Nathan McNeil

Four types of cyclists? Examination of typology for better understanding of bicycling behavior and potential

The labeling and the categorizing of cyclists have been occurring for more than a century for a variety of purposes. This study examined a typology developed by the City of Portland, Oregon, that included four categories of cyclists: “the strong and the fearless,” “the enthused and confident,” “the interested but concerned,” and “no way, no how.” Unlike several other typologies, this widely referenced typology was intended to apply to all adults, regardless of their current cycling behavior. An analysis was conducted with data from a random phone survey (n = 908) of adults in the Portland region. Adults were placed into one of the four categories primarily on the basis of their stated comfort level with cycling on a variety of facility types, their interest in cycling as transportation, and their physical ability to bicycle. Nearly all of the sampled population fit clearly into one of the four categories. A majority (56%) of the regions population fit in the interested but concerned category, which was thought to be the key target market to increase the use of cycling as a form of transportation. The analysis indicated that a reduction in traffic speed and an increase in the separation between bicycles and motor vehicles (e.g., cycle tracks) might increase levels of comfort and cycling rates. Women and older adults were underrepresented among the more confident adults and those who currently cycled for transportation.

Bicycle boulevards and changes in physical activity and active transportation: Findings from a natural experiment

OBJECTIVE This study evaluates changes in physical activity and active transportation associated with installation of new bicycle boulevards. METHODS This natural experiment study uses data from a longitudinal panel of adults with children (n=353) in Portland, OR. Activity and active transportation outcomes were measured with GPS and accelerometers worn for up to 5 days in 2010-11 and 2012-13. The effect of the treatment was estimated using difference in differences estimation and multivariate regression models. RESULTS In five of the seven models, the interaction term was not significant, indicating that after controlling for the main effects of time and exposure separately, there was no correlation between being in a treatment area and minutes of moderate and vigorous physical activity (MVPA) per day, bicycling >10 min, walking >20 min, minutes of walking (if >20), or making a bike trip. Significant covariates included rain, being female, living closer to downtown, and attitudes towards bicycling, walking, and car safety. CONCLUSION This study could not confirm an increase in physical activity or active transportation among adults with children living near newly installed bicycle boulevards. Additional pre/post studies are encouraged, as well as research on the length of time after installation that behavior change is likely to occur.

Bikeability and the 20-min Neighborhood: How Infrastructure and Destinations Influence Bicycle Accessibility

This study explored a methodology for assessing a neighborhoods bicycle accessibility or “bikeability” on the basis of its mix of infrastructure and destinations, essentially the 20-min neighborhood for bicycles. Prior approaches to assessing bikeability were examined. A new method to measure bikeability that incorporates extensive bicycle infrastructure and land use destination location data is described. The assessment method compared neighborhoods in Portland, Oregon, that had significant differences in bicycle usage. On the basis of the new method, the findings confirmed that, taking into account route infrastructure and destination accessibility, East Portland locations were considerably less bikeable than Inner Portland locations. The assessment method was then rerun to incorporate potential investment and development scenarios to understand how they might affect neighborhood bikeability. The methodology provided steps toward making an objective bikeability assessment—asking if a place could be considered a 20-min neighborhood by bike—and pushed the effort to integrate transportation infrastructure and land-use factors. In its application, the process could be used to explore where planned (or hypothetical) infrastructure or development could be most helpful and which neighborhoods might not receive much added value from the planned improvements.

Multiuser perspectives on separated, on-street bicycle infrastructure

In the early fall of 2009, the Bureau of Transportation in Portland, Oregon, installed a cycle track and a pair of buffered bike lanes in downtown Portland. A major objective was to test facilities that were thought to bring higher levels of comfort to bicycle riders through increased separation from motor vehicle traffic. After one year of use, an evaluation was conducted to determine how the facilities affected the experience of the various users. Intercept surveys of cyclists (n = 248), motorists (n = 262), pedestrians (n = 198), and adjacent businesses (n = 59) showed improved perceptions of safety and comfort among cyclists, particularly women. Cyclists also preferred the new facilities to alternative routes and facility types. Both motorists and cyclists liked the additional separation of users. Motorists were more likely to attribute additional travel delays and inconvenience to the facilities; this attitude was especially true for motorists who never rode a bicycle and those surveyed on the buffered bike lane facility. Pedestrians liked the increased separation from traffic but had concerns about interactions with cyclists when crossing the cycle track. Businesses expressed support for these and other new bicycle facilities but had concerns about parking and deliveries.

