Health Promoting Community Design Route Preferences Among...

Health Promoting Community Design

Route Preferences Among Adults in the NearMarket for Bicycling: Findings of the Cycling inCities StudyMeghan Winters, MSc; Kay Teschke, PhD

AbstractPurpose. To provide evidence about the types of transportation infrastructure that support

bicycling.Design. Population-based survey with pictures to depict 16 route types.Setting. Metro Vancouver, Canada.Subjects. 1402 adult current and potential cyclists, i.e., the ‘‘near market’’ for cycling

(representing 31% of the population).Measures. Preference scores for each infrastructure type (scale from 21, very unlikely to use,

to +1, very likely to use); current frequency of use of each infrastructure type (mean number oftimes/y).

Analyses. Descriptive statistics across demographic segments; multiple linear regression.Results. Most respondents were likely or very likely to choose to cycle on the following broad

route categories: off-street paths (71%–85% of respondents); physically separated routes next tomajor roads (71%); and residential routes (48%–65%). Rural roads (21%–49%) androutes on major streets (16%–52%) were least likely to be chosen. Within the broad categories,routes with traffic calming, bike lanes, paved surfaces, and no on-street parking were preferred,resulting in increases in likelihood of choosing the route from 12% to 37%. Findings indicatea marked disparity between preferred cycling infrastructure and the route types that werecurrently available and commonly used.

Conclusion. This study provides evidence for urban planners about bicycling infrastructuredesigns that could lead to an increase in active transportation. (Am J Health Promot2010;25[1]:40–47.)

Key Words: Bicycle, Survey, Infrastructure, Mode Share, NonmotorizedTransport, Stated Preference, Prevention Research. Manuscript format: research;Research purpose: descriptive; Study design: nonexperimental; Outcome measure:behavioral; Setting: local community; Health focus: fitness/physical activity;Strategy: built environment, policy; Target population: adults; Target populationcircumstances: geographic location

PURPOSE

The promotion of active transporta-tion is a promising path to improvepublic health, addressing the wide-spread levels of inactivity in the popu-lation1 and simultaneously reducing airand noise pollution through the re-placement of car trips by walking orcycling.2 Currently fewer than 10% ofworking Canadians commute by theseactive transportation modes.3 Cyclingmode shares in Canadian cities (,2%of trips) are much lower than walkingmode shares (,10% of trips), and arevery low compared to those in Euro-pean regions with similar climates anddemographics (15%–30% of trips inGermany, Denmark, and the Nether-lands).4 Therefore, increasing cyclingfor transportation offers one of thegreatest opportunities for change, withpotential corresponding benefits inphysical activity levels and publichealth.

The goal of increasing population-wide physical activity levels calls for ashift from individual-focused programsto widespread environmental and pol-icy interventions.5 Commuting bywalking or cycling integrates physicalactivity into daily travel routines, pro-viding a more sustainable means ofmeeting recommended levels of phys-ical activity than tailored structuredactivity programs (e.g., going to thegym).6,7 Creating physical environ-ments for activity that are safe, conve-nient, and attractive can have a positiveinfluence that extends to the wholepopulation.5,8

Recent literature has established thelinkage between urban form and travelbehavior.9–11 However, to effectively

Meghan Winters, MSc, and Kay Teschke, PhD, are with the Department of Population andPublic Health, University of British Columbia, Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada.

Send reprint requests to Meghan Winters, MSc, School of Population and Public Health, Univer-sity of British Columbia, 5804 Fairview Ave, Vancouver, BC. Canada V6T 1Z3; [email protected].

This manuscript was submitted October 6, 2008; revisions were requested January 27, 2009; the manuscript was accepted forpublication February 6, 2009.

