Search

Search Results

• 61. [Article] Assessing Transit Fare Equity in Utah Using a Geographic Information System

  The goal of this study is to develop and apply a new method for assessing social equity impacts of distance-based public transit fares. Shifting to a distance-based fare structure can disproportionately ...

  Citation × Citation Citation Abstract Copy Title: Assessing Transit Fare Equity in Utah Using a Geographic Information System Author: Farber, Steven, Batholomew, Keith, Li, Xiao, Paez, Antonio, Nurul Habib, Khandker M. Year: 2014 The goal of this study is to develop and apply a new method for assessing social equity impacts of distance-based public transit fares. Shifting to a distance-based fare structure can disproportionately favor or penalize different subgroups of a population based on variations in settlement patterns, travel needs, and most importantly, transit use. According to federal law, such disparities must be evaluated by the transit agency, but the area-based techniques identified by the Federal Transit Authority for assessing discrimination fail to account for disparities in distances travelled by transit users. This means that transit agencies currently lack guidelines for assessing the social equity impacts of replacing flat fare with distance-based fare structures. Our solution is to incorporate a joint ordinal-continuous model of trip generation and distance travelled into a GIS Decision Support System. The system enables a transit planner to visualize and compare estimated distances travelled and transit-cost maps for different population profiles and fare structures. We apply the method to a case study in the Wasatch Front, Utah, where the Utah Transit Authority is exploring a switch to a distance-based fare structure. The analysis reveals that overall distance-based fares benefit low-income, elderly, and non-white populations. However, the effect is geographically uneven, and may be negative for members of these groups living on the urban fringe. The research discusses a potential conflict between policies designed to promote equity and those intended to increase discretionary ridership. For example, increasing fares for longdistance discretionary riders travelling from suburban light-rail stations to the central business district may have a negative impact on ridership, despite being economically more efficient through cost-recapturing. At the same time, reducing fares for short-distance trips that are currently too expensive compared to private automobile travel may attract new riders. A full cost-benefit analysis sensitive to heterogeneous price elasticity is recommended for future research. It is also noted that the research findings are dependent on the current spatial distributions of population segments and travel patterns. The equity benefits of distance-based fares are primarily derived from residential clustering of low-income and minority groups in more compact urban areas near the center of the city. Demographic trends, such as inner-city gentrification and suburban aging-in-place, may impose increased travel demands on low income and elderly riders, nullifying future equity gains made by a transition to distance-based fares. Title: Assessing Transit Fare Equity in Utah Using a Geographic Information System Author: Farber, Steven, Batholomew, Keith, Li, Xiao, Paez, Antonio, Nurul Habib, Khandker M. Year: 2014 The goal of this study is to develop and apply a new method for assessing social equity impacts of distance-based public transit fares. Shifting to a distance-based fare structure can disproportionately favor or penalize different subgroups of a population based on variations in settlement patterns, travel needs, and most importantly, transit use. According to federal law, such disparities must be evaluated by the transit agency, but the area-based techniques identified by the Federal Transit Authority for assessing discrimination fail to account for disparities in distances travelled by transit users. This means that transit agencies currently lack guidelines for assessing the social equity impacts of replacing flat fare with distance-based fare structures. Our solution is to incorporate a joint ordinal-continuous model of trip generation and distance travelled into a GIS Decision Support System. The system enables a transit planner to visualize and compare estimated distances travelled and transit-cost maps for different population profiles and fare structures. We apply the method to a case study in the Wasatch Front, Utah, where the Utah Transit Authority is exploring a switch to a distance-based fare structure. The analysis reveals that overall distance-based fares benefit low-income, elderly, and non-white populations. However, the effect is geographically uneven, and may be negative for members of these groups living on the urban fringe. The research discusses a potential conflict between policies designed to promote equity and those intended to increase discretionary ridership. For example, increasing fares for longdistance discretionary riders travelling from suburban light-rail stations to the central business district may have a negative impact on ridership, despite being economically more efficient through cost-recapturing. At the same time, reducing fares for short-distance trips that are currently too expensive compared to private automobile travel may attract new riders. A full cost-benefit analysis sensitive to heterogeneous price elasticity is recommended for future research. It is also noted that the research findings are dependent on the current spatial distributions of population segments and travel patterns. The equity benefits of distance-based fares are primarily derived from residential clustering of low-income and minority groups in more compact urban areas near the center of the city. Demographic trends, such as inner-city gentrification and suburban aging-in-place, may impose increased travel demands on low income and elderly riders, nullifying future equity gains made by a transition to distance-based fares. Close

