Search

Search Results

• 1. [Article] Factors Associated with the Bicycle Commute Use of Newcomers: Analysis of the 70 Largest U.S. Cities

  Bicycling is known to produce benefits for cities, in regards to reducing levels of congestion, generating positive health outcomes, and providing affordable transportation options to low-income families. ...

  Citation × Citation Citation Abstract Copy Title: Factors Associated with the Bicycle Commute Use of Newcomers: Analysis of the 70 Largest U.S. Cities Author: Dann, Ryan Year: 2015 Bicycling is known to produce benefits for cities, in regards to reducing levels of congestion, generating positive health outcomes, and providing affordable transportation options to low-income families. Conventional analysis of urban bicycle commuting does not currently consider the importance of separating migrant, or “newcomer,” bicycle commute use from pre-existing resident bicycle commute use. The goal of this paper is to provide additional information on individual, social, and environmental factors that influence newcomer bicycle use for commuting purposes. This cross-sectional study used data from the 2007-2011 American Community Survey (5-year Estimates) to analyze the bicycle commute use of newcomers in the 70 largest U.S. cities. Relationships between newcomer bicycle commute use and socio-demographic, physical environment, and social environment factors were explored. Newcomer bicycle commute use has a strong positive association with pre-existing city-wide levels of bicycle commute use and a weak positive association with city-wide levels of bicycle infrastructure. After controlling for the built environment, cities with very high levels of pre-existing bicycle use are associated with a 690% higher likelihood of a newcomer’s bicycle commute use when compared to cities with low levels of pre-existing bicycle use. The results suggest that a newcomer’s bicycle use is related to demographics characteristics and pre-existing bicycle use, and that bicycle infrastructure has a relatively negligible influence. The findings may be useful for city planners and policymakers attempting to attract bicycle users to their cities. Title: Factors Associated with the Bicycle Commute Use of Newcomers: Analysis of the 70 Largest U.S. Cities Author: Dann, Ryan Year: 2015 Bicycling is known to produce benefits for cities, in regards to reducing levels of congestion, generating positive health outcomes, and providing affordable transportation options to low-income families. Conventional analysis of urban bicycle commuting does not currently consider the importance of separating migrant, or “newcomer,” bicycle commute use from pre-existing resident bicycle commute use. The goal of this paper is to provide additional information on individual, social, and environmental factors that influence newcomer bicycle use for commuting purposes. This cross-sectional study used data from the 2007-2011 American Community Survey (5-year Estimates) to analyze the bicycle commute use of newcomers in the 70 largest U.S. cities. Relationships between newcomer bicycle commute use and socio-demographic, physical environment, and social environment factors were explored. Newcomer bicycle commute use has a strong positive association with pre-existing city-wide levels of bicycle commute use and a weak positive association with city-wide levels of bicycle infrastructure. After controlling for the built environment, cities with very high levels of pre-existing bicycle use are associated with a 690% higher likelihood of a newcomer’s bicycle commute use when compared to cities with low levels of pre-existing bicycle use. The results suggest that a newcomer’s bicycle use is related to demographics characteristics and pre-existing bicycle use, and that bicycle infrastructure has a relatively negligible influence. The findings may be useful for city planners and policymakers attempting to attract bicycle users to their cities. Close

• 2. [Article] Examining Consumer Behavior and Travel Choices

  This study represents a first attempt to answer a few of the questions that have arisen concerning multimodal transportation investments and the impacts of mode shifts on the business community. This research ...