Copyright E 2010 by American Journal of Health Promotion, Inc.0890-1171/10/$5.00 + 0DOI: 10.4278/ajhp.081006-QUAN-236

40 American Journal of Health Promotion

Author PDF.May be distributed widely by e-mail.Posting on Web sites prohibited.

modify the design of the transporta-tion network to induce a mode shiftonto bicycles and out of cars, there is aneed for more detailed evidence onthe specific types of infrastructure thatare preferred by potential users. Oneplanning approach would be to adoptinfrastructure types similar to thosethat exist in regions with higher cyclingmode share, such as the off-road orphysically separated routes typical inEuropean countries.12 Alternatively,there are market research surveys thathave elucidated preferences using verybroad categories of infrastructure (e.g.,‘‘lanes’’ vs. ‘‘paths’’), but often withoutvisual aids to ensure a common un-derstanding of terminology.13–16

Studies on cycling infrastructure areheavily influenced by the populationunder study, because preferences forfacilities may differ according to cy-cling experience or other personaltraits.17–19 Some surveys have sampledfrom the full adult population, includ-ing both cyclists and noncyclists.13–15

Other studies have focused on fre-quent cyclists, recruiting from bicycle-related clubs and listserves, stoppingcyclists on the road,19,20 or taggingparked bicycles.21 Others still havestudied specific populations such asuniversity staff or students.22 A strategicapproach for increasing mode share isto survey the ‘‘near market’’ for cy-cling, that is, members of the popula-tion most likely to be willing andinterested to make changes in theirtravel behavior. This group includescurrent cyclists who could cycle morefrequently as well as noncyclists whoare willing to start cycling (‘‘contem-plators’’ 23).

We conducted a population-basedsurvey of adults in the near market forcycling in the Metro Vancouver regionof Canada. We asked about theirlikelihood of choosing to cycle on 16different route types, using a Web ormailed survey instrument that includedmultiple photos of each of the infra-structure types. We also asked howfrequently they currently used the sameroute types, to determine whether theroutes used differed from the routespreferred. The goal was to provideevidence for urban cycling infrastruc-ture development to promote a sub-stantial increase in cycling mode shareand attract a new wave of cyclists.

METHODS

LocationMetro Vancouver is comprised of 22

municipalities with widely varyingneighborhood characteristics andtransportation infrastructure. The re-gion is home to approximately 2.1million people.24 Bicycle mode share isestimated at 1.7% region-wide, andabout 3.1% within the city of Vancou-ver.25 The regional bicycle route net-work has over 1350 km of designatedbicycle routes, ranging from paved off-road cycling paths, to residentialstreets with signage only to on-roadbicycle lanes.25 The climate is condu-cive to cycling year-round, with allmonthly average low temperaturesabove freezing.

DesignThe survey instruments were devel-

oped after an extensive review of theliterature, which identified 70 studiesand 40 surveys related to the choice ofcycling as a mode of transport. Theliterature provided a broad range ofdata elements used as the basis fordesigning two questionnaires that com-prised this survey: a telephone inter-view, and a follow-up Web or mailsurvey. The questionnaires were refinedby a broad range of people interested incycling and transportation (bicycle co-ordinators from the participating mu-nicipalities, members of cycling advo-cacy groups, and the regionaltransportation authority, TransLink)and in six focus groups (in two locationsand of differing cycling segments).

The telephone interview filteredparticipants for eligibility, and collecteddemographics, travel patterns, andmode choices. The self-administeredfollow-up survey asked about current useof and preference for 16 distinct routetypes using three photographs each toclearly identify different infrastructures.

MeasuresThe 16 route types can be broadly

classified as: (1) major streets, (2)residential streets, (3) rural roads andhighways, (4) off-street paths, and (5)cycle paths next to major roads butphysically separated from traffic; addi-tional detail covers road markings,bicycle lanes, traffic calming, routesurfaces, and car parking. The currentuse question was ‘‘How often do you

currently cycle on this type of route?’’and had a five-point response scale:never, less than once a year, 1 to 10times a year, 1 to 10 times a month,and 3 or more times a week. Thepreference question was ‘‘If this andother route options were available, howlikely are you to choose to cycle on thistype of route?’’ with a five-point re-sponse scale: very unlikely to choose,unlikely to choose, neutral, likely tochoose, and very likely to choose.Preference responses were scaled from21 (very unlikely) to 0 (neutral) to +1(very likely) for calculating and com-paring mean scores. The questionnaireis available from the authors.

