Transportation Research Part A 37 (2003) 649–666

www.elsevier.com/locate/tra

Potential of transferring car trips to bicycle during winter

1
€m *, R. Magnusson
A. Bergstro
Royal Institute of Technology, Division of Highway Engineering, S-100 44, Stockholm, Sweden
Received 28 February 2002; received in revised form 29 January 2003; accepted 29 January 2003

Abstract

In this Swedish study, the attitudes towards cycling during winter in general, and in relation to winter
maintenance of cycleways in particular, is examined. Questionnaires were answered by a thousand employees
at four major companies in two Swedish cities. There was a clear difference in mode choice between seasons.
The number of car trips increased by 27% from summer to winter while the number of bicycle trips decreased
by 47%. The number of car trips increased with distance while the number of bicycle trips decreased, and the
decrease was even more significant in winter than in summer. There was a difference in opinion between
different categories of cyclists, on what factors influenced the choice of transport mode for the journey to
work. Temperature, precipitation, and road condition were the most important factors to those who cycled
to work in summer but not in winter. Exercise was the most important to those who cycled frequently in
winter, and travel time the most important to those who never cycled to work. By improving winter
maintenance service levels on cycleways, it might be possible to increase the number of bicycle trips during
winter by 18%, representing a corresponding decrease in the number of car trips of 6%. To increase cycling
during winter, snow clearance was found to be the most important maintenance measure. Skid control was
not considered as important for the choice of mode, although important to attend to for safety reasons.
Ó 2003 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

Keywords: Cycleways; Winter maintenance; Service level; Mode choice

1. Introduction

Car-based transport has a wide range of negative impacts upon society and the environment,
such as air pollution, congestion, noise, road accidents, and extensive land use for roads and

*
Corresponding author. Address: Swedish National Road and Transport Research Institute, S-581 95 Link€
oping,
Sweden. Tel.: +46-13-204048; fax: +46-13-204145.
E-mail addresses: anna.bergstrom@vti.se (A. Bergstr€
om), rolf.magnusson@du.se (R. Magnusson).
1
Address: Dalarna University, S-781 88 Borl€ange, Sweden. Tel.: +46-23-778510; fax: +46-23-778501.

0965-8564/03/$ - see front matter Ó 2003 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
doi:10.1016/S0965-8564(03)00012-0
650 A. Bergstr€om, R. Magnusson / Transportation Research Part A 37 (2003) 649–666

parking facilities. A reduction of motor traffic, especially in urban regions, would be desirable and
could be achieved by increasing cycling as a means of personal travel. In addition to environ-
mental benefits, cycling affects the health of individuals positively (Hillman, 1992). From an
environmental perspective, it is especially important to reduce the number of short car trips, since
they are responsible for a relatively large proportion of the emissions caused by traffic. This is
particularly true in wintertime, when colder ambient temperatures increase the emission rates for
some pollutants.
In Sweden today, in average over the country for all types of trips and throughout the season,
11% of all passenger journeys are made by bicycle (Statistics Sweden, 1998). Trips to work and
school have a higher share of bicycle trips (14–15%). In Swedish cities with high cycling frequency,
cycling constitutes 25–30% of all the personal trips, while it is less than 5% in some other cities.
Cycling frequency in Sweden is large in relation to that in, for example, America, England, or
France, but small compared to Denmark and the Netherlands. The differences between countries,
and cities, can be associated with disparities in climate, although the main reason is probably
differences in traditions and attitudes. Also, the size of the city, the spatial planning, and the
topography are factors explaining geographical differences in cycling (Ljungberg, 1987), as well as
the size and continuity of the cycleway network (US Dept. of Transportation, 1991).
The choice of transport mode is affected by attitudes, socio-economic and demographic factors,
and by trip-specific factors, such as distance, point of time and weather. The choice of transport
mode is also associated with the available alternatives and strongly related to earlier decisions
(Forward, 1998; US Dept. of Transportation, 1991; Warsen, 1983). Car owners usually get ac-
customed to use their car for both short and long trips and hence cycle less than persons without a
car. As the choice of transport mode itself, the personal attitude towards cycling is related to
lifestyle, life situation, and social norms (Forward, 1998), and also differs between those who cycle
and those who never cycle (Davies et al., 1997).
More than half of the car trips made are shorter than 5 km (Statistics Sweden, 1998). As most
people consider that cycling distances less than 5 km presents no difficulty (Nilsson, 1995), there is
likely a potential for transferring some of these short car trips to bicycle. Attempts have been
made to estimate this potential (Nilsson, 1995; Danish Road Directorate, 1995), but the knowl-
edge needs to be widened to clarify the process in mode choice and finding means resulting in
long-term effects. In Sweden, campaigns to increase cycling have been numerous in recent years,
simultaneously with efforts to improve the cycleway network.
The importance of the maintenance service level of cycleways for travel behaviour is poorly
known, and it would be desirable to understand its significance compared to other factors in the
choice of mode. In Sweden, the cycle flow during the summer is, in average, nearly three times
greater than that during the winter (O € berg et al., 1996). The decrease in winter cycle frequency is
probably largely due to less favourable weather conditions. Low temperatures, strong winds, and
precipitation all have a negative influence on cycling (Emmerson et al., 1998; Ljungberg, 1987).
However, road conditions are also of importance. Measurements from Gothenburg in Sweden
(O€ berg et al., 1996) show that during winter, at occasions with mixed road conditions, the cycle
flow is reduced by almost 40%, and under ice and snow conditions, the cycle flow is reduced by
half, compared to the flow at bare surfaces.
In a Norwegian survey (Giæver et al., 1998), winter cyclists were asked what factors influenced
them in their choice to cycle or not during winter. More than half (53%) answered that they would
 A. Bergstr€om, R. Magnusson / Transportation Research Part A 37 (2003) 649–666 651

not cycle when cycleways were uncleared of snow. Some (27%) also stated that a slippery surface
would prevent them from using their bicycle, although the majority said it would not affect them.
Only a few answered that bad weather, low temperature, or darkness would prevent them from
using their bicycle during winter. This indicates a possibility to increase winter cycling, if the road
conditions on cycleways were improved by a more efficient snow clearance and ice control.
However, the respondents of this Norwegian study frequently used their bicycle in winter. With
another population, for example persons who seldom or never cycle during winter, the result
would probably have been different.

