Search

Search Results

• 1. [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

• 2. [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