation |
Adults (536) | NR | 51 | Active transit mode share (n = 3) | No |
| 4 | Brown et al. (2016b) | Salt Lake City, USA 2013 | MC: cycling infrastructure; bike lanes (unclear) | The complete streets intervention included the completion of a sporadic bike lane and involved widening sections to make it a designated “high comfort” bike lane (with speed limit reduced to 50 km/h) on the city bike map. The bike lanes were painted on both sides of the street and the sidewalks were improved and widened to create a shared bike and pedestrian path. The intervention also included a light rail line extension, narrowing of automotive lanes and the creation of wider and better lit sidewalks. Population: Adults living within 2 km of the complete streets intervention. Participants were divided into four cycling groups based on their cycling patterns pre and post intervention: never cyclists (not cycled pre or post) which serve as the reference group; continuing cyclists (cycled pre and post); former cyclists (cycled pre but not post); new cyclists (not cycled pre but cycled post). |
Adults | Physiological (n = 2) Anthropometric (n = 1) Active transit duration (n = 1) |
No | ||
| Intervention | |||||||||
| Cyclist group: | |||||||||
| Never (434) | 43 | 55 | |||||||
| Continuing (29) | 40 | 17 | |||||||
| Former (33) | 38 | 30 | |||||||
| New (40) | 37 | 43 | |||||||
| 5 | Burbidge and Goulias (2009) | Salt Lake City, USA 2007 | SC: cycling infrastructure; multi-use trail (separated) | “A Class 1 trail (two-way multi-use trail separated from existing roads and sidewalks) [was constructed] on the existing canal right-of-way.” “This trail creates a 4.025 km loop connecting two existing sidewalks.” [p.79] Population: Adult residents of West Valley City, a suburb of Salt Lake City, who live within 1.6 km of the trail |
Adults (98) | 48 | 55 | Active transit trips (n = 3) Active transit duration (n = 1) |
Yes; age |
| 6 | Cerdá et al. (2012) | Medellin, COL 2004 | MC; aerial trams | A cable-propelled transit system (gondola) known as Metrocable was built using funding from the municipal government of Medellin as part of “a territorial plan to promote urban and rural development”. It connects “an elevated train system in the city centre to the impoverished Santo Domingo neighborhood in the mountainous periphery, with 4 stops covering a distance of 2072 m and reaching an elevation of 399 m” [p.1046] “The municipal government made other improvements to neighborhoods serviced by the gondola, including additional lighting for public spaces; new pedestrian bridges and street paths; ‘‘library parks’’; buildings for schools, recreational centers, and centers to promote microenterprises; more police patrols; and a family police station next to a gondola station.” [p.1046] Intervention group: Residents (12–16 years) of one of 25 neighborhoods (city districts 1 and 2) where the gondola system was installed. Control group: Residents of one of 23 neighborhoods located in comparable city districts (4 and 8) that were not serviced by the gondola system. |
Adolescents & Adults | 36–61 yrs: | Homicide (n = 1) | No | |
| Intervention (225) | 26% | 67 | |||||||
| Control (241) | 27% | 67 | |||||||
| 7 | Chang et al. (2017) | Mexico City, MEX 2013 | MC: BRT & cycling infrastructure; bike lanes (separated) | The Metrobus Line 5 corridor was added to an existing BRT network with four existing lines in Mexico City. The Line 5 corridor is 10 km long with 18 stations, with an average of 625 m between stations. Its service features include: “(i) articulated and bi-articulated high floor buses, (ii). Exclusive bus lanes, and (iii) off-board fare collection” [p.339]. The BRT intervention was combined with a Complete Street intervention which included a host of streetscape interventions including protected bike lanes and parking, widened sidewalks, redesigned junctions, and the recovery of public and green space throughout the corridor. Population: Adults residing 500 m either side of the Line 5 corridor. |
Adults | Mean age: | Active transit frequency (n = 3) | Yes; gender, education, employment type | |
| Intervention (1420) | 47 | 52 | |||||||
| Control (1067) | |||||||||
| 8 | Chen et al. (2012) | New York City, USA 1996–2006 | SC: cycling infrastructure; bike lanes (unprotected) | Intervention included the creation of 69 km of bicycle lanes on 61 streets not protected by a parking lane, in the 5 boroughs of New York City from 1996 through 2006. Intervention group: Road users in New York City travelling on roadways where on-street bicycle lanes (not protected by a parking lane) had been installed from 1996 through 2006 (a total length of about 69.2 km on 61 streets). Control group: Road users travelling on roadways without bicycle lanes but with segment- or intersection-level characteristics comparable to those of the treatment group. |
