National Academies Press: OpenBook

Bicyclist Facility Preferences and Effects on Increasing Bicycle Trips (2020)

Chapter: Chapter 6 - Perceptions of Transportation Change

« Previous: Chapter 5 - Expressed Comfort, Safety, and Willingness to Try Cycling
Page 51
Suggested Citation:"Chapter 6 - Perceptions of Transportation Change." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2020. Bicyclist Facility Preferences and Effects on Increasing Bicycle Trips. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/25792.
×
Page 51
Page 52
Suggested Citation:"Chapter 6 - Perceptions of Transportation Change." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2020. Bicyclist Facility Preferences and Effects on Increasing Bicycle Trips. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/25792.
×
Page 52
Page 53
Suggested Citation:"Chapter 6 - Perceptions of Transportation Change." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2020. Bicyclist Facility Preferences and Effects on Increasing Bicycle Trips. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/25792.
×
Page 53
Page 54
Suggested Citation:"Chapter 6 - Perceptions of Transportation Change." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2020. Bicyclist Facility Preferences and Effects on Increasing Bicycle Trips. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/25792.
×
Page 54
Page 55
Suggested Citation:"Chapter 6 - Perceptions of Transportation Change." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2020. Bicyclist Facility Preferences and Effects on Increasing Bicycle Trips. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/25792.
×
Page 55
Page 56
Suggested Citation:"Chapter 6 - Perceptions of Transportation Change." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2020. Bicyclist Facility Preferences and Effects on Increasing Bicycle Trips. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/25792.
×
Page 56
Page 57
Suggested Citation:"Chapter 6 - Perceptions of Transportation Change." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2020. Bicyclist Facility Preferences and Effects on Increasing Bicycle Trips. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/25792.
×
Page 57
Page 58
Suggested Citation:"Chapter 6 - Perceptions of Transportation Change." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2020. Bicyclist Facility Preferences and Effects on Increasing Bicycle Trips. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/25792.
×
Page 58
Page 59
Suggested Citation:"Chapter 6 - Perceptions of Transportation Change." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2020. Bicyclist Facility Preferences and Effects on Increasing Bicycle Trips. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/25792.
×
Page 59
Page 60
Suggested Citation:"Chapter 6 - Perceptions of Transportation Change." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2020. Bicyclist Facility Preferences and Effects on Increasing Bicycle Trips. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/25792.
×
Page 60
Page 61
Suggested Citation:"Chapter 6 - Perceptions of Transportation Change." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2020. Bicyclist Facility Preferences and Effects on Increasing Bicycle Trips. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/25792.
×
Page 61
Page 62
Suggested Citation:"Chapter 6 - Perceptions of Transportation Change." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2020. Bicyclist Facility Preferences and Effects on Increasing Bicycle Trips. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/25792.
×
Page 62
Page 63
Suggested Citation:"Chapter 6 - Perceptions of Transportation Change." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2020. Bicyclist Facility Preferences and Effects on Increasing Bicycle Trips. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/25792.
×
Page 63

Below is the uncorrected machine-read text of this chapter, intended to provide our own search engines and external engines with highly rich, chapter-representative searchable text of each book. Because it is UNCORRECTED material, please consider the following text as a useful but insufficient proxy for the authoritative book pages.

