Search

Search Results

• 211. [Article] Webinar: Economic Impacts from Bicycle and Pedestrian Street Improvements

  As many cities are investing in street improvements to provide better biking and walking experiences, the economic value and impacts of these active transportation facilities remain areas where many practitioners, ...

  Citation × Citation Citation Abstract Copy Title: Webinar: Economic Impacts from Bicycle and Pedestrian Street Improvements Author: Liu, Jenny H. Year: 2017 As many cities are investing in street improvements to provide better biking and walking experiences, the economic value and impacts of these active transportation facilities remain areas where many practitioners, planners and policy makers are seeking more conclusive evidence. With various modes competing for scarce resources, planners and transportation agencies often struggle with how to justify infrastructure investments for non-motorized modes, particularly when driving is still the predominant mode of transportation in most cities. In this project we assess property value impacts of Portland’s “Green Loop” signature bike infrastructure concept, illustrating the importance of considering both accessibility and extensiveness of bike facility networks. The Green Loop is a proposed 6-mile linear open space running through the heart of Portland, connecting existing and new open spaces, parks, gathering areas, and walking and biking pathways. As envisioned, the Green Loop concept requires significant infrastructure investments, and would result in both short-term and long-term impacts on transportation (for all travel modes), economic development and the environment. In collaboration with the Portland Bureau of Planning and Sustainability (BPS), the Portland State University Institute for Sustainable Solutions (ISS), and in partnership with PeopleForBikes and the Summit Foundation, the goal of this research is to characterize, quantify and analyze these costs, benefits and impacts, particularly focusing on case studies of similar infrastructure investments in active transportation. In this webinar, we will further focus on the residential property value impacts associated with advanced bike facilities. We find that proximity to advanced bike facilities has significant and positive effects on all property values, highlighting household preferences for high quality bike infrastructure. The lessons and research gaps identified in this work led to the development of two ongoing NITC-funded studies: "Understanding Economic and Business Impacts of Street Improvements for Bicycle and Pedestrian Mobility - A Multi-City Multi-Approach Exploration" and "Understanding the economic impacts of urban greenway infrastructure." We will share some updates on these ongoing projects as well. Key learning outcomes include: A framework for understanding the economic results of bicycle and pedestrian investments, with data to show: Evidence of impacts on residential property values Evidence of impacts on on business and retail activity Insight into potential short-term and long-term impacts of the Portland Green Loop A method for estimating economic impacts of similar proposed active transportation projects Title: Webinar: Economic Impacts from Bicycle and Pedestrian Street Improvements Author: Liu, Jenny H. Year: 2017 As many cities are investing in street improvements to provide better biking and walking experiences, the economic value and impacts of these active transportation facilities remain areas where many practitioners, planners and policy makers are seeking more conclusive evidence. With various modes competing for scarce resources, planners and transportation agencies often struggle with how to justify infrastructure investments for non-motorized modes, particularly when driving is still the predominant mode of transportation in most cities. In this project we assess property value impacts of Portland’s “Green Loop” signature bike infrastructure concept, illustrating the importance of considering both accessibility and extensiveness of bike facility networks. The Green Loop is a proposed 6-mile linear open space running through the heart of Portland, connecting existing and new open spaces, parks, gathering areas, and walking and biking pathways. As envisioned, the Green Loop concept requires significant infrastructure investments, and would result in both short-term and long-term impacts on transportation (for all travel modes), economic development and the environment. In collaboration with the Portland Bureau of Planning and Sustainability (BPS), the Portland State University Institute for Sustainable Solutions (ISS), and in partnership with PeopleForBikes and the Summit Foundation, the goal of this research is to characterize, quantify and analyze these costs, benefits and impacts, particularly focusing on case studies of similar infrastructure investments in active transportation. In this webinar, we will further focus on the residential property value impacts associated with advanced bike facilities. We find that proximity to advanced bike facilities has significant and positive effects on all property values, highlighting household preferences for high quality bike infrastructure. The lessons and research gaps identified in this work led to the development of two ongoing NITC-funded studies: "Understanding Economic and Business Impacts of Street Improvements for Bicycle and Pedestrian Mobility - A Multi-City Multi-Approach Exploration" and "Understanding the economic impacts of urban greenway infrastructure." We will share some updates on these ongoing projects as well. Key learning outcomes include: A framework for understanding the economic results of bicycle and pedestrian investments, with data to show: Evidence of impacts on residential property values Evidence of impacts on on business and retail activity Insight into potential short-term and long-term impacts of the Portland Green Loop A method for estimating economic impacts of similar proposed active transportation projects Close