• 62. [Article] Estimating Walking and Bicycling at the State Level

  Estimates of vehicle miles traveled (VMT) drive policy and planning decisions for surface transportation. No similar metric is computed for cycling and walking. What approaches could be used to compute ...

  Citation × Citation Citation Abstract Copy Title: Estimating Walking and Bicycling at the State Level Author: Nordback, Krista, Sellinger, Mike, Phillips, Taylor Year: 2017 Estimates of vehicle miles traveled (VMT) drive policy and planning decisions for surface transportation. No similar metric is computed for cycling and walking. What approaches could be used to compute such a metric on the state level? This report discusses three such approaches, identifies the advantages and disadvantages of each, and applies them to Washington State. The first approach employs travel survey data. The second approach is sample-based using pedestrian and bicycle count data. The third approach is an aggregate demand model approach using demographic data combined with count data. Due to data limitations, none of these methods could be properly implemented on the statewide level. Despite the data limits, the methods were implemented for one county (King County) in order to compare findings. The travel survey method estimated the lowest bicycle and pedestrian miles traveled (BMT and PMT), and the sample-based method estimated the highest. The travel survey method is useful for a statewide measure, but it does not provide the detail needed for facility-level estimates. For bicyclists, the sample-based method is appropriate if volumes are desired at the facility level. For pedestrians, the aggregate model might be more appropriate, because of the more dispersed nature of pedestrian travel. Each method has strengths and weaknesses, and each helps us understand bicycle and pedestrian travel in different ways. For this reason, the project team recommends improving both statewide travel survey data and pedestrian and cyclist traffic count data which feed these methods. Travel survey data should be collected statewide with oversampling for non-motorized travelers. Pedestrian and cyclist traffic counts should be expanded to include a continuous counting program in addition to the short-duration count program. After the continuous count program is in place, short-duration counts should be chosen using a stratified random sampling approach. For example, the sampling frame could consist of all road and path segments in the state divided by region (Coast Range, Puget Lowland, Cascades, Eastern Washington), by urbanity (rural, urban), by facility type (highways/arterials, local/collector roads, paths), and by whether the location is on a bridge or not. To increase sites sampled, the short-duration count program could also be rotated, with each location being counted every three years instead of every year. Better data will allow the state to quantify bicycling and walking at both the state level and facility level to inform decision-making, facility design and planning, and safety analysis. Title: Estimating Walking and Bicycling at the State Level Author: Nordback, Krista, Sellinger, Mike, Phillips, Taylor Year: 2017 Estimates of vehicle miles traveled (VMT) drive policy and planning decisions for surface transportation. No similar metric is computed for cycling and walking. What approaches could be used to compute such a metric on the state level? This report discusses three such approaches, identifies the advantages and disadvantages of each, and applies them to Washington State. The first approach employs travel survey data. The second approach is sample-based using pedestrian and bicycle count data. The third approach is an aggregate demand model approach using demographic data combined with count data. Due to data limitations, none of these methods could be properly implemented on the statewide level. Despite the data limits, the methods were implemented for one county (King County) in order to compare findings. The travel survey method estimated the lowest bicycle and pedestrian miles traveled (BMT and PMT), and the sample-based method estimated the highest. The travel survey method is useful for a statewide measure, but it does not provide the detail needed for facility-level estimates. For bicyclists, the sample-based method is appropriate if volumes are desired at the facility level. For pedestrians, the aggregate model might be more appropriate, because of the more dispersed nature of pedestrian travel. Each method has strengths and weaknesses, and each helps us understand bicycle and pedestrian travel in different ways. For this reason, the project team recommends improving both statewide travel survey data and pedestrian and cyclist traffic count data which feed these methods. Travel survey data should be collected statewide with oversampling for non-motorized travelers. Pedestrian and cyclist traffic counts should be expanded to include a continuous counting program in addition to the short-duration count program. After the continuous count program is in place, short-duration counts should be chosen using a stratified random sampling approach. For example, the sampling frame could consist of all road and path segments in the state divided by region (Coast Range, Puget Lowland, Cascades, Eastern Washington), by urbanity (rural, urban), by facility type (highways/arterials, local/collector roads, paths), and by whether the location is on a bridge or not. To increase sites sampled, the short-duration count program could also be rotated, with each location being counted every three years instead of every year. Better data will allow the state to quantify bicycling and walking at both the state level and facility level to inform decision-making, facility design and planning, and safety analysis. Close