2. Objective

The objective of this study is to examine the potential to increase winter cycling by improved
winter maintenance service levels of cycleways. The paper presents two surveys conducted in
Sweden, in order to estimate this potential and to increase the general knowledge of the factors
important in travel behaviour during winter, and to study regional differences in this matter.
The disadvantages of using a bicycle for shopping trips and recreational journeys are com-
monly apprehended. This implies that journeys to work and school, which already have a high
percentage of bicycle trips, are those most likely to have the highest potential for increased cycling
during winter. Therefore, the surveys focused on bicycle trips to work. The results are mainly
applicable to locations with winter conditions, winter maintenance standards, and attitudes to
cycling as in Sweden.

3. Method

Two questionnaire surveys were conducted in 1998 and in 2000, respectively. Included in the
survey of 1998 were employees at four major companies in two Swedish cities, Lule a in the north
and Link€ oping in the south of Sweden. The survey of 2000 was limited to one of the companies
from the first survey. The main objective of the survey of 1998 was to get background information
concerning choice of mode for travel to work and the common view about winter maintenance of
cycleways. The main purpose of the survey of 2000 was to receive a user evaluation of a test with
unconventional methods for snow clearance and de-icing of cycleways (Bergstr€ om, 2003). How-
ever, some of the questions in the survey of 2000 were of a more general nature, and similar to
those in the survey of 1998. These questions were considered to be a good complement to the
survey of 1998 in describing travel behaviour during winter and are therefore also included in this
paper.
The cities in the survey of 1998, Lule
a and Link€oping, had about 44,000 and 93,000 inhabitants,
respectively. Cities of this size were considered to have a greater potential in cycling than larger
cities, where public transport is usually widely used. In smaller cities, it would have been difficult
to find suitable companies of the right size and proper location. It was also desirable to include
cities with different winter conditions for their comparisons in relation to the climate (Table 1). All
statistical data in Table 1, has been calculated from a 30-year period (1961–1990) at the Swedish
Meteorology and Hydrology Institute (2000). In Lule a, where the amount of snow usually is large,
 652
A. Bergstr€om, R. Magnusson / Transportation Research Part A 37 (2003) 649–666
Table 1
Climatic data describing the winter conditions in Lule
a and Link€
oping
City Normal average Average amount of Average snow First day of snow Last day of snow
temperature [°C] precipitation [mm] depth [cm] covering, in average covering, in
Yearly Lowest monthly Yearly November to average
November to March
March
Lule
a 1.5 )11.5 (January) 506 193 70–80 November 1st May 5th
Link€
oping 6.1 )3.4 (February) 516 173 30–40 November 25th April 10th
 A. Bergstr€om, R. Magnusson / Transportation Research Part A 37 (2003) 649–666 653

snow clearance is the most important maintenance measure during winter. In Link€ oping, the
problem with ice formation is major, and, hence, skid control is more important.
Both Lule a and Link€ oping have universities with many cycling students and widespread
commuting by bicycle. In addition, both had a well-developed cycleway network that would re-
quire few changes in the coming years, a factor important in case of subsequent studies. The total
length of the cycleway network in Lule a was 108 km, while the total length in Link€ oping was 340
km. Both Lule a and Link€ oping provide a fairly flat, and hence bicycle friendly, landscape.
The largest companies, in terms of the number of employees, were included in the survey of
1998. Saab AB and Ericsson Mobile Communication were chosen in Link€ oping, and SSAB Tunn-
pl
at and Scania Chassikomponenter in Lule a. About 200 questionnaires were distributed randomly
at each company. However, at Ericsson, the questionnaires were handed out to employees passing
the main entrance one morning, which meant an uneven distribution in selection, and, unfortu-
nately, resulted in only 130 questionnaires being distributed. A request for permission to dis-
tribute questionnaires in other ways was declined. Due to the uneven distribution in selection and
a response rate of only 66 questionnaires, Ericsson was excluded from the study.
In the survey of 2000, only Saab AB in Link€ oping was included, since the main purpose was
then to evaluate a test of unconventional methods for snow clearance and de-icing of cycleways
(Bergstr€om, 2003). In total 829 questionnaires were distributed to all employees of Saab AB living
in four different housing areas within a cycling distance of about 5 km from Saab AB.

4. Results

4.1. Response data

In the survey of 1998, 127 answers were received from Scania, and 143 from SSAB, in Lule a,
and 163 from Saab AB in Link€ oping, representing a total response rate of 72%. In the survey of
2000 the response rate was 69%. In both surveys, most of the respondents were men, 83% in 1998
and 78% in 2000. This is not surprising considering the workplaces chosen for the study repre-
senting industries with about 80% men of all employees.