SampleThe study was conducted in three

waves distributed throughout 2006,with the focus on travel patterns in thepreceding 4 months. In each wave arandom sample of names was selectedfrom the telephone book and each wassent an introductory letter. In thesecond and third waves this was com-plemented by random digit dialing toincrease recruitment. All study meth-ods were reviewed and approved by theUniversity of British Columbia’s Be-havioural Research Ethics Board.

In total, 31% of the individualscontacted were current or potentialcyclists (those who had access to abicycle and who had either cycled inthe past year or were willing toconsider cycling in the future), andwere therefore eligible and invited toparticipate. 2149 individuals complet-ed telephone interviews (37% of thoseeligible). Of these, 1402 completed theWeb/mail follow-up survey whose re-sults are presented here. This subsetdid not differ demographically fromthose who completed the telephoneinterview, with the exception of po-tential cyclists (who comprised 19.5%of the telephone survey respondents,but only 13.8% of the follow-up).

AnalysisAnalyses included descriptive statis-

tics and multiple linear regressionusing the SAS version 9.1 (Cary, NorthCarolina) statistical package. Respons-es were weighted to reflect the age,gender, and geographic distributionsof the region. Because of the largesample size, very small differencesbetween groups were statistically sig-

September/October 2010, Vol. 25, No. 1 41


nificant. We have therefore not re-ported statistical significance, but in-stead focused our discussion on differ-ences that are meaningful (i.e.,percentage differences of at least 5%,mean score differences of at least .5,and trends across categories).

The population was segmented intofour subpopulations: regular cyclists(who cycled at least once a week, i.e.,cycled § 52 trips/y); frequent cyclists (atleast monthly, i.e., 12–51 trips/y);occasional cyclists (at least yearly, i.e., 1–11 trips/y); and potential cyclists, whohad not cycled in the previous year, butwould consider cycling in the future.

These annual trip frequencies werederived from responses for the numberof one-way trips made by bicycle (for anytrip purpose) in a typical week for the 4-month season prior to that study wave.Individuals who reported zero bicycletrips in that season (67%) were alsoasked whether they had made any tripsin the year prior; these trips were alsoincluded in the annual trip frequency.

RESULTS

DemographicsOverall, 107 individuals were regular

cyclists (weighted proportion 5 8.1%),

481 were frequent cyclists (34.6%), 617were occasional cyclists (43.5%), andthe remaining 197 individuals werepotential cyclists who had not cycled inthe past year (13.8%). Demographiccharacteristics of each segment aresummarized in the Table. Regular andfrequent cyclists were more likely to bemale (58.3% and 57.5%, respectively),and potential cyclists female (54.9%).Potential cyclists were older and morelikely to be retired than the othersegments. Most participants had accessto a car (93.7%), although this per-centage was lower for regular cyclists(78.4%). Regular cyclists were more

TableDemographic Characteristics of Web/Mail Survey Respondents in Metro Vancouver (n = 1402) According to Cyclist Segment

Cyclist Segment*

OverallPotential Occasional Frequent Regular

Weighted % of total (n) 13.8 (197) 43.5 (617) 34.6 (481) 8.1 (107) 100 (1402)Gender, Male 45.1 49.0 57.5 58.3 52.1Age, y

19–24 6.3 10.4 5.1 12.3 8.225–34 19.1 20.1 21.0 21.7 20.435–44 31.0 26.7 30.8 22.8 28.445–54 22.8 23.1 23.1 21.0 22.955–64 12.0 14.6 13.9 14.8 14.065 & older 8.8 5.0 5.9 6.5 6.0

Residence

Vancouver 26.3 28.5 38.1 50.5 33.3Other municipality 73.7 71.5 61.9 49.5 66.7

Education

Some high school or less 2.1 0.9 0.7 1.0 1.0Graduated high school or less 13.2 11.5 9.6 12.7 11.2Some postsecondary 82.9 86.4 88.5 85.5 86.6

Employment

Full-time 51.9 54.9 56.2 52.1 54.7Part-time 11.2 12.3 11.7 11.5 11.9Self-employed 8.7 11.3 11.9 16.5 11.6Student 2.1 5.8 6.1 4.5 5.3Retired 14.4 7.6 9.5 7.3 9.2Not employed 8.8 6.4 3.3 5.3 5.6

Household income, $/y!

