User Preferences of Bicycle Infrastructure
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
USER PREFERENCES OF BICYCLE INFRASTRUCTURE A Dissertation Presented to The Academic Faculty by Calvin Clark In Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree Master of Science in the School of Civil and Environmental Engineering Georgia Institute of Technology August 2018 COPYRIGHT © 2018 BY CALVIN CLARK USER PREFERENCES OF BICYCLE INFRASTRUCTURE Approved by: Dr. Kari Watkins, Advisor School of Civil and Environmental Engineering Georgia Institute of Technology Dr. Patricia Mokhtarian School of Civil and Environmental Engineering Georgia Institute of Technology Dr. Giovanni Circella School of Civil and Environmental Engineering Georgia Institute of Technology Date Approved: July 27, 2018 ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS I would like to thank my entire Georgia Tech community for making my work possible. I would also like to thank my mother, for regularly asking me “when is that thesis going to be done?” and my father, for never asking that. iii TABLE OF CONTENTS ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS iii LIST OF TABLES vi LIST OF FIGURES x LIST OF SYMBOLS AND ABBREVIATIONS xi SUMMARY xii CHAPTER 1. Introduction 14 1.1 Background 14 1.2 Study Objectives 15 1.3 Selection of Communities 16 1.4 Research Approach 22 1.4.1 Focus Group Methods 23 1.4.2 Survey Data Collection Methods 23 1.5 Outline of the Thesis 24 CHAPTER 2. Literature Review 26 2.1 Research Design 26 2.2 Data Sources 29 2.3 Types of Cycling Infrastructure 31 2.3.1 Route Choice 34 2.4 Individual Factors 37 2.5 Trip Purpose 40 2.6 Environmental Factors 41 2.7 Policy and Cultural Factors 43 CHAPTER 3. Focus Groups 46 3.1 Methodology 46 3.1.1 Focus Group Recruitment 46 3.1.2 Focus Group Content 47 3.2 Infrastructure Findings and discussion 51 3.2.1 Differences in Comfort for Various Levels of Infrastructure 51 3.2.2 Impact of Curbside Parking on Cyclist Comfort 53 3.2.3 Role of a Physical Barrier versus Buffered Lanes 55 3.2.4 Concerns at Introducing Protected Bicycle Lanes and New Intersection Treatments 56 3.2.5 Impact of Number of Automobile Lanes 57 3.2.6 Other Infrastructure Factors 58 3.3 Cycling Comfort Findings and Discussion 59 3.3.1 Concerns about Drivers 60 3.3.2 Strength in Numbers 61 iv 3.3.3 Children and Cycling 61 3.4 Summary 62 CHAPTER 4. First Wave Survey Description 64 4.1 Survey Method 64 4.2 Survey Design 65 4.3 Survey Response 70 4.4 Data Cleaning 71 4.5 Combined Study Area Statistics 72 4.6 Summary Statistics Separated by Study Area 79 4.7 Summary Statistics Segmented by Rider Status 90 4.8 Summary 96 CHAPTER 5. User Preference Analysis 97 5.1 Infrastructure Images 97 5.2 Image Response Results 101 5.2.1 Frequency 114 5.3 User Preference Models 116 5.3.1 Infrastructure and Roadway Trait Models 120 5.3.2 Alternatives to Regression 125 5.3.3 Additional Influence of Sociodemographic Traits 127 5.3.4 Segmented Models: Ridership Status 130 5.4 Summary 136 CHAPTER 6. Conclusions 137 6.1 Focus Groups 137 6.2 Survey Description 138 6.3 User Preference Analysis 139 6.4 Further Work 140 APPENDIX A. Survey Instrument 141 REFERENCES 159 v LIST OF TABLES Table 1 Sociodemographics for Treatment and Control Neighborhoods 22 Table 2 Sociodemographics for Treatment and Control Neighborhoods 22 Table 3 Summary of Demographic Information of Focus Group Participants 46 Table 4 Raw Survey Response Count by Area 70 Table 5 Raw Survey Response Count by Version (N=1,221) 71 Table 6 Survey Respondents’ and Study Area Population Household Income 73 (N=1,146, P<0.001*) Table 7 Survey Respondents’ and Study Area Population Household Sizes 73 (N=1,178, P<0.001) Table 8 Survey Respondents' Residence Types (N=1,174) 74 Table 9 Survey Respondents' Genders (N=1,149, P<0.001) 75 Table 10 Survey Respondents' Ages (N=1,113, P<0.001) 75 Table 11 Survey Respondents' Races (N=1,145, P<0.001) 76 Table 12 Survey Respondents' Employment Status (N=1144) 77 Table 13 Number of Vehicles and Bikes Owned by Survey Respondents 78 (N=1159) Table 14 Respondents’ Stated Bike Confidence Level (N=1113) 78 Table 15 Respondents’ Monthly and Daily Mode Usage (N=1,178) 79 Table 16 Household Incomes Separated by Study Area 80 Table 17 Household Sizes by Study Area 81 Table 18 Residence Types by Study Area 82 Table 19 Gender by Study Area 83 Table 20 Age Distribution by Study Area 84 Table 21 Race Distribution by Study Area 85 vi Table 22 Employment Status by Study Area 87 Table 23 Number of Vehicles and Bikes Owned by Study Area 88 Table 24 Number of Vehicles and Bikes Owned by Study Area 89 Table 25 Respondents’ Stated Bike Confidence Level by Study Area 90 Table 26 Household Income Distribution by Rider Status 91 Table 27 Household Size Distribution by