4.2. Travel behaviour

In the questionnaires, questions concerned the importance of certain factors for the choice of
mode, the usual mode of transport for the journey to work in summer and winter, etc. Back-
ground questions, such as gender and distance to work were included as possible explanatory
variables. In the following, factors with importance for travel behaviour emerging from the two
surveys are presented and, at occasion, further analysed.

4.2.1. Access to different modes of transport

In the survey of 1998, a total of 91% of the respondents declared that they had access to a car
for their work trips, 71% had access to a bicycle, and 42% could take a bus. Approximately 9%
stated that they had other options, such as walking or riding a motorcycle. In Link€ oping, the
commuter train was an alternative often mentioned by those having more than 20 km to travel.
654 A. Bergstr€om, R. Magnusson / Transportation Research Part A 37 (2003) 649–666

Survey of 1998: Survey of 2000:

5,1 - 10 km More than 10 km
Less than 3 km
More than 20 km 18,9% ,7%
16.7%
24.1% Less than 3 km

15,5%

3 - 5 km

21.3%
11 - 20 km
16.2%

6 - 10 km
3,1 - 5 km
21.6%
64,9%

Fig. 1. Distribution of travel distances to work for the respondents included in the two surveys.

The access to different modes was similar in Link€ oping and Lule a, with one exception: only 32%
of the respondents in Lule a compared to 59% in Link€ oping had access to bus. In the survey of
2000, 86% of the respondents had access to a car, 92% had access to a bicycle, 71% could take a
bus, and 12% stated that they had other options, such as riding a motorcycle.
‘‘Having access’’ to a mode of transport was interpreted in different ways. Some respondents
thought that they ‘‘had access’’ to a mode, even though they did not consider it to be an option,
for example, due to long distances. Others did not think that they had access to a certain mode, if
they believed it was inappropriate for their journey to work, as demonstrated by a comment of
one of the respondents: ‘‘I live 40 km away from work and can therefore never use a bicycle.
Because I often work at nights, the bus is not an option, since they do not operate at these hours’’.
A large difference between the two studies, were the amounts having access to bicycle and bus,
which was a lot higher in the survey of 2000, probably explained by the fact that the respondents
in the survey of 1998, in average, had a longer distance to work than those in the survey of 2000
(Fig. 1).

4.2.2. Importance of travel distance

The respondents in the survey of 1998 were in total quite evenly distributed over the distance
grouping done in the questionnaire (Fig. 1). However, there were differences between the work-
places in the study. For example, at SSAB Tunnpl at AB, only 24% lived within 5 km of their
workplace, 31% lived between 6 and 10 km away, 17% lived between 11 and 20 km, and 29% lived
more than 20 km away. In the survey of 2000, which was supposed to include only respondents
living within 5 km from Saab AB, the majority lived at a distance of between 3.1 and 5 km from
work (Fig. 1). Still, almost one fifth of the respondents in the second survey lived further than 5 km
away. The definitions of the distance groups were slightly different in the two surveys.
A clear correlation between distance to work and mode choice was found in both surveys (Figs.
2 and 3). Not surprisingly, the number of trips by bicycle and on foot decreased while trips by car
increased with the distance. However, many of the trips of less than 3 km were still made by car
(about 25% during the summer period and 40% during the winter period in both surveys). April to
 A. Bergstr€om, R. Magnusson / Transportation Research Part A 37 (2003) 649–666 655

Fig. 2. Importance of travel distance to work for the choice of mode during the summer period (April to October).

Fig. 3. Importance of travel distance to work for the choice of mode during the winter period (November to March).

October was defined as the summer period, and November to March as the winter period. At a
distance of more than 20 km, almost nobody cycled to work, and during the winter period, all
bicycle trips longer than 10 km seemed to vanish.
Figs. 2 and 3 summarise the ‘‘weighted number’’ of trips for all individuals in each distance
group. The weighted number denotes how a person distributes his/her journeys to work on dif-
ferent modes of transport. For example: a man has stated that he drives to work 4–5 times a week
and that he goes by bicycle 0–1 times a week. That gives ‘‘Car, driver’’ a weighted value of 4.5 and
‘‘Bicycle’’ a weighted value of 0.5. Hence, every person makes five journeys to work per week.
Finally, in each distance group, the sum of all journeys to work has been divided (in %) into the
different modes of transport. Note that the definitions of the distance groups were slightly dif-
ferent in the two surveys. In addition, the respondents in the survey of 2000 were not as evenly
distributed over the different distance groups as in the survey of 1998 (Fig. 1) and hence the bars in
Figs. 2 and 3: survey of 2000, represent a very unequal number of trips.
656 A. Bergstr€om, R. Magnusson / Transportation Research Part A 37 (2003) 649–666

4.2.3. Seasonal differences in travel behaviour

When comparing Figs. 2 and 3, it can be noted that there was a clear difference in mode choice
between seasons. In the survey of 1998, the total number of car trips increased by 27%, from 53%
during the summer period to 68% during the winter period. At the same time, bicycle commuting
decreased by 47%, from 36% during the summer period to 19% during the winter period. In the
survey of 2000, the same relation could be discerned, with a clear increase in car trips and a
decrease in bicycle trips from summer to winter, although not as striking. Also bus trips increased
to a certain degree during winter.
Distance seemed to be more significant for the mode choice during the winter period. This was
particularly evident in the results from the survey of 1998. During summer, there was little dif-
ference in the number of bicycle trips between the distance groups ‘‘Less than 3 km’’ and ‘‘3 to 5
km’’ (Fig. 2: survey of 1998). However, during winter the difference was significant, with about
30% fewer bicycle trips in the distance group ‘‘3 to 5 km’’ compared to the distance group ‘‘Less
than 3 km’’ (Fig. 3: survey of 1998). Also, in other distance groups, the bicycle trips decreased
significantly from summer to winter. Bicycle was hardly ever used during winter at distances
farther than 10 km.

