Search

Search Results

• 311. [Article] Coordinated Population Forecast for Morrow County, its Urban Growth Boundaries (UGB), and Area Outside UGBs 2016-2066

  Different growth patterns occur in different parts of the County and these local trends within the UGBs and the area outside UGBs collectively influence population growth rates for the county as a whole. Morrow ...

  Citation × Citation Citation Abstract Copy Title: Coordinated Population Forecast for Morrow County, its Urban Growth Boundaries (UGB), and Area Outside UGBs 2016-2066 Author: Portland State University. Population Research Center, Ruan, Xiaomin, Proehl, Risa, Jurjevich, Jason R., Rancik, Kevin, Kessi, Janai, Tetrick, David, Michel, Julia Year: 2016 Different growth patterns occur in different parts of the County and these local trends within the UGBs and the area outside UGBs collectively influence population growth rates for the county as a whole. Morrow County’s total population has grown slowly since 2000, with average annual growth rates of less than half percent between 2000 and 2010 (Figure 1); however, some of its sub-areas experienced more rapid population growth during the 2000s. Boardman, the most populous UGB, and Irrigon posted the highest average annual growth rates at 1.0 and 0.5 percent, respectively, during the 2000 to 2010 period. Morrow County’s positive population growth in the 2000s was the direct result of a substantial natural increase (Figure 12). Meanwhile an aging population not only led to an increase in deaths, but also resulted in a smaller proportion of women in their childbearing years. This along with more women choosing to have fewer children and have them at older ages has led to fewer births in recent years. The larger number of births relative to deaths caused a natural increase in every year from 2000 to 2014. In more recent years (2010 to 2015) net in-migration has increased, bringing with it population more growth. Total population in Morrow County as a whole as well as within its sub-areas will likely grow at a slightly faster pace in the near-term (2016 to 2035) compared to the long-term (Figure 1). The tapering of growth rates is largely driven by a larger base population—the denominator to calculate growth rates. As baby boomers age into the mid-term of the future, natural increase will reach its low point around 2045 and then rebound. Even so, Morrow County’s total population is forecast to increase by nearly 1,900 over the next 19 years (2016-2035) and by almost 4,900 over the entire 50-year forecast period (2016-2066). Sub-areas that showed strong population growth in the 2000s are expected to experience similar rates of population growth during the forecast period. Title: Coordinated Population Forecast for Morrow County, its Urban Growth Boundaries (UGB), and Area Outside UGBs 2016-2066 Author: Portland State University. Population Research Center, Ruan, Xiaomin, Proehl, Risa, Jurjevich, Jason R., Rancik, Kevin, Kessi, Janai, Tetrick, David, Michel, Julia Year: 2016 Different growth patterns occur in different parts of the County and these local trends within the UGBs and the area outside UGBs collectively influence population growth rates for the county as a whole. Morrow County’s total population has grown slowly since 2000, with average annual growth rates of less than half percent between 2000 and 2010 (Figure 1); however, some of its sub-areas experienced more rapid population growth during the 2000s. Boardman, the most populous UGB, and Irrigon posted the highest average annual growth rates at 1.0 and 0.5 percent, respectively, during the 2000 to 2010 period. Morrow County’s positive population growth in the 2000s was the direct result of a substantial natural increase (Figure 12). Meanwhile an aging population not only led to an increase in deaths, but also resulted in a smaller proportion of women in their childbearing years. This along with more women choosing to have fewer children and have them at older ages has led to fewer births in recent years. The larger number of births relative to deaths caused a natural increase in every year from 2000 to 2014. In more recent years (2010 to 2015) net in-migration has increased, bringing with it population more growth. Total population in Morrow County as a whole as well as within its sub-areas will likely grow at a slightly faster pace in the near-term (2016 to 2035) compared to the long-term (Figure 1). The tapering of growth rates is largely driven by a larger base population—the denominator to calculate growth rates. As baby boomers age into the mid-term of the future, natural increase will reach its low point around 2045 and then rebound. Even so, Morrow County’s total population is forecast to increase by nearly 1,900 over the next 19 years (2016-2035) and by almost 4,900 over the entire 50-year forecast period (2016-2066). Sub-areas that showed strong population growth in the 2000s are expected to experience similar rates of population growth during the forecast period. Close

• 312. [Article] Coordinated Population Forecast for Hood River County, its Urban Growth Boundaries (UGB), and Area Outside UGBs 2016-2066

  Hood River County’s total population has grown steadily since 2000, with an average annual growth rate of about one percent between 2000 and 2010 (Figure 1). The Hood River UGB experienced more rapid population ...