• 63. [Article] Do TODs Make a Difference?

  In this report, we present research that measures the outcomes of TOD areas in relation to their metropolitan area controls with respect to (1) jobs by sector; (2) housing choice for household types based ...

  Citation × Citation Citation Abstract Copy Title: Do TODs Make a Difference? Author: Nelson, Arthur C., Miller, Matt, Eskic, Dejan, Kim, Keuntae, Ewing, Reid, Liu, Jenny H., Berggren, Matt, Mumuni, Zakari Year: 2015 In this report, we present research that measures the outcomes of TOD areas in relation to their metropolitan area controls with respect to (1) jobs by sector; (2) housing choice for household types based on key demographic characteristics; (3) housing affordability based on transportation costs; and (4) job-worker balance as a measure of accessibility. Prior literature has not systematically evaluated TOD outcomes in these respects with respect to light rail transit (LRT), commuter rail transit (CRT), bus rapid transit (BRT), and streetcar transit (SCT) systems. Our analysis helps close some of these gaps. We apply our analysis to 23 fixed-guideway transit systems operating in 17 metropolitan areas in the South and West that have one or more of those systems. We find: (1) Most TOD areas gained jobs in the office, knowledge, education, health care and entertainment sectors, adding more than $100 billion in wages capitalized over time; (2) In assessing economic resilience associated with LRT systems, jobs continued to shift away from TOD areas before the Great Recession, the pace slowed during the recession but reversed during recovery, leading us to speculate that LRT TOD areas may have transformed metropolitan economies served by LRT systems; (3) Rents for offices, retail stores and apartments were higher when closer to SCT systems, had mixed results with respect LRT systems, but were mostly lower with respect to CRT systems (our BRT sample was too small to evaluate); (4) SCT systems performed best in terms of increasing their TOD-area shares of metropolitan population, households and householders by age, housing units, and renters with BRT systems performing less well while LRT and CRT systems experienced a much smaller shift in the share of growth; (5) Household transportation costs as a share of budgets increase with respect to distance from LRT transit stations to seven miles, suggesting the proximity to LRT stations reduces total household transportation costs; (6) Emerging trends that may favor higher-wage jobs locating in TOD areas over time than lower- or middle-wage jobs, perhaps because TOD areas attract more investment which requires more productive, higher-paid labor to justify the investment; and (7) The share of workers who commute 10 minutes or less to work increases nearly one-half of 1 percent for each half-mile their resident block group is to an LRT transit station, capping at a gain of 1.3 percent, which is not a trivial gain. Our report summarizes case studies of 23 transit systems and three journal articles based on our research. Title: Do TODs Make a Difference? Author: Nelson, Arthur C., Miller, Matt, Eskic, Dejan, Kim, Keuntae, Ewing, Reid, Liu, Jenny H., Berggren, Matt, Mumuni, Zakari Year: 2015 In this report, we present research that measures the outcomes of TOD areas in relation to their metropolitan area controls with respect to (1) jobs by sector; (2) housing choice for household types based on key demographic characteristics; (3) housing affordability based on transportation costs; and (4) job-worker balance as a measure of accessibility. Prior literature has not systematically evaluated TOD outcomes in these respects with respect to light rail transit (LRT), commuter rail transit (CRT), bus rapid transit (BRT), and streetcar transit (SCT) systems. Our analysis helps close some of these gaps. We apply our analysis to 23 fixed-guideway transit systems operating in 17 metropolitan areas in the South and West that have one or more of those systems. We find: (1) Most TOD areas gained jobs in the office, knowledge, education, health care and entertainment sectors, adding more than $100 billion in wages capitalized over time; (2) In assessing economic resilience associated with LRT systems, jobs continued to shift away from TOD areas before the Great Recession, the pace slowed during the recession but reversed during recovery, leading us to speculate that LRT TOD areas may have transformed metropolitan economies served by LRT systems; (3) Rents for offices, retail stores and apartments were higher when closer to SCT systems, had mixed results with respect LRT systems, but were mostly lower with respect to CRT systems (our BRT sample was too small to evaluate); (4) SCT systems performed best in terms of increasing their TOD-area shares of metropolitan population, households and householders by age, housing units, and renters with BRT systems performing less well while LRT and CRT systems experienced a much smaller shift in the share of growth; (5) Household transportation costs as a share of budgets increase with respect to distance from LRT transit stations to seven miles, suggesting the proximity to LRT stations reduces total household transportation costs; (6) Emerging trends that may favor higher-wage jobs locating in TOD areas over time than lower- or middle-wage jobs, perhaps because TOD areas attract more investment which requires more productive, higher-paid labor to justify the investment; and (7) The share of workers who commute 10 minutes or less to work increases nearly one-half of 1 percent for each half-mile their resident block group is to an LRT transit station, capping at a gain of 1.3 percent, which is not a trivial gain. Our report summarizes case studies of 23 transit systems and three journal articles based on our research. Close

