Modeling Demand of Bike Share System Using Built Environment Attributes in the City of , Argentina

By

Ricardo Sanchez Lang

B.S in Economics Universidad Centroamericana, 2009 Managua, Nicaragua

Submitted to the Department of Urban Studies and Planning in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of

Master in City Planning

at the

MASSACHUSETTS INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY

June 2018

0 2018 Ricardo Sanchez Lang. All Rights Reserved

The author hereby grants to MIT the permission to reproduce and to distribute publicly pa er and electronic copies of the thesis document in whole or in part in any medium now own r hereafter created. Signature redacted

Author Department of Urban Studies and Planning May 24, 2018

Certified by Signature redacted, V '7 0 P.?Christopher Zegras Department of Urban Studies and Planning / Thesis Supervisor

Accepted by_ Signature redacted Professor of the Practice, Ceasar McDowell Chair, MCP Committee MASSACHUSETS I NSITUTE Department of Urban Studies and Planning OF TECHNOLOGY

JUN 18 2018 LIBRARIES ARCHIVES 2 Modeling Demand of Bike Share System Using Built Environment Attributes in the City of Buenos Aires, Argentina

by

Ricardo Sainchez Lang

Submitted to the Department of Urban Studies and Planning on May 24th , 2018 in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Master in City Planning

Abstract

Increasing the share of trips done by bike has become an objective of cities worldwide. At the individual level, biking is associated with better physical and mental health. At the city level, biking contributes to alleviate traffic congestion, reduce commuting times and improve air quality. This research is an initial attempt to measure the relationship between demand of Buenos Aires' bikeshare system and sociodemographic, built environment and transportation attributes using a linear regression model. Departure and arrival counts are used as dependent variables and are aggregated by station over the period of one year. In addition, catchment areas of different sizes were constructed around bike share stations to estimate the relationships between bike-sharing demand and availability of these attributes around stations. Results suggest a positive relationship between population, buses, availability of bike lanes within the buffers, universities and station capacity. This client-based project seeks to shed light on the subject of bike sharing as a mode of transportation in the context of a Latin American country.

Thesis Supervisor: P. Christopher Zegras Title: Associate Professor of Transportation and Urban Planning

3 Acknowledgements

While writing this thesis, a revolution was taking place in my country, Nicaragua, with university students leading a social revolt that embodies the desire of my people for a free, democratic, and just country. As a Nicaraguan and as a MIT student, I share and embrace their cause, which is fundamental for the advancement of our country. This thesis is especially dedicated to the Nicaraguan college students who, in the revolution of April 2018, lost their lives fighting for the Nicaragua that we dream.

I want to start by thanking Chris for his support and guidance throughout the thesis process and throughout these last two years. Thank you for welcoming me in your research team, which has greatly expanded my knowledge and curiosity about urban transportation planning and thank you for advising me during this thesis process.

I also want to express my gratitude to the Government of the City of Buenos Aires for the opportunity to intern at the city's Department of Transportation and for trusting me the exciting task of generating knowledge about the City's bike share system, the Ecobici. In particular, I would like to thank Paula Bisiau, Andres Meyer, Federico Varone and Mariela Vera for providing me with data and guidance throughout this process.

I like to thank my classmates and other MIT friends and professors for sharing their knowledge and making these last two years unforgettable. To He, Rounaq, Eytan and Isabel for patiently sharing with me the technicalities of transport planning. I will not forget our long and fruitful discussions. To Professor Sarah Williams for introducing me to the fascinating world of spatial analysis. To Daniel and Madeline at the GIS Lab for teaching me life-long skills and to my GIS- savvy classmates Laura, Kadeem and my dear friend Toho for answering my questions. To Daniel and Cristian, for your friendship and for sharing your knowledge and passion for urban transportation in Latin America. To Apaar, I am happy to have shared my time with you at MIT.

Finally, I want to thank my mom and my godmother, for the unconditional love and support during all these years and for being a source of moral and intellectual inspiration. To my grandparents, for being an example of integrity, rectitude and humility.

Gracias a la vida que me ha dado tanto - Violeta Parra

4 Table of Contents

A b stra ct...... 3 Acknowledgem ents ...... 4 1. Introduction...... 8 2. Background ...... 9 2.2. General Inform ation about Buenos Aires...... 9 2.3. The Biking Infrastructure ...... 11 3. Literature Review, M ethods and Data ...... 18 3.1 M odeling Bike Sharing Demand ...... 18 3 .2 M eth o d s ...... 2 0 3 .3 D ata ...... 2 2 4. M odeling Framework, Regression Results and Discussion ...... 44 4.1 Linear Regression (OLS) ...... 44 4.2 Transform ations ...... 44 4.3 Spatial Autocorrelation ...... 46 4.4 Regression findings and discussion ...... 48 5. Conclusions...... 52 6. References...... 53 A p p en d ix ...... 5 5

5 List of Figures

Figure 1: G reater Buenos A ires Area ...... 9 Figure 2: City of Buenos Aires' Modal Split...... 10 Figure 3: People U sing Bike Lane N etw ork ...... 11 Figure 4: Buenos Aires' Biking Infrastructure...... 13 Figure 5: No. of Kilometers of Bike Lanes Constructed from 2010-2017...... 14 Figure 6: Buenos Aires Biking Infrastructure and Population...... 16 Figure 7: Buenos Aires Biking Infrastructure and Jobs...... 17 Figure 8: Q ueen and Rook Criterion ...... 21 Figure 9: Departure Counts by Station in 2017...... 24 Figure 10: Arrival Counts by Station in 2018...... 25 Figure 11: Distribution of Departure Counts by Time of Day (2017)...... 27 Figure 12: Distribution of Arrival Counts by Time of Day (2017)...... 27 Figure 13: Distribution of Departure Counts by Month (2017)...... 28 Figure 14: Distribution of Arrival Counts by Month (2017)...... 28 Figure 15: Frequency Distribution of Travel Times...... 29 Figure 16: Distribution of the Original and Transformed Dependent Variable...... 30 Figure 17: Distribution of the Original and Transformed Dependent Variable...... 31 Figure 18: N etw ork-based polygon ...... 32 Figure 19: Buffers around Bike Share Stations...... 33 Figure 20: Jobs within 300m Buffers Around Ecobici Stations ...... 36 Figure 21: Shortest Routes Between Stations and Bike Lane Network ...... 38 Figure 22: Impedance as a Function of Travel Time...... 41 Figure 23 Distribution of Original Departure Counts and Transformations...... 45 Figure 24 Distribution of Original Arrival Counts and Transformations...... 46 Figure 25: Confidence Intervals for Moran's I Spatial Autocorrelation test ...... 47

6 List of Tables

T able 1: V ariable D efinitions...... 22 T able 2: D escriptive Statistics...... 42 Table 3: Shapiro-W ilk N orm ality Test...... 44 Table 4: Location-based analysis for spatial autocorrelation...... 47 Table 5: OLS results: Annual Departure Counts (300 meter buffer zones) ...... 48 Table 6: OLS results: Annual Departure Counts (200 meter buffer zones) ...... 50 Table 7: OLS results: Annual Departure Counts (400 meter buffer zones) ...... 51

Appendix

Table A. 1 Opportunities within 200 meters Buffer...... 55 Table A.2 Opportunities within 300 meters Buffer...... 62 Table A.3 Opportunities within 400 meters Buffer...... 68 Table A.4: Correlation Matrix of the Independent Variables (200 meters buffer zone)...... 75 Table A.5: Correlation Matrix of the Independent Variables (300 meters buffer zone)...... 75 Table A.6: Correlation Matrix of the Independent Variables (400 meters buffer zone)...... 76 Table A.7: OLS results: Annual Departure Counts (200 meter buffer zones, all variables)...... 77 Table A.8: OLS results: Annual Departure Counts (300 meter buffer zones, all variables)...... 78 Table A.9 OLS results: Annual Departure Counts (400 meter buffer zones, all variables)...... 78

7 1. Introduction

This research project aims to quantify the effect of sociodemographic, built environment and transportation attributes on bike sharing demand. The selection of Buenos Aires as an area of analysis is grounded in several reasons. First, the City is committed to continue investing in its biking infrastructure, and authorities are eager to better understand the factors that may be playing a role in the decision to use the bike share system. Also, over the last few years the City has made available relevant information that facilitates research in Buenos Aires, which makes it a better candidate than other Latin American cities with less data availability. This data includes, but is not limited to, bike share counts, shape files of different urban attributes such as transit infrastructure and land use, and sociodemographic data, such as population and concentration of jobs in the city. Finally, the city presents an interesting case because several factors that are thought to be positively associated with bike usage are present such as availability of protected bike lanes, flat topography, high population and job density, among others. Additionally, Buenos Aires features a bike share system free of charge for one hour.

The document is organized in five chapters. The second chapter provides background information about Buenos Aires and its transportation network, particularly the biking infrastructure. The third chapter consists of a literature review that briefly describes methods commonly used by scholars and researchers to measure the demand of bike share systems. In this chapter, concepts relevant for this research such as linear regression analysis and spatial autocorrelation are also discussed. The third chapter also describes in detail the steps followed to prepare the variables for analysis. Chapter Four presents the modeling results and discusses possible implications. Finally, the last chapter offers concluding remarks.

I expect this research project will contribute to increasing the City's understanding of the bike share system and its relationship to variables chosen for this study. However, this document represents an initial, as opposed to conclusive, effort to describe the relationship between attributes that may play a role in the demand for the bike share system. As such, its results should be interpreted with caution.

8 2. Background

2.2. General Information about Buenos Aires

The City of Buenos Aires, also known as the Autonomous City of Buenos Aires, is Argentina's most populated city with just over 3 million people (Government of the City of Buenos Aires, 2016). In addition, the City is part of a larger metropolitan area comprised of 24 municipalities known as The (GBA), which according to the 2010 Census amounts to more than 12 million people, making the GBA the third largest urban agglomerations in Latin America after Mexico City (23 million) and Sao Paulo (20 million). In this thesis, I will refer to the City of Buenos Aires as 'The City' and to the Greater Buenos Aires as GBA. As the country's main political, economic and cultural hub, Buenos Aires experiences an influx of thousands of workers traveling in and out of the city every day. According to the City's official statistics, non-city residents perform almost half of the more than 2 million jobs available in Buenos Aires.

Figure 1: Greater Buenos Aires Area

I - Malvinas Argentinas 2 - ltuzalng6 URUGUAY 3 - Hurlingham 4 - Tres do Febrero 5 - General San Martin -San Fernando RIO DE LA PLATA Vicente L6pez M Greater Buenos Aires (administrative)

Greater Buenos Aires Agglomeration (non-administrative designation) General Avellaneda Rodriguez M Greater La Plate R Other patridos of Buenos Aires ProvinCe

[ City of Buenos Aires

Marcos Paz

Berisso P

Le Plata

San Vicente Cafluelas

Source: Wikimedia.org

9 - -- - -I

The most frequently used modes of transportation are public transit, walking, and personal automobile, respectively. Public transportation can be broken down in the three modes: bus, which accounts for almost 38% of all trips done in Buenos Aires, subway, which consists of 6 underground lines, and rail, connecting the city with the remaining municipalities that comprise the metropolitan area.

Figure 2: City of Buenos Aires' Modal Split

Rail 2% Walking 26%

Taxi. 5%

Subway 9% Bus 38%

Source: National Transportation Observatory (2013)

To curb air pollution stemming from the use of automobiles and reduce traffic congestion, the city adopted a series of steps aimed at increasing the use of public and alternative modes of transportation under the Sustainable Mobility Plan (2011). Among these initiatives was the construction of exclusive bike lanes in highly congested corridors, limiting parking permits, street/sidewalk redesign and improvement, banning automobiles from entering downtown areas,

10 among other measures. One of these measures was the construction of a network of bike lanes and the introduction of a publicly run bike sharing system known as Ecobici.

2.3. The Biking Infrastructure

As of May 2018, the City had approximately 180km of bike lanes and 200 bike share stations (BSS). Most BSS are located in the city center, which is in the eastern part of the city, while bike lanes extend further out. Data from cyclists counts performed bi-annually by the City suggest that while the number of people using bike lanes significantly increased after their introduction, over time the number of cyclists riding on streets without bike lanes and the number of cyclists using biking facilities have converged. In addition, the overall number of bike lane users has stabilized with respect to 2010, when the first bike lanes were introduced.