Rider Status 92 Table 28 Residence Type Distribution by Rider Status 92 Table 29 Gender Distribution by Rider Status 93 Table 30 Age Distribution by Rider Status 93 Table 31 Race Distribution by Rider Status 94 Table 32 Employment Status Distribution by Rider Status 94 Table 33 Number of Vehicles and Bikes Owned by Rider Status 95 Table 34 Respondent's Stated Level of Bike Confidence by Rider Status 96 Table 35 Responses for Perceived Comfort, Safety, and Willingness to Try, 101 Averaged across Infrastructure Types Table 36 Responses for Perceived Comfort, Safety, and Willingness to Try 102 Multi-use Path Table 37 Responses for Perceived Comfort, Safety, and Willingness to Try 103 Two-way Cycletrack on Two-lane Road with Parking Table 38 Responses for Perceived Comfort, Safety, and Willingness to Try 103 One-way Cycletrack on Two-lane Road without Parking Table 39 Responses for Perceived Comfort, Safety, and Willingness to Try 103 One-way Cycletrack on Four-lane Road with Parking Table 40 Responses for Perceived Comfort, Safety, and Willingness to Try 104 Two-way Cycletrack on Four-lane Road without Parking Table 41 Responses for Perceived Comfort, Safety, and Willingness to Try 104 Buffered Bike Lane on Two-lane Road without Parking vii Table 42 Responses for Perceived Comfort, Safety, and Willingness to Try 105 Bike Lane on Four-lane Road without Parking Table 43 Responses for Perceived Comfort, Safety, and Willingness to Try 105 Bike Lane on Two-lane Road without Parking Table 44 Responses for Perceived Comfort, Safety, and Willingness to Try 106 Buffered Bike Lane on Four-lane Road without Parking Table 45 Responses for Perceived Comfort, Safety, and Willingness to Try 106 Sharrow on Two-lane Road without Parking Table 46 Responses for Perceived Comfort, Safety, and Willingness to Try 107 Sharrow on Two-lane Road with Parking Table 47 Responses for Perceived Comfort, Safety, and Willingness to Try 107 Sharrow on Four-lane Road without Parking Table 48 Responses for Perceived Comfort, Safety, and Willingness to Try 107 Sharrow on Four-lane Road with Parking Table 49 Responses for Perceived Comfort, Safety, and Willingness to Try 108 Buffered Bike Lane on Four-lane Road with Parking Table 50 Responses for Perceived Comfort, Safety, and Willingness to Try 109 Bike Lane on Four-lane Road with Parking Table 51 Responses for Perceived Comfort, Safety, and Willingness to Try 109 Buffered Bike Lane on Two-lane Road with Parking Table 52 Responses for Perceived Comfort, Safety, and Willingness to Try 109 Bike Lane on Two-lane Road with Parking Table 53 Self-Reported Frequency of Use for Multi-use Paths 114 Table 54 Self-Reported Frequency of Use for Each Infrastructure Type for 115 Two-lane Roads without Parking Table 55 Self-Reported Frequency of Use for Each Infrastructure Type for 115 Two-lane Roads with Parking Table 56 Self-Reported Frequency of Use for Each Infrastructure Type for 115 Four-lane Roads without Parking Table 57 Self-Reported Frequency of Use for Each Infrastructure Type for 116 Four-lane Roads with Parking viii Table 58 Average Ratings for Comfort, Safety, and Willingness to Try for 120 Protected Bike Lanes and Multi-Use Paths Table 59 Linear Regression for Expressed Comfort, Safety, and Willingness to 123 Try by Infrastructure Characteristics Table 60 Ordered Logistic Regression for Expressed Comfort, Safety, and 126 Willingness to Try by Infrastructure Characteristics Table 61 Brant Parallel Line Test Results for Ordered Logistic Regression 127 models for Comfort, Safety, and Willingness to Try Table 62 Linear Regression for Expressed Comfort, Safety, and Willingness to 129 Try by Infrastructure and Individual Characteristics Table 63 Linear Regression for Expressed Comfort by Infrastructure and 133 Individual Characteristics, Segmented by Rider Type (6038 Responses, R2=0.212, Adj R2=0.210) Table 64 Linear Regression for Expressed Safety by Infrastructure and 134 Individual Characteristics, Segmented by Rider Type (5982 Responses, R2=0.268, Adj R2=0.265) Table 65 Linear Regression for Expressed Willingness to Try by Infrastructure 135 and Individual Characteristics, Segmented by Rider Type (5966 Responses, R2=0.206, Adj R2=0.203) ix LIST OF FIGURES Figure 1 Map of treatment neighborhoods (black) and their control 21 neighborhood pairs (red). Figure 2 Combinations of on-street bicycle infrastructure used in focus groups 49 Figure 3 Combinations of physically separated bicycle infrastructure used in 50 focus groups (shared use path image courtesy of Atlanta Beltline Inc.). Figure 4 Image for Multi-use Paths Used in Survey 67 Figure 5 Images of Infrastructure Configurations for Different Roadway 69 Layouts Used in Survey. Figure 6 Combinations of bicycle infrastructure used in survey versions 1 and 99 2.