• 212. [Article] Heat Pump Water Heater (HPWH) Adoption

  As time goes by, the idea of having unlimited energy resources becomes less and less feasible. The population of our world and the rate of consumption of resources increase each year. The future has us ...

  Citation × Citation Citation Abstract Copy Title: Heat Pump Water Heater (HPWH) Adoption Author: Amini, Mitra, Singla, Puniti, Lui, Jonathan, Kensel, Craig, Lethlean, Joseph Year: 2012 As time goes by, the idea of having unlimited energy resources becomes less and less feasible. The population of our world and the rate of consumption of resources increase each year. The future has us looking at alternative energy sources that will drive the need for better methods of extraction of natural energy’s like wind, water, solar, geothermal heat, and other various types of natural resources. There is a need to focus on developing more energy efficiency of current products to lessen the demand on current energy sources. Primarily powered by electricity, one of the areas to focus on energy efficiency is the heat pump water heater (HPWH). In the Northwest states (Washington, Montana, Oregon, Idaho) about sixty to sixty five percent of households use electricity as the primary source of power. Heating water can consume anywhere from fifteen to twenty five percent of the home total energy consumption. The engineering behind the HPWH doesn’t generate its own heat while running. Rather the HPWH uses the ambient air surrounding the water heater and functions in revers of a refrigeration or air conditioning system. According to Energy star: “HPWH takes the heat from surrounding air and transfers it to water in an enclosed tank. A low-pressure liquid refrigerant is vaporized in the heat pump's evaporator and passed into the compressor. As the pressure of the refrigerant increases, so does its temperature. The heated refrigerant runs through a condenser coil within the storage tank, transferring heat to the water stored there. As the refrigerant delivers its heat to the water, it cools and condenses, and then passes through an expansion valve where the pressure is reduced and the cycle starts over.” Research Question: Why has the HPWH had such a slow or low adoption rate in society? Research Objective: There are factors and sub factors that are affecting the adoption of the Heat Pump Water Heater. The factors we have identified are economic, politic, social, technical and environmental. The sub-factors (elements) will be constructed at a later time and into the HDM model to find the causes that affect the adoption of heat pump water heater. Title: Heat Pump Water Heater (HPWH) Adoption Author: Amini, Mitra, Singla, Puniti, Lui, Jonathan, Kensel, Craig, Lethlean, Joseph Year: 2012 As time goes by, the idea of having unlimited energy resources becomes less and less feasible. The population of our world and the rate of consumption of resources increase each year. The future has us looking at alternative energy sources that will drive the need for better methods of extraction of natural energy’s like wind, water, solar, geothermal heat, and other various types of natural resources. There is a need to focus on developing more energy efficiency of current products to lessen the demand on current energy sources. Primarily powered by electricity, one of the areas to focus on energy efficiency is the heat pump water heater (HPWH). In the Northwest states (Washington, Montana, Oregon, Idaho) about sixty to sixty five percent of households use electricity as the primary source of power. Heating water can consume anywhere from fifteen to twenty five percent of the home total energy consumption. The engineering behind the HPWH doesn’t generate its own heat while running. Rather the HPWH uses the ambient air surrounding the water heater and functions in revers of a refrigeration or air conditioning system. According to Energy star: “HPWH takes the heat from surrounding air and transfers it to water in an enclosed tank. A low-pressure liquid refrigerant is vaporized in the heat pump's evaporator and passed into the compressor. As the pressure of the refrigerant increases, so does its temperature. The heated refrigerant runs through a condenser coil within the storage tank, transferring heat to the water stored there. As the refrigerant delivers its heat to the water, it cools and condenses, and then passes through an expansion valve where the pressure is reduced and the cycle starts over.” Research Question: Why has the HPWH had such a slow or low adoption rate in society? Research Objective: There are factors and sub factors that are affecting the adoption of the Heat Pump Water Heater. The factors we have identified are economic, politic, social, technical and environmental. The sub-factors (elements) will be constructed at a later time and into the HDM model to find the causes that affect the adoption of heat pump water heater. Close

• 213. [Article] Enhancing the Process of Redistricting in Metro Area Using Operation Research Approach

  Redistricting is the process that local government uses census data to redraw electoral districts lines and boundaries with the purpose to achieve equity of eligible voter population and to eliminate political ...

