Search

Search Results

• 1. [Article] Webinar, Part I: Americans' Views of Transportation and Livable Communities

  The National Association of Realtors® and Portland State University conducted a nationwide survey in the 50 largest metropolitan areas, asking Americans about where they live, where they want to live, ...

  Citation × Citation Citation Abstract Copy Title: Webinar, Part I: Americans' Views of Transportation and Livable Communities Author: Dill, Jennifer, Morris, Hugh Year: 2015 The National Association of Realtors® and Portland State University conducted a nationwide survey in the 50 largest metropolitan areas, asking Americans about where they live, where they want to live, and their travel habits. This webinar will present the key findings from that survey, including people’s preferences to live in mixed-use, walkable communities and what may help them walk, bicycle, and take transit more. The large sample (3,000) allows us to look at demographic differences, including between the generations (Millennials, Baby Boomers, etc.). Title: Webinar, Part I: Americans' Views of Transportation and Livable Communities Author: Dill, Jennifer, Morris, Hugh Year: 2015 The National Association of Realtors® and Portland State University conducted a nationwide survey in the 50 largest metropolitan areas, asking Americans about where they live, where they want to live, and their travel habits. This webinar will present the key findings from that survey, including people’s preferences to live in mixed-use, walkable communities and what may help them walk, bicycle, and take transit more. The large sample (3,000) allows us to look at demographic differences, including between the generations (Millennials, Baby Boomers, etc.). Close

• 2. [Article] Do People’s Perceptions of Neighborhood Bikeability Match “Reality”?

  Do people perceive the built environment the same as we objectively measure it? If not, what are the relative roles of the objective versus the perceived environment on bicycling behavior? This study, ...

  Citation × Citation Citation Abstract Copy Title: Do People’s Perceptions of Neighborhood Bikeability Match “Reality”? Author: Ma, Liang, Dill, Jennifer Year: 2017 Do people perceive the built environment the same as we objectively measure it? If not, what are the relative roles of the objective versus the perceived environment on bicycling behavior? This study, based on data from Portland, Oregon, explored the match or mismatch between the objective and perceived bicycling environment and how it affects people’s bicycling behavior. The descriptive analysis indicated a fair agreement between perceived and objective measures. Older adults, women having children, less-educated and lower-income persons, and those who bicycle less tended to perceive their high-bikeable environment (measured objectively) as being a low-bikeable environment. In addition to the socio-demographics, this study also found that the social environment can play a role in the relationship between the objective and perceived environment. Finally, results of this study indicated that both the actual and perceived built environment are associated with bicycling behavior, particularly for utilitarian bicycling. For recreational bicycling, the objective environment attributes measured in this study are not significant factors, while perceptions do matter Title: Do People’s Perceptions of Neighborhood Bikeability Match “Reality”? Author: Ma, Liang, Dill, Jennifer Year: 2017 Do people perceive the built environment the same as we objectively measure it? If not, what are the relative roles of the objective versus the perceived environment on bicycling behavior? This study, based on data from Portland, Oregon, explored the match or mismatch between the objective and perceived bicycling environment and how it affects people’s bicycling behavior. The descriptive analysis indicated a fair agreement between perceived and objective measures. Older adults, women having children, less-educated and lower-income persons, and those who bicycle less tended to perceive their high-bikeable environment (measured objectively) as being a low-bikeable environment. In addition to the socio-demographics, this study also found that the social environment can play a role in the relationship between the objective and perceived environment. Finally, results of this study indicated that both the actual and perceived built environment are associated with bicycling behavior, particularly for utilitarian bicycling. For recreational bicycling, the objective environment attributes measured in this study are not significant factors, while perceptions do matter Close

• 3. [Article] Equity Analysis of Portland’s Draft Bicycle Master Plan – Findings

  Portland's current bicycle network has brought the city into the national spotlight as a leader in the provision of cycling infrastructure. As the city looks forward to 2030 with ambitions of becoming ...