Figure 3: People Using Bike Lane Network

16% 242.1% 14.2% 230% S14%

.5 12% IA 180% ED C .3 3 .~10% an .5 VI 130% IA 8.1% In d 2 8% 0 M U 0 0 80% 2 ,M 6% C ED ED 5.1% U' ED ED U .3% C S4% .E 2.8% 30% 17.1% 9.72% S.3% 0% r 2% 10.97% .6% 1.02% 0.4% -8.34% -0.5% 0.0% 0.0% -8.63% 0.0% 11.71% 0% -20% OCT_2011 ABR_2012 OCT_2012 ABR_2013 OCT_2013 ABR_2014 OCT_2014 ABR_2015 %increase of Km of bike lanes -o-% Change in the number of cyclist using bike lanes -e-% Change in the number of cyclist NOT using bike lanes

11 For example, after increasing by more than 200% in October 2011 with respect to October 2010, in April 2012 the number of cyclists using bike lanes increased only by 20% with respect to 2011, by 50% in October 2012 with respect to October 2013, and from there progressively decreased despite the fact that the city continued adding bike lanes. From 2013 onwards, the rate of change in number of cyclist using the bike lane has not increased significantly. This may be normal since bike lanes presumably cannot accommodate all cyclist nor they cover the entire city. However, this rate is close to the percentage change in the number of cyclist not using the bike lanes. By 2015, approximately 35 thousand cyclists were not using the bike lanes versus 21 thousand who were.

12 Figure 4: Buenos Aires' Biking Infrastructure

Legend v 0 Ecobici Station - Me Lane ca"jm..badate Gron Araaa

Source: Govemrnment of the City of Buenos Aires (2017). Prepared by: Ricardo Sanchez, MIT 0 0.5 1 2 3 n~lalomneters

13 Figure 5: No. of Kilometers of Bike Lanes Constructed from 2010-2017

90 -- - -_-_---

80

70

60

) E 50...... 40

30 - 20I I I __l

2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 Unknown

Source: Own elaboration with data from GCBA

Buenos Aires' bike lane network is a mesh of protected bike lanes. Protected bike lanes are positively associated with bike sharing demand as they improve the perception of safety and have the potential to entice non-bikers to consider using the bike (Bert van Wee & Maat, 2010). Paramount for this is a local regulation that limits parking to only one side of the road, thereby freeing up space for dedicated facilities on the other side of the street. Despite the availability of protected bike lanes, cyclists still face the city's fast-paced and oftentimes aggressive driving style. It is relatively common for vehicle drivers not to respect stop signs and even traffic lights, which limits the potential benefits of some of the measures the City has adopted to improve security at intersections such as bike signaling and the adoption of street lights for bikes.

While regulation has facilitated the construction of bike lanes, this has also forced the City to introduce bi-directional bike lanes, which have disadvantages of their own. For example, on narrow streets, which predominate in Buenos Aires' city center, a bi-directional lane limits the maximum potential bike lane width, which jeopardizes both security and comfort since some riders

14 may feel insecure about riding too close to the traffic coming in the opposite direction. In addition, when the slope of the street is pronounced, riding close to the sidewalk could be uncomfortable and unsafe. This seems to be the case in several streets of Buenos Aires. Furthermore, in these places, the surface of the lane is not uniform but rather 'two level,' due to the fact that the road pavement is on top of the drainage infrastructure. Authorities recognize this fact but also acknowledge that providing a solution is complex since the slope is designed for storm water drainage and, in addition, leveling down the surface would increase the costs of the bike lane (and provoke disruption of traffic flow, albeit temporarily).

Buenos Aires' Ecobici system shares similar characteristics to other bike sharing system found in several cities across the world. It consists of stations with several bikes where the user must have either a code or a key to unlock the bike. The number of docks per station varies from station to station, but most have between 15-20 bikes. A particular feature of the Ecobici system is the fact that the service is free of charge for both residents and non-residents. However, in practice, some barriers prevent all potential users from using the Ecobici in equal conditions. To use a bike, a potential user has to create an account on the city's website and provide a proof of residency, which can be any Argentinian address but not an international one. Furthermore, to verify proof of residency, users must, upload a utility bill or a pay stub. This makes it cumbersome for tourists, informal workers, senior citizens, among others to use the bike share system, potentially reducing overall ridership.

The Ecobici system faces several other limitations that could play a role in the demand of the service. The system has not been exempted from technical failures, vandalism, and malfunctioning of stations and bikes, all of which would negatively impact people's perception of the system. According to city officials, in the past technical issues have forced the City to suspend the service for long periods. Furthermore, supply of public bikes is limited. Buenos Aires has a low density of bike share stations (the number of stations per square meters). The National Association of City Transportation Officials (NACTO) recommends a bike share station density of 11 bike share stations per square kilometer. In Buenos Aires, only two neighborhoods (out of forty-eight) meet this recommendation. In fact, the areas with the highest density of bike share stations (and bike lanes) are those located in areas with a high density of jobs but not necessarily in areas with high

15 population density as shown in Figure 6 and Figure 7. For people who do not have bicycles and who live in neighborhoods that have Ecobici stations, this may prevent them from choosing to use Ecobici on their return trip fearing that the stations in their neighborhood may be full, therefore forcing them to travel longer distances to find a station with available docks.

Figure 6: Buenos Aires Biking Infrastructure and Population

V

013 -274E

Legend 0 Eco Abid Station t Lane - Ore PGre en Area Population Density F-- ] 1 m 27,414 - 49,536 49.536 - 81.430 81,430 - 124.440 124,440 - 177.107

Source: Government of the City of Buenos Aires (2017), National Institute of Statistics and Census (2010) Prepared by: Ricardo Sanchez, MIT 0 0.5 1 2 3 Km o- K1omters

16 ------. - -- .1

Figure 7: Buenos Aires Biking Infrastructure and Jobs

N

AA

PERO

Legend 0 Ecobldi Station - SIM Lane Gmen Areas Jobs 20.602 - 50,117 .50118-112,377 112,378 - 207.287 I 207.287 - 331.402 331,402 - 519.317

Source: Government of the City of Buenos Aires (2017), Prepared by: Ricardo Sanchez, MIT 0 0.5 1 2 3 Kilometers

Additionally, a low density of bike share stations at destinations increases the likelihood that people who do not have a bicycle would not even consider using the bicycle as a mode of transportation.

17 3. Literature Review, Methods and Data

The ubiquity of bike sharing systems and the establishment of a culture of biking as a mode of transportation has engendered abundant relevant research. This chapter summarizes the literature and methods consulted to help me to better identify and operationalize my approach to measuring the relationship between bike share station usage and the built environment and sociodemographic features.

3.1 Modeling Bike Sharing Demand

A substantial body of literature examines determinants of bike sharing, particularly in developed countries but also in emerging economies. A less significant amount looks directly at factors influencing the decision to use bike share systems in Latin American countries, probably because such systems are relatively new in the region. In general, authors investigate bike-sharing demand by examining behavioral factors and/or by looking at data produced by bike facilities and attributes around bike share stations. Thus, broadly speaking, two approaches are common: a behavioral- based or a facility-based analysis. This research takes a facility-based approach.

In facility-focused studies' authors use different approaches and data sets to study travel patterns. Authors like Wardman et al. (2007), look at national transportation surveys by different modes, and aggregate them by year. Others like Tran et al (2015) or Rixey (2013) use origin and destination trip data obtained directly from bike share stations and aggregate them at the station level. Nosal and Miranda-Moreno (2014), use automatic counts of trips for commuting and leisure purposes to test the effect of weather on the use of bicycle facilities.

In facility-focused studies, researchers look at elements such as the natural and the built environment, temporal factors, socio-demographic characteristics and flows of cyclist. Natural elements include weather (mainly precipitation) but also the topography of the city, hours of sunlight, temperature, wind and even the presence of water bodies (e.g. Pen et al, 2017). Elements of the built environment that are normally analyzed are functional characteristics such as densities (population, jobs, residential), mixture of land uses, road connectivity, availability of bike lanes, number of stops and street lights, block size, and road width. Authors also look at factors such as

18 distance of homes to work, road network layouts, presence of parks, and even aesthetic characteristics of the built environment (Pikora et al, 2003, and Stefandsdottir, 2014). Temporal factors include specific periods of the year (winter versus summer or fall versus spring), days of the week, and periods of the day (e.g., peak and non-peak hours). Socio-demographic elements often analyzed include population, jobs, income, race, and gender, and household size, availability of private modes of transportation, age, and level of schooling.

The techniques used to count and aggregate these variables vary but in most of the literature analyzed for this research, authors use geographic information systems to construct catchment areas around bike share stations and count the number of opportunities within that area. The size of the catchment area varies. For example, Tran et el (2015) constructed buffer zones of 200, 300 and 400 meters around bike share stations (authors do not clarify whether they use Euclidean or Network-based distance) and examined the relationship between 10 variables such as population, jobs and public transportation availability, among others with bike sharing demand. Rixy (2013) used a buffer of 400 meters (Euclidean distance).

19 3.2 Methods

3.2.1 Linear Regression

Linear regression is a statistical method to establish a relationship between variables. In multiple linear regression, there are two types of variable: a response or dependent variable and a set of predictor or independent variables. I use multivariate linear regression to quantify the relationships between socioeconomic and built environment attributes and bike sharing demand.

3.2.2 Spatial Autocorrelation

Spatial Autocorrelation measures the degree to which a variable we seek to study is correlated due to possible existence of spatial lag and/or error. Spatial error is when the error terms of different spatial units are correlated and treats spatial autocorrelation as an estimation problem. Spatial lag assumes that dependencies exist among the levels of the dependent variable, for example, the usage at one bike share station is impacted by the usage at nearby stations. Anselin and Bera (1998) express the presence of spatial autocorrelation with the following moment condition:

Cov (yi, yj) # 0 for i # j

Where yi, yj are observations of the variable we seek to study at locations i and j. These locations can be states, regions, census tracts, buildings or, as in the case for this research, bike share stations and their buffers. Normally, restrictions are placed on the number of possible locations that could be potentially compared. This is achieved by constructing a spatial weight matrix. Two approaches exist to construct this matrix: the Rook and Queen Criterion. In the Rook Criterion, two observations are close to one another if they share a side. In the Queen Criterion, two observations are close if they share a side or an edge.

20 41

Figure 8: Queen and Rook Criterion Queen Rook

There are different approaches to test for the presence of spatial autocorrelation. A common test, and the one used in this research, is the Moran's I test. Moran's I is defined as:

J1> =1 Wij (xi -X)(x - ) ( = il WOj Dt-(xi- ) Where: N is the number of observations X is the mean of the variable xi is the variable value at a particular location xj is the variable value at another location Wij is a weight indexing location of i relative to j (the weight matrix described above)

A 95 percent confidence interval is commonly used to infer the presence of spatial autocorrelation. At this confidence interval, z-scores required to fail to reject the null hypothesis must be between -1.96 and 1.96. If values obtained from the Moran's I test are within this threshold, then the observed values of the variable under study are likely to be the result of random spatial processes. That is spatial autocorrelation should not be a problem.

21 3.3 Data

This section explains in detail the selection of variables for this research as well as the processes used to obtain them. Table 1 summarize the variables used. Table 1: Variable Definitions

Variable Definition Source Dependent Square root of the number of departure and arrival Government of the Counts counts during 2017, by station. City of Buenos Aires

Independent Demographic Factors Population* Total population (in 1 Os of persons) National Institute of Statistics and Census Jobs* Number of jobs (in IOs of jobs) Argentinian Ministry of Transportation Built Environment Attributes Recreational Facilities Number of restaurants, cinemas, theaters, bars and Government of the clubs City of Buenos Aires Universities 1 if a university is located within the BSS buffer, 0 Government of the otherwise City of Buenos Aires Transportation Network Factors Ecobici Stations 1 if an Ecobici station falls within the buffer of Government of the another station, 0 otherwise City of Buenos Aires Bike Lanes Length of bike lanes within the BSS buffer Government of the City of Buenos Aires Prop of Bike Lanes Proportion of bike lane availability on the shortest Government of the route between one station and all other stations City of Buenos Aires Bus Stops Number of bus lines serving one bus stop Government of the City of Buenos Aires Rail Stops 1 if a rail stop falls within the buffer of a bike share Government of the station, 0 otherwise City of Buenos Aires

Subway Stops 1 if a rail stop falls within the buffer of a bike share Government of the station, 0 otherwise City of Buenos Aires Station Capacity Number of docks per station Government of the City of Buenos Aires Accessibility-based Indicators Accessibility to Accessibility to persons from one BSS to all other Own elaboration Population BSSs Accessibility to Jobs Accessibility to jobs from one BSS to all other BSSs Own elaboration Accessibility to All Accessibility to Persons and Jobs from one BSS to Own elaboration all other BSSs

*Aggregated proportionally by area intersecting 2010 Census Tracts

22 3.3.1 Selection of Dependent Variable

The dependent variable is the bike share counts or trips made using the Ecobici service during 2017. Data comes from Buenos Aires's open data website and consists of a comma separated value (CSV) file containing more than 1.8 million observations with seven variables. These variables include, among others, departure and arrival stations, departure time, and total travel time. It does not include personal information about the users such as gender, race or income. To obtain the arrival time, I calculated it by adding the total travel time to the departure time. Not all the data in the original raw dataset is used in this analysis. Stations with less than a year of operations, trips with the same origin and destination and trips with travel times beyond 2 hours and less than three minutes were excluded from the analysis. The resulting dataset consists of approximately 650 thousand observations, aggregated by station and shown in Figure 9 and Figure 10.