51 Perceptions of Transportation Change Although the before-and-after element of the study was the primary purpose for the second- wave survey, this survey was useful in its own right. Questions were introduced in this wave to measure how respondents view changes to transportation in their communities over the course of the study, allowing the investigation of whether those perceptions vary based on treatment or control communities (i.e., if the community experienced the introduction of a bicycle facility). The two new questions introduced in the second-wave survey relied on recollection of recent trends, so responses were analyzed for all second-wave respondents regardless of whether key nonchanging demographics matched those of the first wave. Perceptions of General Transportation Trends The first new question included perceptions about general transportation trends. This ques- tion was written in a general sense to capture a holistic perspective of how transportation “in your community” has changed in the previous year. Although the bike-infrastructure items are the variables of greatest interest, results from the other items are included here for completeness. The two automobile-related items, congestion and parking, are portrayed in Figure 6.1 and Figure 6.2, respectively. Respondents tended to report changes for the worse with regard to traffic and parking availability, though Anniston respondents responded more neutrally. An item was also included for the availability of taxi/Uber/Lyft, presented in Figure 6.3. Respondents in the urban and suburban areas (Chattanooga/Birmingham and Opelika/ Northport), responded overwhelmingly positively, indicating that these options are perceived to be improving in these smaller urban and suburban communities, while the same cannot be said about the rural communities of Anniston and Talladega. The directionality of responses for this item is the reverse from the automobile-focused items, an indication that respondents did not necessarily default toward agreeing or disagreeing. Items for transit route coverage and frequency were also included, as shown in Figure 6.4 and Figure 6.5, respectively. Respondents across the board responded as “neutral” for both of these measures. This trend may indicate that few changes in transit occurred in these sites during the study time frame, or that few changes were perceived by respondents. Two pedestrian-related items were included, for sidewalk availability and sidewalk quality, presented in Figure 6.6 and Figure 6.7, respectively. Response patterns for the two measures largely mirror each other for each site. Reactions were generally positive, with a substantial portion of Opelika respondents expressing positive changes. Three bicycle-related items were included in this question: bike safety, bike lane/trail availability, and bike lane/trail quality, presented in Figure 6.8, Figure 6.9, and Figure 6.10, respectively. C H A P T E R 6

52 Bicyclist Facility Preferences and Effects on Increasing Bicycle Trips Note: Anniston, Opelika, and Chattanooga are treatment locations with planned bicycle facility improvements. Figure 6.1. Perceived changes in traffic congestion from the previous survey, by neighborhood. Note: Anniston, Opelika, and Chattanooga are treatment locations with planned bicycle facility improvements. Figure 6.2. Perceived changes in parking availability from the previous survey, by neighborhood.

Perceptions of Transportation Change 53 Note: Anniston, Opelika, and Chattanooga are treatment locations with planned bicycle facility improvements. Figure 6.3. Perceived changes in the availability of taxi/Uber/Lyft from the previous survey, by neighborhood. Note: Anniston, Opelika, and Chattanooga are treatment locations with planned bicycle facility improvements. Figure 6.4. Perceived changes in transit route coverage from the previous survey, by neighborhood.

54 Bicyclist Facility Preferences and Effects on Increasing Bicycle Trips Note: Anniston, Opelika, and Chattanooga are treatment locations with planned bicycle facility improvements. Figure 6.5. Perceived changes in transit frequency from the previous survey, by neighborhood. Note: Anniston, Opelika, and Chattanooga are treatment locations with planned bicycle facility improvements. Figure 6.6. Perceived changes in sidewalk availability from the previous survey, by neighborhood.

Perceptions of Transportation Change 55 Note: Anniston, Opelika, and Chattanooga are treatment locations with planned bicycle facility improvements. Figure 6.7. Perceived changes in sidewalk quality from the previous survey, by neighborhood. Note: Anniston, Opelika, and Chattanooga are treatment locations with planned bicycle facility improvements. Figure 6.8. Perceived changes in bike safety from the previous survey, by neighborhood.

56 Bicyclist Facility Preferences and Effects on Increasing Bicycle Trips Note: Anniston, Opelika, and Chattanooga are treatment locations with planned bicycle facility improvements. Figure 6.9. Perceived changes in bike lane/trail availability from the previous survey, by neighborhood. Note: Anniston, Opelika, and Chattanooga are treatment locations with planned bicycle facility improvements. Figure 6.10. Perceived changes in bike lane/trail quality from the previous survey, by neighborhood.

