Search

Search Results

• 41. [Article] Travel Mode Choice Framework Incorporating Realistic Bike and Walk Routes

  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: Travel Mode Choice Framework Incorporating Realistic Bike and Walk Routes 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 model bike and walk travel. To ensure scarce resources are used most effectively, accurate models sensitive to key policy variables are needed to support long-range planning and project evaluation, and to continue adding to our growing understanding of key factors driving walk and bike behavior. This research attempts to synthesize and advance the state of the art in trip-based, nonmotorized mode choice modeling. Over the past fifteen years, efforts to model the decision to walk or bike on a given trip have been hampered by the lack of a comprehensive behavioral framework and inconsistency in measurement scales and model specification. This project develops a mode choice behavioral framework that acknowledges the importance of attributes along the specific walk and bike routes that travelers are likely to consider, in addition to more traditional area-based measures of travel environments. The proposed framework is applied to a revealed preference, GPS-based travel dataset collected from 2010-2013 in Portland, Oregon. Measurement of nonmotorized trip distance, built environment, tour-level variables, and attitudinal attributes as well as mode availability are explicitly addressed. Route and mode choice models are specified using discrete choice techniques, and predicted walking and bicycling routes are tested as inputs to various mode choice models. Results suggest strong potential for predicted route measures to enhance walk and bicycle mode choice modeling. Findings also support the specific notion that bicycle and pedestrian infrastructure contribute not only to route choice but also to the choice of whether to bike or walk. For decisions to bicycle, availability of low-traffic routes may be particularly important to women. Model results further indicate that land use and built environments around trip ends and a person’s home still have important effects on nonmotorized travel when controlling for route quality. Both route and area travel environment impacts are mostly robust to the inclusion of residential self-selection variables, consistent with the idea that built environment differences matter even for households that choose to live in a walkable or bikeable neighborhood. The combination of area and route-based built environment measures alongside trip context, sociodemographic, and attitudinal attributes provides a new perspective on nonmotorized travel behavior relevant to both policy and practice. Title: Travel Mode Choice Framework Incorporating Realistic Bike and Walk Routes 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 model bike and walk travel. To ensure scarce resources are used most effectively, accurate models sensitive to key policy variables are needed to support long-range planning and project evaluation, and to continue adding to our growing understanding of key factors driving walk and bike behavior. This research attempts to synthesize and advance the state of the art in trip-based, nonmotorized mode choice modeling. Over the past fifteen years, efforts to model the decision to walk or bike on a given trip have been hampered by the lack of a comprehensive behavioral framework and inconsistency in measurement scales and model specification. This project develops a mode choice behavioral framework that acknowledges the importance of attributes along the specific walk and bike routes that travelers are likely to consider, in addition to more traditional area-based measures of travel environments. The proposed framework is applied to a revealed preference, GPS-based travel dataset collected from 2010-2013 in Portland, Oregon. Measurement of nonmotorized trip distance, built environment, tour-level variables, and attitudinal attributes as well as mode availability are explicitly addressed. Route and mode choice models are specified using discrete choice techniques, and predicted walking and bicycling routes are tested as inputs to various mode choice models. Results suggest strong potential for predicted route measures to enhance walk and bicycle mode choice modeling. Findings also support the specific notion that bicycle and pedestrian infrastructure contribute not only to route choice but also to the choice of whether to bike or walk. For decisions to bicycle, availability of low-traffic routes may be particularly important to women. Model results further indicate that land use and built environments around trip ends and a person’s home still have important effects on nonmotorized travel when controlling for route quality. Both route and area travel environment impacts are mostly robust to the inclusion of residential self-selection variables, consistent with the idea that built environment differences matter even for households that choose to live in a walkable or bikeable neighborhood. The combination of area and route-based built environment measures alongside trip context, sociodemographic, and attitudinal attributes provides a new perspective on nonmotorized travel behavior relevant to both policy and practice. Close

• 42. [Article] Peer-To-Peer Carsharing: Short-Term Effects on Travel Behavior in Portland, OR

  Peer-to-peer (P2P) carsharing is a relatively new concept in the U.S. Enabled by recent internet and mobile technology development, P2P carsharing generally involves a facilitating company connecting private ...