,30,000 10.6 7.1 8.5 14.1 8.630,000–59,000 17.9 20.1 16.6 23.4 18.960,000–89,000 21.6 19.5 23.8 12.3 20.7.90,000 30.3 32.7 30.0 33.2 31.5

Mean no. of children/ household 0.9 0.9 0.7 0.5 0.8Access to car (yes) 96.7 95.4 94.0 78.4 93.7Mean no. of motor vehicles/household 1.8 1.9 1.8 1.4 1.8Mean no. of bicycles/household 2.4 2.9 3.0 3.6 2.9

* Potential cyclists, never in past year; occasional cyclists, 1–11 one-way trips per year; frequent cyclists, 12–51 one-way trips per year; regular cyclists,52 or more one-way trips per year.! 20.3% of responses to household income were ‘‘refused/don’t know’’; all other variables had ,2% ‘‘refused/don’t know/other’’ responses.



likely to live in the city of Vancouver(50.5%) than were other groups(26.3%–38.1% in Vancouver).

PreferencesThere were clear differences in the

desirability of route types (Figure 1).Off-street paths were the most pre-ferred. Within this broad route type,nearly 85% of respondents said theywould be likely or very likely to chooseto ride on paved off-street paths forbikes only and 77% were likely tochoose paved multiuse paths. About71% of respondents were likely tochoose unpaved multiuse paths, or

cycle paths next to major roads, sepa-rated by a physical barrier. Residentialstreets were the next most preferredroute type (48%–65% likely tochoose). Within this type, the presenceof cycling facilities influenced prefer-ences: residential streets designated asbike routes were preferred to those notdesignated, and routes with trafficcalming were preferred to those with-out. Rural roads were less preferred(21%–49% likely to choose), but thevalue of cycling facilities was alsoobserved within this classification;those with bike symbols were preferredto those with a paved shoulder, which

in turn were preferred to those with nopaved shoulder. Among the majorstreet route types (16%–52% likely tochoose), routes with bike lanes werepreferred to routes with only bikesymbols, which were preferred to nomarkings at all. This was furthermodified by the presence of on-streetparking; in all cases, the presence ofon-street parking made a particularroute type less favorable.

The two least preferred route typeswere major streets with no facilities,with or without parking (16% likely tochoose). Only 79 respondents were‘‘very likely’’ to choose to ride on

Figure 1Likelihood of Choosing Route Type (if All Route Types Were Available) for 16 Cycling Route Types Among Current and

Potential Cyclists in Metro Vancouver (n = 1402)



major streets with parked cars. Theyrepresented a unique subpopulation:22.6% were regular cyclists (vs. 8.1% inthe overall sample), and they weremainly male (66.5%), aged 25 to 34,with a lower likelihood of havingchildren (22.3% vs. 46.8%).

Multiple linear regression modelswere run for the preferences scores foreach of the 16 different route types,according to cyclist type, gender, age,education, household income, andhaving children. Cyclist segment andgender were consistently significantpredictors of route type preferences.For example, in the model of prefer-ence score for ‘‘major city streets, withno facilities and no parked cars’’ (alow-preference route type), regularcyclists gave an average score .55greater (p , .0001) than potentialcyclists, and .23 greater (p , .0001)than occasional cyclists. Femalesscored this route type .23 lower onaverage. Other variables were notsignificant. Because results were similaracross many models, the influences ofdemographics on preferences are bestillustrated in Figures 2A and 2B.

Figure 2A shows preferences by cy-clist segment. The rank order of prefer-ence for the route types varied littleacross cyclist type or other demograph-ics, with one exception. Regular cyclistsranked unpaved off-street paths andresidential streets without a cyclingdesignation relatively lower than didother cyclist segments. The mean pref-erence scores did vary by cyclist segment.For all route types, regular cyclists gavethe highest scores, then frequent cy-clists, then occasional cyclists, and finallypotential cyclists. The largest differenceswere for the major street types.

