Some key take-aways: 1) Data-driven algorithms can show how/where to consolidate bicycle network components (eg; disconnected/fragmented bike lanes) into connected networks to improve efficiently sustainable 🚲 transportation. /2
2) Their bike infrastructure algorithms rapidly improve connectedness & directness of a 🚲 network. Compared with baselines, the research shows value of growing a 🚲network on a *city-wide scale* rather than randomly adding local bicycle infrastructure. /3
3) Here's the 🗝️ if a City Manager wants more bang for their $, while reducing carbon footprints (@YEGclimate):
Improving the *connectivity* of bicycle routes improves not only the network itself, but *also promotes the use of bicycles as means of transportation in a city*. /4
Another, recent research paper we hope urban infrastructure planners have read: nature.com/articles/s4159…
Researchers Szell et al synthesized an urban bike network development model, then tested it against reality of 62 cities. Their findings point to the need for city authorities to recognize the need to get to a critical threshold, quickly. /2
IOWs "cities must invest into bicycle networks with the right growth strategy, and persistently, to surpass a critical mass."
(Remember the time @CityofEdmonton built a #bikelane, then removed it? Apparently a classic cold feet/shying at an initial decreasing return error). /3