4.2.4. Categories of cyclists

The respondents can be divided, according to their stated choice of mode for their journey to
work, in summer and winter, into different categories of ‘‘cyclists’’:

(a) Winter cyclist––a person who uses a bicycle for travelling to work in at least two cases out of
five during winter (November to March).
(b) Summer-only cyclist––a person who uses a bicycle for travelling to work in at least two cases
out of five during summer (April to October), but less than two cases out of five during winter
(November to March).
(c) Infrequent cyclist––a person who cycles fewer than two cases out of five when travelling to
work, no matter the season.
(d) Never cyclist––a person who never uses a bicycle for a journey to work.

In the survey of 1998, in total 23% of the respondents were winter cyclists, 20% were summer-
only cyclists, 7% were infrequent cyclists, and 50% were never cyclists. In the survey of 2000, there
were a lot more frequent cyclists, 51% being winter cyclists, 24% summer-only cyclists, 9% in-
frequent cyclists, and only 16% never cyclists. The larger number of frequent cyclists in the survey
of 2000 is not surprising considering the shorter average travel distance (Fig. 1).
In Table 2, some elements are presented, that could partly explain the differences in travel
behaviour between the different categories of ‘‘cyclists’’. Due to the low number of infrequent
cyclists in both surveys (30 respondents in the survey of 1998, and 54 in the survey of 2000) they
are excluded from Table 2, and forthcoming tables.
From Table 2, it is evident that winter cyclists do not have access to a car for their journey to
work in the same extent as others, which is probably the main reason for many winter cyclists to
cycle to work all year round. The reason mentioned for not having access to a car, besides the
evident reason of not owning a car or not even having a driving licence, is that the other part in
the household uses the car for travelling to work. Not surprisingly, the number having access to a
 A. Bergstr€om, R. Magnusson / Transportation Research Part A 37 (2003) 649–666 657

Table 2
Differences in travel related characteristics for different categories of ‘‘cyclists’’ in the two surveys
Feature Survey of 1998 Survey of 2000
Winter Summer- Never Total (%) Winter Summer- Never Total (%)
cyclists only cyclists cyclists only cyclists
(%) cyclists (%) (%) (%) cyclists (%) (%)
Driving 94 91 97 95 – – – –
licence
Access to 79 91 96 91 78 99 88 86
car
Access to 100 96 43 71 100 100 55 92
bicycle
Access to 35 49 42 42 72 75 63 71
bus
Travel 79 50 13 38 86 77 64 79
distance
less than 5 km

bicycle for their journey to work is less for never cyclists compared to other categories. One reason
for this is the longer travelling distance, a relatively small number of never cyclists have less than
5 km to work. The reason why ‘‘access to bicycle’’ is not 100% for summer-only cyclists in the
survey of 1998, is simply inconsequent answers by three respondents.

4.2.5. Other important factors

In both surveys, the respondents were asked to grade certain factors in order of importance for
their choice of mode for the journey to work. Each of the factors travel time, cost, air temper-
ature, precipitation, road conditions, darkness, exercise, access to parking facilities, environ-
mental aspects, and the need to do errands in combination with the journey to or from work, were
given a number on a seven-grade scale, where 1 denoted ‘‘no importance’’ and 7 denoted ‘‘great
importance’’. Table 3 presents all the factors and their rank in order of mean value, for different
categories of ‘‘cyclists’’. The standard error of the mean illustrates a distribution in grading and
the uncertainty of the mean value.
There was a large difference in opinion between winter cyclists and others. Winter cyclists
valued exercise, cost and environmental aspects as the most important factors. For others, travel
time, precipitation, and temperature were more important. Summer-only cyclists valued tem-
perature, precipitation, and road condition higher than winter cyclists did. Exercise was important
to both these categories, but was the least important factor to never cyclists.
From Table 3, it can be concluded that summer-only cyclists had the highest total average
grading of the listed factors and never cyclists had the lowest average grading. This implies that
summer-only cyclists consider more factors to be important, when choosing their mode of
transport for the journey to work, while travel time seems to be the only really important factor
for never cyclists. There is nothing to be done about temperature and precipitation, but measures
can be taken to improve road condition, which could induce summer-only cyclists to become
winter cyclists. The grading done by never cyclists indicates that it is difficult to find any means
 658
Table 3
Importance of certain factors for mode choice when travelling to work––opinion of winter cyclists compared to summer-only cyclists and never
cyclists

A. Bergstr€om, R. Magnusson / Transportation Research Part A 37 (2003) 649–666

Factor Winter cyclists Summer-only cyclists Never cyclists Total
Rank Mean Std. Rank Mean Std. Rank Mean Std. error Rank Mean Std. error
error error
Survey of 1998
Exercise 1 4.85 0.19 4 4.63 0.22 11 1.96 0.13 7 3.40 0.12
Cost 2 4.59 0.24 6 3.63 0.22 3 3.91 0.17 3 3.98 0.11
Environment 3 4.23 0.23 8 3.45 0.22 9 2.73 0.14 8 3.25 0.10
Travel time 4 4.15 0.23 5 4.05 0.26 1 5.59 0.15 1 4.90 0.11
Road condition 5 3.90 0.23 3 5.18 0.22 6 3.20 0.17 5 3.88 0.12
Errands 6 3.66 0.22 7 3.54 0.22 2 3.93 0.16 6 3.80 0.11
Precipitation 7 3.34 0.21 2 5.27 0.20 4 3.53 0.18 2 4.00 0.12
Temperature 8 3.22 0.23 1 5.47 0.19 5 3.29 0.18 4 3.91 0.12
Accident risk 9 2.69 0.20 9 3.13 0.24 8 2.99 0.16 9 2.98 0.11
Car park 10 2.31 0.21 11 2.55 0.25 7 3.02 0.18 10 2.77 0.12
Darkness 11 2.00 0.17 10 3.03 0.23 10 2.39 0.15 11 2.47 0.10
Total average mean 3.54 3.99 3.32 3.58