• 64. [Article] Portland's Changing Landscape

  Occasional Papers in Geography Publication No. 4 What is the nature and character of Portland? What are the conditions, changes and developments that have made it what it is? How does Portland compare ...

  Citation × Citation Citation Abstract Copy Title: Portland's Changing Landscape Author: Price, Larry W., Johnson, Daniel M., Ashbaugh, James A., Dotterrer, Steve, Abbott, Carl, Poulsen, Thomas M., Lycan, Richard, Latz, Gil, Dueker, Kenneth, Edner, Sheldon, Rabiega, William A., Kale, Steven R., Corcoran, Patrick E., Vanselow, Glenn, Hamilton, F. E. Ian, Chapman, Nancy J., Starker, Joan Year: 1987 Occasional Papers in Geography Publication No. 4 What is the nature and character of Portland? What are the conditions, changes and developments that have made it what it is? How does Portland compare with other places? What makes it unique? These are some of the question pursued in this volume. This book contains thirteen chapters discussing various facets of Portland's environmental, economy, and character. It is an up-to-date and comprehensive analysis of dynamics and change in the landscape. An overview is provided of Portland as a city and place to live, as well as its functional significance on a national and international basis. Two threads are woven through the tapestry of these essays. One is that Portland is a big city but with many attributes of a small town. The other is the closeness and accessibility of city and nature. The challenge is how to nurture and maintain both - to have our cake and eat it too. The evidence is clear that most American cities have not been able to achieve this. Only the future can tell how Portland will fare. The authors are all professional geographers or work in closely related fields. All have been involved with the Portland scene for a number of years and are uniquely qualified to write about these topics. While each approaches problems from his or her own perspective, the net result is a summing up, a taking stock of where we have been and where we are going. When considered as a whole the book should provide a better view than we have had of the nature and character of this special place. Title: Portland's Changing Landscape Author: Price, Larry W., Johnson, Daniel M., Ashbaugh, James A., Dotterrer, Steve, Abbott, Carl, Poulsen, Thomas M., Lycan, Richard, Latz, Gil, Dueker, Kenneth, Edner, Sheldon, Rabiega, William A., Kale, Steven R., Corcoran, Patrick E., Vanselow, Glenn, Hamilton, F. E. Ian, Chapman, Nancy J., Starker, Joan Year: 1987 Occasional Papers in Geography Publication No. 4 What is the nature and character of Portland? What are the conditions, changes and developments that have made it what it is? How does Portland compare with other places? What makes it unique? These are some of the question pursued in this volume. This book contains thirteen chapters discussing various facets of Portland's environmental, economy, and character. It is an up-to-date and comprehensive analysis of dynamics and change in the landscape. An overview is provided of Portland as a city and place to live, as well as its functional significance on a national and international basis. Two threads are woven through the tapestry of these essays. One is that Portland is a big city but with many attributes of a small town. The other is the closeness and accessibility of city and nature. The challenge is how to nurture and maintain both - to have our cake and eat it too. The evidence is clear that most American cities have not been able to achieve this. Only the future can tell how Portland will fare. The authors are all professional geographers or work in closely related fields. All have been involved with the Portland scene for a number of years and are uniquely qualified to write about these topics. While each approaches problems from his or her own perspective, the net result is a summing up, a taking stock of where we have been and where we are going. When considered as a whole the book should provide a better view than we have had of the nature and character of this special place. Close