  Citation × Citation Citation Abstract Copy Title: Enhancing the Process of Redistricting in Metro Area Using Operation Research Approach Author: Siriwannangkul, Benjamas, Yoon, Byung Sung, Pai, Chun Fan, Su, Shih Po, Xu, Yuan Year: 2012 Redistricting is the process that local government uses census data to redraw electoral districts lines and boundaries with the purpose to achieve equity of eligible voter population and to eliminate political gerrymandering in order to guarantee fairness in district regard to the one-man one-vote principle. Thus, redistricting should represent everyone voice in district. Since redistricting is considered as important process to guarantee fairness among people in district, many researcher pay attention to develop model system to help redistricting. The model proposed in this paper originates with the purpose to enhance redistricting model of State of Oregon. Since State of Oregon still manually do redistricting, several issues and limitations are presented. Manually redistricting can consider just only one criterion at once, while multiple criterions are needed to optimize the model. Our mathematical model system using operation research with involves more than one criterion, and it is adaptable to be used for other states, not just only for Oregon Metro area. Four criterions involve in the model are as follows: 1) population: with the goal to make each district has equal voter population; 2) age: with the goal to have each district have equal size of eligible voter; 3) income level: with the goal to have people in the same area have the same level of income, and 4) ethnicity: with the goal to group people in district by their ethnicity. The model weight criterion population the most, then age and household income. The model also considers Black people, Asian people, and Hispanic people as criterions by ethnicity. The model is illustrated on 2010 Census Data of Oregon, which include the entire Portland region. As a result, the model has three contributions: 1) Lower computational complexity; 2) Overcoming the complexity of distance definition; and 3) Few constraints. Our result comes up with 10 districts instead of 6 districts stated in map proposed by Oregon metro council. Title: Enhancing the Process of Redistricting in Metro Area Using Operation Research Approach Author: Siriwannangkul, Benjamas, Yoon, Byung Sung, Pai, Chun Fan, Su, Shih Po, Xu, Yuan Year: 2012 Redistricting is the process that local government uses census data to redraw electoral districts lines and boundaries with the purpose to achieve equity of eligible voter population and to eliminate political gerrymandering in order to guarantee fairness in district regard to the one-man one-vote principle. Thus, redistricting should represent everyone voice in district. Since redistricting is considered as important process to guarantee fairness among people in district, many researcher pay attention to develop model system to help redistricting. The model proposed in this paper originates with the purpose to enhance redistricting model of State of Oregon. Since State of Oregon still manually do redistricting, several issues and limitations are presented. Manually redistricting can consider just only one criterion at once, while multiple criterions are needed to optimize the model. Our mathematical model system using operation research with involves more than one criterion, and it is adaptable to be used for other states, not just only for Oregon Metro area. Four criterions involve in the model are as follows: 1) population: with the goal to make each district has equal voter population; 2) age: with the goal to have each district have equal size of eligible voter; 3) income level: with the goal to have people in the same area have the same level of income, and 4) ethnicity: with the goal to group people in district by their ethnicity. The model weight criterion population the most, then age and household income. The model also considers Black people, Asian people, and Hispanic people as criterions by ethnicity. The model is illustrated on 2010 Census Data of Oregon, which include the entire Portland region. As a result, the model has three contributions: 1) Lower computational complexity; 2) Overcoming the complexity of distance definition; and 3) Few constraints. Our result comes up with 10 districts instead of 6 districts stated in map proposed by Oregon metro council. Close

• 214. [Article] Higher Education Reform in Oregon, 2011-2014: A Policy and Legislative History

  When the Oregon Higher Education Coordinating Commission (HECC) was first convened in the summer of 2012 its first topic of conversation among its members was, “why we here, and what are we supposed to ...