Figure 2B shows preferences by sex.There were virtually no differences inmean scores between men and womenfor the six most preferred route types,but women scored the low preferenceroutes even lower than men. Similarly,respondents with and without childrenin their household scored the sixpreferred route types the same, butthose with children scored the lowpreference routes lower than thosewithout (data not shown).

Current Use PatternsFor calculating the mean frequency of

route use, each route use response

Figure 2Mean Preference Score for 16 Route Types According to Cyclist Segment (A) and

Gender (B)



category was assigned a value slightlybelow its midpoint (e.g., ‘‘1–10 times peryear’’ 5 4 times per year), under theassumption that the underlying within-category distributions were right skewed.

The three residential route typeswere the most commonly used types ofinfrastructure, with average usages of40 times/y for unmarked residentialstreets, 33 times/y for streets marked asbike routes, and 27 times/y for streetswith traffic calming measures. Ruralroad route types and separated cyclepaths next to major roads were theleast commonly used (all ,10 times/y). Usage patterns are included inFigure 3.

Current Use Versus PreferencesFigure 3 compares current use of

the 16 route types to the route prefer-ences. The crossing lines indicate amarked discrepancy between wherepeople currently ride and where theywould choose to ride were all routetypes available. For example, the mostcommonly used route type in thecurrent street network, residentialstreets without bicycling features,ranked seventh of the 16 route types interms of preference. Major city streetswith parked cars were the fourth mostcommonly used route type, but werethe least desirable.

Many route types that respondentswould be very likely to choose were notroutes with high current use, likelybecause these route types are not

widely available in Metro Vancouver.The most striking example is cyclepaths next to a major street butseparated by a barrier; these were thirdhighest in preference, but the leastused, because they are not commonlyavailable in the region. As a route typegroup, off-street paths were the mostlikely to be chosen, but current usagewas only moderate (ranked 5, 6, and 8overall).

DISCUSSION

The Near Market for CyclingThis study characterizes the cycling

patterns and preferences of the nearmarket for cycling in the Metro Van-couver region. This population, com-prised of those individuals who re-ported having cycled in the past year,or who were willing to cycle more inthe future, represents those most likelyto make a travel behavior shift thatcould increase cycling mode share. Intotal 31% of those contacted fit intothis near market. Projected to the adultpopulation of the region,24 this repre-sents about 500,000 adults; changingtravel patterns in this population couldhave sizable health and environmentalimpacts.2 Although 80% of surveyrespondents had cycled at least once inthe past year, over half of these wereonly occasional cyclists, further indi-cating a great potential for changewithin this group.

Route PreferencesThis survey asked about preferences

for 16 different route types, allowingfor differentiation between broad clas-ses of routes (off-street, major roads,residential routes, and rural roads) bycharacteristics of the facility (presenceof road markings, signage, car parking,and traffic calming). In general, off-street and separated paths were themost favored route types, followed byresidential routes, then major andrural roads. Within each route type,those with more cycling facilities werepreferred to those without, and foreach case considered, a route typewithout parking was preferred overone with parking. For off-street paths,paved routes were preferred over un-paved routes, especially among regularcyclists.

These findings add enhanced detailto available evidence on route prefer-ences. A study of current cyclists inEdmonton, Canada (n 5 1128), quan-tified the relative burden of threedifferent route types19 and found thatcycling in mixed traffic (i.e., no facil-ities) was the least preferred: 1 minutein mixed traffic was equivalent to about4 minutes on an on-street bike lane, or3 minutes on a multiuse off-street bikepath. A study of 167 university em-ployee cyclists and noncyclists foundthat they preferred off-road facilities tobike lanes, bike lanes to no bike lanes,and routes without parking to those

Figure 3Current Use vs. Likelihood of Choosing for 16 Cycling Route Types



with.26 Our results differ from a U.S.survey that found that frequent cyclistswere more likely to want on-road bikelanes than off-street paths, whereasinfrequent cyclists did not differentiatebetween route types.16 The differencemay be in the limited options providedto respondents in the U.S. survey.