• 65. [Article] Is Portland Really the Place Where Young People Go To Retire? Migration Patterns of Portland’s Young and College-Educated, 1980-2010

  For many metro areas, including Portland, being economically competitive in today’s knowledge and information economy depends on attracting and retaining young, college-­‐educated (YCE) migrants. On this ...

  Citation × Citation Citation Abstract Copy Title: Is Portland Really the Place Where Young People Go To Retire? Migration Patterns of Portland’s Young and College-Educated, 1980-2010 Author: Jurjevich, Jason R., Schrock, Greg Year: 2012 For many metro areas, including Portland, being economically competitive in today’s knowledge and information economy depends on attracting and retaining young, college-­‐educated (YCE) migrants. On this indicator, Portland has been most successful: since 1980, the Portland metropolitan region has attracted college-­‐educated individuals under the age of 40 at some of the country’s highest net migration rates in good economic times and bad. Though not unique to Portland, the resiliency of Portland’s migration streams, even in periods of economic uncertainty, calls attention to an increasingly selective group of YCE migrants who appear to place greater relative value on non-­‐economic factors—from political milieu to access to quality public transportation—compared to employment opportunities. This trend directly challenges a long-­‐established cornerstone of traditional migration theory suggesting that the decision to move is predicated on benefits exceeding costs, and linked to the importance of jobs and economic opportunity as attractive forces for working-­‐age households. Reading between the lines of recent media accounts, and in particular the television show Portlandia, the shift from economic to non-­‐economic factors has been portrayed in a most interesting way: because young migrants to Portland place relatively low value on work and traditional careers, their desire to exchange employment opportunities for quality of life (amenity) factors indeed makes Portland the city “where young people go to retire.” The question is: in the short and long-­‐term, how sustainable is Portland’s trend of attracting and retaining YCE migrants if labor market outcomes continue to remain worse compared to other metro areas? What are the facts? In this paper we draw upon U.S. Census Bureau data from the 2000 Census and more recent American Community Surveys from 2005-­‐2007 and 2008-­‐2010, to compare migration patterns in Portland to the other 50 largest U.S. metros. Title: Is Portland Really the Place Where Young People Go To Retire? Migration Patterns of Portland’s Young and College-Educated, 1980-2010 Author: Jurjevich, Jason R., Schrock, Greg Year: 2012 For many metro areas, including Portland, being economically competitive in today’s knowledge and information economy depends on attracting and retaining young, college-­‐educated (YCE) migrants. On this indicator, Portland has been most successful: since 1980, the Portland metropolitan region has attracted college-­‐educated individuals under the age of 40 at some of the country’s highest net migration rates in good economic times and bad. Though not unique to Portland, the resiliency of Portland’s migration streams, even in periods of economic uncertainty, calls attention to an increasingly selective group of YCE migrants who appear to place greater relative value on non-­‐economic factors—from political milieu to access to quality public transportation—compared to employment opportunities. This trend directly challenges a long-­‐established cornerstone of traditional migration theory suggesting that the decision to move is predicated on benefits exceeding costs, and linked to the importance of jobs and economic opportunity as attractive forces for working-­‐age households. Reading between the lines of recent media accounts, and in particular the television show Portlandia, the shift from economic to non-­‐economic factors has been portrayed in a most interesting way: because young migrants to Portland place relatively low value on work and traditional careers, their desire to exchange employment opportunities for quality of life (amenity) factors indeed makes Portland the city “where young people go to retire.” The question is: in the short and long-­‐term, how sustainable is Portland’s trend of attracting and retaining YCE migrants if labor market outcomes continue to remain worse compared to other metro areas? What are the facts? In this paper we draw upon U.S. Census Bureau data from the 2000 Census and more recent American Community Surveys from 2005-­‐2007 and 2008-­‐2010, to compare migration patterns in Portland to the other 50 largest U.S. metros. Close

