Prefer what you like? Evaluation and preference of cycling infrastructures in a bicycle simulator

Problem: Previous research on cyclists' route evaluations and preferences already identified influencing factors and relevant evaluation criteria, but studies mostly focused on selected aspects like safety or com-fort. This study examined the evaluation of routes more comprehensively considering five evaluation criteria, and further aims to compare the evaluation with the preference of routes. For this, we used the experimental approach of a bicycle simulator. Method: Our participants cycled route segments that varied in certain route characteristics. Each segment was rated in total and on five criteria generated in a previous study, namely Mental Comfort, Interaction, Environment, Ease of Use, and Physical Comfort. At the end, all route segments were ranked according to their quality. Results: Results showed that separated paths were rated the best, while busy footpaths and uphill segments were rated the worst. Interestingly, interacting with pedestrians was described to be more attention-demanding but not as mentally uncomfortable as interacting with motor traffic. The evaluation and preference of routes mostly went hand in hand but differed for the footpath, which was ranked better than it was rated. Results further indicated that gradient has such a strong impact on the physical comfort of a route that it even influenced the overall evaluation. Discussion: Our findings suggest that the evaluation and preference of routes is influenced by the degree of separation, traffic volume, the type of the road user that the cyclists may need to interact with, but most importantly, it is influenced by the interaction of these three aspects. Practical Implications: The five criteria we used can reliably assess the evaluation and preference of routes. They help to differentiate the reason for negative evaluation of routes. This differentiation is crucial to improve cycling routes, as different causes for dissatisfaction among cyclists require different consequences.(c) 2023 The Authors. Published by Elsevier Ltd. This is an open access article under the CC BY license (http:// creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).