Mind the Gap: Assessing the Impacts of Bicycle Accessibility and Mobility on Mode Share in Washington, D.C.
Abstract
The District of Columbia is enjoying rapid growth in cycling, evident through trends in census mode share data and in the presence of more cyclists out on the street. The District Department of Transportation (DOT) has spent significant resources in the past two decades to improve active transportation planning, outreach, and infrastructure delivery. These efforts have led to the District’s recognition as a cycling-friendly city. Now the District DOT is taking stock of what has been done to improve cycling thus far and to determine what to do next. The District DOT is starting to ask what is driving the growth in the cycling mode share. How can the District understand, nurture, and expand on that growth in the cycling mode share? This study explored underlying relationships in which the District’s cycling mode share was present. The analysis dug deeply by doing (a) a statistical analysis to identify key factors that influenced cycling and (b) a spatial analysis that defined trends in accessibility to cycling facilities and the mobility of the cycling network. Findings from this research will help inform District DOT planners on what policy, operational, outreach, and capital investment levers to consider as they continue to promote cycling in the District going forward.
Get full access to this article
View all access and purchase options for this article.
References
1. moveDC. District Department of Transportation, Washington, D.C., 2015.
2. 2010–2014 American Community Survey 5-Year Estimates. Census Bureau, U.S. Department of Commerce, 2015. http://factfinder.census.gov/bkmk/table/1.0/en/ACS/14_5YR/S0801/0400000US11. Accessed July 19, 2016.
3. District of Columbia Bicycle Master Plan. District Department of Transportation, Washington, D.C., 2005. http://ddot.dc.gov/sites/default/files/dc/sites/ddot/publication/attachments/bicycle_master_plan_2005_final_document_0.pdf. Accessed July 18, 2016.
4. Bicycling and Walking in the United States: 2016 Benchmarking Report. Alliance for Biking and Walking, Washington, D.C., 2016. http://www.bikewalkalliance.org/storage/documents/reports/2016benchmarkingreport_web.pdf. Accessed July 18, 2016.
5. Dill J., and Carr T. Bicycle Commuting and Facilities in Major U.S. Cities: If You Build Them, Commuters Will Use Them. Transportation Research Record: Journal of the Transportation Research Board, No. 1828, 2003, pp. 116–123. https://doi.org/10.3141/1828-14.
6. Moudon A. V., Lee C., Cheadle A. D., Collier C. W., Johnson D., Schmid T. L., and Weather R. D. Cycling and the Built Environment, a U.S. Perspective. Transportation Research Part D: Transport and Environment, Vol. 10, No. 3, May 2005, pp. 245–261. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.trd.2005.04.001.
7. Taylor D., and Mahmassani H. S. Analysis of Stated Preferences for Intermodal Bicycle–Transit Interfaces. Transportation Research Record, No. 1556, 1996, pp. 86–95. https://doi.org/10.3141/1556-11.
8. Tilahun N. Y., Levinson D. M., and Krizek K. J. Trails, Lanes, or Traffic: Valuing Bicycle Facilities with an Adaptive Stated Preference Survey. Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice, Vol. 41, No. 4, May 2007, pp. 287–301. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tra.2006.09.007.
9. Akar G., and Clifton K. J. Influence of Individual Perceptions and Bicycle Infrastructure on Decision to Bike. Transportation Research Record: Journal of the Transportation Research Board, No. 2140, 2009, pp. 165–172. https://doi.org/10.3141/2140-18.
10. Parker K. M., Gustat J., and Rice J. C. Installation of Bicycle Lanes and Increased Ridership in an Urban, Mixed-Income Setting in New Orleans, Louisiana. Journal of Physical Activity and Health, Vol. 8, Supplement 1, 2011, pp. S98–S102. https://doi.org/10.1123/jpah.8.s1.s98.
11. Nelson A. C., and Allen D. If You Build Them, Commuters Will Use Them: Association Between Bicycle Facilities and Bicycle Commuting. Transportation Research Record, No. 1578, 1997, pp. 79–83. https://doi.org/10.3141/1578-10.
12. Pucher J., and Buehler R. Analysis of Bicycling Trends and Policies in Large North American Cities: Lessons for New York City. Research and Innovative Technology Administration, U.S. Department of Transportation, and the University Transportation Research Consortium, New York, 2011.
13. Bike to Work Day 2017. Event information. Metropolitan Washington, D.C., region. League of American Bicyclists, Washington, D.C., 2016. http://www.biketoworkmetrodc.org/event-info. Accessed July 18, 2016.
14. Chandler M. A. All D.C. Public School Students Will Learn to Ride a Bike in Second Grade. Washington Post, Sept. 23, 2015. https://www.washingtonpost.com/local/education/all-dc-public-schools-students-will-learn-to-ride-a-bike-in-second-grade/2015/09/23/22a0b356-6203-11e5-b38e-06883aacba64_story.html. Accessed July 18, 2016.
15. Murray A., and Wu X. Accessibility Tradeoffs in Public Transit Planning. Journal of Geographical Systems, Vol. 5, No. 1, 2003, pp. 93–107. ftp://131.252.97.79/Transfer/ES_Pubs/ESVal/travel_acessibility/murray_publicTransport_and_accessability.pdf. Accessed July 18, 2016. https://doi.org/10.1007/s101090300105.
