Not all prospective bicyclists are created equal: the role of attitudes, socio-demographics, and the built environment in bicycle commuting

Abstract Barriers to bicycling may vary widely depending on individual, attitudinal, and built environment characteristics; barriers may be modest for some (e.g. requiring secure bike parking) or significant for others (e.g. improving regional bicycle-accessibility). This research suggests that for a substantial population of travelers who are interested in bicycling but unwilling to cycle regularly, barriers to increasing commute cycling may be different than for individuals who already commute by bicycle at least occasionally. Treating these two populations as one homogenous group may be inappropriate and reduce the effectiveness of bicycle promotion strategies. This research disaggregates these two prospective commute-cyclist populations and tests how attitudes, socio-demographics, and the built environment impact their commute mode choice. Socio-demographic and attitudinal data are drawn from a survey of “Bike to Work Day” participants in Denver, Colorado while built environment measures – including street network connectivity, street network density, and trip distance – were calculated with GIS. Bicycle commuting decisions within the two groups of prospective cyclists are estimated using binary and ordered logistic regression. Distinct socio-demographic and built environment factors are significant for different groups of prospective cyclists. Significant attitudinal variables are similar across groups; for both populations, convenience and utility of the bicycle relative to other modes is significant, suggesting that these factors outweigh issues regarding safety for the sample population. Findings from this research demonstrate that there are important distinctions between the decision to start commuting by bicycle and the decision to increase the frequency of bicycling to work.

[1]  Krista Nordback,et al.  Measuring Traffic Reduction from Bicycle Commuting , 2014 .

[2]  K. Teschke,et al.  Motivators and deterrents of bicycling: comparing influences on decisions to ride , 2011 .

[3]  Daniel P. Piatkowski,et al.  Measuring the Impacts of Bike-to-Work Day Events and Identifying Barriers to Increased Commuter Cycling , 2015 .

[4]  J. Langley,et al.  Cyclists' attitudes toward policies encouraging bicycle travel: findings from the Taupo Bicycle Study in New Zealand. , 2010, Health promotion international.

[5]  Sonja Haustein,et al.  Attitude-Based Target Groups to Reduce the Ecological Impact of Daily Mobility Behavior , 2010 .

[6]  P. Mokhtarian,et al.  What if you live in the wrong neighborhood? The impact of residential neighborhood type dissonance on distance traveled , 2005 .

[7]  J. Pucher,et al.  Bicycling renaissance in North America? Recent trends and alternative policies to promote bicycling , 1999 .

[8]  S. Handy,et al.  Planning For Street Connectivity: Getting from Here to There , 2003 .

[9]  M. Southworth Designing the Walkable City , 2005 .

[10]  Wesley E. Marshall,et al.  The metrics of street network connectivity: their inconsistencies , 2014 .

[11]  Richard A. Johnson,et al.  Applied Multivariate Statistical Analysis , 1983 .

[12]  J. Sallis,et al.  Environmental correlates of walking and cycling: Findings from the transportation, urban design, and planning literatures , 2003, Annals of behavioral medicine : a publication of the Society of Behavioral Medicine.

[13]  Norman W. Garrick,et al.  Effect of Street Network Design on Walking and Biking , 2010 .

[14]  Ralph Buehler,et al.  Determinants of bicycle commuting in the Washington, DC region: The role of bicycle parking, cyclist showers, and free car parking at work , 2012 .

[15]  Sergio R. Jara-Díaz,et al.  Understanding cyclists' perceptions, keys for a successful bicycle promotion , 2014 .

[16]  W. Marshall,et al.  Research Article: Evidence on Why Bike-Friendly Cities Are Safer for All Road Users , 2011 .

[17]  J. Pucher,et al.  Bicycling renaissance in North America? An update and re-appraisal of cycling trends and policies , 2011 .

[18]  A. Cheadle,et al.  Cycling and the Built Environment, a US Perspective , 2005 .

[19]  Reid Ewing,et al.  Travel and the Built Environment , 2010 .

[20]  Norman W. Garrick,et al.  Personal Communication , 2020, Definitions.

[21]  K. Teschke,et al.  Utilitarian bicycling: a multilevel analysis of climate and personal influences. , 2007, American journal of preventive medicine.

[22]  Norman W. Garrick,et al.  Community design, street networks, and public health , 2014, Advances in Transportation and Health.

[23]  Susan L Handy,et al.  Factors Correlated with Bicycle Commuting: A Study in Six Small U.S. Cities , 2011 .

[24]  Nathan McNeil,et al.  Four Types of Cyclists? , 2013 .

[25]  Kees Maat,et al.  Day-to-Day Choice to Commute or Not by Bicycle , 2011 .

[26]  Kees Maat,et al.  Commuting by Bicycle: An Overview of the Literature , 2010 .

[27]  Hannah Badland,et al.  Perceptions of replacing car journeys with non-motorized travel: exploring relationships in a cross-sectional adult population sample. , 2006, Preventive medicine.

[28]  Jennifer Dill,et al.  Bicycle Commuting and Facilities in Major U.S. Cities: If You Build Them, Commuters Will Use Them , 2003 .

[29]  Jill F. Cooper,et al.  Do All Roadway Users Want the Same Things? , 2013 .

[30]  Patricia L. Mokhtarian,et al.  What Affects Commute Mode Choice: Neighborhood Physical Structure or Preferences Toward Neighborhoods? , 2005 .