Skip to main content

Table 3 Effectiveness of urban trails on changes in cycling traffic

From: The effectiveness of new urban trail infrastructure on physical activity and active transportation: a systematic review and meta-analysis of natural experiments

Study

Intervention type

Design

Outcome units

Intervention

Baseline

Intervention

Post

Effect Size

(confidence intervals)

Group x Time Interaction

Auchincloss et al. 2019

MUP

Pre-Post Control

Persons / hour

100 ± 45

116 ± 48

+ 5% (+ 4, + 9%)

Yes

Fitzhugh et al. 2010

MUP

Pre-Post control

Persons / 2 h

4.5 (2.5-6)

13 (11–15)

p = 0.001

Yes

Garber et al. 2022

MUP/PBL

Synthetic Control

Miles ridden/month

NR

NR

+ 1922 (-394, + 3542)

Yes

Hans et al. 2017

MUP

Pre-Post Control

Cyclists / hour

126 (122,130)

206

(195,210)

+ 61 vs. + 7%

No

Heesch et al. 2016

MUP/PBL

Pre-Post Control

Cyclists / month

---

---

+ 225 (+ 78, + 372)

Yes

Nguyen et al. 2015

MUP (wide)

Pre-Post

Cyclists / hour

45 ± 24.5

57.6 ± 34.9

+ 28%

No

Nguyen et al. 2015

MUP (small)

Pre-Post

Cyclists / hour

38.8 ± 32.4

55.8 ± 36.6

+ 44%

No

Rissel et al. 2015

MUP

Pre-Post

Cyclists/Month

201(B) & 812(A)*

395 (B) & 1001 (A)*

+ 97% (B) & +23% (A)

No

Xiao et al. 2022

MUP (Paris)

Interrupted time series

Cyclists / day

2009 ± 1507

2703 ± 2351

218 (-189, 626)

Yes

Xiao et al. 2022

MUP (Lyon)

Interrupted time series

Cyclists / day

1336 ± 1120

1663 ± 1223

34 (-65, 133)

Yes

  1. MUP = multi use path; PBL = protected bicycle lane; NR = not reported
  2. * = data were collected at two sites along the new trail (A and B). Pre-post intervention counts are provided for both sites