Survey of 2000
Exercise 1 5.40 0.10 4 4.73 0.14 9 2.62 0.20 1 4.68 0.08
Cost 2 4.32 0.12 10 3.19 0.14 7 2.71 0.21 6 3.73 0.09
Environment 4 3.95 0.12 8 3.25 0.15 10 2.53 0.16 8 3.48 0.08
Travel time 3 4.23 0.13 6 3.92 0.18 1 5.16 0.25 2 4.34 0.09
Road condition 6 3.59 0.12 2 5.56 0.13 5 3.65 0.26 4 4.22 0.09
Errands 5 3.91 0.12 5 4.68 0.16 2 4.32 0.26 3 4.24 0.09
Precipitation 7 3.10 0.12 1 5.71 0.13 3 4.26 0.28 5 4.16 0.10
Temperature 9 2.54 0.10 3 5.16 0.15 4 3.78 0.27 7 3.59 0.09
Accident risk 8 2.67 0.11 7 3.35 0.17 6 2.83 0.24 9 2.95 0.08
Car park – – – – – – – – – – – –
Darkness 10 1.78 0.08 9 3.20 0.17 8 2.63 0.23 10 2.37 0.08
Total average mean 3.55 4.28 3.45 3.77
 A. Bergstr€om, R. Magnusson / Transportation Research Part A 37 (2003) 649–666 659

that could convince them to become winter cyclists. It would probably require a change in atti-
tudes, for example by emphasising the health benefits.
In the survey of 1998, travel time was found to be the most important factor, while exercise was
ranked as the most important one in the survey of 2000 (Table 3). The differences in opinion
between the two surveys can be explained by the larger number of frequent cyclists in the survey of
2000.

4.2.6. Differences related to gender and age

Because of the low number of women among the respondents, 17% in the first survey and 22%
in the second, it is questionable to extensively compare the travel behaviour of men and women.
However, both surveys indicated that road condition, precipitation, temperature, and the need to
do errands in combination with the journey to work were a lot more important to women than to
men. Darkness was also more important to women than to men, but with a mean grading of 3.0 in
the survey of 1998, and 2.7 in the survey of 2000, this factor could still not, not even for women,
be considered to be important in the choice of mode.
Age was asked for only in the survey of 2000. The age groups 35–49 and 50–64 years old
comprised about 40% each of the respondents, while 20% could be found in the age group 20–34.
None of the respondents was younger than 20 and almost none older than 64. The younger the
age, the more common it was to cycle during winter. In the age 20–34, 62% were winter cyclists
and only 8% were never cyclists. In the age 50–64, 44% were winter cyclists and 22% were never
cyclists.

4.3. Winter maintenance service levels of cycleways

As shown in Table 3, road condition seems to be an important factor for the choice of mode.
Most of the respondents, 57% in 1998 and 62% in 2000, thought that the winter maintenance
service level of cycleways needed to be improved. In 1998, 9%, and in 2000, 12%, thought that it
was satisfactory, and 30% (25% in 2000) were uncertain or without an opinion. Not surprisingly,
most of those who were uncertain or without an opinion were never cyclists. That was also the
case for those satisfied. However, 8% of winter cyclists in 1998, and 15% in 2000, thought that the
winter maintenance service level of cycleways was satisfactory.
In the survey of 2000, the respondents were given the opportunity to specify how winter
maintenance on cycleways should be improved. The most recurrent desires were more frequent
snow clearance and de-icing, but also that snow clearance should be done earlier in the morning.
Preventing the emergence of frozen tracks that create an uneven surface was often mentioned, and
some brought up the importance of clearing continuous cycle routes, not leaving some parts
uncleared.
The need to improve the winter maintenance service level of cycleways was also apprehended in
a survey performed in 1997 by the Swedish Association of Local Authorities (SALA, 1998).
Citizens in twelve Swedish municipalities were asked about cycleways, and 29% thought that snow
clearance and skid control of facilities for cyclists and pedestrians were ‘‘very good’’ or ‘‘rather
good’’. Comparatively, 68% were satisfied with winter maintenance of motor traffic roads in
central areas. In addition, out of 10 activities related to municipal services, winter maintenance of
facilities for cyclists and pedestrians was considered to be the third most important action.
660 A. Bergstr€om, R. Magnusson / Transportation Research Part A 37 (2003) 649–666