  Citation × Citation Citation Abstract Copy Title: Higher Education Reform in Oregon, 2011-2014: A Policy and Legislative History Author: Pollack, Sean Year: 2014 When the Oregon Higher Education Coordinating Commission (HECC) was first convened in the summer of 2012 its first topic of conversation among its members was, “why we here, and what are we supposed to be doing?” The Commission was a body created by legislation but convened with no formal authority, no clearly defined role, no staff, and no budget. The state education agencies such as the Oregon University System (OUS) and the Department of Community Colleges and Workforce Development (CCWD) were barely paying attention. The Commission members were all distinguished education professionals and student activists with a range of experience and expertise, but not household names. No longer does the HECC question its role. Only one original member of the Commission is still serving (Vice Chair Betty Duvall), and the HECC is now acknowledged as the sole state level authority governing (or “coordinating”) all of state higher education, meaning all seven state universities and all seventeen community colleges. Many of the governance functions of the OUS chancellor’s office have been distributed to independent boards (chosen and ratified by the Governor and legislature), and the CCWD has been subsumed within the HECC, no longer an independent state agency with its own policy authority. In the intervening two years, a series of bills passed by the Oregon legislature had conferred nearly all the policy-making authority for state funded higher education on this formerly toothless Commission. HECC now has a staff of over 20 (more than forty if the staff from the other agencies that have been absorbed by HECC are counted) and an annual budget of $3.8 million. HECC’s chair, Tim Nesbitt, and executive director, Ben Cannon, are two of Governor John Kitzhaber’s closest advisors on education, which as much as anything signals this Commission’s importance. In 2012 almost no one expected the HECC to last, much less become the state’s hub for higher education policy. The purpose of the research and discussion that follows is to take a broad look at the policy and legislation currently being enacted to discover its origins, theoretical backgrounds, and speculate on the future of Oregon higher education under this new framework. Title: Higher Education Reform in Oregon, 2011-2014: A Policy and Legislative History Author: Pollack, Sean Year: 2014 When the Oregon Higher Education Coordinating Commission (HECC) was first convened in the summer of 2012 its first topic of conversation among its members was, “why we here, and what are we supposed to be doing?” The Commission was a body created by legislation but convened with no formal authority, no clearly defined role, no staff, and no budget. The state education agencies such as the Oregon University System (OUS) and the Department of Community Colleges and Workforce Development (CCWD) were barely paying attention. The Commission members were all distinguished education professionals and student activists with a range of experience and expertise, but not household names. No longer does the HECC question its role. Only one original member of the Commission is still serving (Vice Chair Betty Duvall), and the HECC is now acknowledged as the sole state level authority governing (or “coordinating”) all of state higher education, meaning all seven state universities and all seventeen community colleges. Many of the governance functions of the OUS chancellor’s office have been distributed to independent boards (chosen and ratified by the Governor and legislature), and the CCWD has been subsumed within the HECC, no longer an independent state agency with its own policy authority. In the intervening two years, a series of bills passed by the Oregon legislature had conferred nearly all the policy-making authority for state funded higher education on this formerly toothless Commission. HECC now has a staff of over 20 (more than forty if the staff from the other agencies that have been absorbed by HECC are counted) and an annual budget of $3.8 million. HECC’s chair, Tim Nesbitt, and executive director, Ben Cannon, are two of Governor John Kitzhaber’s closest advisors on education, which as much as anything signals this Commission’s importance. In 2012 almost no one expected the HECC to last, much less become the state’s hub for higher education policy. The purpose of the research and discussion that follows is to take a broad look at the policy and legislation currently being enacted to discover its origins, theoretical backgrounds, and speculate on the future of Oregon higher education under this new framework. Close

• 215. [Article] A preliminary investigation of the predictive and evaluative capacity of the PARS scale in a community mental health clinic

  This was a two-part study, employing the self and informant, pre and post treatment, forms of the Personal Adjustment and Role Skills Scale, the PARS Scale. In this study seven of the PARS Scale factors ...