Perceptions of Transportation Change 57 Respondents appear to be much more likely to rate changes as “better” in the treatment areas that received new bicycle facilities than in the control communities, with even more pronounced improvements for bike lane/trail availability and quality. Few Talladega respondents expressed improved bike safety, while none expressed improvements in bike lane/trail availability or quality. Respondents in Northport and Birmingham tended to be more positive than negative, an interesting observation given their status as control communities. These respondents may be reacting to something they saw elsewhere and either mistakenly identified those changes as having occurred nearby or reported these responses using a broadly inclusive concept of what is included in their communities. However, despite the positive perception of changes in bike- related categories in these control sites, the positivity in the treatment sites was even greater. Improvements in bike lane/trail availability were reported by the vast majority of treatment site respondents. A sizeable portion also reported improvements in bike safety, though the number reporting so appears more modest, indicating availability and quality of bike facilities are likely linked with bike safety. However, the smaller differences in bike safety perceptions may indicate that relatively small infrastructure projects alone may have only modest impacts on perceptions of bike safety in the community as a whole. This may especially be the case considering that the facilities implemented in these neighborhoods (sharrows and unprotected bike lanes) were not among those perceived to be the most safe and comfortable. To further investigate the significance of the differences of reported changes in bikeability between study sites, statistical tests were performed on the means of each sample. For this analysis, responses have been given numerical values, with 1 corresponding to “much worse” and 5 corresponding to “much better.” The means for each site are displayed in Figure 6.11, Figure 6.12, and Figure 6.13. An analysis of variance (ANOVA) was also conducted on each measure to test the statistical significance of the observed differences in means, the results of which are presented in Table 6.1, Table 6.2, and Table 6.3. The average value of perceptions of improvements in bike safety among those in the treatment neighborhoods was somewhat higher than that of their counterparts in the control neighbor- hoods. The significance of the treatment effects in the ANOVA indicates that this difference is highly significant. The pair effects are not significant, indicating that responses tend not to differ based on the treatment/control pair, which serves as a proxy for urban setting. The inter- action effects (treatment x pair) are also significant, indicating that the treatment effects are not statistically equivalent for each pair. Anniston/ Talladega Chattanooga/ Birmingham Opelika/ Northport Much Worse Somewhat Worse Neutral Somewhat Better Much Better Treatments Controls 5 4 3 2 1 Figure 6.11. Mean responses for perceived changes in bike safety from the previous survey, by neighborhood.

58 Bicyclist Facility Preferences and Effects on Increasing Bicycle Trips Anniston/ Talladega Chattanooga/ Birmingham Opelika/ Northport Much Worse Somewhat Worse Neutral Somewhat Better Much Better Treatments Controls 5 4 3 2 1 Figure 6.12. Mean responses for perceived changes in bike lane/trail availability from the previous survey, by neighborhood. *P ≥ 0.050, **P ≥ 0.010, ***P < 0.001 Degrees of Freedom Sum of Squares Mean Square P-value Treatment 1 43.9 43.9 <0.001 *** Pair 2 7.2 3.6 0.007 ** Interaction Effects (Treatment x Pair) 2 20.9 10.5 <0.001 *** Residuals 568 408 0.72 Table 6.2. ANOVA results for mean responses for bike lane/trail availability. Degrees of Freedom Sum of Squares Mean Square P-value Treatment 1 18.6 18.6 <0.001 *** Pair 2 0.0 0.0 0.974 Interaction Effects (Treatment x Pair) 2 4.9 2.4 0.028 * Residuals 560 377 0.67 *P ≥ 0.050, **P ≥ 0.010, ***P < 0.001 Table 6.1. ANOVA results for mean responses for bike safety. The average values for perceived changes in bike lane/trail availability were also higher among those in the treatment neighborhoods. In this case all effects in the ANOVA were signifi- cant, indicating that the presence of a treatment and the urban form were both significant, and that the treatment effects differed by pair. The average responses for bike lane/trail quality followed a similar pattern to that of the responses for availability. Each of the effects and the interaction were again significant.