  Citation × Citation Citation Abstract Copy Title: Equity Analysis of Portland’s Draft Bicycle Master Plan – Findings Author: Dill, Jennifer, Haggerty, Brendon Year: 2009 Portland's current bicycle network has brought the city into the national spotlight as a leader in the provision of cycling infrastructure. As the city looks forward to 2030 with ambitions of becoming a truly world-class bicycling city, it is clear that if the Draft Plan is fully implemented, nearly all of the city will be covered by a dense network of bikeways. The question of equity in the future is therefore not so much one of network coverage or lack of coverage, but of project priority and timing of implementation. The current network, while outstanding relative to other cities, nevertheless has certain service gaps where network coverage is sparse. Identifying where service gaps overlap with disadvantaged populations can help the city prioritize projects from the Draft Plan to serve these groups. The approach of this study was guided by a Public Health/Equity Objective developed during the planning process. This objective urged action to "perform equity gap analysis that includes demographic/income indicators overlaid with existing bike facility gap analysis to inform priority settings where people live, learn, work, and play." In addition to these four categories, we also address bicycle access to transit in recognition of the reality that many outlying neighborhoods are not within a 3-mile bikeable distance to important destinations. Title: Equity Analysis of Portland’s Draft Bicycle Master Plan – Findings Author: Dill, Jennifer, Haggerty, Brendon Year: 2009 Portland's current bicycle network has brought the city into the national spotlight as a leader in the provision of cycling infrastructure. As the city looks forward to 2030 with ambitions of becoming a truly world-class bicycling city, it is clear that if the Draft Plan is fully implemented, nearly all of the city will be covered by a dense network of bikeways. The question of equity in the future is therefore not so much one of network coverage or lack of coverage, but of project priority and timing of implementation. The current network, while outstanding relative to other cities, nevertheless has certain service gaps where network coverage is sparse. Identifying where service gaps overlap with disadvantaged populations can help the city prioritize projects from the Draft Plan to serve these groups. The approach of this study was guided by a Public Health/Equity Objective developed during the planning process. This objective urged action to "perform equity gap analysis that includes demographic/income indicators overlaid with existing bike facility gap analysis to inform priority settings where people live, learn, work, and play." In addition to these four categories, we also address bicycle access to transit in recognition of the reality that many outlying neighborhoods are not within a 3-mile bikeable distance to important destinations. Close

• 4. [Article] Breaking Barriers to Bike Share: Insights from Residents of Traditionally Underserved Neighborhoods

  Evidence has shown that higher income and white populations are overrepresented in both access to and use of bike share. Efforts to overcome underserved communities’ barriers to access and use of bike ...