  Citation × Citation Citation Abstract Copy Title: Coordinated Population Forecast for Hood River County, its Urban Growth Boundaries (UGB), and Area Outside UGBs 2016-2066 Author: Portland State University. Population Research Center, Ruan, Xiaomin, Proehl, Risa, Jurjevich, Jason R., Rancik, Kevin, Kessi, Janai, Tetrick, David, Michel, Julia Year: 2016 Hood River County’s total population has grown steadily since 2000, with an average annual growth rate of about one percent between 2000 and 2010 (Figure 1). The Hood River UGB experienced more rapid population growth during the 2000s, averaging more than one percent per year during the 2000 to 2010 period. Hood River County’s positive population growth in the 2000s was the result of a steady natural increase and periods of substantial net in-migration (Figure 12). The larger number of births relative to deaths has led to a natural increase (more births than deaths) in every year from 2000 to 2015. While net in-migration fluctuated dramatically during the early and middle years of the last decade, the number of in-migrants has increased stably during recent years, contributing to a population increase. Overall, Hood River County’s population growth is becoming more reliant on net in-migration. Total population in Hood River County as a whole as well as within its sub-areas will likely grow at a slightly faster pace in the near-term (2016 to 2035) compared to the long-term (Figure 1). The tapering of growth rates is driven by a growing natural decrease, as well as a larger population base. As natural decrease occurs over the final 31-year period, population growth will become increasingly reliant on net in-migration. Even so, Hood River County’s total population is forecast to increase by more than 6,000 during the initial 19-year period (2016-2035) and by more than 14,000 over the entire 50-year forecast (2016-2066). Sub-areas that showed strong population growth in the 2000s are expected to experience similar rates of population growth during the forecast period. Title: Coordinated Population Forecast for Hood River County, its Urban Growth Boundaries (UGB), and Area Outside UGBs 2016-2066 Author: Portland State University. Population Research Center, Ruan, Xiaomin, Proehl, Risa, Jurjevich, Jason R., Rancik, Kevin, Kessi, Janai, Tetrick, David, Michel, Julia Year: 2016 Hood River County’s total population has grown steadily since 2000, with an average annual growth rate of about one percent between 2000 and 2010 (Figure 1). The Hood River UGB experienced more rapid population growth during the 2000s, averaging more than one percent per year during the 2000 to 2010 period. Hood River County’s positive population growth in the 2000s was the result of a steady natural increase and periods of substantial net in-migration (Figure 12). The larger number of births relative to deaths has led to a natural increase (more births than deaths) in every year from 2000 to 2015. While net in-migration fluctuated dramatically during the early and middle years of the last decade, the number of in-migrants has increased stably during recent years, contributing to a population increase. Overall, Hood River County’s population growth is becoming more reliant on net in-migration. Total population in Hood River County as a whole as well as within its sub-areas will likely grow at a slightly faster pace in the near-term (2016 to 2035) compared to the long-term (Figure 1). The tapering of growth rates is driven by a growing natural decrease, as well as a larger population base. As natural decrease occurs over the final 31-year period, population growth will become increasingly reliant on net in-migration. Even so, Hood River County’s total population is forecast to increase by more than 6,000 during the initial 19-year period (2016-2035) and by more than 14,000 over the entire 50-year forecast (2016-2066). Sub-areas that showed strong population growth in the 2000s are expected to experience similar rates of population growth during the forecast period. Close

• 313. [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

• 314. [Article] Homestead Neighborhood and the Oregon Health Sciences University Background and Recommendations Report

  The Homestead Neighborhood is located in southwest Portland. It was first studied as part of the Marquam Hill Plan in 1977. Since that time two major health providers, the Shriners and the Veterans Administration,have ...