23 No. of Counts

25 DE MAYO ADUANA AGUERO AIME PAINE ALSINA ARAOZ ARENALES AYACUCHO AZUCENA VILLAFLOR BALCARCE BELGRANO BILLINGHURST BOUCHARD CARLOS GARDEL CATEDRAL CEMENTERIO DE LA RECOLETA CERRITO CHILE COLEGIO NACIONAL BUENOS AIRES CONGRESO CORDOBA CORONEL DIAZ DELLA PAOLE RA DIAGONAL NORTE DISTRITO AUDIOVISUAL DOBLAS ECUADOR ESME RALDA FACULTAD DE DERECHO FACULTAD DE MEDICINA GALERIAS PACIFICO 9T GUAYAQUIL GUZMAN HOSPITAL ITALIANO HOSPITAL RAMOS MEJIA HOSPITAL RIVADAVLA INDE PENDENCIA INGENIERO BUTTY INSTITUTO LELOIR JUANA MANSO JULIAN ALVAREZ LAVALLE LEGISLATURA MADERO UCA MAIPU MALABIA MEXICO MINISTERIO DE ECONOMIA MINISTRO CARRANZA MISIONES MONTEVIDEO 9o MORENO OB E LISCO ONCE PACIFICO PADILLA PARQUE CENTENARIO PARQUE LAS HERAS PARQUE LEZAMA PARQUE PATRICIOS PASCO PERIA PERON PIE DRAS PLAZA ALMAGRO PLAZA BOEDO PLAZA GUEMES PLAZA HOUSSAY PLAZA ITALIA PLAZA LIBERTAD PLAZA PALERMO VIEJO PLAZA PRIMERO DE MAYO PLAZA ROMA PLAZA SAN MARTIN PLAZA VICENTE LOPEZ QUINTANA RECONQUISTA RETIRO RICARDO ROJAS RINCON RIOBAMBA RIVAROLA SAAVE D RA SALCE DO SANCHEZ DE BUSTAMANTE SARANDI SARMIENTO SUIPACHA SUIPACHA Y ARROYO TREINTA Y TRES ORIENTALES TRIBUNALES TUCUMAN URQUIZA VENEZUELA VERA PENALOZA YATAY ZOOLOGICO YATAY ZOOLOGICO

k- No. of Counts

25 DE MAYO ADUANA AGUERO AIME PAINE ALSINA ARAOZ ARENALES AYACUCHO AZUCENA VILLAFLOR BALCARCE BELGRANO BILLINGHURST BOUCHARD CARLOS GARDEL CATEDRAL CEMENTERIO DE LA RECOLETA CERRITO CHILE COLEGIO NACIONAL BUENOS AIRES CONGRESO CORDOBA CORONEL DIAZ DELLA PAOLERA DIAGONAL NORTE DISTRITO AUDIOVISUAL DOBLAS ECUADOR ESMERALDA FACULTAD DE DERECHO FACULTAD DE MEDICINA GALERIAS PACIFICO GUAYAQUIL GUZMAN HOSPITAL ITALIANO HOSPITAL RAMOS MEJIA HOSPITAL RIVADAVIA INDEPENDENCIA INGENIERO BUTTY INSTITUTO LELOIR sI,. JUANA MANSO JULIAN ALVAREZ LAVALLE LEGISLATURA MADE RO UCA MAIPU MALARIA MEXICO MINISTERIC) DE ECONOMIA MINISTRO CARRANZA MISIONES MONTEVIDEO MORENO OBELISCO ONCE PACIFICO 00 PADILLA PARQUE CENTENARIO PARQUE LAS HERAS PARQUE LEZAMA PARQUE PATRICIOS PASCO 00 PENA PERON PIE DRAS PLAZA ALMAGRO PLAZA BOE DO PLAZA GUEMES PLAZA HOUSSAY PLAZA ITALIA PLAZA LIBERTAD PLAZA PALERMO VIEJO PLAZA PRIMERO DE MAYO PLAZA ROMA PLAZA SAN MARTIN PLAZA VICENTE LOPEZ QUINTANA RECONQUISTA RETIRO RICARDO ROJAS RINCON RIOBAMBA RIVAROLA SAAVEDRA SALCE DO SANCHEZ DE BUSTAMANTE SARANDI SAR MIE NTO SUIPACHA SUIPACHA Y ARROYO TREINTA YTRES ORIENTALES TRIBUNALES TUCUMAN URQUIZA VENEZUELA VERA PENALOZA YATAY ZOOLOGICO

I. 3.3.2 Processing of the Dependent Variable

Aggregating the counts by time of day reveals the time-based patterns of trips. Figure 11 and Figure 12 show the frequency distribution of trips during 2017 (departures and arrivals). They show that the majority of trips take place between the midday and pm-peak period (64%). This may be a first indication of the type of use people make of the Ecobici system (recreational, commuting, and so forth). The date-time format in which count data has been collected by the City also permits studying the frequency distribution of trips by month. Figure 13 and Figure 14, for example, which show trip counts by month, reveal a small fluctuation in counts from January to July, but then a sharp decrease from July onwards. This is counterintuitive, as one would expect demand to pick up after the winter months (June-August). However, according to city officials interviewed for this project, this was due to an interruption in the supply of bikes.

26 Figure 11: Distribution of Departure Counts by Time of Day (2017)

C C CL 0 CS 0 Cq,

0 0 0 0

0 m

00:00 02:00 04:00 06:00 08:00 10:00 12:00 14:00 16:00 18:00 20:00 22:00 00:00

Hours

Figure 12: Distribution of Arrival Counts by Time of Day (2017)

0 0

S

44 Am

0 0 -E 0 C

4 A~~A A 4 4< <4< m

00:00 02:00 04:00 06:00 08:00 10:00 12:00 14:00 16:00 18:00 20:00 22:00 00:00

Hours

27 Figure 13: Distribution of Departure Counts by Month (2017)

0 0o

0 0

0

31 Dec 16 28 Feb 17 30 Apr 17 30 Jun 17 31 Aug 17 31 Oct 17 01 Jan 18

Months

Figure 14: Distribution of Arrival Counts by Month (2017)

0 0 0 0 00

0

(0

U, 2 0 0 0 0 C

0 0 0

0

31 Dec 16 28 Feb 17 30 Apr 17 30 Jun 17 31 Aug 17 31 Oct 17 31 Dec 17 Months

28 Another finding that emerges from the data preparation process was that the majority of trips are between 5-15 minutes long. Using the observed average travel time and distance between stations (which I obtained by calculating the shortest route between station pairs), I estimated an average speed of approximately 9km/h.

Figure 15: Frequency Distribution of Travel Times

0 W- a. 8 I-

z0 8

0-

0 20 40 60 80 100 120

Minutes

Concerning the frequency of counts, these were found to closely resemble a normal distribution, particularly the arrival counts. To explore whether the frequency distribution of the dependent variable resembles a normal distribution, a quantile-quantile (Q-Q) plot was used. In a Q-Q plot, data is compared to a perfect normal distribution (straight line), which allows us to see how well the dependent variable fits this line. In this case, the dependent variable shows an overall good fit but it is a bit skewed on the lower and upper tails. To finally determine the presence, or lack of normality, I performed a Shapiro test.

29 Figure 16: Distribution of the Original and Transformed Dependent Variable

Fraq. Dist of Departure Counts Freq. Dist of Departure Counts (sqrt trans)

0 5000 10000 15000 20000 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160 Counts Square Meters

Freq. Dist of Arrival Counts Freq. Dist of Arrival Counts (sqrt trans)

0 5000 10000 15000 20000 20 40 60 so 100 120 140 160 Counts Counts Sqrt trans = square root transformation

The Shapiro test is an approach to test normality since it is sensitive to outliers and useful for small sample sizes. In a Shapiro test, the null hypothesis is that the data is normally distributed. In the test, if p>0.05 we fail to reject the null hypothesis and reject it otherwise. The results confirm evidence of non-normality in the dependent variables (p <01 for departures; p

30 Figure 17: Distribution of the Original and Transformed Dependent Variable

Q-Q plot of Deprture Counts QQ plot of Arrival Counts

I I

0 I 8 *6 S 0 eS

-2 -1 0 1 2 -2 .1 0 1 2

Theora"ca Ouaneim Thwomefi Oijanila

3.3.3 Definition of Buffer Zones

The buffer areas of this study are network-based polygons. This method of estimating the catchment area is useful for the purpose of this research since it takes into account the network that actual and potential Ecobici users could use to access the stations by foot. Catchment areas of 200, 300 and 400 meters for each bike share station are tested in this research.

31 Figure 18: Network-based polygon

Ix,

t N-

S iN~d lam100f

INOW SJW 3"-wb

SWu svw0mw of tl O o sueneAsm SA 011) 0 Oas 01 02 &3 Plo brercl 6anmezW

The information used to construct the catchment areas is Buenos Aires's road network data and the location of Ecobici stations. The road network is essentially spatially referenced data in vector format represented by polylines with length information (in meters) as well as other attributes such as name, the type of road (street or avenue), the location of the road within the city (neighborhoods), and so forth. The Ecobici stations are also spatially referenced data represented by vector format but in point shape. For each point, the file contains coordinates, name of each station, address, and a station ID. The process of constructing the polygons was carried out using the software ArcMap. First, I created a network dataset using Network Analyst, based on the road network and assuming a 5 km per hour walking speed. Results from this process are shown in Figure 19 which contains all the stations analyzed for this research. All roads were included in the catchment calculation process, including highways. However, due to City policy, bike share stations are located only on streets, not avenues or highways. 32 Figure 19: Buffers around Bike Share Stations

LLJ GAle AXa \X

I 200m bufrr -

300m - J

Bouroe: Govemmnsnt of the City of Buenos Aires (2017) o 0.5 1 2 3 Prepared by Riwdo Sanch7e, MIT

3.3.4 Construction of Independent Variables

The following section describes in detail the process followed to estimate the independent variables within the buffer zones. For all variables, I used spatially referenced data in different forms (mostly points) and intersected these vectors with the buffers. The software used was ArcMap and the tools were primarily intersect, dissolve and spatial join.

33 3.3.4.1 Population

This data comes from the 2010 census, prepared by the National Institute of Statistics and Census.1 The information is aggregated by census tract and, in addition to total population, it also includes the total number of men and women living in each tract, the number of households, the area of the census tract, home ownership and the number of vacant units. To estimate the population in each buffer, the first step was to identify the overlapping areas between the buffers. To do this, I performed a 'union' analysis. A union analysis calculates the geometric union of any number of feature classes and is useful to discover geometric relationships (overlap) between features from all features classes (How Union works, retrieved from: http:/desktop.arcgis.com). Because I am interested in identifying the areas of overlap between the buffers, I performed a union between two copies of the same buffer shape file. For the 400 meter buffers, this operation revealed more than 500 polygons (the original 97 buffers plus their overlaps). For the next step, I intersected this layer with the shape file containing the population information, obtaining the population falling within each of the 500 + polygons. Then, I calculated the share of the census tract within the polygons, allocated the tract's population to the polygons based on this respective share and divided by the number of buffers intersecting shared polygons. Finally, the population around each station was estimated by summing the population in the polygons comprising each station's buffer.

I Unidades Geoestadisticas - Cartografia y c6digos geogrificos del Sistema Estadistico Nacional. Retrieved from https://www.indec.gov.ar/codgeo.asp 34 3.3.4.2 Jobs

The latest data available for jobs for the City of Buenos Aires comes from the 2009 origin- destination survey, 2 which surveyed over 100,000 individuals. Job location is estimated based on trip purposes reported in the survey.3 Officials at the City Government carried out the process of transforming these responses into spatially referenced data. The process was as follows: each trip to a place of work was georeferenced within census tracts using the origin and destination information from the survey. 4 These job locations were expanded using the trip expansion factors provided in the survey, producing 3.1 million jobs. Then, points were aggregated by census tracts, thus approximating the number of jobs in a tract. Finally, to count the number of jobs inside each station area buffer, I followed the exact same process used to estimate population.