The Influence of Bike Lane Buffer Types on Perceived Comfort and Safety of Bicyclists and Potential Bicyclists

Buffered and protected bike lanes are increasingly recognized as a valuable tool in enticing potential or wary cyclists to use a bicycle for transportation. These facilities—which provide extra space and (in the case of protected bike lanes) physical separation from motor vehicles—have been studied and are preferred by many bicyclists over traditional bike lanes. There has been little research, however, on the difference between buffer types and how they affect peoples sense of the safety and comfort of bicycling. This paper uses data from surveys collected for a multicity study of newly constructed protected bike lanes to examine the influence of various hypothetical and actual buffered bike lane designs (both with and without physical protection) from the perspective of current bicyclists (n = 1,111) and of residents living near the new facilities (n = 2,283) who could be potential bicyclists. Findings suggest that striped or painted buffers offer some level of increased comfort, whereas buffers with some sort of physical protection, even protection as minimal as a plastic flexpost, yield significant increases in perceived comfort for potential cyclists with safety concerns (the interested but concerned). Of residents living near recently built protected bike lanes, 71% of all residents and 88% of the interested but concerned indicated that they would be more likely to ride a bicycle if motor vehicles and bicycles were physically separated by a barrier.

Revisiting the Four Types of Cyclists: Findings from a National Survey

To understand the makeup of a population in terms of how people view bicycling can help in planning bicycle facilities and programs. Roger Geller, bicycle coordinator for the City of Portland, Oregon, proposed a typology that characterized people as one of four types—strong and fearless, enthused and confident, interested but concerned, and no way, no how—with respect to their attitudes toward bicycling. The research presented here sought to find out how applicable the typology was nationally and explored motivating factors, barriers, and the appeal of various bicycle facility types for each type of cyclist or potential cyclist. This study followed up on an earlier study that tested Geller’s typology with Portland data. In this new study, a sample involved 3,000 adults who lived in the 50 largest U.S. metropolitan areas. On the basis of respondents’ (a) stated level of comfort when they bicycled in different environments, (b) their interest in bicycling, and (c) their recent behavior, the study estimated that about one-third of adults were in the no way, no how group, and about half were in the interested but concerned group. The distribution was similar to that of the earlier findings for Portland. Several demographic differences emerged, with women less likely to be enthusiastic and confident or to be interested but concerned. Few differences appeared in whether respondents had ridden a bike at all in the past 30 days. Differences emerged as to where they bicycled and how often. The interested but concerned group was least likely to ride for transportation and rode less frequently. Barriers included not having a bicycle to ride; needing a vehicle for work, school, or other reasons; destinations too far to reach by bicycle; too few bike lanes or trails; and traffic.

Assessment of Three Alternative Bicycle Infrastructure Quality-of-Service Metrics

Cities throughout the United States are increasingly interested in the design of bicycle facilities to attract new riders and improve the comfort of existing riders. In particular, transportation agencies increasingly use treatments such as cycle tracks, buffered bike lanes, and colored pavement to supplement or replace traditional facilities (e.g., bike lanes). To respond to this trend, transportation professionals require evaluation metrics that effectively assess design options and provide decision-support in the choice of bicycle facilities that best match local context. Recent research has produced several bicycle evaluation tools [e.g., bicycle level of service (BLOS)] that attempt to fill this need. This paper presents the results of a comprehensive, real-world comparison of three leading bicycle evaluation tools: Highway Capacity Manual 2010 (HCM) BLOS, Danish Road Directorate BLOS, and the San Francisco, California, Bicycle Environmental Quality Index. Each evaluation tool was applied to a before–after evaluation of two bicycle facility installations in Washington, D.C. The tools were assessed with a consistent set of evaluation criteria, which included data and time requirements, sensitivity to key inputs, intuitiveness of the results, and soundness of the tools theoretical basis. Intercept surveys of facility users were used to compare the tool outputs with actual user preferences. The results suggest several shortcomings in the HCM BLOS methodology that make it unsuited for assessing bicycle design options that include cycle tracks and other emerging bicycle facility types. Additional research is needed to develop a nationally accepted bicycle evaluation tool to reflect the growing variety of bicycle facilities in the United States.