4.3.1. Potential in cycling related to winter maintenance of cycleways

In 1998, 38%, and in 2000, 43%, of the respondents stated that they would cycle more during
winter, if the maintenance service level of cycleways was improved. In Fig. 4, the stated willingness
to cycle, with improved winter maintenance service level, is presented for different categories of
cyclists. Some of those who stated that they would cycle more were infrequent cyclists and ac-
tually, never cyclists. However, the majority were summer-only cyclists, who would continue to
cycle during winter, or winter cyclists, who would cycle more than they already did, if the
maintenance service level was improved. Some of those who did not think improved winter
maintenance would affect their cycling were winter cyclists that already cycled every day, more or
less, no matter the road condition.
On basis of those who stated they would cycle more, it is possible to estimate the increase in
bicycle trips, for journeys to work, that could follow from an improved winter maintenance
service level of cycleways. However, such estimation would require several assumptions. First, it
can be assumed, that improved winter maintenance would only affect winter cyclists and summer-
only cyclists. Since infrequent cyclists and never cyclists seldom, or never, cycle to work during
summer, they would probably not cycle more to work during winter, if the service level was
improved. Obviously, the service level during winter can never be better than that during summer.
That argument also leads to the assumption that cyclists would increase their cycling to work
during winter, at the most, to the level equivalent to that during summer.
The figures needed to calculate the potential are given in Table 4. For example, for summer-
only cyclists in the survey of 1998, 57% of the journeys to work during summer and 10% during
winter were bicycle trips. This means a maximum possible increase of bicycle trips of 47% units
with winter road conditions as good as in summer. If only those summer-only cyclists living within
5 km from work stating they would cycle more are considered likely to actually increase their

Fig. 4. Stated willingness to cycle during winter in case of an improved maintenance service level of cycleways for
different categories of cyclists.
 A. Bergstr€om, R. Magnusson / Transportation Research Part A 37 (2003) 649–666 661

Table 4
Data for calculating the potential in cycling related to winter maintenance of cycleways
Survey of 1998 Survey of 2000
Summer-only Winter cyclists Summer-only Winter cyclists
cyclists cyclists
Number of bicycle trips During summer 57 55 40 52
to work [%] During winter 10 50 15 49
Number of car trips to During summer 31 23 37 26
work [%] During winter 68 28 56 29
Percentage of total, Living within 6.0 12 9.5 22
stating they would 5 km from work
increase their cycling Living within 2.3 4.8 1.9 4.9
[%] 3 km from work

cycling, it would mean that 6% of the respondents would increase their cycling with 47% units.
This results in an increase, in the share of bicycle trips during winter, with 2.8% units. Similarly,
the possible increase in bicycle trips and the corresponding decrease in car trips can be calculated
for both winter and summer-only cyclists and for different assumptions. For example, it can be
questioned whether those, who said they would increase their cycling only ‘‘some more’’, would
actually adopt a travel behaviour equal to that during summer. If that was true only for those who
said they would increase their cycling ‘‘a lot more’’, or if only trips up to 3 km were considered to
be transferable from car to bicycle, the possible increase in bicycle trips would be less. As indi-
cated by Fig. 2: survey of 1998, the critical distance during winter seems to be less than 5 km,
maybe down below 3 km for some ‘‘cyclists’’. In Table 5, the resulting distributions of the
journeys to work during winter, associated with improved winter maintenance service levels, are
presented, provided different assumptions.

4.3.2. Road condition factors important to cyclists

In the survey of 1998, cycleways not being cleared from snow was found to be the greatest
problem for both winter cyclists and others travelling to work (Table 6). This corresponds to the
results in the Norwegian study (Giæver et al., 1998) presented in Section 1. Snow clearance seems
to be a bit more important than skid control, and a lot more important than the occurrence of grit
or debris and surface unevenness. The road condition factors did not seem to be as important to
winter cyclists as they were to others, in particular to summer-only cyclists. One reason for this
might be that winter cyclists used better winter equipment. For example, 10% of all winter cyclists
stated that they used studded tyres on their bicycles during winter, compared to 2% of summer-
only and infrequent cyclists.
In the survey of 2000, only those who had cycled to work during the winter were asked to
answer this question, resulting in an overrepresentation of winter cyclists. Therefore, it is
meaningless to compare different categories of cyclists in this particular case. However, also the
survey of 2000 indicated that snow clearance was the most important road condition factor for the
choice of mode.
662 A. Bergstr€om, R. Magnusson / Transportation Research Part A 37 (2003) 649–666

Table 5
Possible changes in modal split for journeys to work during winter associated with an improved winter maintenance
service level of cycleways
Survey of 1998 Survey of 2000
Bicycle trips Car trips Bicycle trips Car trips
Number of trips at present service 18.9 67.8 31.2 44.5
level [%]
New amount, considering all winter 22 (+18%) 65 ()4.3%) 34 (+9.6%) 42 ()5.6%)
and summer-only cyclists living
within 5 km from work and stating
they would cycle more [%]
New amount, considering all winter 20 (+6.9%) 67 ()1.6%) 32 (+1.9%) 44 ()1.1%)
and summer-only cyclists living
within 3 km from work and stating
they would cycle more [%]
New amount, considering all winter 20 (+3.7%) 67 ()0.9%) 32 (+2.6%) 44 ()1.6%)
and summer-only cyclists living
within 5 km from work and stating
they would cycle a lot more [%]

Table 6
The importance of different road condition factors for the mode choice according to the opinion of different categories
of cyclists (survey of 1998)
Road condition Winter cyclists Summer-only cyclists Never cyclists Total average
factor Mean Std. error Mean Std. error Mean Std. error Mean Std. error
Not cleared from 4.87 0.22 6.42 0.14 6.04 0.14 5.80 0.10
snow
Slippery 4.54 0.23 6.31 0.15 5.87 0.16 5.57 0.11
Occurrence of 2.86 0.20 3.91 0.23 4.30 0.17 3.77 0.11
grit/debris
Cracks or surface 2.88 0.21 3.79 0.24 4.11 0.18 3.67 0.12
unevenness