To increase cycling mode share, onemust motivate those who cycle least oftento cycle more. This study found similarroute preferences across frequent, occa-sional, and potential cyclists, making itstraightforward to focus future infra-structure development. The top routetypes were paved off-street paths; cyclepaths next to major streets separated by abarrier; and residential streets marked asbike routes, with traffic calming. Evenamong women and respondents withchildren in their household, subpopula-tions that were unlikely to choose manyroute types, these routes were highlyranked. This set of preferred route typeswould provide a variety of options tocyclists and transportation facility de-signers. The data on the least preferredroute types also provide clear guidanceto transportation planners on facilitydesigns that are less likely to be effectiveadditions to the bicycle network.

Some preferences of the regularcyclists differed from those of othercyclist types. Regular cyclists, on average,had a higher preference for nearly allroute types. The one exception, un-paved multiuse paths, may be attribut-able to poor road surface conditions. It isnotable that regular cyclists rated allmajor street route types substantiallyhigher than did other cyclists. Thisconcurs with other findings that thosewith more experience tend to be lessaverse to cycling in mixed traffic.19

These regular riders are a specializedgroup: they are avid cyclists, cycling atleast once per week, and tend to be ayoung, mainly male population. Giventheir high preferences for nearly allroute types, this group may not requirespecial consideration in cycling networkplanning; they can be considered the‘‘first wave’’ of cyclists, those who willcycle regardless of conditions.

Current Use Patterns Versus PreferencesThe most commonly used routes

were residential, followed by majorstreets and off-street paths, then ruralroads. This order differs from the

findings of Aultmann-Hall et al., whomapped 397 trips by commuters inGuelph, Ontario, Canada, and foundthat 60% of total travel distance was onmajor roads, 35% on local streets, andonly 5% on off-road paths or trails.27

The contrast may be because of differ-ences in the underlying transportationnetwork and the availability of differentroute types between the two regions. Inour study, the route type with the lowestreported current use was the physicallyseparated cycle path next to a majorroute. Although the most highly usedroute types, residential streets and majorstreets without markings, are widelyavailable, the physically separated cyclepaths are very rare route types in MetroVancouver (,500 m total at the time ofthis study) and indeed, much of NorthAmerica. Variations of this type of facilityappear in certain Canadian cities (e.g.,Montreal) and are widely available inmany European centers (e.g., Copenha-gen and the Netherlands) where cyclingmodal shares are much higher.

There was great disparity betweenthe route types that were in high useand those that were preferred. Themost extreme case was the physicallyseparated cycle path next to majorstreets: it was least commonly used, butjust as desirable as unpaved off-streetpaths, or residential streets with bicyclefacilities. This finding highlights oneclear way to adapt the current roadnetwork so that it is more supportive ofcyclists. Cyclists may perceive this routetype as a safe way to access the manydestinations located on major streets.

Study Strengths and LimitationsStrengths of this survey were that it

included 16 different route types andused photos clearly illustrating theinfrastructure types. The eventual useof a given route will depend on thesubtleties of its design and placementwithin the road network. The connec-tivity of routes is key: another studyshowed commuter cyclists deviate verylittle from the shortest route betweenthe origin and destination and that foroff-street paths, well-connected pathswith good surfaces were used signifi-cantly more than others.27

Our survey was conducted in threewaves throughout the year to ensurethat route preferences and reporteduse were not influenced by the season

of questioning. The design of thequestionnaire may have resulted insome misclassification of cyclist seg-ment. Individuals who had made zerotrips in the 4-month survey season werealso asked whether they had made tripsin the past year, and this was used toderive annual trip frequency. However,those individuals who reported at leastone bike trip in the survey season (n 5712) were not asked about travel thepast year, and their annual trip fre-quency was calculated solely from thenumber of trips in that season. Thismay lead to some misclassification ofyearly, monthly, or weekly cyclists if thisgroup of respondents cycled different-ly in the past 4 months than they hadin the 8 months prior to that.

Finally, this study surveyed the nearmarket for cycling, i.e., the 31% ofindividuals contacted who were currentcyclists or would be willing to cycle inthe future; thus, findings are notrepresentative of the 69% of thepopulation who did not have a bicycleor were unwilling to ride. Because thelatter individuals were not currentlywilling to change their travel behaviorto include cycling, there would be littleimmediate benefit in targeting inter-ventions to them. We expect that withfuture development of the cyclinginfrastructure, the climate and culturefor cycling across the region willbecome more inviting, and a greaternumber of people may become opento cycling.