Unclear Cyclists Intervention Pre (4360) Post (1349) Control Pre (12,365) Post (3578) |
Unclear | Unclear | Injury (n = 2) | No |
| 9 | Cook et al. (2016) | Durham, USA 2014 | SC: cycling infrastructure; multi-use trail (separated) | A 3.2 km long bicycle and pedestrian bridge-link was created to connect the northern segment (11.3 km long) of the trail to the southern trail segment (21.7 km long) to form a continuous 35 km shared use, separated path. Population: Users of the trail segments both to the north and south of the bridge linkage |
Unclear Trail users Pre (1301 survey; 9266 counts) Post (2245 survey; 21,365 counts) |
26–54 yrs | 45 | Active transit mode share (n = 4) Active transit duration (n = 4) |
Yes; household income |
| 10 | Dill et al. (2014) | Portland, USA unclear | SC: cycling infrastructure; bike lanes (unprotected) | A new bicycle boulevard was installed on 8 street segments (1.45 km–6.76 km long) in Portland, Oregon. Eleven control street segments (1.6–9.2 km long) were also monitored as part of the evaluation. Intervention group: Adults residing within 300 m the 8 streets selected for bicycle boulevard installation. Control group: Adults residing within 300 m of the 11 control street segments. |
Adults | Active transit trips (n = 1) Active transit mode share (n = 3) Active transit duration (n = 2) Physical activity (n = 1) |
No | ||
| Intervention (182) | 43 | 63 | |||||||
| Control (168) | 41 | 67 | |||||||
| 11 | Evenson et al. (2005) | Durham, USA 2002 | SC: cycling infrastructure; multi-use trail (separated) | This study evaluated a railway track segment that was converted to a paved, 3-m-wide multi-use trail, which extended an existing 5.1 km trail segment by another 4.5 km, along with a 3.2 km spur. Population: Adults living within 3.2 km of the new trail segment. |
Adults (366) | 43% ≥50 yrs |
65 | Physical activity (n = 5) Active transit duration (n = 3) |
No |
| 12 | Ferenchak and Marshall (2016) | Chicago, USA 2008-10 | SC: cycling infrastructure; bike lanes & sharrows (both unprotected) | 259 block groups that had only sharrows (shared lane markings) installed (overall 54 km of sharrows), and 292 block groups that overall had 168 km of bike lanes installed. Intervention group: Bike lane; census block groups that had bike lanes or trails installed between 2000 and 2010. Sharrow group; census block groups that had only sharrows installed between 2000 and 2010. Control group: Block groups that had no bike infrastructure installed between 2000 and 2010. |
Unclear Cyclists InterventionBike lane (1621 ridership; 2046 safety outcome) Sharrow (259 ridership; 89 safety outcome) Control (292 ridership; 39 safety outcome) |
Unclear | Unclear | Active transit trips (n = 2) Active transit mode share (n = 2) Injury (n = 2) |
No |
| 13 | Goodman et al. (2013) | 18 townsa, GBR 2005-11 | MC: cycling infrastructure; bike lanes (unprotected) & bike tracks (protected) | The town-level initiatives involved mixtures of capital investment (e.g. cycle lanes) and revenue investment (e.g. cycle training), tailored to each town. “Each town implemented a different mixture of infrastructure, tailored to its specific context. In total, 98 km of on-road lanes and 264 km of off-road paths were created between 2008 and 2011. This represented a 28% increase in the length of such routes previously available (based on 16 of 18 towns reporting sufficient data on pre-intervention facilities)” [p.230]. The capital investment component involved an increase in cycle lanes and paths ranging from as low as 9% (Stoke-on-Trent) to as high as 105% in Brighton & Hove. Intervention group: 17 urban towns and one city outside of London selected to be part of initiative. Comparison groups:Matched comparison; “largest urban regions within the English local authority ‘most similar’ similar’ to each intervention local authority.” Similarity was based on demographic, socioeconomic, employment and industry characteristics. Unfunded comparison; “largest urban region within the 67 local authorities which applied unsuccessfully” for the initiative. National comparison; “all non-intervention, urban areas outside London with a population of >30,000 (close to the size of the smallest intervention town)” [p.231]. |
Adults Intervention group (1,266,337) Comparison group Matched comparison (969,605) Unfunded comparison (4,195,540) National comparison (10,356,452) |
