Decision Support Framework for Cycling Investment Prioritization

Table 3

Comparison of criteria according to expert evaluations.

	Cross section profile	Condition of roadway surface	Maximum altitude difference	Road alignment	Signage quality	Traffic flow speed	Vehicles traffic volume	Cycling on bike lane or mixed traffic lane	The overall level of cycling safety on the section	Capacities for food, drinks and accommodation capacities	Bike parking – racks, covered, locked, surveillance, repair services and bicycle rental locations	Vicinity of cultural and historical attractions, natural sights, resting areas etc.	Bike path construction costs	Land use value, population around bike section	WEIGHTS OF CRITERIA
Cross section profile	2	2	1	2	1	2	2	1	1	2	2	1	1	2	5
Condition of roadway surface	2	2	1	2	2	2	2	1	1	3	3	2	2	3	7
Maximum altitude difference	3	3	2	3	2	2	2	2	2	3	3	2	2	3	8
Road alignment	2	2	1	2	2	2	2	1	2	2	3	2	2	3	7
Signage quality	3	2	2	2	2	2	2	1	2	2	2	1	1	2	6
Traffic flow speed	2	2	2	2	2	2	2	1	1	1	2	1	1	2	6
Vehicles traffic volume	2	2	2	2	2	2	2	1	1	2	3	2	1	3	7
Cycling on bike lane or mixed traffic lane	3	3	2	3	3	3	3	2	2	2	3	2	2	3	9
The overall level of cycling safety on the section	3	3	2	2	2	3	3	2	2	1	1	1	1	2	6
Capacities for food, drinks and accommodation capacities	2	1	1	2	2	3	2	2	3	2	3	1	1	3	7
Bike parking, repair services and bicycle rental locations	1	1	1	2	1	1	3	2	3	2	2	1	2	2	6
Vicinity of cultural and historical attractions, natural sights, resting areas	3	2	2	2	3	3	2	2	3	3	3	2	2	3	8
Bike path construction costs	3	2	2	2	3	3	3	2	3	3	2	2	2	2	8
Land use value, population around bike section	2	1	1	1	2	2	1	1	2	1	2	1	2	2	5
Touristic economic development	2	1	1	1	2	2	1	1	3	1	3	1	2	2	6

Note: If two criteria and are equally important, then ==2, otherwise =3 and =1 if the criteria are more important than the criteria . If the criteria are less important than the criteria , then =1and =3.