In summary, these findings show thatcurrent and potential cyclists in MetroVancouver express preferences forroutes separated from traffic, in linewith cycling infrastructure design inEuropean centers with high cyclingmode shares. This survey included twoadditional pieces that will be presentedin future articles: responses to surveyquestions about the potential influenceof 73 potential motivators and deter-rents on the decision to cycle or not;and an analysis of trip data reported inthe telephone survey with objectivelymapped features of the trip environ-ment (population density, land usemix, elevation changes, proximity tobicycling routes, route density, tripdistances, etc.) to determine whichinfluence actual choice of cycling.Combined, these subjective and objec-tive data will provide an important body



of evidence that is crucial to guidepolicy decisions on bicycle infrastruc-ture planning. We hope that continuedresearch will build on our work, with theaim of quantifying how changes incycling infrastructure impact cyclingmode share and public health.

Acknowledgments

We are grateful for the contributions of the surveyparticipants, the Cycling in Cities study partnerorganizations (Canadian Cancer Society, Vancouver AreaCycling Coalition), and the contract survey organization(NRG). This study was supported by the Moving onSustainable Transportation Program of Transport Canada,Translink, Metro Vancouver, and the followingmunicipalities: Langley, New Westminster, Richmond, PortMoody, Surrey, Township of Langley, Vancouver, andWhite Rock. Meghan Winters was supported by doctoralawards from the Canadian Institutes of Health Researchand the Michael Smith Foundation for Health Research.

References

1. Badland H, Schofield G. The builtenvironment and transport-relatedphysical activity: what we do and do notknow. J Phys Act Health. 2005;2:433–442.

2. Cavill N, Davis A. Cycling and Health: What’sthe Evidence? London, England: CyclingEngland; 2007.

3. Statistics Canada. Where Canadians Workand How They Get There. Ottawa, Canada:Statistics Canada; 2003.

4. Pucher J, Dijkstra P. Promoting safewalking and cycling to improve publichealth: lessons from the Netherlands andGermany. Am J Public Health.2003;93:1509–1516.

5. Sallis JF, Cervero RB, Ascher W, et al. Anecological approach to creating ActiveLiving communities. Annu Rev PublicHealth. 2006;27:297–322.

6. Dunn AL, Marcus BH, Kamper JB, et al.Comparison of lifestyle and structureinterventions to increase physical activityand cardiorespiratory fitness: arandomized control trial. JAMA.1999;281:327–334.

7. Oja P, Vuori I, Paronen O. Daily walkingand cycling to work: their utility as health-enhancing physical activity. Patient EducCouns. 1998;33:S87–S94.

8. Frumkin H, Frank LD, Jackson R. UrbanSprawl and Public Health: Designing, Planningand Building for Health Communities.Washington, DC: Island Press; 2004.

9. Transportation Research Board & Instituteof Medicine of the National Academies.Does the Built Environment Influence PhysicalActivity? Examining the Evidence.Washington, DC: National Academies ofSciences; 2005. TRB Special Report 282.

10. Naess P. Urban Structure Matters: ResidentialLocation, Car Dependence and TravelBehaviour. New York: Routledge; 2006.

11. Saelens BE, Sallis JF, Frank LD.Environmental correlates of walking andcycling: findings from the transportation,urban design and planning literatures.Ann Behav Med. 2003;25:80–91.

12. Pucher J, Buehler R. Making cyclingirresistible: lessons from the Netherlands,

Denmark, and Germany. Transp Rev.2008;28:495–528.

13. Decima Research. City of Toronto 1999Cycling Study: Final Report on QuantitativeResearch Results. Toronto, Canada: DecimaResearch Inc; 2000.

