Walking and Bicycling:What Does the Research Tell Us?

Susan HandySustainable Transportation Center

University of California Davis

Presented at the California Transportation Futures Symposium

September 3, 2008

2

3Sources: http://www.syriait.net/photos/uncategorized/air_pollution_china.jpg; http://static.howstuffworks.com/gif/ozone-pollution-smog.jpg

4

5

6

Walk/Bike as Share of Urban Trips 1995

Source: Pucher and Dijkstra 2003

How can we get people to walk and bike more?

Individual Factors:

Age, gender, attitudes, experience, comfort?

Social Environment Factors:

Family, friends, neighbors, crime?

Physical Environment Factors:

Sidewalks, crosswalks, land-use mix, design?

Research Findings

Walking

Influence of Built Environment on Walking for Transport

Density +Land-use mix +

Distance to destinations -

Street connectivity ?Pedestrian infrastructure ?Traffic ?Personal safety ?Parks/open space ?Aesthetics ?

Saelens and Handy, 2008

The Caltrans Study

• Eight neighborhoods in Northern California, chosen based on design and location

• 2003 mail-out, mail-back survey with 1672 respondents (24.7%)

• Funding from Caltrans, UCTC, Active Living Research Program

Walking to Store vs. Distance

Handy, Cao, and Mokhtarian, 2006.

Walking to Store vs. Walk Preference

Handy, Cao, and Mokhtarian, 2006.

15

Walking for Low-Income Households• Low-income household walk for travel and

use transit more than moderate- and high-income households.

• Low-income persons perceive less favorable walking conditions, and pedestrian accidents are relatively high in low-income areas.

Source: Walkable Communities, Inc.

Research Findings

Biking

Bicycle Share of Total Trips

Source: Pucher and Buehler, 2008

Australia

('01)

USA ('0

1)

UK ('05)

Canada ('01)

Ireland ('0

2)

Italy

('00)

France

('94)

Norway (

'01)

Austria ('9

5)

Switz

erland ('

00)

Belgium ('99)

Germany (

'02)

Sweden ('0

0)

Finland ('9

8)

Denmark ('0

1)

Netherlands (

'05)0%

5%

10%

15%

20%

25%

30%

1% 1% 1%2% 2%

3% 3%4%

5%6%

8%

10% 10%11%

18%

27%

Source: Pucher and Buehler, 2008

Bicycle Share by City

Sydney

Adelaide

Melbourne

Perth

Canberra

New York

Chicago

Denver

Washington, D.C.

Minneapolis

Portland

Toronto

Montreal

Calgary

Saskatoon

Victoria

Durham

Outer London

Inner London

Oxfordshire

CambridgeshireA

US

TRA

LIA

US

AC

AN

AD

AU

K

0% 2% 4% 6% 8% 10% 12%

0.6%

1.2%

2.0%

3.0%

3.1%

0.5%

0.7%

1.4%

1.7%

2.4%

3.5%

0.8%

1.3%

1.5%

2.5%

4.8%

1.0%

1.8%

3.8%

7.5%

10.1%

Source: http://bikeportland.org/wp-content/uploads/2007/09/2007-bike-countsbig.jpg

19911992199

319941995199619971998199

920002001200220032004200

520062007

0

2000

4000

6000

8000

10000

12000

14000

16000

Bicycle Traffic Across 4 Main Portland Bridges

Percent Biking to Work

Source: Xing, Buehler, and Handy, 2008

Davis Bicycle Studies• Six small cities, chosen based on

infrastructure and culture: Davis, Woodland, Chico, Turlock, Eugene, Boulder

• 2006 on-line survey, with 864 responses (12.3%)

• Funding from the Sustainable Transportation Center

Percent Biking Last Week by “Major streets have bike lanes”

not at all true somewhat true mostly true entirely true0

10

20

30

40

50

60

Perc

ent B

ikin

g La

st W

eek

Source: Xing, Buehler, and Handy, 2008

Percent Biking Last Week vs. Comfort Biking to Grocery Store

Source: Xing, Buehler, and Handy, 2008

unconfortable and wouldn't bike

uncomfortable but would bike

comfortable0

10

20

30

40

50

60

Perc

ent B

ikin

g La

st W

eek

Percent Biking Last Week vs. “I like riding a bike”

strongly disagree

disagree neutral agree strongly agree

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

Perc

ent B

ikin

g La

st W

eek

Source: Xing, Buehler, and Handy, 2008

Biking for Low-Income Households

• Almost no research on use of bicycles by low-income households.

• Potential for bicycles to “fill the gap” between walking and transit, as low-cost alternative.

• Unsafe conditions in low-income areas an obstacle and concern.

http://www.daylife.com/photo/0eKJfLB8Mn2a1

http://www.tate.org.uk/research/tateresearch/tatepapers/07autumn/images/lang_fig1.jpg

Research Findings

The Self-Selection QuestionDo people who like to walk or bike

choose to live in communities conducive to walking and biking?

Walking to Store vs. Neighborhood Choice

Handy, Cao, and Mokhtarian, 2006.

Biked Last Week vs. Neighborhood Choice

Xing, Buehler, and Handy, 2008

Implications of the Evidence

Implications of the Evidence

1. We can’t yet say that changes in the physical environment will necessarily lead to increases in walking and biking.

Implications of the Evidence

2. But we can be pretty sure that without changes in the physical environment, walking and biking are not likely to increase…

Implications of the Evidence

3. ..and we can be sure that changes in the physical environment will increase the opportunities for walking and biking:

Proximity = f (land use mix, connectivity) Quality = f (design)

Implications of the Evidence

4. But we also know that we need to address individual and social factors if we want more people to take advantage of these opportunities.

34

Walking and Bicycling Conditions

Individual and Social Factors

Self-Selection Effect

Policy Implications

                                 

35

Thanks!