2 Encuesta de Movilidad Domiciliaria 2009 - 2010. Movilidad en el Area Metropolitana de Buenos Aires. Retrieved from http://uecmovilidad.gob.ar/encuesta-de-movilidad-domiciliaria-2009-2010-movilidad-en-el-area- metropolitana-de-buenos-aires/ 3 Activities at origins and destinations are categorized as follows: home, place of work, shopping, work purposes, personal errands, others. 4 Place of work was used because it is associated with a fixed spatial location of the place of work. In contrast, trips with 'work purposes' do not necessarily mean that the work-related activity is performed regularly in the same place. An example of this is a taxi driver, or a consultant who is running a work-related errand. 35 Figure 20: Jobs within 300m Buffers Around Ecobici Stations

B InsidIM00m BJobsBuffers Around Ecobici Stations

4" 4% Y#

3.3.4.3 Bike Share Stations, Universities, Recreational Facilities, Bus, Subway, Rail stops and Bike Lanes.

To estimate the presence of bike share stations, universities, recreational facilities, bus, rail and subway stops inside the buffers, I performed a spatial join between the shapefiles of each of these variables and the buffers. Recreational facilities consist of restaurants, bars, dancing clubs, theaters and cultural venues. Finally, the number of docks available at each station was obtained directly from city officials.

3.3.4.4 Proportion of Bike Lane

The proportion of bike lanes available within the shortest route between station pairs entailed a two-step process. First, I calculated the shortest route between stations using the tool 'closest

36 facility' from ArcMap's Network Analyst. This tool allows one to upload the origins as "facilities" and destinations as "incidents". Using the same network data set I used to calculate the buffers as an input, the tool returns the shortest route between each origin and all other destinations as a set of polylines with length data. I exported the results as a shape file and then intersected it with the shape file of bike lanes, which are polylines running along the city's street network. The resulting geodatabase contains the segments of the bike lane network that intersect the polylines of the shortest routes. The length of each of these segments was then aggregated by the entire shortest route lines. The result was a field in the geodatabase containing the total length of bike lane availability for each route. In the final stage of this process, I divided this length by the total length of the shortest route, obtaining the proportion of bike lane availability.

37 Figure 21: Shortest Routes Between Stations and Bike Lane Network

l aI Ila

-Z H

fo I

Legen*cbc - -ai~

'viA- 414 4 - 2tia-IV~

.- ~---A I I~~lll~ Iv 4 h1 jit 1vt I.yK

-'-+".-- f 4 - - - -\

BikL LanA-'

38 3.3.4.5 Accessibility to Opportunities

Accessibility is defined as "the ease and convenience of access to spatially distributed opportunities with a choice of travel" (U.S. Department of Environment, 1996). This 'ease' or possibility to access such opportunities is traditionally associated with a cost, which is normally travel time or distance between origin and destination zones. Cascetta (2009) distinguishes two types of accessibility: active and passive accessibility. The former is a proxy of the ease of reaching the activities/opportunities located in different zones j of the study area for a given purpose (work, leisure, study) from zone i (Papa & Coppola, 2012). The latter represents the ease with which a location can be accessed. I adopt a gravity-based approach (for more information on gravity-based accessibility measures see Hansen, 1959) to develop an active accessibility measure that seeks to capture the convenience of accessing opportunities, in this case people and job, while traveling from station i to stationj.

To estimate this accessibility, I employed the following gravity-based formulation:

A, = )f(COf(W 1 ) where A, is the accessibility of reaching opportunities in different BSS zones] from BSS i; (W) is the specific opportunity to be reached in zonej and f(Cij) is the impedance or cost function of reaching zones j from i. Opportunities to be reached for this research specifically means population, jobs or both. The formulation used is the exponential function described in the NCHRB Travel Demand Forecasting: Parameters and Techniques, which takes the following form:

f(Cij) = exp(-m * Ci])

I assumed that the impedance function f(Cij) is the same as the generalized cost function to travel from i to j of the traditional gravity model:

Tij = aiO~i fDf (Cij)

39 Where f(Cij) is the function of generalized cost and a and /3j are balancing factors. To estimate m as a coefficient in a linear regression we must linearize the exponential element in the gravity model. I achieve this by taking the log of the equation above:

Tij .. log Oj~j= log(aifl e-mciJ)

T ij log Ti= log ai + log bj - mci OiD

Defining a = log a and b = log bj Ti] log =a'Si + bj(5 - mci1

Where di , Sj are binary variables that determine the origin and destination, respectively.

I performed a regression on T , estimating -a,for each zone, Z2b, for each zone, and the travel OiDj time coefficient m. For this I used the observed number of trips as well as the observed travel times between station pairs. The results obtained from the linear regression show that the travel time coefficient m for the impedance function is equal to 0.038. The graphical representation of this impedance function is shown in Figure 22, which was constructed using observed average travel times and counts between station pairs.

40 Figure 22: Impedance: as a Function of Travel Time 1

-- - - _ ___- -- - 0.9

0.8

0.7 ______I.______

0.6

Q 0.5 -- 0.4

0.3

0.2

0.1 -fCI = 038Uj

0 0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 Cij (Time)

41 Table 2: Descriptive Statistics 200 meters Standard Mean Median Deviation Minimum Maximum Population (Po) 1,494.62 1,262.12 1,152.98 71.22 4,889.15 Jobs (Jo) 4,439.89 3,173.29 3,959.26 149.91 15,249.85 Rail (Ra) 0.02 - 0.14 - 1.00 Subway (Su) 0.16 - 0.37 - 1.00 Bike Lane (Bl) 383.38 370.20 215.90 - 1,108.95 Universities (Un) 0.23 - 0.42 - 1.00 Ecobici (Ec) 0.03 - 0.17 - 1.00 Buses 10.57 7.00 11.19 - 50.00 Entertainment (En) 2.14 1.00 2.66 - 12.00 Percentage of Bike Lane (BI) 30.63 29.74 9.58 9.79 51.40 Station Capacity (Sc) 20.82 20.00 3.96 14.00 28.00 Accessibility Population (AP) 49,200.63 50,736.00 7,548.15 30,518.00 61,024.00 Accessibility to Jobs (AK) 156,613.59 166,079.00 34,394.51 84,667.00 209,417.00 Accessibility to All (AA) 205,814.14 215,196.00 39,009.47 117,980.00 258,986.00 300 meters Population (Po) 3,300.21 3,230.08 2,650.12 163.01 10,212.25 Jobs (Jo) 7,947.49 5,987.38 5,506.22 691.46 24,516.22 Rail (Ra) 0.03 - 0.17 - 1.00 Subway (Su) 0.32 - 0.47 - 1.00 Bike Lane (BI) 756.57 739.66 357.03 - 2,313.91 Universities (Un) 0.39 - 0.49 - 1.00 Ecobici (Ec) 0.21 - 0.41 - 1.00 Buses 24.72 21.00 17.13 - 78.00 Entertainment (En) 4.22 3.00 4.38 - 18.00 Percentage of Bike Lane (Bl) 30.63 29.74 9.58 9.79 51.40 Station Capacity (Sc) 20.82 20.00 3.96 14.00 28.00 Accessibility Population (AP) 105,309.95 108,930.33 16,303.41 63,411.38 130,927.98 Accessibility to Jobs (AK) 271,505.35 283,719.53 53,713.37 153,340.53 347,582.93 Accessibility to All (AA) 376,815.31 393,518.56 64,032.98 223,674.99 461,602.29 400 meters Population (Po) 5174.18 5273.84 4164.55 172.77 14514.12 Jobs (Jo) 10656.69 9524.15 5984.60 1713.78 30910.16 Rail (Ra) 0.04 0 0.19 0 1 Subway (Su) 0.42 0 0.49 0 1 Bike Lane (Bl) 1278.78 1247.15 517.53 96.12 3491.46 Universities (Un) 0.56 1 0.49 0 1 Ecobici (Ec) I 1 0 1 1 Buses 43.53 39 24.80 0 131 Entertainment (En) 7.98 7 6.75 0 25

42 Percentage of Bike Lane (BI) 30.63141 29.74254 9.578954 9.787881 51.39581 Station Capacity (Sc) 20.82474 20 3.958141 14 28 Accessibility Population (AP) 166,054.36 171,748.48 26,252.92 98,519.10 207,448.11 Accessibility to Jobs (AK) 363,666.07 380,715.87 66,141.63 210,952.26 448,539.81 Accessibility to All (AA) 529,720.43 561,635.96 84,943.30 321,829.80 650,567.80 Percentage of Bike Lane = Proportion of the shortest route between station pairs with bike lanes Ai= Accessibility

3.3.5 Correlation Tests

A key assumption in regression analysis is that collinearity does not exist amongst independent variables. Multicollinearity arises when a set of explicative variables are highly correlated. To confirm the presence of multicollinearity among the explicative variables selected for this research, I calculated correlation coefficients for these variables as represented in each of the three buffer sizes (see Appendix). The correlation matrices reveal a high correlation among the accessibility set of variables. The remaining variables do not show signs of high correlation (correlation coefficient above 0.7).

43 4. Modeling Framework, Regression Results and Discussion

4.1 Linear Regression (OLS)

To find the models that best fit the data, I performed manual testing of different combinations of independent variables. To avoid multicollinearity, I did not include in the same model variables that have a correlation level above 0.7.

4.2 Transformations

The exploratory analysis of the dependent variable revealed the presence of non-normality, both for the departure and arrival counts. To normalize this variable, I conducted two types of transformations: logarithmic and square root transformations. To select which of these two transformations to use, I conducted a Shapiro-Wilk normality test on the transformed values of the arrival and departures counts. Results from the Shapiro-Wilk normality test are summarized in Table 3: Table 3

Table 3: Shapiro-Wilk Normality Test Untransformed Square Root Log Transformation Transformation Departure Counts <005153 0.9392 0.1431

Arrival Counts 0.0146 0.747 0.07994

In the Shapiro-Wilk test the null hypothesis is normality. If p>0.05 we fail to accept the null hypothesis and reject it otherwise. Results show that the square root transformation has the highest p-value, which means that the square root of departures and arrivals are more normally distributed. We confirm this by examining the distribution of these values.

44 Figure 23 Distribution of Original Departure Counts and Transformations

Distribution of Departure Counts Distribution of Square Root of Departure Counts

0-

0 5000 10000 15000 20000 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160

Counts Counts

Distribution of Log of Departure Counts

U. 44

7.0 7.5 8.0 8.5 9.0 9.5 10.0 10.5

Counts

The frequency distribution of the original departure counts is positively skewed, albeit slightly. The log transformation produces skewness in the opposite direction. On the other hand, the square root transformation tends to normality. We observe similar results with the distribution of arrival counts: again, the distribution of the original departure counts are positively skewed while the log transformation also produces a skewed distribution. In this case, the square root transformation results in the most normally distributed transformation. We therefore confirm the results of the Shapiro-Wilk test and conclude that using the square root of departures and arrival counts as the dependent variable will satisfy the assumption of normality

45 Figure 24 Distribution of Original Arrival Counts and Transformations

Distribution of Arrival Counts Distribution of Square Root of Arrival Counts

1 I I (3

I I - 0 5000 10000 15000 20000 40 60 80 100 120 140

Counts Counts

Distribution of Log of Arrival Counts

o 1 I 0 1

I I I I I I 7.0 7.5 8.0 8.5 9.0 9.5 10.0

Square Meters

4.3 Spatial Autocorrelation

To test the presence of spatial autocorrelation, I conducted a Moran's I test using ArcGis and using the shape file of bike share stations as input for the test, which contains projected data. For the test, I observed a 95 percent confidence interval. At this confidence interval, z-scores required to accept the null hypothesis must be between -1.96 and 1.96. If values obtained from the Moran's I test are within this threshold, the observed bicycle counts are likely to be the result of a random spatial process.

I performed two tests: an incremental and a location-based spatial autocorrelation test. The former measures spatial autocorrelation at a series of distances while the latter is based on feature's locations and attributes. For both tests, I employed two distance methods: Euclidean and network distance. On both tests, a distance that will account for all neighboring stations must be defined. Not doing so would leave out stations from the analysis, which could negatively affect the significance of the results.

46 Results from the location-based analysis are summarized in Table 4 and are also shown in Figure 25. Using either Euclidean or network distance, we can observe that the p-value on both tests is within the threshold of 95 percent. Given these results, we fail to reject the null hypothesis.

Table 4: Location-based analysis for spatial autocorrelation Euclidean Network Moran's Index 0.079242 0.073959 z-score 1.419478 1.285190 Expected Index -0.010417 -0.010417 p-value 0.155760 0.098726 Distance Threshold 1361 meters 1763.65

Figure 25: Confidence Intervals for Moran's I Spatial Autocorrelation test

0.01 - <-2.- -2.W --1.96 0.10 - -1.96--1.5 -1.65 - 1.45 0.10 m 1.65-1.96 0.05 m 1.96 - 2.- > 2.5

-bem NMOsoe I T

47 Table 5: OLS results: Annual Departure Counts (300 meter buffer zones) variable Departures Arrivals Coefficient (SE) p-value Coefficient (SE) p-value (Intercept) 22.85 22.74 0.32 24.26 25.03 0.33 Log Population 3.94 1.92 0.04 3.88 2.00 0.06 Rail 0.01 0.01 0.01 12.50 11.60 0.28 Bike Lane 12.08 11.55 0.30 0.01 0.01 0.02 Universities 10.28 4.09 0.01 10.22 4.08 0.01 Ecobicis -9.49 5.10 0.07 -9.17 5.11 0.08 Buses 0.19 0.12 0.11 0.16 0.12 0.20 entertainment -0.39 0.21 0.07 -0.07 0.51 0.88 Proportion of bike lane 1.29 0.51 0.01 -0.37 0.21 0.09 Station Capacity 22.85 22.74 0.32 1.32 0.51 0.01 R2 0.26 0.26 Adjusted R 2 0.19 0.18 p-value 0.0005615 0.00149

4.4 Regression findings and discussion

The following section discusses results obtained from the two models with the best fit, which were those for the 300 meters buffers. It then briefly examines results obtained from the other four models at 200 and 400 meters, respectively. For all regressions, the independent variables population and jobs were divided by 1,000 since the magnitude of their original scale differ significantly from the rest of the explanatory variables.