  Citation × Citation Citation Abstract Copy Title: A preliminary investigation of the predictive and evaluative capacity of the PARS scale in a community mental health clinic Author: Ritter, Judith M. Year: 1974 This was a two-part study, employing the self and informant, pre and post treatment, forms of the Personal Adjustment and Role Skills Scale, the PARS Scale. In this study seven of the PARS Scale factors were employed: Interpersonal Involvement, Agitation-Depression, Attention-Confusion, Alcohol-Drug, Outside Social, Household Management (females), and Anxiety (males). This study was conducted at Delaunay Institute for Mental Health, an outpatient community mental health clinic in a low socioeconomic catchment area. Part One of the study employed a random sample of seventy applicants, male and female, ages sixteen to sixty-four, who applied to Delaunay for treatment services between November of 1972 and July of 1973 and who completed, at least, the self-pretreatment PARS Scale. This sample was administered the self and informant pre PARS Scale at initial interview. In October of 1973, the number of treatment sessions in the three months following initial interview was secured from billing cards. At this same time, therapists at Delaunay were requested to assess the sample on their progress in therapy at that time or at termination. Four categories were possible: great, moderate, slight, and no progress. They were also requested to identify the certainty with which they made the assessment according to: great, moderate, or slight certainty. Following this, the self-pretreatment PARS Scale scores were correlated with number of treatment sessions. No relationship appeared for females between number of treatment sessions and self pre PARS Scale scores. For males, a non-significant trend was noted on most factors, indicating that a high self pre PARS score was indicative of fewer treatment sessions. A significant and inverse relationship between the self pre PARS Scale score on Alcohol-Drug and number of treatment sessions occurred for males, indicating that a high score on this factor was suggestive of fewer treatment sessions. The self-pretreatment PARS Scale scores were correlated with therapist assessment of progress in therapy. No relationship appeared for females. For males, no significant relationship appeared but a non-significant trend was indicated, suggesting that a high self pre PARS Scale score was indicative of a favorable therapist assessment on progress in therapy. Part Two of the study employed a non-random sample of fifteen females who had provided self and informant, pre and post treatment, PARS Scale scores. Post treatment, informant data was notably deficient in this part of the study and prevented the employment of males in the sample. Descriptive data on income, education, marital status, and presenting problem were provided for this sample. The sample was administered the self and informant, pretreatment, PARS Scale at initial interview. Three months after initial interview they were administered the self and informant, post treatment, PARS Scale if they remained in treatment for at least three months. As in Part One of this study, number of treatment sessions for the three months following initial interview were secured from the billing cards. In October of 1973, therapists were requested to provide a therapist behavioral assessment with four possible categories: improved, maintained, regressed (therapeutic), regressed (non-therapeutic). This assessment was to be made from recall and/or records at the time the self and informant, post treatment, PARS Scale was administered. Again, therapists were requested to indicate the degree of certainty involved in their assessment. The relationship between number of treatment sessions and the available self and informant, pre and post treatment, PARS Scale scores was explored. It was found that the self pre PARS score on Interpersonal Involvement, the self-post PARS score on Alcohol-Drug, and the informant post PARS score on Alcohol-Drug were significantly and inversely related to the number of treatment sessions. High scores on these factors indicated fewer treatment sessions. The relationship between therapist behavioral assessment and available self and informant, pre and post treatment, PARS Scale scores was explored. Results showed a significant and direct relationship between the self-post PARS score on Outside Social, the informant post PARS score on Alcohol-Drug and therapist behavioral assessment. High scores on these factors indicated a favorable therapist behavioral assessment. Evaluation of treatment services with the PARS Scale in Part Two of this study found the self, pre and post treatment, PARS Scale scores on Attention-Confusion to be the only PARS scores showing significant differences after three months of treatment. None of the remaining self-PARS scores and none of three informant PARS scores indicated any significant differences. It was recommended that the predictive capacity of the PARS Scale not be explored further. Further exploration of the use of the PARS Scale for evaluative purposes was suggested due to the limitations of the research design with regard to specificity and sampling. Finally, exploration of specific and individualized treatment evaluation, suggested by recent psychotherapy research, was encouraged. Title: A