  Citation × Citation Citation Abstract Copy Title: Homestead Neighborhood and the Oregon Health Sciences University Background and Recommendations Report Author: Bizeau, Thomas, Crawford, Jim, Delacy, Barton, Massoudifar, Yousef, McConnell, Tom, Rahman, Foziah, Rassoli, Ezzat, Sochacka, Barbara Year: 1988 The Homestead Neighborhood is located in southwest Portland. It was first studied as part of the Marquam Hill Plan in 1977. Since that time two major health providers, the Shriners and the Veterans Administration,have built new facilities on the hill. The Oregon Health Sciences University is now poised and ready for major expansion of its medical schools, hospital and research facilities. Meanwhile, area residents and property owners, have voiced concerns about increased traffic, and building density. Oregon Health Sciences University (OHSU) contracted with the School of Urban and Public Affairs at Portland State University to draft a comprehensive neighborhood plan, to supplement its own long rang planning on Marquam Hill. Graduate students in the Masters in Urban Planning (MUP) program, under the direction of Michael S. Harrison AICP, Chief Planner for the City of Portland, prepared this plan over a ten week time period. This plan will also be presented to the Homestead Neighborhood Association to provide a basis for further studies. The recommendations presented in the following section, are solely those of the students in the USP 528 Comprehensive Planning Workshop. As presented here, they represent many rounds of in-class discussion, fieldwork and input from residents.The Advisory Committee contributed review and advice. The document makes reference to several sites. The "medical complex" is considered the Oregon Health Sciences University, the Shriners Hospital and the Veterans Administration Hospital. The "campus" refers to the same area as the medical complex. The "Homestead Plat" refers to the residential and commercial area just west of the campus up to SW 14thStreet. The Homestead neighborhood is a political jurisdiction recognized by the City of Portland which surrounds the areas platted as Homestead on Marquam Hill, but also embraces parts of Portland Heights and the Hillsdale area. Marquam Hill is a geographical term which relates to a much wider area than just the Homestead neighborhood. The background section covers the history, characteristics and patterns of land use in the Homestead Neighborhood. It provides a factual basis for determining alternatives,making recommendations and establishing policy. It also may be used as a general reference.The background is organized into seven sections: historical perspective; sumary of planning activities; overview of transportation patterns; analysis of development and infrastructure; discussions of amenities and topography; and an overview of demographics. A comprehensive property inventory detailing individual parcel ownership and physical characteristics has also been compiled and included as an addenda to this report. The fourth section of the report describes and analyzes the planning methodology used to research this project. Property data was collected and tabulated using Multnomah County records which were then checked and enhanced through field observation. Citizen participation was fostered by impanelling an advisory committee consisting of neighborhood representatives of the neighborhood, medical complex and the City Park Bureau, conducting a workshop with the neighborhood and distributing surveys to all residences. The findings of the class are presented in the final section of this report. The findings and recommendations contained in this report are solely those of the class and do not necessarily represent the policies of the City of Portland, Portland State University, Oregon Health Sciences University or the Homestead Neighborhood Association. The report will hopefully foster communication between the Homestead Neighborhood Association, the medical complex and the City of Portland. This is not intended as a final plan but rather as a starting point for further discussion. The next step in this planning process is for the Neighborhood and University to continue a dialog to formulate the goals and objectives of a neighborhood plan. A series of public discussions would follow to determine the contents of the final document. The final step would be to get the plan ratified by the Portland City Council. Title: Homestead Neighborhood and the Oregon Health Sciences University Background and Recommendations Report Author: Bizeau, Thomas, Crawford, Jim, Delacy, Barton, Massoudifar, Yousef, McConnell, Tom, Rahman, Foziah, Rassoli, Ezzat, Sochacka, Barbara Year: 1988 The Homestead Neighborhood is located in southwest Portland. It was first studied as part of the Marquam Hill Plan in 1977. Since that time two major health providers, the Shriners and the Veterans Administration,have built new facilities on the hill. The Oregon Health Sciences University is now poised and ready for major expansion of its medical schools, hospital and research facilities. Meanwhile, area residents and property owners, have voiced concerns about increased traffic, and building density. Oregon Health Sciences University (OHSU) contracted with the School of Urban and Public Affairs at Portland State University to draft a comprehensive neighborhood plan, to supplement its own long rang planning on Marquam Hill. Graduate students in the Masters in Urban Planning (MUP) program, under the direction of Michael S. Harrison AICP, Chief Planner for the City of Portland, prepared this plan over a ten week time period. This plan will also be presented to the Homestead Neighborhood Association to provide a basis for further studies. The recommendations presented in the following section, are solely those of the students in the USP 528 Comprehensive Planning Workshop. As presented here, they represent many rounds of in-class discussion, fieldwork and input from residents.The Advisory Committee contributed review and advice. The document makes reference to several sites. The "medical complex" is considered the Oregon Health Sciences University, the Shriners Hospital and the Veterans Administration Hospital. The "campus" refers to the same area as the medical complex. The "Homestead Plat" refers to the residential and commercial area just west of the campus up to SW 14thStreet. The Homestead neighborhood is a political jurisdiction recognized by the City of Portland which surrounds the areas platted as Homestead on Marquam Hill, but also embraces parts of Portland Heights and the Hillsdale area. Marquam Hill is a geographical term which relates to a much wider area than just the Homestead neighborhood. The background section covers the history, characteristics and patterns of land use in the Homestead Neighborhood. It provides a factual basis for determining alternatives,making recommendations and establishing policy. It also may be used as a general reference.The background is organized into seven sections: historical perspective; sumary of planning activities; overview of transportation patterns; analysis of development and infrastructure; discussions of amenities and topography; and an overview of demographics. A comprehensive property inventory detailing individual parcel ownership and physical characteristics has also been compiled and included as an addenda to this report. The fourth section of the report describes and analyzes the planning methodology used to research this project. Property data was collected and tabulated using Multnomah County records which were then checked and enhanced through field observation. Citizen participation was fostered by impanelling an advisory committee consisting of neighborhood representatives of the neighborhood, medical complex and the City Park Bureau, conducting a workshop with the neighborhood and distributing surveys to all residences. The findings of the class are presented in the final section of this report. The findings and recommendations contained in this report are solely those of the class and do not necessarily represent the policies of the City of Portland, Portland State University, Oregon Health Sciences University or the Homestead Neighborhood Association. The report will hopefully foster communication between the Homestead Neighborhood Association, the medical complex and the City of Portland. This is not intended as a final plan but rather as a starting point for further discussion. The next step in this planning process is for the Neighborhood and University to continue a dialog to formulate the goals and objectives of a neighborhood plan. A series of public discussions would follow to determine the contents of the final document. The final step would be to get the plan ratified by the Portland City Council. Close

• 315. [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