  Citation × Citation Citation Abstract Copy Title: Examining Consumer Behavior and Travel Choices Author: Clifton, Kelly J., Muhs, Christopher Devlin, Morrissey, Sara, Morrissey, Tomás, Currans, Kristina Marie, Ritter, Chloe Year: 2013 This study represents a first attempt to answer a few of the questions that have arisen concerning multimodal transportation investments and the impacts of mode shifts on the business community. This research aims to merge the long history of scholarly work that examines the impacts of the built environment on non-work travel with the relatively new interest in consumer spending by mode of travel. This empirical study of travel choices and consumer spending across 89 businesses in the Portland metropolitan area shows there are important differences between the amounts customers spend on average at various businesses by their mode of travel. However, these differences become less pronounced when we control for demographics of the customer and other attributes of the trip. This study of consumer spending and travel choices has some compelling findings that suggest some key spending and frequency differences by mode of travel that will likely invigorate the discussion of the economic impacts of these modes. Key findings are: 1) Bicyclists, pedestrians and transit riders are competitive consumers: When demographics and socioeconomics are controlled for, mode choice does not have a statistically significant impact on consumer spending at convenience stores, drinking establishments and restaurants. When trip frequency is accounted for, the average monthly expenditures by customer modes of travel reveal that bicyclists, transit users and pedestrians are competitive consumers and, for all businesses except supermarkets, spend more on average than those who drive and 2) The built environment matters: We support previous literature and find that residential and employment density, the proximity to rail transit, and the amount of automobile and bicycle parking are all important in explaining the use of non-automobile modes. In particular, provision of bike parking and bike corrals are significant predictors of bike mode share at the establishment level. Other findings lend more insight into the relationship between consumer behavior and travel choices. For the non-work destinations studied, the automobile remains the dominant mode of travel. Patrons are largely arriving by private vehicle to most of the destinations in this study, particularly to grocery stores where larger quantities of goods tend to be purchased. But, high non-automobile mode shares and short travel distances exist in areas of concentrated urban activity. In sum, this study provides some empirical evidence to answer the questions of business owners about how mode shifts might impact their market shares and revenues. More work is needed to better understand the implications of future changes and to provide a robust assessment of the returns on these investments and their economic impacts. Title: Examining Consumer Behavior and Travel Choices Author: Clifton, Kelly J., Muhs, Christopher Devlin, Morrissey, Sara, Morrissey, Tomás, Currans, Kristina Marie, Ritter, Chloe Year: 2013 This study represents a first attempt to answer a few of the questions that have arisen concerning multimodal transportation investments and the impacts of mode shifts on the business community. This research aims to merge the long history of scholarly work that examines the impacts of the built environment on non-work travel with the relatively new interest in consumer spending by mode of travel. This empirical study of travel choices and consumer spending across 89 businesses in the Portland metropolitan area shows there are important differences between the amounts customers spend on average at various businesses by their mode of travel. However, these differences become less pronounced when we control for demographics of the customer and other attributes of the trip. This study of consumer spending and travel choices has some compelling findings that suggest some key spending and frequency differences by mode of travel that will likely invigorate the discussion of the economic impacts of these modes. Key findings are: 1) Bicyclists, pedestrians and transit riders are competitive consumers: When demographics and socioeconomics are controlled for, mode choice does not have a statistically significant impact on consumer spending at convenience stores, drinking establishments and restaurants. When trip frequency is accounted for, the average monthly expenditures by customer modes of travel reveal that bicyclists, transit users and pedestrians are competitive consumers and, for all businesses except supermarkets, spend more on average than those who drive and 2) The built environment matters: We support previous literature and find that residential and employment density, the proximity to rail transit, and the amount of automobile and bicycle parking are all important in explaining the use of non-automobile modes. In particular, provision of bike parking and bike corrals are significant predictors of bike mode share at the establishment level. Other findings lend more insight into the relationship between consumer behavior and travel choices. For the non-work destinations studied, the automobile remains the dominant mode of travel. Patrons are largely arriving by private vehicle to most of the destinations in this study, particularly to grocery stores where larger quantities of goods tend to be purchased. But, high non-automobile mode shares and short travel distances exist in areas of concentrated urban activity. In sum, this study provides some empirical evidence to answer the questions of business owners about how mode shifts might impact their market shares and revenues. More work is needed to better understand the implications of future changes and to provide a robust assessment of the returns on these investments and their economic impacts. Close

• 3. [Article] Narratives of Marginalized Cyclists: Understanding Obstacles to Utilitarian Cycling Among Women and Minorities in Portland, OR

  Research has demonstrated that everyday or utilitarian forms of cycling are most likely to generate positive population-level health impacts (Garrard et al., 2012), yet significant deterrents to routine ...

  Citation × Citation Citation Abstract Copy Title: Narratives of Marginalized Cyclists: Understanding Obstacles to Utilitarian Cycling Among Women and Minorities in Portland, OR Author: Lubitow, Amy Year: 2017 Research has demonstrated that everyday or utilitarian forms of cycling are most likely to generate positive population-level health impacts (Garrard et al., 2012), yet significant deterrents to routine cycling remain, particularly for women and minorities. The primary aim of this project was to conduct a qualitative interview study that generated rich, narrative data regarding obstacles to routine or utilitarian cycling for women and minorities who already see biking as a viable form of transit, but who make relatively few bike trips. A secondary aim of the project was to develop a set of specific interventions that have the potential to increase cycling trips within these demographic groups. Findings suggest that barriers for marginalized cyclists range from concerns about infrastructure limitations to overt racial and gender discrimination experienced while riding. Data also shed light on the unique social position of mothers, who often face challenges transporting children. These findings suggest that cycling mobilities are critically linked to intersecting and overlapping identities, and that efforts to increase diversity in bike ridership must acknowledge the unique challenges experienced by marginalized groups. Title: Narratives of Marginalized Cyclists: Understanding Obstacles to Utilitarian Cycling Among Women and Minorities in Portland, OR Author: Lubitow, Amy Year: 2017 Research has demonstrated that everyday or utilitarian forms of cycling are most likely to generate positive population-level health impacts (Garrard et al., 2012), yet significant deterrents to routine cycling remain, particularly for women and minorities. The primary aim of this project was to conduct a qualitative interview study that generated rich, narrative data regarding obstacles to routine or utilitarian cycling for women and minorities who already see biking as a viable form of transit, but who make relatively few bike trips. A secondary aim of the project was to develop a set of specific interventions that have the potential to increase cycling trips within these demographic groups. Findings suggest that barriers for marginalized cyclists range from concerns about infrastructure limitations to overt racial and gender discrimination experienced while riding. Data also shed light on the unique social position of mothers, who often face challenges transporting children. These findings suggest that cycling mobilities are critically linked to intersecting and overlapping identities, and that efforts to increase diversity in bike ridership must acknowledge the unique challenges experienced by marginalized groups. 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