4.4.1 Three hundred meters buffers: Departures and Arrivals

After conducting several tests using different combinations of variables, the Ordinary Least Square (OLS) regression results that have the greatest number of significant variables for departure and arrival counts are shown in Table 5:

The signs of the coefficients obtained for the variables population, bike lanes, universities, rail, and station capacity were as expected. Population and bike lane availability within the buffers were found to be highly significant. The influence of universities around bike share stations is significant for both departures and arrivals, suggesting that (i) students may be using this mode of

48 transportation to commute to and from their universities and (ii) this mode of transportation may be more popular among youth than among the rest of the population. Although the data available do not allow for studying the effect of age on demand for bike sharing stations, the literature consulted on sociodemographic factors that influence biking suggests that there is a positive relationship between the use of the bike as a mode of transportation and age. That is, younger people are more likely to bike than older persons, all else equal.

On the other hand, the negative relationship between bike sharing demand and the proportion of bike lane availability was not expected. Indeed, one would expect that the greater the proportion of bike lane availability in the shortest route between two stations would be positively associated with demand. It could be that even when there is bike lane availability, opportunities between them are not attractive. However, data collected by the City does seem to suggest a lukewarm attitude towards bike lanes. For example, cyclist counts performed annually by the City suggest that the number of cyclists using the bike lanes is close to the number of cyclists not using them, which suggests an important share of the cyclist's population do not use bike lanes.

Different reasons could explain this, but none accounts for the issue of the negative coefficient, which may be also related to the process followed to construct this indicator. First, it could be that people are not aware of the shortest route between stations, even among regular users of Ecobici. In such case, the existence of bike lanes in the shortest route between stations could just simply go unnoticed. Another possible explanation could be that, even when people know where the shortest route is, the physical characteristics of the route may not be attractive enough to entice cyclists to use it. This could be due to the fact that bicycle lanes in some segments run along streets with high prevalence of freight traffic, bumpy roads, or zig-zag across insecure neighborhoods. Another possible explanation could be the design of the bike lane itself. As mentioned in the background section, Buenos' Aires bike lane network possesses physical characteristics that may discourage people from using the bike. Finally, it could also be that there is not too much attractiveness between station pairs where there is a high proportion of bike lane availability.

A surprising finding was the fact that the variable jobs was not significant in any of the test performed. This was unexpected for several reasons. A possible explanation to the above could be

49 the data set used to construct this variable. As discussed in Chapter 4 the data used to count the number jobs within stations was the 2009 origin-destination survey. On the other hand, bike share trips are from 2017. Land use changes could have taken place during this period, which could alter the results of the regression. For example, jobs that were previously in the downtown could have migrated to other areas of the city where new developments are taking place. Another potential issue could be expansion factors used, which may not reflect the actual number of jobs over a spatial unit.

4.4.2 Two Hundred and Four Hundred Meters Buffers

For 200 meters, I initially tested 11 variables in the first set, including only accessibility to jobs from the set of accessibility variables since this variable is highly correlated with the other two accessibility factors. From this initial regression, only variables Bike Lane, Universities, and Station Capacity were significant (p >0.05) and Proportion of Bike Lanes at 0.1 Then, I conducted a series of tests with different combinations of variables but didn't obtained statistically meaningful results.

The Ordinary Least Square (OLS) regression results that have the greatest number of significant variables for departure and arrival counts at 200 meters buffer are shown in Table 6:

Table 6: OLS results: Annual Departure Counts (200 meter buffer zones) variable Departures Arrivals Coefficient (SE) p-value Coefficient (SE) p-value (Intercept) 38.27 20.48 0.06 36.160 19.993 0.074 Population 1.20 2.07 0.57 1.334 2.024 0.511 Rail 0.03 0.01 0.01 0.027 0.009 0.004 Bike Lane 9.90 5.02 0.05 10.785 4.896 0.030 R2 0.14 0.15 Adjusted R2 0.10 0.12 p-value 0.006815 0.003341

50 An unexpected result in this model was the fact that population was not significant in any of the different combinations performed. This could be due to a smaller population base. If we consider the coefficient value obtained for the variable population at 300 meters, we see that such value, even when significant, is slightly above 0. Then if we look at results obtained from the 400 meters buffers' models, we see that effect of population increases. Apparently, bike share stations draw their demand from a relatively larger walkshed than that defined within 200 meters.

Table 7: OLS results: Annual Departure Counts (400 meter buffer zones) variable Departures Arrivals Coefficient (SE) p-value Coefficient (SE) p-value (Intercept) 60.43 17.46 0.00 58.65 17.18 0.00 Population 1.78 1.73 0.31 1.91 1.70 0.26 Rail -23.70 11.07 0.04 -24.86 10.90 0.02 Subway 7.85 4.37 0.08 7.31 4.30 0.09 Bike Lane -0.59 0.22 0.01 -0.56 0.21 0.01 R2 0.15 0.16 Adjusted R2 0.10 0.11 p-value 0.007757 0.007232

At 400 meters rail and subway become significant in both arrivals and departures. This could be a sign that first-last mile relationship between bike sharing and subway exists. The sign of the coefficient for rail was not expected since surveys reveal that people is using the bike as first/last mile solution for commuter rail trips. However, these differences may also be related with issues during the data collection process.

51 5. Conclusions

The analysis performed in this research reveals that some of the attributes I set out to test are indeed associated with the demand of the bike share system. These include the population around the bike share stations, the number of docks per stations, the availability of bike lanes within certain buffers from stations, the presence of study centers, and in some cases the availability of transit infrastructure such as buses and rail stations. However, the sign of the coefficients obtained for some of the variables ran counter to what the literature suggests or what logic would imply.

It is worth noting that other variables that are associated with bike sharing demand, such as weather, income, and gender, were excluded from the analysis. Also, some of the datasets used for this analysis may not necessarily reflect the current conditions on the ground, as may be the case for jobs or even for population. More than 8 years have passed since the data on population and jobs was collected, and actual conditions may have subsequently changed.

Given the above, this research should be considered a first approximation to the phenomenon of bike sharing demand in the city and should be complimented with other variables and other approaches to measure demand. In addition, as time progress, stations that were open in 2017 should be potentially included in the analysis, which would increase the number of observations and potentially the results of the regression.

52 6. References

* Broach, J.., Dill, J., & Gliebe, J. (2012). Where do cyclists ride? A route choice model developed with revealed preference GPS data. Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice, 46(10), 1730-1740. * Cervero, R., Sarmiento, 0. L., Jacoby, E., Gomez, L. F., & Neiman, A. (2009). Influences of built environments on walking and cycling: lessons from Bogotd. InternationalJournal of Sustainable Transportation,3(4), 203-226. " Chen, P., Zhou, J., & Sun, F. (2017). Built environment determinants of bicycle volume: A longitudinal analysis. Journalof Transport andLand Use, 10(1), 655-674. " de Dios Ortuzar, J., lacobelli, A., & Valeze, C. (2000). Estimating demand for a cycle- way network. TransportationResearch PartA. Policy and Practice, 34(5), 353-373. " Heinen, E., Van Wee, B., & Maat, K. (2010). Commuting by bicycle: an overview of the literature. Transport reviews, 30(1), 59-96. * Hood, J., Sall, E., & Charlton, B. (2011). A GPS-based bicycle route choice model for San Francisco, California. Transportationletters, 3(1), 63-75. * Kaltenbrunner, A., Meza, R., Grivolla, J., Codina, J., & Banchs, R. (2010). Urban cycles and mobility patterns: Exploring and predicting trends in a bicycle-based public transport system. Pervasive and Mobile Computing, 6(4), 455-466. " Landis, B., Vattikuti, V., & Brannick, M. (1997). Real-time human perceptions: toward a bicycle level of service. Transportation Research Record: Journal of the TransportationResearch Board, (1578), 119-126. " Menghini, G., Carrasco, N., Schtssler, N., & Axhausen, K. W. (2010). Route choice of cyclists in Zurich. Transportationresearch part A: policy andpractice, 44(9), 754-765. " Noland, R. B., & Kunreuther, H. (1995). Short-run and long-run policies for increasing bicycle transportation for daily commuter trips. Transport Policy, 2(1), 67-79. " Pucher, J., & Buehler, R. (2008). Making cycling irresistible: lessons from the Netherlands, Denmark and Germany. Transport reviews, 28(4), 495-528. * Stinson, M., & Bhat, C. (2003). Commuter bicyclist route choice: Analysis using a stated preference survey. Transportation research record. journal of the transportation research board, (1828), 107-1 15.

53 * Stinson, M., & Bhat, C. (2004). Frequency of bicycle commuting: internet-based survey analysis. Transportation Research Record: Journal of the Transportation Research Board, (1878), 122-130. " Tilahun, N. Y., Levinson, D. M., & Krizek, K. J. (2007). Trails, lanes, or traffic: Valuing bicycle facilities with an adaptive stated preference survey. Transportation Research PartA: Policy and Practice, 41(4), 287-301. * Tran, T. D., Ovtracht, N., & D'arcier, B. F. (2015). Modeling bike sharing system using built environment factors. Procedia Cirp, 30, 293-298. " Wang, X., Lindsey, G., Schoner, J. E., & Harrison, A. (2015). Modeling bike share station activity: Effects of nearby businesses and jobs on trips to and from stations. Journalof Urban Planningand Development, 142(1), 04015001. " Wardman, M., Tight, M., & Page, M. (2007). Factors influencing the propensity to cycle to work. TransportationResearch PartA: Policy and Practice,41(4), 339-3 50.

54 Appendix

A.1 Opportunities within buffers

Table A. 1 Opportunities within 200 meters Buffer Bike P. Bike S. Station Pop Jobs Train Sub Lane Station Bus Ent. Lane Capacity Univ Access. Jobs

25 de Mayo 166 8,871 0 0 285.00 0 29 3 43.87 20 1 197,802

Aduana 324 14,144 0 0 430.11 0 44 0 31.49 20 1 171,586

Aguero 3401 1,325 0 0 352.17 0 3 1 31.84 20 0 144,390

Aime Paine 192 246 0 0 509.10 0 2 0 38.90 28 0 129,829

Alsina 505 8,261 0 1 856.42 0 5 5 21.81 21 0 191,810

Araoz 1582 471 0 0 517.48 0 3 3 15.60 20 0 112,235

Arenales 2133 3,456 0 0 367.03 0 7 0 33.31 20 0 186,689

Ayacucho 3760 2,277 0 0 283.89 0 9 2 38.27 20 1 176,594 Azucena Villaflor 609 4,169 0 0 549.69 0 2 0 27.68 28 0 140,906

Balcarce 939 2,617 0 0 0.00 0 6 10 33.71 21 0 161,597

Belgrano 520 7,679 0 0 0.00 0 8 12 25.80 16 1 169,795

Billinghurst 3190 942 0 0 450.44 0 6 3 19.66 20 1 140,395

Bouchard 396 10,821 0 0 433.28 0 17 0 25.74 20 1 176,502

Carlos Gardel 1112 1,373 0 1 225.29 0 0 4 12.26 20 0 144,902

55 Bike P. Bike S. Station Pop Jobs Train Sub Lane Station Bus Ent. Lane Capacity Univ. Access. Jobs

Catedral 244 11,662 0 1 576.73 0 15 5 28.84 16 0 199,035 Cementerio de la Recoleta 1765 1,427 0 0 0.00 0 9 8 28.01 20 0 147,300

Cerrito 319 10,707 0 0 178.32 0 6 3 41.99 28 0 190,873

Chile 2265 3,567 0 0 374.17 0 8 3 44.11 21 0 171,287 Colegio Nacional Buenos Aires 683 7,624 0 0 281.74 0 4 8 23.95 16 0 181,585