Unclear | Unclear | Active transit mode share (n = 3) | Yes; area-level deprivation |
| 14 | Goodman et al. (2013b) | Cardiff, Kenilworth & Southampton, GBR 2010-11 | SC: cycling infrastructure; bike lanes (separated) | Three Connect2 projects were evaluated. These were based in Cardiff, where a new 140 m long, 4 m wide traffic-free bridge with integral lighting was built over Cardiff Bay; Kenilworth, where a traffic-free bridge was built over a busy trunk road to link the town to a rural greenway; and Southampton, where an informal riverside footpath (impassable at high tide) was turned into a new 400 m boardwalk. Population: Adults residing within 5 km by road network from the core Connect2 projects in each of the three towns |
Adults | ≥50 yrs | Active transit mode share (n = 4) | Yes; education, income | |
| Intervention | |||||||||
| 1-year follow-up sample (1849) | 66% | 54 | |||||||
| 2-year follow-up sample (1510) | 70% | 57 | |||||||
| 15 | Goodman et al. (2014) | Cardiff, Kenilworth & Southampton, GBR 2010-11 | SC: cycling infrastructure; bike lanes (separated) | Three Connect2 projects were evaluated. These were based in Cardiff, where a new 140 m long, 4 m wide traffic-free bridge with integral lighting was built over Cardiff Bay; Kenilworth, where a traffic-free bridge was built over a busy trunk road to link the town to a rural greenway; and Southampton, where an informal riverside footpath (impassable at high tide) was turned into a new 400 m boardwalk. Population: Adults residing within 5 km by road network from the core Connect2 projects in each of the three towns |
Adults | ≥50 yrs | Active transit duration (n = 6) Physical activity (n = 1) |
No | |
| Intervention | |||||||||
| 1-year follow-up sample (1796) | 66% | 56 | |||||||
| 2-year follow-up sample (1465) | 70% | 57 | |||||||
| 16 | Greaves et al. (2015) | Sydney, AUS 2014 | SC: cycling infrastructure; bike tracks (separated) | “The intervention comprised a 2.4 km length of separated bi-directional cycleway linking the inner-city suburbs of Green Square in the south with the Central Business District (CBD) through Redfern and Waterloo”. “The George Street cycleway adds to several pre-existing bi-directional cycleways within the City of Sydney Local Government Area (LGA) totaling a distance of 11 km (as of October 2014)” [p.4]. Intervention group: Geographic area encompassing new cycleway in inner Sydney Control group: Neighboring area of similar demographics with no new planned bicycle infrastructure |
Adults | 45–55 yrs | Active transit trips (n = 5) Active transit duration (n = 1) Active transit time share (n = 1) |
No | |
| Intervention (184) | 46% | 61 | |||||||
| Control (251) | unclear | unclear | |||||||
| 17 | Heesch et al. (2016) | Brisbane, AUS 2013 | SC: cycling infrastructure; bike tracks (separated) | “The V1 is a dedicated 17-km long, 3-m wide exclusive off-road bikeway.” “The V1 has been delivered in stages with Stage A (about 1.4 km) completed in July 2010, and Stage B (about 900 m) completed in May 2011. Completion of these stages extended existing V1 bikeway infrastructure farther south. Stage C (about 2.3 km) is 7 km north of these earlier improvements via the existing V1 infrastructure. It opened June 25, 2013 to extend the V1 farther north towards the city centre” [p.368]. Intervention group: Cyclists on the newly created bikeway i.e., the Veloway 1 (or V1). Reference group: Cyclists on the South East Freeway Bikeway (or SEFB). |
Unclear | Active transit trips (n = 1) | No | ||
| Cyclists | Unclear | 15 | |||||||
| Intervention (169) | |||||||||
| Reference | |||||||||
| Pre (132) | Unclear | 14 | |||||||
| Post (99) | Unclear | 20 | |||||||
| 18 | Heinen and Ogilvie (2016) | Cambridge, GBR 2011 | MC: cycling infrastructure; multi-use trail (separated) & BRT | “The busway comprises a 25 km off-road guideway for buses, with a parallel path that can be used for walking and cycling, in two sections: one between the market town of St Ives and the northern edge of Cambridge, and the other between Cambridge railway station and the southern fringe at Trumpington” [p.2]. It also includes three park-and-ride sites. Intervention group: Adults aged 16 or over, working in areas of Cambridge to be served by the busway and living within approximately 30 km of the city centre. |
Adults (470) | ≥51 yrs 34% |
67 | Active transit mode share (n = 10) | No |