Creating a National Nonmotorized Traffic Count Archive: Process and Progress

Robust bicycle and pedestrian data on a national scale would help promote effective planning and engineering of walking and bicycling facilities, build the evidence-based case for funding such projects, and dispel notions that walking and cycling are not occurring. To organize and promote the collection of nonmotorized traffic data, a team of transportation professionals and computer scientists is creating a national bicycle and pedestrian count archive. This archive will enable data sharing by centralizing continuous and short-duration traffic counts in a publicly available online archive. Although other archives exist, this will be the first archive that will be national in scope and enable data to be uploaded directly to the site. This archive will include online input, data quality evaluation, data visualization functions, and the ability to download user-specified data and exchange the data with other archives and applications. This paper details the first steps in creating the archive: (a) review count types, standard formats, and existing online archives; (b) list primary functional requirements; (c) design archive architecture; and (d) develop archive data structure. The archives versatile data structure allows for both mobile counters and validation counts of the same traffic flow, an innovation in design that greatly expands the usefulness of the archive.

User Behavior and Perceptions at Intersections with Turning and Mixing Zones on Protected Bike Lanes

An acknowledged challenge with protected bike lanes in the United States is that even though the segment is separated from traffic, bicyclists must merge or interact with turning traffic at intersections unless all movements are signalized. This paper presents a comparison of five designs for protected bike lanes at intersections without bicycle signals. The designs represent ideas for how to mix and interact bicycles and motor vehicles. The designs communicate to road users how this interaction is to occur with lane striping, green pavement markings, shared lane-use markings (sharrows), and vertical flexpost delineators. The designs are divided into “mixing zones” and “turning zones with a through bike lane” for evaluation purposes. The paper compares and contrasts the designs with the use of observed user behavior (from 78 h of video analyzed, in which 6,082 bicyclists and 7,574 turning vehicles were observed) and self-reported behaviors and comprehension (from 1,245 nearby residents and 690 intercepted bicyclists). Overall, the evaluation suggests that there are benefits to clear demarcation of the entry to the merge zone for bicycles and cars and to creating a semiprotected through bicycle lane.

Evaluation of innovative bicycle facilities in Washington, D.C

Two innovative bicycle facilities were installed in Washington, D.C., during 2010 by the District Department of Transportation: buffered center median bicycle lanes on Pennsylvania Avenue, NW, and a two-way cycle track on 15th Street, NW. Both facilities included dedicated road space with buffers between bicyclists and motor vehicles, signal control, and signs and pavement markings. The facilities were designed to increase safety, comfort, and convenience for cyclists. This paper presents the results of a comprehensive study that evaluated the facilities to understand how well they worked for cyclists, motorists, and pedestrians in terms of safety and level of service (LOS) and how they affected behavior and attitudes. The study found that bicycle LOS improved and that bicycle volume on those corridors nearly quadrupled, well above the rate of citywide bicycle use. Motor vehicle LOS was largely unaffected. Signal progression was mixed for bicyclists: contraflow travel on the one-way portion of 15th Street and travel against the dominant direction on Pennsylvania Avenue showed the worst travel time performances. Although bicycle crashes increased on both facilities, the crash rate remained similar on 15th Street to what it had been previously. Pennsylvania Avenue saw a higher crash rate, mainly as a result of illegal U-turns across the bike lanes. In surveys of all travelers on the corridor (i.e., bicyclists, motorists, pedestrians) and nearby residents, the perception of the lanes in general was positive for all users, and the lanes were seen as a positive addition to the community.