4.4. Regional differences

For the survey of 1998 with respondents representing different parts of Sweden, it would be
possible to determine regional differences. Since the survey was limited to only two cities, and
since the results from Link€
oping only represent one single company, the results are uncertain, and
it is difficult to draw any general or far-reaching conclusions. Nevertheless, there was a tendency
towards greater use of cars and less use of bicycles in Lule
a compared to Link€oping (Table 7). The
difference was more obvious during winter, which implies that cyclists in Lule a have a higher
tendency to change their mode of transport when winter comes compared to cyclists in Link€ oping.
This might be explained by the lower temperatures and greater amount of snow in Lule a. The
longer average travel distance for the respondents from Lule a could also be a reason. For ex-
ample, 76% of the respondents from SSAB and 57% from Scania in Lule a, compared to 54% from
 A. Bergstr€om, R. Magnusson / Transportation Research Part A 37 (2003) 649–666 663

Table 7
Modal split of the total number of trips to work during winter and summer for the companies in Link€
oping and Lule
a
included in the two surveys
Mode of travel, time of year Lule
a Link€
oping
SSAB (1998) Scania (1998) Saab (1998) Saab (2000)
Car, winter 77% 73% 55% 45%
Car, summer 58% 59% 44% 37%
Bicycle, winter 11% 18% 27% 31%
Bicycle, summer 32% 34% 43% 40%
Other modes, winter 12% 9% 18% 24%
Other modes, summer 10% 7% 13% 23%

Link€oping, had a travel distance of more than 5 km to work. As shown in Fig. 3, the number of
bicycle trips longer than 5 km were greatly reduced during winter. Differences in the average travel
distance is likely also the main reason for the differences in modal split at Saab AB, between the
surveys of 1998 and 2000.
The respondents in Lule a were generally more satisfied with the winter maintenance of cycle-
ways in their municipality than were the respondents in Link€ oping. Whether this was because the
respondents in Lule a were more accustomed to winter climate, and therefore less critical, or the
maintenance service level in Lule a really was higher is unclear. However, none of the winter
cyclists at SSAB, while 20% of the winter cyclists at Scania, in Lule a, were satisfied. This implies
that the difference in opinion between Link€ oping and Lule a is not related to the acceptance of
worse conditions among Lule a inhabitants, but rather that the winter maintenance service level of
cycleways in connection to Scania in Lule a was in fact higher.

5. Discussion and conclusions

5.1. Methodology

There is always a discrepancy between intentions revealed in a survey and actual behaviour.
For example, as revealed in this study, there might be an intention to change the travel behaviour
towards increased cycling. In reality, the force of habit might be too strong to overcome, leading
to no factual change in mode choice. Hence, the conclusions made from the questionnaire surveys,
should be considered to give indications of the potential in winter cycling, related to improved
winter maintenance, rather than exact figures. Despite its short-coming in describing actual be-
haviour, a questionnaire survey was considered to be a better instrument than bicycle censuses,
since the reliability of bicycle detectors is poor during winter.

5.2. Applicability of the results

Although the cities in the survey of 1998 were chosen to represent different climate, the results
might not be valid for other cities. The potential in increased winter cycling probably differs
between regions due to differences in topography, traditions, and climate. However, for cities of
664 A. Bergstr€om, R. Magnusson / Transportation Research Part A 37 (2003) 649–666

equivalent size, with conditions similar to Sweden, the results can give guidance in making rele-
vant assumptions. To be able to draw general conclusions about the potential in cycling during
winter, further studies are required. These surveys focused on journeys to work, and other types of
trips might present a different potential.

5.3. Transferring car trips to bicycle during winter

This study implies that many cyclists do in fact choose between car and bicycle for their
journeys to work (Figs. 2 and 3). Other modes of transport, e.g. bus, were not often an option,
indicating that there are environmental benefits to be made if cycling is increased for personal
travel. By improving the maintenance service level of cycleways, it might be possible to increase
the number of bicycle trips during winter by up to 18% representing a decrease of car trips of up to
6% (Table 5). This might seem negligible, but already a small decrease of car travel would have
environmental effects. Probably only car trips up to 5 km, or perhaps even shorter than 3 km, are
transferable to bicycle. The comparatively low car access rate among winter cyclists (Table 2)
indicates that restrictions for the use of cars is likely the measure that would lead to the largest
increase in cycling frequency, although this might be an undesired course of action.
The grading of factors important for the choice of mode (Table 3) indicates, that it can be
difficult to convince others than winter cyclists to cycle more during winter. For summer-only
cyclists temperature and precipitation were the most important factors, and for never cyclists
travel time and need to do errands. However, it can be questioned what is ‘‘cause and effect’’ in
this case. The ranking done might actually mirror what factors are considered within the process
of mode choice, but it might also only be showing the justification of why a certain mode of
transport is used. This means that a person starting to cycle during winter, for example as a result
of health campaigns, will, gradually, go through a change of attitudes.
Women are probably harder to convince to cycle more during winter, since winter factors as
road condition, precipitation, temperature, and darkness are more important to them than to
men. Furthermore, it is likely easier to convince younger age groups to cycle more during winter.
Since the accident risk increases with increased age (O € berg et al., 1996), it might not even be
desirable to increase winter cycling among elderly.
By recognising the environmental effects of using a car for personal trips, and increasing the
awareness of the health benefits of cycling, it may be possible to convince some people to cycle
instead of driving a car. If the first experience for a first-time cyclist is unpleasant, it is likely that
the person will hesitate to cycle again, which is one argument to keep cycleways in good condition.
If we want people to use their bicycles, whenever distance and weather conditions makes it
possible, they have to be provided with safe and accessible cycleways. There are also people with
no alternative other than bicycle, and they have the right to a safe and accessible transport system.
The knowledge is limited concerning the level of service maintained on the Swedish cycleway
network. The surveys presented in this paper, and the user evaluation conducted by SALA (1998),
indicated a need to improve the winter maintenance service level of cycleways. The fact that the
majority seems to be dissatisfied with present winter maintenance of cycleways should be reason
enough to study possibilities to make improvements. However, it is unclear if the dissatisfaction
expressed among the road users is due to insufficient service level requirements, or poor main-
tenance performance. To reveal that, it would be beneficial to evaluate the level of service pre-
 A. Bergstr€om, R. Magnusson / Transportation Research Part A 37 (2003) 649–666 665