| 19 | Heinen et al. (2015) | Cambridge, GBR 2011 | MC: cycling infrastructure; multi-use trail (separated) & BRT | “The busway comprises a 25 km off-road guideway for buses, with a parallel path that can be used for walking and cycling, in two sections: one between the market town of St Ives and the northern edge of Cambridge, and the other between Cambridge railway station and the southern fringe at Trumpington. It also includes three park-and-ride sites” [18, p.2]. Intervention group: Adults aged 16 or over, working in areas of Cambridge to be served by the busway and living within approximately 30 km of the city centre. |
Adults (466) | ≥51 yrs 34% |
67 | Active transit mode share (n = 6) | No |
| 20 | Jensen (2008) | Copenhagen, DNK 1978–2003 | SC: cycling infrastructure; bike lanes (unprotected) & bike tracks (separated) | Construction of one-way bicycle track (2–2.5 m wide) on both sides of a 20.6 km road and marking of one -way bicycle lanes (1.5–2 m wide) on both sides of a 5.6 km road in Copenhagen, Denmark. Intervention group: Collisions on roads with newly constructed bike lanes and tracks. General comparison group: Collisions on unchanged roads with known developments in traffic volume. This group consists of 110 km of roads with 170 locations, where motor vehicle and bicycle/moped traffic is counted yearly or every forth to sixth year. |
Unclear Collisions Intervention On Bike lanes: Crashes (700); Injuries (219). On Bike tracks: Crashes (5,898); Injuries (2,413). Comparison Crashes (24,369) Injuries (8,648) |
Unclear | Unclear | Injury (n = 30) | No |
| 21 | Langdon (2015) | Brisbane, AUS 2001-10 | SC: cycling infrastructure; bike lanes (unclear) | The intervention included the installation of “bridges, missing links and end of trip facilities for cyclists” [p.1]. The bridges evaluated include the: Goodwill Bridge 2001; Go-between Bridge & Kurilpa Bridge; Eleanor Schonell Bridge; Sir Leo Hielsher (Gateway) Bridge; and the Ted Smout Memorial Bridge. The missing links included the: Normanby Pedestrian Cycle Link; Western Freeway Bikeway & Toowong Overpass; and the Veloway 1 (V1) Stage C. Population: Bicycle commuters on the bridges and along missing links installed. |
Unclear Cyclists (8,600) |
Unclear | Unclear | Active transit mode share (n = 1)b Active transit trips (n = 1)b |
No |
| 22 | Panter and Ogilvie (2015) | Southampton, Cardiff & Kenilworth, GBR 2010-11 |
SC: cycling infrastructure; bike lanes (separated) | Three Connect2 projects were evaluated. These were based in Cardiff, where “a new 140 m long, 4 m wide traffic-free bridge with integral lighting” was built over Cardiff Bay; Kenilworth, where “a traffic-free bridge was built over a busy trunk road to link the town to a rural greenway”; and Southampton, where an informal riverside footpath (impassable at high tide) was turned into “a new 400 m boardwalk” [p.2]. Population: Adults residing within 5 km by road network from the core Connect2 projects in each of the three towns |
Adults (967) | ≥50 yrs 65% |
52 | Active transit duration (n = 1) | No |
| 23 | Panter et al. (2016) | Cambridge, GBR 2011 | MC: cycling infrastructure; multi-use trail (separated) & BRT | “The busway comprises a 25 km off-road guideway for buses, with a parallel path that can be used for walking and cycling, in two sections: one between the market town of St Ives and the northern edge of Cambridge, and the other between Cambridge railway station and the southern fringe at Trumpington. It also includes three park-and-ride sites” [18, p.2]. Intervention group: Adults aged 16 or over, working in areas of Cambridge to be served by the busway and living within approximately 30 km of the city centre. |
Adults (469) | Mean age: 44 | 67 | Physical activity (n = 2) Active transit trips (n = 6) |
No |
| 24 | Panter and Ogilvie (2017) | Southampton, Cardiff & Kenilworth, GBR 2010-11 | SC: cycling infrastructure; bike lanes (separated) | Three Connect2 projects were evaluated. These were based in Cardiff, where “a new 140 m long, 4 m wide traffic-free bridge with integral lighting” was built over Cardiff Bay; Kenilworth, where “a traffic-free bridge was built over a busy trunk road to link the town to a rural greenway”; and Southampton, where an informal riverside footpath (impassable at high tide) was turned into “a new 400 m boardwalk” [22, p.2]. Population: Adults residing within 5 km by road network from the core Connect2 projects in each of the three towns |
Adults (1258) | ≥50 yrs 72% |
55 | Active transit trips (n = 6) | No |
| 25 | Parker et al. (2011) | New Orleans, USA 2008 | SC: cycling infrastructure; bike lanes (unprotected) | “The 5.0 km dedicated bike lane on St. Claude Avenue, also known as Louisiana Highway 46”, was completed in the spring of 2008. “Bike lanes were striped on both sides of the road and are 1.5 m wide” [p.S99]. Population: Adults and children cycling along St. Claude Avenue. |