  Citation × Citation Citation Abstract Copy Title: Breaking Barriers to Bike Share: Insights from Residents of Traditionally Underserved Neighborhoods Author: McNeil, Nathan, Dill, Jennifer, MacArthur, John, Broach, Joseph, Howland, Steven Year: 2017 Evidence has shown that higher income and white populations are overrepresented in both access to and use of bike share. Efforts to overcome underserved communities’ barriers to access and use of bike share have been initiated in a number of cities, including those working with the Better Bike Share Partnership (BBSP) to launch and test potentially replicable approaches to improve the equity outcomes. This report describes findings from a survey of residents living near bike share stations placed in underserved communities of select BBSP cities: Philadelphia, Chicago, and Brooklyn. These were neighborhoods targeted for focused outreach related to BBSP programs, and were majority-minority (79- 94% people of color) and lower-income (36-61% of households under 150% of the poverty level). Residents were also surveyed in control areas that did not receive BBSP targeted outreach in two of the cities. The research team mailed surveys to 6,000 residents in each city, and received 1,885 responses. Respondents closely matched area demographics on race/ethnicity and income in most study locations, but were somewhat more likely to be women, older and more highly educated. Findings are drawn primarily from an analysis of data from adults in the BBSP outreach areas under 65 years old and physically able to ride a bicycle. Of those respondents who provided race and income information (n=779), 42% were lower-income (defined as 300% of poverty or below) people of color, 27% were higher-income (above 300% of poverty) people of color, 6% were lower-income and white (not Hispanic), and 25% were higher-income and white. Race and income often influenced responses to bicycling and bike share in different ways. Differences in behavior and opinions sometimes correlated with income, sometimes with race, and sometimes with race and income combined. Both people of color and lower-income residents cited more barriers to bicycling generally and to using bike share than did higher-income white residents. The biggest barrier to bicycling generally is concern about traffic safety, regardless of race or income (cited as a big barrier by 48% of residents). For some, personal safety is also a concern. For example, 22% of lower-income people of color stated that a big barrier to riding was that doing so could cause them to be harassed or a victim of crime. Some of the most common barriers to bicycling cited by lower-income people of color were issues that bike share could address, such as: not having a bike or related gear (47%); not having a safe place to leave a bike where they need to go (36%); the expense of buying a bike or related gear (41%); and not having a safe place to store a bike at home (32%). High costs of membership and concerns about liability for the bicycle were big barriers to using bike share for about half of lower-income respondents (48% and 52% respectively), compared to 33% and 31% of higher-income respondents of color and only 18% and 10% of higherincome white respondents. Another set of barriers relates to knowledge, lack of knowledge or incorrect knowledge. Only 31% of all respondents knew the details about the availability of the reduced-price membership or pass option, and 34% of lower-income respondents of color said that not knowing enough about how to use bike share was a big barrier to using it, compared to 19% of higher-income respondents of color and 7% of higher-income white residents. Among potential program changes, lower-income people of color were significantly more likely than other respondents to indicate that certain changes would make them more likely to use bike share, including: several changes that could help with cost and liability concerns such as discounted membership or use options (80% stating somewhat or much more likely to use bike share with this change), access to free or low-cost helmets/gear (72%), and easier ways to pay with cash (67%); and several changes to help overcome knowledge or experience gaps, such as help finding safe ways to get where I need to go (70%), and organized rides for people like me (71%). Respondents generally have positive attitudes about bicycling and bike share. A large majority of all residents (73%) and lower-income people of color (74%) agreed that the city’s bike share system “is useful for people like me.” In terms of reasons for using bike share, getting exercise was cited by 71% of the lower-income respondents of color as a reason they would consider using bike share, a rate much higher than other respondent groups. Being able to ride with friends and family was cited by 48% of lower-income respondents of color, again higher than other groups. Title: Breaking Barriers to Bike Share: Insights from Residents of Traditionally Underserved Neighborhoods Author: McNeil, Nathan, Dill, Jennifer, MacArthur, John, Broach, Joseph, Howland, Steven Year: 2017 Evidence has shown that higher income and white populations are overrepresented in both access to and use of bike share. Efforts to overcome underserved communities’ barriers to access and use of bike share have been initiated in a number of cities, including those working with the Better Bike Share Partnership (BBSP) to launch and test potentially replicable approaches to improve the equity outcomes. This report describes findings from a survey of residents living near bike share stations placed in underserved communities of select BBSP cities: Philadelphia, Chicago, and Brooklyn. These were neighborhoods targeted for focused outreach related to BBSP programs, and were majority-minority (79- 94% people of color) and lower-income (36-61% of households under 150% of the poverty level). Residents were also surveyed in control areas that did not receive BBSP targeted outreach in two of the cities. The research team mailed surveys to 6,000 residents in each city, and received 1,885 responses. Respondents closely matched area demographics on race/ethnicity and income in most study locations, but were somewhat more likely to be women, older and more highly educated. Findings are drawn primarily from an analysis of data from adults in the BBSP outreach areas under 65 years old and physically able to ride a bicycle. Of those respondents who provided race and income information (n=779), 42% were lower-income (defined as 300% of poverty or below) people of color, 27% were higher-income (above 300% of poverty) people of color, 6% were lower-income and white (not Hispanic), and 25% were higher-income and white. Race and income often influenced responses to bicycling and bike share in different ways. Differences in behavior and opinions sometimes correlated with income, sometimes with race, and sometimes with race and income combined. Both people of color and lower-income residents cited more barriers to bicycling generally and to using bike share than did higher-income white residents. The biggest barrier to bicycling generally is concern about traffic safety, regardless of race or income (cited as a big barrier by 48% of residents). For some, personal safety is also a concern. For example, 22% of lower-income people of color stated that a big barrier to riding was that doing so could cause them to be harassed or a victim of crime. Some of the most common barriers to bicycling cited by lower-income people of color were issues that bike share could address, such as: not having a bike or related gear (47%); not having a safe place to leave a bike where they need to go (36%); the expense of buying a bike or related gear (41%); and not having a safe place to store a bike at home (32%). High costs of membership and concerns about liability for the bicycle were big barriers to using bike share for about half of lower-income respondents (48% and 52% respectively), compared to 33% and 31% of higher-income respondents of color and only 18% and 10% of higherincome white respondents. Another set of barriers relates to knowledge, lack of knowledge or incorrect knowledge. Only 31% of all respondents knew the details about the availability of the reduced-price membership or pass option, and 34% of lower-income respondents of color said that not knowing enough about how to use bike share was a big barrier to using it, compared to 19% of higher-income respondents of color and 7% of higher-income white residents. Among potential program changes, lower-income people of color were significantly more likely than other respondents to indicate that certain changes would make them more likely to use bike share, including: several changes that could help with cost and liability concerns such as discounted membership or use options (80% stating somewhat or much more likely to use bike share with this change), access to free or low-cost helmets/gear (72%), and easier ways to pay with cash (67%); and several changes to help overcome knowledge or experience gaps, such as help finding safe ways to get where I need to go (70%), and organized rides for people like me (71%). Respondents generally have positive attitudes about bicycling and bike share. A large majority of all residents (73%) and lower-income people of color (74%) agreed that the city’s bike share system “is useful for people like me.” In terms of reasons for using bike share, getting exercise was cited by 71% of the lower-income respondents of color as a reason they would consider using bike share, a rate much higher than other respondent groups. Being able to ride with friends and family was cited by 48% of lower-income respondents of color, again higher than other groups. Close