vailing on Swedish cycleways. However, before these evaluations can be made, better subjective
and objective methods of monitoring road conditions on cycleways are needed.
It is also desirable to determine, whether improved winter maintenance service level will ac-
tually lead to a positive change in cycling frequency. Bicycle censuses must be conducted to relate
cycle flow to different weather and road conditions. This requires a development of the mechanical
methods for bicycle counting, for higher reliability during winter conditions. It is also important
to find out winter maintenance measures for cycleways, that do in fact improve the level of service,
which requires improvements of the methods and equipment used, as well as more stringent
service level requirements. If possible, cycleways should be more frequently cleared from both
snow and ice, and the measures should be done earlier in the morning. It is also important to clear
continuous routes, not leaving some parts uncleared. Preventing the emergence of frozen tracks,
that create an uneven surface, is also very important to attend to, both with regard to safety and
accessibility of cyclists.

Acknowledgements

The project described in this paper was supported financially by the Swedish National Road
Administration (SNRA) through the Centre for Research and Education in Operation and
Maintenance of Infrastructure (CDU). The support is gratefully acknowledged.

References

Bergstr€om, A., 2003. More effective winter maintenance method for cycleways. Paper presented at TRB 82nd Annual
Meeting, January 12–16, 2003, Section A3C09––Winter Maintenance, Washington DC.
Danish Road Directorate, 1995. The potential of cycling in urban areas. Traffic safety and environment R17,
Copenhagen, Denmark (in Danish, English summary).
Davies, D.G., Halliday, M.E., Mayes, M., Pocock, R.L., 1997. Attitudes to cycling––a qualitative study and conceptual
framework. TRL Report 266, Transport Research Laboratory, Berkshire, England.
Emmerson, P., Ryley, T.J., Davies, D.G., 1998. The impact of weather on cycle flows. Transport Research Laboratory,
Berkshire, England.
Forward, S., 1998. Mode of transport on short journeys: attitudes and behaviour of the inhabitants of Gothenburg.
VTI report 437, Swedish National Road and Transport Research Institute, Link€ oping, Sweden (in Swedish, English
summary).
Giæver, T., Øvstedal, L., Lindland, T., 1998. Utformning av sykkelanlegg––Intervju och atferdsundersøkelser
(‘‘Designing bicycle facilities––questionnaire surveys and behaviour studies’’). SINTEF report STF22 A97615,
SINTEF Civil and Environmental Engineering, Trondheim, Norway (in Norwegian).
Hillman, M., 1992. Cycling and the promotion of health. Proceedings of the 10th Annual European Transport,
Highway & Planning (PTRC) Meeting, Environmental Issues. University of Manchester, Institute of Science and
Technology, England.
Ljungberg, C., 1987. Utformning av cykeltrafikanl€aggningar, Del 2: Unders€ okning av olika alternativ (‘‘Designing
bicycle facilities, Part 2: Investigating different alternatives’’). BFR report R57, The Swedish Council for Building
Research, Stockholm, Sweden (in Swedish, English summary).
Nilsson, A., 1995. The potential for replacing cars with bicycles for short distance travel. Thesis 84, Department of
Traffic Planning and Engineering, Lund Institute of Technology, Lund, Sweden (in Swedish, English summary).
€ berg, G., Nilsson, G., Velin, H., Wretling, P., Berntman, M., Brundell-Freij, K., Hyden, C., St
O ahl, A., 1996. Single
accidents among pedestrians and cyclists. VTI meddelande 799 A, Swedish National Road and Transport Research
Institute, Link€ oping, Sweden.
666 A. Bergstr€om, R. Magnusson / Transportation Research Part A 37 (2003) 649–666

SALA, Swedish Association of Local Authorities, 1998. Kritik p a teknik. Redovisning av kundenk€ ater i teknisk
f€
orvaltning 1997 (‘‘Critique of civil engineering. Results of a user evaluation within municipal administration 1997’’).
Stockholm, Sweden (in Swedish).
Swedish Meteorological and Hydrological Institute, 2000. V€ ader och Vatten (‘‘Weather and Water’’). Norrk€ oping,
Sweden (in Swedish).
Statistics Sweden, 1998. The Swedish National Travel Survey of 1998. Stockholm, Sweden (in Swedish).
United States Department of Transportation, 1991. National Bicycle and Walking Study––Bicycle and pedestrian trip
generation data. Washington DC.
Warsen, L., 1983. Cykelvanor i tre svenska t€atorter (‘‘Cycling habits in three Swedish cities’’). Bulletin 54, Department
of Traffic Planning and Engineering, Lund Institute of Technology, Lund, Sweden (in Swedish, English summary).