text: 331,208,1412662575435636736,217771939,Michael Szell,"🚨New Preprint! Growing Urban Bicycle Networks <LINK> Explore at <LINK> We study the limitations of growing 🚲🕸️ Main finding: Cities must invest 1) with right growth strategy and 2) *persistently*, to overcome a critical mass. 🧵 <LINK> Most cities on the planet have no infrastructure for safe cycling. Therefore we grow bike networks from scratch, using only 1) the street network, 2) arbitrary points of interest. Minimal data needed so this works everywhere. <LINK> We find a ""phase transition"" at a critical threshold: During growth, some quality metrics *decrease* until a critical point is reached. This point depends on the growth strategy. <LINK> Unfortunately, cities follow the *worst* growth strategy: random. It wastes investments with bad connectedness. Also invites objections: ""We already built many bike tracks but nobody is using them, so why build more?"" It's not a network's length that matters but how you grow it. <LINK> Comparing our synthetic growth with the well developed Copenhagen network reveals 80% overlap - we recreate reality! This could find ""missing links"" (in future work..) However, as of now, this is NOT concrete recommendation for new infrastructure - only after refinements. <LINK> How does this bike network growth affect the car network? Mostly by decreasing its directness. Is this good or bad? -How we decide such questions will determine our quality of life in cities, and generally the fate of the planet... (img by @TUMInitiative) <LINK> Research with S. Mimar, T. Perlman, @Ghoshal_G, @robysinatra. Paper: <LINK> Code: <LINK> <LINK> developed by my awesome MSc students Cecilia L. Kolding Andersen and Morten Lynghede. Explore 62 cities & Download 1000+ videos! <LINK> happy@feedback! @StreetsblogUSA @gboeing @CyclingEmbassy @giulio_mattioli @EuCyclistsFed @TheWarOnCars @robinlovelace @martikagv @andershartmann @cyklistforbund @BaldwinMatthew_ @npalomin @CyclingScience1 @Sust_Mobility @VCOE_AT @NACTO @openstreetmap @LitmanVTPI @altafieldnotes",https://arxiv.org/abs/2107.02185,"Cycling is a promising solution to unsustainable urban transport systems. However, prevailing bicycle network development follows a slow and piecewise process, without taking into account the structural complexity of transportation networks. Here we explore systematically the topological limitations of urban bicycle network development. For 62 cities we study different variations of growing a synthetic bicycle network between an arbitrary set of points routed on the urban street network. We find initially decreasing returns on investment until a critical threshold, posing fundamental consequences to sustainable urban planning: Cities must invest into bicycle networks with the right growth strategy, and persistently, to surpass a critical mass. We also find pronounced overlaps of synthetically grown networks in cities with well-developed existing bicycle networks, showing that our model reflects reality. Growing networks from scratch makes our approach a generally applicable starting point for sustainable urban bicycle network planning with minimal data requirements. ",Growing Urban Bicycle Networks,8,"['🚨New Preprint! Growing Urban Bicycle Networks\n<LINK>\nExplore at <LINK>\n\nWe study the limitations of growing 🚲🕸️ \nMain finding: Cities must invest 1) with right growth strategy and 2) *persistently*, to overcome a critical mass. 🧵 <LINK>', 'Most cities on the planet have no infrastructure for safe cycling. Therefore we grow bike networks from scratch, using only 1) the street network, 2) arbitrary points of interest. Minimal data needed so this works everywhere. https://t.co/EhhokHlunS', 'We find a ""phase transition"" at a critical threshold: During growth, some quality metrics *decrease* until a critical point is reached. This point depends on the growth strategy. https://t.co/xNPCI1221E', 'Unfortunately, cities follow the *worst* growth strategy: random. It wastes investments with bad connectedness. Also invites objections: ""We already built many bike tracks but nobody is using them, so why build more?"" \nIt\'s not a network\'s length that matters but how you grow it. https://t.co/TDrRRMMj5G', 'Comparing our synthetic growth with the well developed Copenhagen network reveals 80% overlap - we recreate reality! This could find ""missing links"" (in future work..) However, as of now, this is NOT concrete recommendation for new infrastructure - only after refinements. https://t.co/0wZisFHKmA', 'How does this bike network growth affect the car network? Mostly by decreasing its directness. \nIs this good or bad? -How we decide such questions will determine our quality of life in cities, and generally the fate of the planet...\n\n(img by @TUMInitiative) https://t.co/k12nCn3wBk', 'Research with S. Mimar, T. Perlman, @Ghoshal_G, @robysinatra. \nPaper: https://t.co/GYXk4CrXyZ\nCode: https://t.co/x1TLn1lgud\n\nhttps://t.co/xOIplgCcUO developed by my awesome MSc students Cecilia L. Kolding Andersen and Morten Lynghede. Explore 62 cities &amp; Download 1000+ videos! https://t.co/6EbOZvRuMu', 'happy@feedback! @StreetsblogUSA @gboeing @CyclingEmbassy @giulio_mattioli @EuCyclistsFed @TheWarOnCars @robinlovelace @martikagv @andershartmann @cyklistforbund @BaldwinMatthew_ @npalomin \n@CyclingScience1 @Sust_Mobility @VCOE_AT @NACTO @openstreetmap @LitmanVTPI @altafieldnotes']",21,07,1994