Congreso 2290 4,672 0 0 601.52 0 16 2 9.93 28 0 172,063

Cordoba 952 7,516 0 0 0.00 0 5 2 25.67 20 0 205,165

Coronel Diaz 4312 3,543 0 0 339.46 0 7 0 37.83 20 0 136,975

Della Paolera 407 3,807 0 0 52.77 0 47 1 40.21 28 0 193,442

Diagonal Norte 604 10,880 0 1 729.51 0 15 5 24.45 21 0 192,737 Distrito Audiovisual 1241 774 0 0 162.88 0 1 0 51.40 20 0 89,274

Doblas 1901 2,517 0 0 802.85 0 0 0 19.37 16 0 123,693

Ecuador 4889 5,676 0 0 699.71 0 6 0 37.18 16 0 156,627

Esmeralda 977 11,700 0 1 370.20 0 0 8 40.42 20 0 190,023 Facultad de Derecho 86 756 0 0 399.98 0 2 2 14.71 28 1 140,950 Facultad de 2533 6,377 0 0 769.13 0 6 7 28.06 20 1 174,377 Medicina

56 Bike P. Bike S. Station Pop Jobs Train Sub Lane Station Bus Ent. Lane Capacity Univ. Access. Jobs Galerias Pacifico 487 6,099 0 0 492.13 1 12 5 36.38 16 1 194,489

Guayaquil 3842 2,257 0 0 539.41 0 12 0 29.74 16 0 95,656

Guzman 457 1,303 0 0 71.81 0 8 0 32.59 28 0 96,818 Hospital Italiano 1377 2,252 0 0 582.81 0 4 0 27.87 20 1 129,472 Hospital Ramos Mejia 1595 2,736 0 0 189.62 0 8 1 32.63 20 0 145,835 Hospital Rivadavia 1827 1,603 0 0 82.09 0 42 3 18.42 20 0 141,116

Independencia 1260 2,787 0 1 1108.95 0 5 0 32.55 20 0 174,365

Ingeniero Butty 518 3,720 0 0 136.06 1 42 2 35.01 28 0 187,297

Instituto Leloir 1234 3,406 0 0 342.66 0 17 0 44.32 28 0 100,016

Juana Manso 97 1,202 0 0 521.40 0 0 3 46.17 28 0 151,424

Julian Alvarez 4562 3,646 0 0 341.91 0 6 2 26.42 20 0 126,094

Lavalle 1765 3,561 0 0 370.36 0 7 0 25.51 20 1 185,637

Legislatura 331 8,044 0 1 336.88 0 17 8 25.44 20 0 191,004

Maipu 292 12,210 0 0 242.08 0 0 4 44.10 20 1 160,495

Malabia 1655 1,402 0 0 342.28 0 0 1 27.17 16 0 191,037

Mexico 2051 150 0 0 399.98 0 4 0 34.30 20 0 98,422

57 Bike P. Bike S. Station Pop Jobs Train Sub Lane Station Bus Ent. Lane Capacity Univ Access. Jobs Ministerio de Economia 301 14,916 0 1 308.64 0 7 3 36.20 20 0 155,780 Ministro Carranza 2481 1,095 1 1 0.00 0 7 0 24.25 28 1 181,878

Misiones 3165 2,630 0 0 440.45 0 20 0 37.53 20 0 84,667

Montevideo 2112 4,846 0 0 355.98 0 6 2 48.68 20 1 150,090

Moreno 861 4,909 0 1 318.75 0 13 1 24.48 16 0 188,240

Obelisco 377 10,605 0 0 550.51 0 9 1 24.52 16 0 188,714

Once 1039 6,806 0 1 86.78 0 7 1 28.14 16 0 197,216

Pacifico 952 4,002 1 1 399.99 0 7 1 9.79 28 0 165,878

Padilla 2535 190 0 0 581.90 0 29 1 13.00 20 0 88,802 Parque Centenario 1265 1,517 0 0 464.07 0 26 1 31.30 20 0 93,979 Parque Las Heras 3842 1,877 0 0 419.78 0 8 0 18.82 28 0 104.342

Pargue Lezama 1248 1,779 0 0 586.06 0 14 0 25.73 28 0 131,809 Parque Patricios 441 210 0 0 399.98 0 13 0 48.37 20 0 131,959

Pasco 2765 382 0 0 619.87 0 15 1 21.81 28 0 115,252

Pena 3565 1,000 0 0 459.84 0 7 0 19.42 20 0 171,730 159,916

Peron 99 1 10,655 0 0 190.59 0 3 2 31.49 20 1

58 Bike P. Bike S. Station Pop Jobs Train Sub Lane Station Bus Ent. Lane Capacity Univ. Access. Jobs

Piedras 526 11,883 0 0 409.08 0 2 4 31.14 16 1 194,980

Plaza Almagro 2823 1,547 0 0 317.67 0 23 3 31.33 14 1 185,955

Plaza Boedo 2203 402 0 0 468.44 0 11 0 24.32 20 0 132,964

Plaza Houssay 1637 5,879 0 1 399.99 0 2 7 22.64 21 1 122,637

Plaza Italia 1262 1,992 0 1 319.88 0 2 0 45.47 28 0 170,841

Plaza Libertad 1089 4,333 0 0 399.98 0 7 5 26.36 28 0 90,308 Plaza Palermo Viejo 1398 836 0 0 0.00 0 48 1 42.52 20 0 194,771 Plaza Primero de Mayo 2232 1,108 0 0 411.65 0 8 0 46.36 16 0 100,904

Plaza Roma 154 4,013 0 0 430.62 0 2 3 23.94 20 0 168,024 Plaza San Martin 625 7,195 0 1 278.36 0 5 2 34.71 20 0 166,079 Plaza Vicente Lopez 2356 911 0 0 310.58 0 14 0 35.98 28 0 183,349 Puerto Madero - UCA 155 1,651 0 0 110.60 0 18 1 29.58 16 1 176,770

Quintana 2153 2,285 0 0 0.00 0 4 9 27.19 16 0 142,356

Reconquista 865 4,892 0 0 184.43 1 32 1 18.36 20 1 189,160

Retiro 595 9,837 0 0 621.55 0 4 2 24.32 20 0 178,603

Ricardo Rojas 1356 8,860 0 0 720.91 0 8 4 34.35 20 0 196,790

59 Bike P. Bike S. Station Pop Jobs Train Sub Lane Station Bus Ent. Lane Capacity Univ. Access. Jobs

Rincon 2385 1,363 0 0 466.94 0 50 0 14.64 20 0 172,277

Riobamba 2838 3,173 0 0 280.74 0 6 0 25.40 20 0 177,869

Rivarola 1480 3,558 0 0 339.71 0 9 1 43.70 20 0 181,011

Saavedra 1741 2,129 0 0 332.84 0 4 0 28.76 20 0 149,629

Salcedo 1533 575 0 0 352.79 0 6 0 51.12 20 0 132,432 Sanchez de Bustamante 1778 4,075 0 0 492.65 0 7 2 44.25 20 0 156,609

Sarandi 3350 3,150 0 0 330.75 0 7 2 29.19 20 0 179,555

Sarmiento 99 11,011 0 0 770.63 0 3 4 32.48 20 1 209,417

Suipacha 1246 7,229 0 0 582.35 0 6 2 15.58 14 0 198,833 Suipacha y Arroyo 2412 2,756 0 0 382.00 0 6 2 41.02 20 0 196,166 Treinta y Tres Orientales 939 634 0 0 562.21 0 4 0 33.78 20 0 117,370

Tribunales 332 15,250 0 1 343.16 0 18 0 35.18 20 0 195,413

Tucuman 347 13,704 0 0 359.40 0 8 4 34.64 14 0 190,765

Urguiza 1412 276 0 0 361.71 0 10 1 23.17 20 0 94,737 Bike P. Bike S. Accesibility Station Pop Jobs Train Sub Lane Station Bus Ent. Lane Capacity Univ Jobs

Venezuela 1302 4,850 0 0 0.00 0 16 8 32.18 21 0 178,824

Vera Penaloza 71 551 0 0 380.35 0 0 0 40.53 28 0 139,501

60 Yatay 1495 1,981 0 0 363.09 0 0 0 25.55 20 1 129,307

Zoologico 643 659 0 0 907.98 0 7 0 40.57 20 0 85,982

61 Table A.2 Opportunities within 300 meters Buffer

Station Pop Jobs Train Sub Bike Lane Station Bus Ent. P. Bike Lane S. Capacity Univ Access. Jobs

25 de Mayo 279 15,279 0 1 884.02 1 55 4 43.87 20 1 727,392

Aduana 479 19,234 0 0 835.56 0 65 2 31.49 20 1 887,389

Aguero 8,376 5,172 0 0 552.16 0 9 2 31.84 20 0 922,744

Aime Paine 506 1,534 0 0 1054.72 0 3 1 38.90 28 0 1,129,886

Alsina 1,450 16,279 0 1 1657.61 0 12 8 21.81 21 0 719,316

Araoz 3,551 1,410 0 0 917.47 0 11 4 15.60 20 0 1,164,092

Arenales 3,230 5,968 0 0 704.92 0 18 0 33.31 20 0 748,311

Ayacucho 7,175 5,252 0 0 681.55 0 20 4 38.27 20 1 740,451 Azucena Villaflor 992 4,430 0 0 954.10 1 11 0 27.68 28 0 1,073,001

Balcarce 1,156 4,839 0 0 292.86 0 37 17 33.71 21 0 894,475

Belgrano 842 11,733 0 0 17.35 0 42 18 25.80 16 1 874,321

Billinghurst 7,261 2,195 0 0 770.23 0 16 3 19.66 20 1 949,447

Bouchard 456 8,426 0 0 804.74 1 54 1 25.74 20 1 838,562

Carlos Gardel 3,508 5,799 0 1 573.48 0 4 9 12.26 20 0 922,900

Catedral 311 14,779 0 1 903.66 0 34 11 28.84 16 0 743,685 Cementerio de la Recoleta 5,061 5,597 0 0 138.53 0 21 13 28.01 20 1 909,438

62 Station Pop Jobs Train Sub Bike Lane Station Bus Ent. P. Bike Lane S. Capacity Univ Access. Jobs

Cerrito 655 12,525 0 1 624.66 1 21 7 41.99 28 0 708,944

Chile 4,240 6,011 0 0 674.17 0 17 9 44.11 21 0 830,288 Colegio Nacional Buenos Aires 686 10,770 0 1 483.73 1 20 15 23.95 16 0 791,131

Congreso 4,578 11,175 0 1 1110.69 0 43 8 9.93 28 0 782,562

Cordoba 1,726 13,080 0 0 189.95 0 15 6 25.67 20 1 676,569

Coronel Diaz 10,212 9,905 0 0 541.06 0 25 1 37.83 20 0 980,324

Della Paolera 393 4,530 0 0 427.14 1 61 2 40.21 28 0 819,398 Diagonal Norte 777 13,253 0 1 1406.20 1 22 11 24.45 21 1 733,385 Distrito Audiovisual 2,195 2,673 0 0 375.49 0 3 1 51.40 20 0 1,450,202

Doblas 4,352 7,774 0 0 1402.83 0 7 0 19.37 16 0 1,191,862

Ecuador 8,823 9,637 0 0 1099.70 0 28 0 37.18 16 0 893,210

Esmeralda 1,308 20,947 0 1 1051.87 0 4 13 40.42 20 1 728,900 Facultad de Derecho 206 1,423 0 0 691.65 0 5 2 14.71 28 1 974,503 Facultad de Medicina 5,999 11,500 0 0 1169.12 1 21 8 28.06 20 1 784,892 Galerias Pacifico 994 13,508 0 0 897.35 1 19 9 36.38 16 1 734,693

Guayaquil 9,851 4,890 0 0 839.41 0 21 0 29.74 16 0 1,312,527

63 Station Pop Jobs Train Sub Bike Lane Station Bus Ent. P. Bike Lane S. Capacity Univ Access. Jobs

Guzman 1,211 2,503 0 1 611.27 0 29 0 32.59 28 0 1,420,801 Hospital Italiano 4,499 4,734 0 0 882.81 0 7 0 27.87 20 1 1,020,935 Hospital Ramos Mejia 3,635 8,671 0 0 427.11 0 24 1 32.63 20 1 948,847 Hospital Rivadavia 3,621 3,753 0 0 296.06 0 49 3 18.42 20 0 994,134

Independencia 3,673 6,508 0 1 2313.91 0 14 1 32.55 20 1 800,307 Ingeniero Butty 875 5,688 0 0 375.94 1 74 8 35.01 28 0 768,511 Instituto Leloir 3,829 4,923 0 0 528.79 0 21 1 44.32 28 1 1,288,735