  Citation × Citation Citation Abstract Copy Title: Peer-To-Peer Carsharing: Short-Term Effects on Travel Behavior in Portland, OR Author: Dill, Jennifer, McNeil, Nathan, Howland, Steven Year: 2017 Peer-to-peer (P2P) carsharing is a relatively new concept in the U.S. Enabled by recent internet and mobile technology development, P2P carsharing generally involves a facilitating company connecting private vehicle owners to people who are interested in renting a vehicle. P2P carsharing has many things in common with business-to-consumer (B2C) carsharing services. Consumers join the service to rent vehicles on a short-term basis from locations dispersed throughout a certain area. Both services may allow households to reduce their private car ownership. However, P2P carsharing differs substantially from other models in that there are two distinct sets of consumers: those who rent the vehicles (renters) and those who put their vehicles up for rent (owners). The members of the service are providing the supply as well as the demand. Not only does the car owner provide the vehicle and determine where it is parked, they determine what hours it is available for rent and at what price (though with some influence from the facilitating company). This report presents findings from a multiyear study of P2P carsharing that began in early 2012 and targeted members of Getaround, which launched in February 2012 in Portland, OR. The goal of this study, which collected information from both owners and renters, is to evaluate the impact of peer-to-peer carsharing relative to other models of car use, including ownership, rental, and conventional (corporate) carsharing. The two primary research questions are whether P2P carsharing can reduce overall and peak- period vehicle miles traveled (VMT) by marginalizing the cost of driving, and whether P2P carsharing increases access to jobs and other activities for those without cars. Compared with conventional carsharing, P2P carsharing has the potential to influence VMT for both the renter and the owner. P2P owners may reduce their driving so that the vehicle is available for rent. Renters, as with other forms of carsharing, may decide to forgo or reduce vehicle ownership and drive less because the marginal costs of driving are more apparent. This report also examines motivations and factors associated with greater or lesser participation (in terms of rental activity), the influence of P2P carsharing on travel behavior and attitudes toward car ownership, and general experiences with P2P carsharing Title: Peer-To-Peer Carsharing: Short-Term Effects on Travel Behavior in Portland, OR Author: Dill, Jennifer, McNeil, Nathan, Howland, Steven Year: 2017 Peer-to-peer (P2P) carsharing is a relatively new concept in the U.S. Enabled by recent internet and mobile technology development, P2P carsharing generally involves a facilitating company connecting private vehicle owners to people who are interested in renting a vehicle. P2P carsharing has many things in common with business-to-consumer (B2C) carsharing services. Consumers join the service to rent vehicles on a short-term basis from locations dispersed throughout a certain area. Both services may allow households to reduce their private car ownership. However, P2P carsharing differs substantially from other models in that there are two distinct sets of consumers: those who rent the vehicles (renters) and those who put their vehicles up for rent (owners). The members of the service are providing the supply as well as the demand. Not only does the car owner provide the vehicle and determine where it is parked, they determine what hours it is available for rent and at what price (though with some influence from the facilitating company). This report presents findings from a multiyear study of P2P carsharing that began in early 2012 and targeted members of Getaround, which launched in February 2012 in Portland, OR. The goal of this study, which collected information from both owners and renters, is to evaluate the impact of peer-to-peer carsharing relative to other models of car use, including ownership, rental, and conventional (corporate) carsharing. The two primary research questions are whether P2P carsharing can reduce overall and peak- period vehicle miles traveled (VMT) by marginalizing the cost of driving, and whether P2P carsharing increases access to jobs and other activities for those without cars. Compared with conventional carsharing, P2P carsharing has the potential to influence VMT for both the renter and the owner. P2P owners may reduce their driving so that the vehicle is available for rent. Renters, as with other forms of carsharing, may decide to forgo or reduce vehicle ownership and drive less because the marginal costs of driving are more apparent. This report also examines motivations and factors associated with greater or lesser participation (in terms of rental activity), the influence of P2P carsharing on travel behavior and attitudes toward car ownership, and general experiences with P2P carsharing Close

• 43. [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