Perceptions of Transportation Change 59 Although there are limitations to the interpretation of retrospective perceptions, the significant differences between the treatments and controls are insightful. Given the same prompts, those in treatment neighborhoods were more likely to identify changes in bikeability as positive compared with their control-neighborhood counterparts. These findings are evidence that the implementa- tion of bicycle facilities makes an impact on how residents view the bikeability of their com- munities. The findings do not, however, indicate the cause of these changes, whether it be the facilities themselves or associated publicity or education measures, or something else entirely. Especially in Talladega, sample size and representativeness may be playing a part of the responses. It is also possible that treatment community respondents were more sensitized to notice bicycle- related improvements by virtue of completing the Wave 1 survey, in which case their observation of those improvements may be more pervasive and favorable than among their neighbors who did not complete the survey. Despite these limitations, these findings are a strong indication that measures to improve bikeability were noticed, with approval, in these communities. Recognition of New Cycling Facilities The other question new to the second-wave survey involved presenting images of each of five bike-facility types (sharrows, bike lanes, buffered bike lanes, protected/separated bike lanes, and multi-use paths) without any other roadway characteristics. Respondents were asked if they had seen that type of facility implemented in their communities since Fall 2016, and if they had seen Anniston/ Talladega Chattanooga/ Birmingham Opelika/ Northport Much Worse Somewhat Worse Neutral Somewhat Better Much Better Treatments Controls 5 4 3 2 1 Figure 6.13. Mean responses for perceived changes in bike lane/trail quality from the previous survey, by neighborhood. Degrees of Freedom Sum of Squares Mean Square P-value Treatment 1 44.2 44.2 <0.001 *** Pair 2 7.3 3.7 0.010 ** Interaction Effects (Treatment x Pair) 2 12.5 6.25 <0.001 *** Residuals 565 442 0.78 *P ≥ 0.050, **P ≥ 0.010, ***P < 0.001 Table 6.3. ANOVA results for mean responses for bike lane/trail quality.

60 Bicyclist Facility Preferences and Effects on Increasing Bicycle Trips that facility, whether they had used it and whether they liked it. Although this study isolated facility projects, still other projects occurred either before the study project or during the same time frame but outside the study boundaries. The research team performed due diligence in investigating and documenting any such project. The responses to the first question, “Have you seen it?,” are presented in Figure 6.14. Sharrows in Anniston were the most widely recognized addition. Anniston is a small town, so it makes sense that residents notice when something changes. What may be surprising is the extent to which respondents correctly identified the treatment. Bike lanes in Opelika and Chattanooga were also readily recognized. Sharrows in Chattanooga were recognized by respondents at nearly the same rate, but that may be a function of the number of sharrows already in the Chattanooga area. Protected/separated bike lanes were also highly recognized in Chattanooga. Responses to the question, “Have you used it?,” are presented in Figure 6.15. These responses have been filtered so that only those who affirmed having seen the feature in the previous ques- tion are reported (thus explaining the extremely small sample sizes for some locations, such as Talladega). Across the board, residents in Chattanooga had a comparably higher chance of having used whatever infrastructure they report to have seen. This may be a function of how much more Chattanooga residents travel to other places, of the urban form and increased density, or presence of a bikeshare system. Respondents in Anniston overwhelmingly reported not having used the sharrows, as was the case with Opelika residents and their bike lanes. Figure 6.16 presents responses to the question, “Do you like it?” These responses have also been filtered so that only those who affirmed having seen the feature in the first question are reported. Misidentifications aside, respondents typically reported liking multi-use paths and protected/separated bike lanes, whether they are referring to a facility they are familiar with or just the general concept. Unfortunately, although this study was designed to include two protected/separated bike lanes, both projects were ultimately downgraded during the course of the study. Future research should continue to study the likability of protected/separated facilities and multi-use paths in settings where they are actually constructed. Summary Respondents were asked in the second wave to reflect on changes in transportation since deployment of the first-wave survey. A multi-part question asked about perceived improve- ments or declines for several items for several modes, including bike safety, availability of bike lanes/trails, and quality of bike lanes/trails. A second multi-part question asked about specific bicycle facility treatments, namely sharrows, bike lanes, buffered bike lanes, protected/separated bike lanes, and multi-use paths, and if respondents had seen them implemented in their neigh- borhoods, used them, and liked them. General perceptions of changes in bike-related transportation items were strongly associated with those in communities receiving new bicycle facilities. This association was present only for bike-related items, with items for automobiles, transit, and pedestrians not following the same pattern. This indicates that the implementation of each treatment was followed by a sense that the community had an improved bikeability. Respondents in communities where new bicycle facilities were introduced were fairly accurate at properly identifying which facility was implemented. Yet respondents tended to blur both temporal and spatial boundaries, reporting seeing a treatment that either preceded the study or occurred nearby. Even among those who had seen the treatments, few still reported having used the facility. This indicates that even when facilities are noticed and prompt a perception of increased bikeability, projects that do not substantially expand a community’s bicycle network, such as those studied, should not be expected to see heavy use.