Combined adults & children | NR | Mean number | Active transit trips (n = 1) | Yes; gender |
| Cycling trips | |||||||||
| Intervention | |||||||||
| Pre (mean: 121) | (13) | ||||||||
| Post (mean: 188) | (29) | ||||||||
| 26 | Parker et al. (2013) | New Orleans, USA 2010 | SC: cycling infrastructure; bike lanes (unprotected) | “The 1.6 km dedicated bike lane on S. Carrollton Avenue”, New Orleans, completed in June 2010. “Bike lanes were striped on both sides of the road and are 1.5 m wide. There is one 3.4 m wide travel lane on either side of the road, separated by a 18 m wide median” [p.S102]. Intervention group: Adults and children cycling along S. Carrollton Avenue Comparison group: Adults and children cycling on two adjacent side streets; Short and Dublin St. |
Combined adults & children | NR | Mean number | Active transit trips (n = 1) | Yes; race, gender |
| Cycling trips | |||||||||
| Intervention | |||||||||
| (mean: 257) | (15) | ||||||||
| Comparison | |||||||||
| (mean: 37) | (33) | ||||||||
| 27 | Pazin et al. (2016) | Florianópolis, BRA 2010 | MC: cycling infrastructure; bike lanes (unprotected) | A new walking and cycling route (2.3 km long) was inaugurated in [an area known as Beira-Mara Continental,] in the continental coast of Florianópolis, SC, Brazil.” “The project included a new avenue, parking lots, and an on-road walking and cycling route, all along the seashore” [p.19]. Population: Adult residing within 0–500 m, 501–1000 m and 1001–1500 m of the new walking and cycling route. |
Adults (519) | 55–85 yrs: | Physical activity (n = 4) Active transit mode share (n = 1) Active transit frequency (n = 1) |
No | |
| Intervention | 41% | 58 | |||||||
| 0-500m (192) | 43% | 55 | |||||||
| 501-1000m (137) | 46% | 54 | |||||||
| 1001-1500m (190) | 37% | 65 | |||||||
| 28 | Rissel et al. (2015) | Sydney, AUS 2014 | SC: cycling infrastructure; bike track (separated) | “New 2.4 km bi-directional separated bicycle path built” as part of its expanding bicycle network in Sydney [p.1]. Intervention group: Adults living no more than 2.5 km from the new bicycle path. Comparison group: Adults living in “neighborhoods a similar distance from the central business district and with a similar demographic profile, and where local council had no plans to modify infrastructure during the study period” [p.2]. |
Adults (512) Intervention (240) Comparison (272) |
≥45 yrs: 37% |
63 | Active transit trips (n = 2) Active transit frequency (n = 1) |
No |
| 29 | Song et al. (2017) | Cardiff, Kenilworth & Southampton, GBR 2010-11 | SC: cycling infrastructure; bike lanes (separated) | Three Connect2 projects were evaluated. These were based in Cardiff, where “a new 140 m long, 4 m wide traffic-free bridge with integral lighting” was built over Cardiff Bay; Kenilworth, where “a traffic-free bridge was built over a busy trunk road to link the town to a rural greenway”; and Southampton, where an informal riverside footpath (impassable at high tide) was turned into “a new 400 m boardwalk” [22, p.2]. Population: Adults residing within 5 km by road network from the core Connect2 projects in each of the three towns |
Adults Intervention (1489) |
57 | 56 | Active transit distance (n = 6) Active transit distance share (n = 2) Active transit duration (n = 6) Active transit time share (n = 2) Non-active transit distance (n = 2) Non-active transit duration (n = 2) |
No |
SC: Single component intervention; MC: Multicomponent intervention; NR: not reported; CAN: Canada; USA: United States of America; DNK: Denmark; GBR: United Kingdom; AUS: Australia; BRA: Brazil; COL: Colombia; NOTE: For multicomponent interventions, this table reports information relating to the interventions relevant to our review, and the population characteristics and outcomes assessed only for relevant interventions.
a
18 towns: Darlington, Derby, Brighton & Hove, Aylesbury, Exeter, Lancaser with Morecambe, York, Cambridge, Colchester, Southend-on-Sea, Leighton Buzzard, Woking, Bristol, Shrewsbury, Stoke-on-Trent, Chester, Southport & Ainsdale, Blackpool; CAN Canada, USA United States of America, DNK Denmark, GBR United Kingdom, AUS Australia, BRA Brazil, COL Colombia NOTE: For multicomponent interventions, this table reports information relating to the interventions relevant to our review, and the population characteristics and outcomes assessed only for relevant interventions.
b
Outcomes not tested for statistical significance.