16. Lucas K., van Wee B., and Maat K. A Method to Evaluate Equitable Accessibility: Combining Ethical Theories and Accessibility-Based Approaches. Transportation, Vol. 43, No. 3, 2016, pp. 473–490. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11116-015-9585-2.
17. Dill J. Measuring Network Connectivity for Bicycling and Walking. Presented at 83rd Annual Meeting of the Transportation Research Board, Washington, D.C., 2004.
18. Moini N. Development of an Analytical Framework to Rank Pedestrian and Cyclist Projects. University of Illinois, Chicago Urban Transportation Center, 2015. https://utc.uic.edu/wp-content/uploads/Analytical-Framework-Pedestrian-and-Cyclist-Projects-final.pdf. Accessed July 18, 2016.
19. Greaves S., Ellison R., Ellison A., Crane M., Rissel C., and Standen C. Changing in Cycling Following an Infrastructure Intervention. Presented at 37th Australasian Transport Research Forum, Sydney, Australia, 2015.
20. Niaki M. S. N., Saunier N., and Miranda-Moreno L. F. A Methodology to Quantify Discontinuities in a Cycling Network: Case Study in Montreal Boroughs. Presented at 95th Annual Meeting of the Transportation Research Board, Washington, D.C., 2016.
21. Boisjoly G., and El-Geneidy A. Are We Connected? Assessing Bicycle Network Performance Through Directness and Connectivity Measures: A Montreal, Canada, Case Study. Presented at 95th Annual Meeting of the Transportation Research Board, Washington, D.C., 2016.
22. Lee Y. J., Choi J. Y., Yu J., and Choi K. Geographical Applications of Performance Measures for Transit Network Directness. Journal of Public Transportation, Vol. 18, No. 2, 2015, pp. 89–110. https://doi.org/10.5038/2375-0901.18.2.7.
23. Four Types of Transportation Cyclists. Portland Bureau of Transportation, Oregon, 2016. https://www.portlandoregon.gov/transportation/article/158497. Accessed July 19, 2016.
24. An Overview of Transportation and Environmental Justice. Publication FHWA-EP-00-013. FHWA, U.S. Department of Transportation, 2000.
25. Pérez B. O., Dey S. S., and Ma Y. Toward a More Meterless Parking System: User Demographic Factors Influencing Adoption and Usage of Pay by Cell (PBC) Services in Washington, D.C. Presented at 95th Annual Meeting of the Transportation Research Board, Washington, D.C., 2016.
26. Stepwise Regression Models. JMP, 2015. http://www.jmp.com/support/help/Stepwise_Regression_Models.shtml. Accessed Nov. 12, 2015.
27. Sykes A. O. An Introduction to Regression Analysis. Inaugural Course Lecture, University of Chicago, Ill. http://www.law.uchicago.edu/files/files/20.Sykes_.Regression.pdf. Accessed July 19, 2016.
28. Lacey M. Multiple Linear Regression. Stats 100. Yale University, New Haven, Conn., 1997. http://www.stat.yale.edu/Courses/1997-98/101/linmult.htm. Accessed 27 July 2016.
29. Buthmann A. Making Data Normal Using Box–Cox Power Transformation. iSixSigma, 2015. http://www.isixsigma.com/tools-templates/normality/making-data-normal-using-box-cox-power-transformation/. Accessed Nov. 12, 2015.
30. Fishman E., Washington S., and Haworth N. Bikeshare’s Impact on Active Travel: Evidence from the United States, Great Britain, and Australia. Presented at 37th Australasian Transport Research Forum, Sydney, Australia, 2015. http://atrf.info/papers/2015/files/ATRF2015_Resubmission_82.pdf. Accessed July 29, 2016. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jth.2015.03.004.
31. Mekuria M. C., Furth P. G., and Nixon H. Low-Stress Bicycling and Network Connectivity. Mineta Transportation Institute, San Jose, Calif., 2012. http://transweb.sjsu.edu/PDFs/research/1005-low-stress-bicycling-network-connectivity.pdf. Accessed July 27, 2016.
Cite article
Cite article
Cite article
OR
Download to reference manager
If you have citation software installed, you can download article citation data to the citation manager of your choice
Information, rights and permissions
Information
Published In
Article first published online: January 1, 2017
Issue published: January 2017
Authors
Metrics and citations
Metrics
Journals metrics
This article was published in Transportation Research Record: Journal of the Transportation Research Board.
VIEW ALL JOURNAL METRICSArticle usage*
Total views and downloads: 119
*Article usage tracking started in December 2016
Altmetric
See the impact this article is making through the number of times it’s been read, and the Altmetric Score.
Learn more about the Altmetric Scores
Articles citing this one
Receive email alerts when this article is cited
Web of Science: 0
Crossref: 3
- Multi-criteria assessment and ranking framework for the potential of c...
- Increasing Bicycling for Transportation: A Systematic Review of the Li...
- Using the 2017 National Household Travel Survey Data to Explore the El...
Figures and tables
Figures & Media
Tables
View Options
Get access
Access options
If you have access to journal content via a personal subscription, university, library, employer or society, select from the options below:
loading institutional access options
Alternatively, view purchase options below:
Purchase 24 hour online access to view and download content.
Access journal content via a DeepDyve subscription or find out more about this option.