• 66. [Article] Rerouting Mode Choice Models: ​H​ow Including Realistic Route Options Can Help Us Understand Decisions to Walk or Bike

  For a number of reasons—congestion, public health, greenhouse gas emissions, energy use, demographic shifts, and community livability to name a few—the importance of walking and bicycling as transportation ...

  Citation × Citation Citation Abstract Copy Title: Rerouting Mode Choice Models: ​H​ow Including Realistic Route Options Can Help Us Understand Decisions to Walk or Bike Author: Broach, Joseph Paul Year: 2016 For a number of reasons—congestion, public health, greenhouse gas emissions, energy use, demographic shifts, and community livability to name a few—the importance of walking and bicycling as transportation options will only continue to increase. Currently, policy interest and infrastructure funding for nonmotorized modes far outstrip our ability to successfully model bike and walk travel. In the past five years, we have learned a lot about where people prefer to bike and walk, but what can that tell us about whether people will bike or walk in the first place? The research presented here is designed to start bridging the gap between choice of route and choice of travel mode (walk, bike, transit, drive, etc.). A mode choice framework is presented that acknowledges the importance of attributes along specific walk and bike routes that travelers are likely to consider for a given trip. Adding route quality as a factor in mode choice decisions is new, and shows promise for: (1) improving prediction of pedestrian and cycling trips, (2) increasing sensitivity of models to finer-grained policy scenarios--testing the impact of a single proposed facility or design change on bike and walk mode shares, and (3) identifying separately the effects of pedestrian and cycling facilities on decisions to walk or ride from which route to take. The proposed framework is applied to revealed preference, GPS travel data collected from 2010-2013 in Portland, Oregon. Key results include: (1) specific walk and bike facilities are significant factors for mode as well as route choice, (2) lower traffic-stress routes may be more important for women than men when choosing whether to bike, (3) available routes on a specific trip may have independent impacts from more traditional measures of land-use and built environment such as density, and (4) the importance of walking and biking environments appears to remain even when controlling for neighborhood self-selection. Title: Rerouting Mode Choice Models: ​H​ow Including Realistic Route Options Can Help Us Understand Decisions to Walk or Bike Author: Broach, Joseph Paul Year: 2016 For a number of reasons—congestion, public health, greenhouse gas emissions, energy use, demographic shifts, and community livability to name a few—the importance of walking and bicycling as transportation options will only continue to increase. Currently, policy interest and infrastructure funding for nonmotorized modes far outstrip our ability to successfully model bike and walk travel. In the past five years, we have learned a lot about where people prefer to bike and walk, but what can that tell us about whether people will bike or walk in the first place? The research presented here is designed to start bridging the gap between choice of route and choice of travel mode (walk, bike, transit, drive, etc.). A mode choice framework is presented that acknowledges the importance of attributes along specific walk and bike routes that travelers are likely to consider for a given trip. Adding route quality as a factor in mode choice decisions is new, and shows promise for: (1) improving prediction of pedestrian and cycling trips, (2) increasing sensitivity of models to finer-grained policy scenarios--testing the impact of a single proposed facility or design change on bike and walk mode shares, and (3) identifying separately the effects of pedestrian and cycling facilities on decisions to walk or ride from which route to take. The proposed framework is applied to revealed preference, GPS travel data collected from 2010-2013 in Portland, Oregon. Key results include: (1) specific walk and bike facilities are significant factors for mode as well as route choice, (2) lower traffic-stress routes may be more important for women than men when choosing whether to bike, (3) available routes on a specific trip may have independent impacts from more traditional measures of land-use and built environment such as density, and (4) the importance of walking and biking environments appears to remain even when controlling for neighborhood self-selection. Close

• 67. [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