Juana Manso 231 2,112 0 0 967.34 0 0 4 46.17 28 0 972,886

Julian Alvarez 9,231 5,987 0 0 558.73 0 30 2 26.42 20 0 1,096,750

Lavalle 4,494 10,075 0 0 706.61 0 16 2 25.51 20 1 728,444

Legislatura 613 10,012 0 1 707.93 1 29 17 25.44 20 1 763,410

Maipu 303 3,175 0 0 355.93 0 40 1 44.10 20 1 949,658

Malabia 331 14,861 0 0 605.92 0 12 8 27.17 16 1 743,615

Mexico 3,858 2,989 0 0 542.27 0 16 1 34.30 20 0 1,349,754 Ministerio de Economia 5,204 691 0 0 889.34 0 19 2 36.20 20 0 911,540 Ministro Carranza 411 20,374 0 1 740.46 0 46 9 24.25 28 0 771,504

Misiones 6,006 5,297 1 1 138.09 0 6 0 37.53 20 1 1,416,171

64 Station Pop Jobs Train Sub Bike Lane Station Bus Ent. P. Bike Lane S. Capacity Univ Access. Jobs

Montevideo 7,862 6,137 0 0 1094.20 0 36 2 48.68 20 0 922,872

Moreno 4,268 12,340 0 1 645.25 0 23 3 24.48 16 1 715,672

Obelisco 1,458 11,207 0 1 1151.56 1 24 4 24.52 16 0 741,891

Once 790 15,479 0 1 1222.73 0 19 4 28.14 16 0 739,037

Pacifico 2,872 14,650 1 1 729.66 0 57 3 9.79 28 0 818,947

Padilla 2,849 8,419 1 1 599.98 0 43 1 13.00 20 0 1,351,860 Parque Centenario 5,742 976 0 0 914.38 0 25 3 31.30 20 0 1,343,604 Parque Las Heras 3,250 3,173 0 0 864.06 0 23 1 18.82 28 0 1,219,019 Parque Lezama 8,439 4,077 0 0 719.77 0 39 0 25.73 28 0 1,023,808 Parque Patricios 3,423 4,980 0 0 886.05 0 34 0 48.37 20 0 1,062,698

Pasco 1,340 1,117 0 1 510.79 0 17 0 21.81 28 0 1,286,518

Pena 5,449 2,917 0 0 1273.03 0 10 1 19.42 20 0 816,145

Peron 8,926 2,472 0 0 759.83 1 12 2 31.49 20 1 873,586

Piedras 189 17,822 0 0 755.27 0 33 4 31.14 16 1 738,350 Plaza Almagro 785 16,570 0 1 888.93 0 25 8 31.33 14 1 739,868

Plaza Boedo 5,779 4,266 0 0 606.50 0 22 3 24.32 20 1 1,012,053

Plaza Guemes 5,155 2,693 0 0 798.36 0 18 2 22.77 20 0 1,086,991

65 Station Pop Jobs Train Sub Bike Lane Station Bus Ent. P. Bike Lane S. Capacity Univ Access. Jobs Plaza Houssay 7,471 4,918 0 0 733.21 1 11 1 22.64 21 0 1,079,947

Plaza Italia 3,609 10,413 0 1 705.53 0 24 8 45.47 28 1 794,343

Plaza Libertad 2,925 3,923 0 1 519.88 0 76 5 26.36 28 1 1,341,438 Plaza Palermo Viejo 3,340 10,735 0 0 739.66 0 18 5 42.52 20 1 683,455 Plaza Primero deMayo 2,780 2,123 0 0 0.00 0 12 1 46.36 16 0 1,264,381

Plaza Roma 4,973 3,972 0 0 919.61 1 12 1 23.94 20 0 821,151 Plaza San Martin 234 8,695 0 1 778.63 0 52 5 34.71 20 1 865,431 Plaza Vicente Lopez 1,786 9,882 0 1 869.50 0 23 7 35.98 28 0 757,245 Puerto Madero - UCA 6,458 5,208 0 0 749.28 0 18 1 29.58 16 1 764,422

Quintana 4,015 3,996 0 0 0.00 0 6 12 27.19 16 1 961,404

Reconquista 847 9,860 0 0 655.07 1 47 9 18.36 20 1 740,678

Retiro 1,267 13,537 0 1 1021.54 0 78 3 24.32 20 0 813,569

Ricardo Rojas 1,339 10,129 0 0 1061.37 1 60 7 34.35 20 0 723,236

Rincon 4,778 3,488 0 0 1034.33 0 12 1 14.64 20 0 808,259

Riobamba 7,439 12,613 0 0 480.73 0 17 2 25.40 20 0 758,496

Rivarola 3,239 7,406 0 0 595.27 0 21 3 43.70 20 1 753,346

66 Station Pop Jobs Train Sub Bike Lane Station Bus Ent. P. Bike Lane S. Capacity Univ Access. Jobs

Saavedra 4,642 5,668 0 1 557.92 0 18 0 28.76 20 0 930,334

Salcedo 3,501 2,022 0 0 552.79 0 13 1 51.12 20 0 1,156,668 Sanchez de Bustamante 3,629 5,747 0 0 1011.60 0 15 2 44.25 20 0 898,001

Sarandi 6,188 11,409 0 0 820.47 0 22 2 29.19 20 0 776,733

Sarmiento 163 21,469 0 1 1449.99 1 15 6 32.48 20 1 736,979

Suipacha 1,740 12,354 0 1 982.34 0 16 8 15.58 14 0 701,728 Suipacha y Arroyo 4,505 4,961 0 0 682.00 0 22 3 41.02 20 0 728,561 Treinta y Tres Orientales 2,519 1,437 0 0 985.43 0 4 0 33.78 20 0 1,164,524

Tribunales 702 24,516 0 1 568.92 1 31 3 35.18 20 1 694,869

Tucuman 607 19,529 0 1 764.67 1 21 8 34.64 14 0 733,383

Urguiza 2,942 2,055 0 0 561.70 0 31 1 23.17 20 0 1,313,076

Venezuela 1,967 6,708 0 0 29.92 0 34 13 32.18 21 0 796,173

Vera Penaloza 329 1,085 0 0 681.59 0 3 0 40.53 28 0 1,045,290

Yatay 6,280 6,590 0 0 757.76 0 21 1 25.55 20 1 1,031,538

Zoologico 1,679 1,280 0 0 1319.88 0 9 0 40.57 20 0 1,415,565

67 Table A.3 Opportunities within 400 meters Buffer

P. Bike S. Access. Station Pop Jobs Train Sub Bike Lane Station Bus Ent. Lane Capacity Univ Jobs

25 de Mayo 399 15,823 0 1 1,751.79 1 85 8 43.87 20 1 996,802

Aduana 635 21,622 0 0 1,235.54 1 77 17 31.49 20 1 1,218,661

Aguero 10,659 6,757 0 0 754.33 1 18 5 31.84 20 0 1,410,519

Aime Paine 892 3,176 0 0 1,554.70 1 3 1 38.90 28 0 1,564,782

Alsina 2,773 24,094 0 1 2,683.23 1 30 15 21.81 21 1 999,038

Araoz 5,274 1,782 0 0 1,327.44 1 24 6 15.60 20 0 1,833,592

Arenales 4,220 7,291 0 0 1,354.31 1 39 8 33.31 20 0 1,036,175

Ayacucho 10,132 9,524 0 0 1,421.73 1 31 11 38.27 20 1 1,100,597 Azucena Villaflor 1,205 4,199 0 0 1,357.10 1 17 1 27.68 28 1 1,490,063

Balcarce 1,803 6,871 0 0 662.15 1 63 25 33.71 21 1 1,238,088

Belgrano 883 11,693 0 0 497.96 1 75 21 25.80 16 1 1,207,437

Billinghurst 12,041 6,843 0 0 1,260.82 1 28 4 19.66 20 1 1,471,013

Bouchard 537 7,055 0 0 1,204.73 1 81 7 25.74 20 1 1,168,817 Carlos Gardel 8,169 12,686 0 1 1,182.32 1 36 23 12.26 20 1 1,407,502

Catedral 392 16,050 0 1 1,459.30 1 17 14 28.84 16 1 1,016,562

68 P. Bike S. Access. Station Pop Jobs Train Sub Bike Lane Station Bus Ent. Lane Capacity Univ Jobs Cementerio 71 de la 013 5,930 0 0 338.53 1 55 22 28.01 20 1 1,343,001 Recoleta

Cerrito 718 15,900 0 1 1,160.07 1 39 15 41.99 28 1 997,329

Chile 5,125 7,099 0 0 1,045.76 1 49 19 44.11 21 1 1,149,775 Colegio Nacional Buenos Aires 645 10,894 0 1 951.72 1 32 19 23.95 16 1 1,088,474

Congreso 8,470 25,366 0 1 1,679.96 1 63 14 9.93 28 1 1,136,797

Cordoba 1,735 12,891 0 0 1,114.00 1 71 14 25.67 20 1 930,554

Coronel Diaz 14,488 13,277 0 1 936.26 1 42 4 37.83 20 0 1,494,920

Della Paolera 596 6,902 0 0 1,033.96 1 131 5 40.21 28 0 1,133,062 Diagonal Norte 840 15,790 0 1 2,112.24 1 38 19 24.45 21 1 1,021,175 Distrito Audiovisual 3,728 4,668 0 0 575.48 1 8 1 51.40 20 1 2,223,653

Doblas 7,132 11,971 0 0 2,010.06 1 23 1 19.37 16 0 1,780,433

Ecuador 14,497 15,181 0 1 1,499.69 1 56 2 37.18 16 0 1,357,152

Esmeralda 1,120 17,832 0 1 1,851.84 1 24 20 40.42 20 1 1,011,806 Facultad de Derecho 317 2,042 0 0 992.03 1 18 2 14.71 28 1 1,410,034 Facultad de Medicina 7,716 13,438 0 1 1,569.11 1 41 10 28.06 20 1 1,158,290 Galerias Pacifico 999 14,992 0 0 1,356.03 1 46 16 36.38 16 1 1,004,123

69 P. Bike S. Access. Station Pop Jobs Train Sub Bike Lane Station Bus Ent. Lane Capacity Univ Jobs

Guayaquil 14,514 10,870 0 0 1,385.15 1 40 0 29.74 16 0 2,003,601

Guzman 2,409 4,441 1 1 1,125.65 1 40 0 32.59 28 0 2,126,162 Hospital Italiano 7,815 7,099 0 0 1,266.05 1 12 0 27.87 20 1 1,561,567 Hospital Ramos Mejia 6,942 13,036 0 0 1,163.62 1 44 3 32.63 20 1 1,446,113 Hospital Rivadavia 5,825 6,306 0 0 496.06 1 63 3 18.42 20 0 1,479,117 Independenci a 6,532 10,707 0 1 3,491.47 1 20 7 32.55 20 1 1,138,699 Ingeniero Butty 889 6,871 0 0 928.09 1 116 5 35.01 28 1 1,049,512 Instituto Leloir 7,457 6,273 0 0 771.12 1 32 3 44.32 28 1 1,976,055

Juana Manso 397 3,190 0 0 1,267.33 1 0 8 46.17 28 0 1,334,178 Julian Alvarez 12,595 8,726 0 1 858.72 1 42 3 26.42 20 0 1,664,235

Lavalle 8,303 21,429 0 0 1,337.79 1 32 14 25.51 20 1 1,067,159

Legislatura 755 10,834 0 1 1,190.89 1 58 19 25.44 20 1 1,037,465

Maipu 405 17,339 0 1 1,908.19 1 39 13 44.10 20 1 1,310,374

Malabia 8,147 6,392 0 0 804.28 1 26 3 27.17 16 0 1,019,984

Mexico 7,589 2,139 0 1 1,818.30 1 28 4 34.30 20 0 2,064,273 Ministerio de Economia 419 20,201 0 1 1,153.48 1 63 10 36.20 20 1 1,381,057 Ministro Carranza 10,042 8,318 1 1 475.98 1 30 1 24.25 28 0 1,068,335

70 P. Bike S. Access. Station Pop Jobs Train Sub Bike Lane Station Bus Ent. Lane Capacity Univ Jobs

Misiones 9,198 8,540 0 1 1,782.87 1 59 3 37.53 20 0 2,168,956

Montevideo 7,764 18,865 0 1 1,274.51 1 38 7 48.68 20 1 1,393,059

Moreno 1,541 13,113 0 1 1,943.42 1 32 17 24.48 16 1 1,035,746

Obelisco 1,122 16,773 0 1 2,163.07 1 37 7 24.52 16 0 1,032,946

Once 5,824 20,012 1 1 1,297.67 1 78 2 28.14 16 0 1,020,280

Pacifico 6,848 14,112 1 1 822.23 1 79 5 9.79 28 0 1,240,066

Padilla 8,881 6,055 0 0 1,181.88 1 44 4 13.00 20 0 2,049,599 Parque Centenario 5,429 4,902 0 0 1,264.05 1 31 1 31.30 20 1 2,056,221 Parque Las Heras 14,104 7,015 0 0 1,019.75 1 61 0 18.82 28 0 1,880,637 Parque Lezama 5,757 8,978 0 0 1,186.05 1 52 1 25.73 28 0 1,552,890 Parque Patricios 2,449 1,987 0 1 702.18 1 27 0 48.37 20 0 1,508,246