preliminary investigation of the predictive and evaluative capacity of the PARS scale in a community mental health clinic Author: Ritter, Judith M. Year: 1974 This was a two-part study, employing the self and informant, pre and post treatment, forms of the Personal Adjustment and Role Skills Scale, the PARS Scale. In this study seven of the PARS Scale factors were employed: Interpersonal Involvement, Agitation-Depression, Attention-Confusion, Alcohol-Drug, Outside Social, Household Management (females), and Anxiety (males). This study was conducted at Delaunay Institute for Mental Health, an outpatient community mental health clinic in a low socioeconomic catchment area. Part One of the study employed a random sample of seventy applicants, male and female, ages sixteen to sixty-four, who applied to Delaunay for treatment services between November of 1972 and July of 1973 and who completed, at least, the self-pretreatment PARS Scale. This sample was administered the self and informant pre PARS Scale at initial interview. In October of 1973, the number of treatment sessions in the three months following initial interview was secured from billing cards. At this same time, therapists at Delaunay were requested to assess the sample on their progress in therapy at that time or at termination. Four categories were possible: great, moderate, slight, and no progress. They were also requested to identify the certainty with which they made the assessment according to: great, moderate, or slight certainty. Following this, the self-pretreatment PARS Scale scores were correlated with number of treatment sessions. No relationship appeared for females between number of treatment sessions and self pre PARS Scale scores. For males, a non-significant trend was noted on most factors, indicating that a high self pre PARS score was indicative of fewer treatment sessions. A significant and inverse relationship between the self pre PARS Scale score on Alcohol-Drug and number of treatment sessions occurred for males, indicating that a high score on this factor was suggestive of fewer treatment sessions. The self-pretreatment PARS Scale scores were correlated with therapist assessment of progress in therapy. No relationship appeared for females. For males, no significant relationship appeared but a non-significant trend was indicated, suggesting that a high self pre PARS Scale score was indicative of a favorable therapist assessment on progress in therapy. Part Two of the study employed a non-random sample of fifteen females who had provided self and informant, pre and post treatment, PARS Scale scores. Post treatment, informant data was notably deficient in this part of the study and prevented the employment of males in the sample. Descriptive data on income, education, marital status, and presenting problem were provided for this sample. The sample was administered the self and informant, pretreatment, PARS Scale at initial interview. Three months after initial interview they were administered the self and informant, post treatment, PARS Scale if they remained in treatment for at least three months. As in Part One of this study, number of treatment sessions for the three months following initial interview were secured from the billing cards. In October of 1973, therapists were requested to provide a therapist behavioral assessment with four possible categories: improved, maintained, regressed (therapeutic), regressed (non-therapeutic). This assessment was to be made from recall and/or records at the time the self and informant, post treatment, PARS Scale was administered. Again, therapists were requested to indicate the degree of certainty involved in their assessment. The relationship between number of treatment sessions and the available self and informant, pre and post treatment, PARS Scale scores was explored. It was found that the self pre PARS score on Interpersonal Involvement, the self-post PARS score on Alcohol-Drug, and the informant post PARS score on Alcohol-Drug were significantly and inversely related to the number of treatment sessions. High scores on these factors indicated fewer treatment sessions. The relationship between therapist behavioral assessment and available self and informant, pre and post treatment, PARS Scale scores was explored. Results showed a significant and direct relationship between the self-post PARS score on Outside Social, the informant post PARS score on Alcohol-Drug and therapist behavioral assessment. High scores on these factors indicated a favorable therapist behavioral assessment. Evaluation of treatment services with the PARS Scale in Part Two of this study found the self, pre and post treatment, PARS Scale scores on Attention-Confusion to be the only PARS scores showing significant differences after three months of treatment. None of the remaining self-PARS scores and none of three informant PARS scores indicated any significant differences. It was recommended that the predictive capacity of the PARS Scale not be explored further. Further exploration of the use of the PARS Scale for evaluative purposes was suggested due to the limitations of the research design with regard to specificity and sampling. Finally, exploration of specific and individualized treatment evaluation, suggested by recent psychotherapy research, was encouraged. Close

• 216. [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