Perceptions of Transportation Change 61 c a a c c a a a a b a a a a a a. existing or nearby, b. modified version implemented in study area, c. implemented in study area Figure 6.14. Distribution of responses for the question, “Have you seen this added in your community?” for each infrastructure type and for each neighborhood.

62 Bicyclist Facility Preferences and Effects on Increasing Bicycle Trips c a a c c a a a a b a a a a a a. existing or nearby, b. modified version implemented in study area, c. implemented in study area Figure 6.15. Distribution of responses for the question, “Have you used it?” for each infrastructure type (for those who have seen it) and for each neighborhood.

Perceptions of Transportation Change 63 c a a c c a a a a b a a a a a a. existing or nearby, b. modified version implemented in study area, c. implemented in study area Figure 6.16. Distribution of responses for the question, “Do you like it?” for each infrastructure type (for those who have seen it) and for each neighborhood.

Next: Chapter 7 - Changes in Comfort, Safety, Willingness to Try Cycling, and Actual Cycling Behavior »
Bicyclist Facility Preferences and Effects on Increasing Bicycle Trips Get This Book
×
MyNAP members save 10% online.
Login or Register to save!
Download Free PDF

Cyclists and noncyclists have a wide range of perceptions of on-street bicycling facility designs — including sharrows, bike lanes, and buffered bike lanes — along a variety of roadway types, with and without curbside automobile parking.

The TRB National Cooperative Highway Research Program's NCHRP Research Report 941: Bicyclist Facility Preferences and Effects on Increasing Bicycle Trips provides insights from communities where on-road cycling for transportation is less common, particularly in the Southeast U.S.

The report is accompanied by a poster presentation and a set of presentation slides that summarize the project.

  1. ×

    Welcome to OpenBook!

    You're looking at OpenBook, NAP.edu's online reading room since 1999. Based on feedback from you, our users, we've made some improvements that make it easier than ever to read thousands of publications on our website.

    Do you want to take a quick tour of the OpenBook's features?

    No Thanks Take a Tour »
  2. ×

    Show this book's table of contents, where you can jump to any chapter by name.

    « Back Next »
  3. ×

    ...or use these buttons to go back to the previous chapter or skip to the next one.

    « Back Next »
  4. ×

    Jump up to the previous page or down to the next one. Also, you can type in a page number and press Enter to go directly to that page in the book.

    « Back Next »
  5. ×

    To search the entire text of this book, type in your search term here and press Enter.

    « Back Next »
  6. ×

    Share a link to this book page on your preferred social network or via email.

    « Back Next »
  7. ×

    View our suggested citation for this chapter.

    « Back Next »
  8. ×

    Ready to take your reading offline? Click here to buy this book in print or download it as a free PDF, if available.

    « Back Next »
Stay Connected!