Pasco 7,326 3,813 0 0 2,072.55 1 19 5 21.81 28 0 1,894,285

Pena 14,357 8,702 0 0 1,228.36 1 39 5 19.42 20 1 1,201,713

Peron 258 21,376 0 0 1,914.75 1 69 9 31.49 20 1 1,295,813

Piedras 713 15,178 0 1 1,905.63 1 41 20 31.14 16 1 1,012,280 Plaza Almagro 11,440 11,497 0 0 1,061.60 1 43 4 31.33 14 1 1,045,823

Plaza Boedo 8,970 6,813 0 1 1,405.38 1 40 7 24.32 20 0 1,552,322

71 P. Bike S. Access. Station Pop Jobs Train Sub Bike Lane Station Bus Ent. Lane Capacity Univ Jobs Plaza Guemes 11,596 6,624 0 0 1,115.70 1 15 2 22.77 20 0 1,660,672 Plaza Houssay 6,128 17,900 0 1 1,243.24 1 42 14 22.64 21 1 1,650,045

Plaza Italia 6,152 6,742 0 1 719.87 1 99 5 45.47 28 1 1,176,149 Plaza Libertad 6,156 14,752 0 0 1,369.30 1 53 15 26.36 28 1 2,034,360 Plaza Palermo Viejo 5,070 5,232 0 0 235.50 1 22 2 42.52 20 0 953,261 Plaza Primero de Mayo 9,088 8,609 0 1 1,767.48 1 30 2 46.36 16 1 1,923,641

Plaza Roma 299 11,044 0 1 1,342.60 1 76 8 23.94 20 1 1,236,542 Plaza San Martin 2,109 12,051 0 1 1,748.67 1 41 8 34.71 20 1 1,221,659 Plaza Vicente Lopez 11,761 11,105 0 0 1,149.26 1 42 4 35.98 28 1 1,034,731 Puerto Madero - UCA 420 3,978 0 0 842.59 1 69 2 29.58 16 1 1,106,233

Quintana 6,274 5,327 0 0 96.13 1 13 19 27.19 16 1 1,396,507

Reconquista 818 13,516 0 0 1,300.77 1 76 10 18.36 20 1 1,006,521

Retiro 1,290 12,719 0 1 1,512.63 1 120 9 24.32 20 0 1,118,537 Ricardo Rojas 1,084 9,931 0 0 1,531.90 1 91 11 34.35 20 0 1,001,419

1,178,935 Rincon 6,960 5,753 0 0 1,744.67 1 36 3 14.64 20 0

72 P. Bike S. Access. Station Pop Jobs Train Sub Bike Lane Station Bus Ent. Lane Capacity Univ Jobs

Riobamba 9,532 15,607 0 0 823.85 1 32 4 25.40 20 0 1,110,747

Rivarola 4,747 13,906 0 0 1,247.16 1 46 13 43.70 20 1 1,081,294

Saavedra 7,790 9,209 0 1 1,107.69 1 27 0 28.76 20 0 1,393,016

Salcedo 5,696 4,137 0 0 752.80 1 37 2 51.12 20 0 1,755,020 Sanchez de Bustamante 6,597 7,147 0 0 1,517.87 1 26 9 44.25 20 1 1,364,007

Sarandi 6,464 14,520 0 0 1,651.35 1 35 8 29.19 20 0 1,146,626

Sarmiento 173 19,381 0 1 2,050.95 1 28 12 32.48 20 1 993,349

Suipacha 1,968 14,561 0 1 1,454.59 1 26 12 15.58 14 0 965,941 Suipacha y Arroyo 5,660 6,419 0 0 1,210.44 1 33 7 41.02 20 0 1,016,527 Treinta y Tres Orientales 4,866 3,957 0 0 1,385.42 1 19 0 33.78 20 0 1,734,515

Tribunales 1,742 30,910 0 1 968.91 1 60 12 35.18 20 1 980,373

Tucuman 1,000 20,100 0 1 1,409.81 1 46 16 34.64 14 0 1,037,781

Urguiza 4,274 4,348 0 0 836.14 1 47 1 23.17 20 0 1,969,325

Venezuela 2,845 8,465 0 1 241.50 1 48 22 32.18 21 1 1,087,716 Vera Penaloza 634 1,714 0 0 988.51 1 10 0 40.53 28 0 1,450,583

Yatay 11,538 10,686 0 0 1,149.42 1 28 1 25.55 20 1 1,581,509

73 P. Bike S. Station Pop Jobs Train Sub Bike Lane Station Bus Ent. Lane Capacity Univ AJ

Zoologico 2,996 1,807 0 0 1,923.47 1 16 0 40.57 20 0 2,111,309

74 A.2 Correlation Matrixes

Table A.4: Correlation Matrix of the Independent Variables (200 meters buffer zone)

Po Jo Ra Su Bk Ec Bu En BI Sc Un AP AJ AA Po 1 Jo -0.44 1 Ra 0.03 -0.07 1 Su -0.23 0.32 0.33 1 Bk 0.06 0.07 -0.12 0.07 1 Ec -0.14 0.02 -0.03 -0.08 -0.09 1 Bu -0.04 0.01 -0.05 -0.11 -0.20 0.29 1 En -0.23 0.35 -0.09 0.16 -0.22 0.04 -0.11 1 BI -0.13 0.05 -0.21 -0.13 -0.13 -0.01 -0.05 -0.10 1 Sc -0.11 -0.25 0.26 0.01 -0.05 0.02 0.06 -0.22 0.03 1 Un -0.12 0.21 0.09 -0.11 -0.07 0.19 0.02 0.14 -0.04 -0.14 1 AP 0.32 0.17 0.06 0.19 -0.06 0 0.02 0.04 -0.18 -0.30 0.09 1 AJ -0.28 0.55 0.07 0.26 -0.12 0.18 0.14 0.28 -0.01 -0.20 0.20 0.54 1 AA -0.19 0.52 0.08 0.27 -0.12 0.16 0.13 0.25 -0.04 -0.24 0.19 0.67 0.99 1

Table A.5: Correlation Matrix of the Independent Variables (300 meters buffer zone)

Po Jo Ra Su Bk Ec Bu En BI Sc Un AP AJ AA Po I Jo -0.35 1 Ra 0.04 0.04 1 Su -0.37 0.52 0.26 1 Bk -0.02 0.19 -0.13 0.23 1 Ec -0.25 0.27 -0.09 0.14 0.12 1 Bu -0.22 0.26 0.11 0.17 -0.13 0.18 1

En -0.37 0.42 -0.11 0.29 -0.17 0.22 0.14 _ BI -0.06 -0.07 -0.19 -0.19 -0.10 -0 -0.09 -0.11 1 Sc -0.14 -0.25 0.08 0.05 -0.03 -0 0.17 -0.15 0.03 1 Un -0.11 0.28 -0.02 0.03 -0.08 0.11 0.04 0.20 0.04 -0.17 1 AP -0.27 0.57 -0.16 0.28 0.16 0.28 0.18 0.48 -0.10 -0.29 0.26 1 AJ -0.27 0.57 -0.16 0.28 0.16 0.28 0.18 0.48 -0.10 -0.29 0.26 1 1 AA -0.27 0.57 -0.16 0.28 0.16 0.28 0.18 0.48 -0.10 -0.29 0.26 1 1 1

75 Table A.6: Correlation Matrix of the Independent Variables (400 meters buffer zone)

Po Jo Ra Su Bk Ec Bu En BI Sc Un AP AJ AA Po 1 Jo -0.13 1 Ra 0.05 0.03 1 Su -0.13 0.45 0.24 1 Bk -0.13 0.33 -0.14 0.29 1 Ec -0.56 0.33 -0.18 0.20 0.13 1 Bu -0.21 0.25 0.11 0.09 -0.12 0.29 1 En -0.39 0.45 -0.18 0.25 0.04 0.61 0.16 1 BI -0.16 -0.10 -0.15 0 -0.06 -0.06 -0.06 -0.07 1 Sc -0.02 -0.23 0.22 -0.13 -0.12 -0.13 0.09 -0.22 0.03 1 Un -0.24 0.35 -0.23 0.07 0.06 0.31 0.09 0.52 0.08 -0.04 1 AP -0.30 0.42 0 0.26 0.06 0.42 0.26 0.44 -0.10 -0.29 0.26 1 AJ -0.30 0.42 0 0.26 0.06 0.42 0.26 0.44 -0.10 -0.29 0.26 1 1 AA -0.30 0.42 0 0.26 0.06 0.42 0.26 0.44 -0.10 -0.29 0.26 1 1 1

76 A.3 Regression Results

Table A.7: OLS results: Annual Departure Counts (200 meter buffer zones, all variables) Departures Arrivals term Coeff. std.error statistic p.value Coeff std.error statistic p.value (Intercept) 78.00 28.17 2.77 0.01 82.59 27.43 3.01 0.00 Log Population -0.17 2.31 -0.07 0.94 -0.23 2.25 -0.10 0.92 Log Jobs -0.34 2.56 -0.13 0.89 -0.73 2.49 -0.29 0.77 Rail -1.55 17.37 -0.09 0.93 -0.72 16.91 -0.04 0.97 Subway 3.49 6.55 0.53 0.60 3.88 6.38 0.61 0.55 Bike Lane 0.02 0.01 1.85 0.07 0.02 0.01 1.98 0.05 Ecobici -6.08 12.69 -0.48 0.63 -5.43 12.36 -0.44 0.66 Buses -0.07 0.20 -0.33 0.74 -0.06 0.20 -0.30 0.77 Entertainment -0.61 0.91 -0.67 0.51 -0.43 0.89 -0.48 0.63 Proportion of Bike Lan -0.47 0.23 -2.03 0.05 -0.42 0.23 -1.89 0.06 Station Capacity 1.12 0.60 1.88 0.06 1.10 0.58 1.90 0.06 Universities 10.55 5.44 1.94 0.06 11.75 5.30 2.22 0.03 Accessibility to - jobs -8.76 16.88 -0.52 0.61 14.28 16.44 -0.87 0.39

77 Table A.8: OLS results: Annual Departure Counts (300 meter buffer zones, all variables) Departures Arrivals term Coeff std.error statistic p.value Coeff std.error statistic p.value (Intercept) 13.77 39.08 0.35 0.73 21.36 38.37 0.56 0.58 Log Population 3.10 2.17 1.43 0.16 2.83 2.13 1.33 0.19 Log Jobs 3.00 4.16 0.72 0.47 2.78 4.09 0.68 0.50 Rail 12.21 13.18 0.93 0.36 13.75 12.94 1.06 0.29 Subway -4.87 5.54 -0.88 0.38 -6.35 5.44 -1.17 0.25 Bike Lane 0.02 0.01 2.46 0.02 0.02 0.01 2.62 0.01 Ecobici -9.04 5.34 -1.69 0.09 -8.42 5.25 -1.60 0.11 Buses 0.18 0.13 1.39 0.17 0.16 0.13 1.23 0.22 Entertainment 0.09 0.59 0.15 0.88 0.24 0.57 0.42 0.68 Proportion of Bike Lan -0.41 0.22 -1.88 0.06 -0.39 0.21 -1.80 0.08 Station Capacity 1.36 0.56 2.43 0.02 1.36 0.55 2.47 0.02 Universities 9.93 4.30 2.31 0.02 10.05 4.22 2.38 0.02 Accessibility to - jobs -15.04 19.72 -0.76 0.45 21.16 19.36 -1.09 0.28

Table A.9 OLS results: Annual Departure Counts (400 meter buffer zones, all variables) Departures Arrivals term Coeff std.error statistic p.value Coeff std.error statistic p.value (Intercept) 80.17 35.32 2.27 0.03 86.70 34.60 2.51 0.01 Log Population 1.13 2.16 0.52 0.60 0.96 2.12 0.45 0.65 Log Jobs -0.85 5.01 -0.17 0.87 -1.04 4.90 -0.21 0.83

Rail -25.76 12.26 -2.10 0.04 25.77 12.01 -2.14 0.03 Subway 9.81 5.11 1.92 0.06 9.51 5.00 1.90 0.06 Bike Lane 0.00 0.00 -0.12 0.91 0.00 0.00 -0.15 0.88 Buses 0.04 0.10 0.37 0.71 0.02 0.10 0.17 0.87 Entertainment -0.50 0.43 -1.14 0.26 -0.49 0.42 -1.16 0.25 Proportion of Bike Lan -0.65 0.23 -2.82 0.01 -0.63 0.22 -2.80 0.01 Station Capacity 1.27 0.59 2.17 0.03 1.25 0.57 2.18 0.03 Universities 3.03 5.28 0.57 0.57 4.13 5.18 0.80 0.43 Accessibility to jobs -4.27 17.24 -0.25 0.81 -9.36 16.89 -0.55 0.58

78 79