14. Decima Research. Survey for Region ofWaterloo Regional Cycling Plan. Toronto,Canada: Decima Research Inc; 2002.

15. Translink. Cycling Performance Scorecard.Vancouver, Canada: Greater VancouverTransportation Authority; 2004.

16. Bureau of Transportation Statistics, USDepartment of Transportation Statistics.How Bike Paths and Lanes Make a Difference.Washington, DC: US Department ofTransportation Statistics; 2004. BTS IssueBrief No. 11.

17. Garrard J, Rose G, Lo SK. Promotingtransportation cycling for women: the roleof bicycle infrastructure. Prev Med.2008;46:55–59.

18. Gatersleben B, Appleton KM.Contemplating cycling to work: attitudesand perceptions in different stages ofchange. Transp Res Part A Policy Pract.2007;41:302–312.

19. Hunt JD, Abraham JE. Influences onbicycle use. Transp Policy. 2007;34:453–470.

20. Stinson MA, Bhat CR. Commuter bicyclistroute choice—analysis using a statedpreference survey. Transp Res Rec.2003;1828:107–115.

21. Aultman-Hall L, Hall FL. Research designinsights from a survey of urban bicyclecommuters. Transp Res Rec.1998;1636:21–28.

22. Shannon T, Giles-Corti B, Pikora T, et al.Active commuting in a university setting:assessing commuting habits and potentialfor modal change. Transp Policy.2006;13:240–253.

23. Prochaska JO, Velicer WF. Thetranstheoretical model of health behaviorchange. Am J Health Promot. 1997;12:38–48.

24. Metro Vancouver. 2006 census bulletin3—population by age. Available at:http://www.gvrd.bc.ca/growth/pdfs/Census2006_PopbyAge_Bulletin_3.pdf.Accessed January 10, 2008.

25. Translink. Greater Vancouver Trip DiarySurvey. Vancouver, Canada: GreaterVancouver Transportation Authority;2004.

26. Tilahun NY, Levinson DM, Krizek KJ.Trails, lanes, or traffic: valuing bicyclefacilities with an adaptive stated preferencesurvey. Transp Res Part A Policy Pract.2007;41:287–301.

27. Aultman-Hall L, Hall FL, Baetz BB.Analysis of bicycle commuter routes usingGeographic Information Systems:implications for bicycle planning. TranspRes Rec. 1997;1578:102–110.

SO WHAT? Implications for HealthPromotion Practitioners andResearchersWhat is already known on this topic?

While safety and comfort havebeen identified as influences forbicycling, previous research on in-frastructure has focused on theopinions or behavior of regularcommuter bicyclists, and has usedvery general categories of routetypes (e.g., bike paths).What does this article add?

This survey of 1,402 current andpotential bicyclists in Metro Van-couver examined 16 route types andfound a marked discrepancy thetypes of bicycle routes that arecurrently available, and what ispreferred. Preferred routes arethose separated from motor vehicletraffic, or, where routes are alongthe road network, those with en-hanced bicycle amenities such asbike lanes and traffic calming. In allcases, the presence of on-streetvehicle parking made a route typeless desirable.What are the implications for healthpromotion practice or research

Since these preferences were es-pecially important to women, adultswith children and others who cycleless frequently than the young malepopulation, the findings provide keydirection for urban planners andpublic health practitioners on howto design the transportation infra-structure to increase cycling modalshare and support active transpor-tation.



Editor in ChiefMichael P. O’Donnell, PhD, MBA, MPH

Associate Editors in ChiefMargaret Schneider, PhDJennie Jacobs Kronenfeld, PhDShirley A. Musich, PhDKerry J. Redican, MPH, PhD, CHESSECTION EDITORSInterventionsFitness

Barry A. Franklin, PhDMedical Self-Care

Lucy N. Marion, PhD, RNNutrition

Karen Glanz, PhD, MPHSmoking Control

Michael P. Eriksen, ScDWeight Control

Kelly D. Brownell, PhDStress Management

Cary Cooper, CBEMind-Body Health

Kenneth R. Pelletier, PhD, MD (hc)Social Health

Kenneth R. McLeroy, PhDSpiritual Health

Larry S. Chapman, MPHStrategiesBehavior Change

James F. Prochaska, PhDCulture Change

Daniel Stokols, PhDPopulation Health

David R. Anderson, PhD, LPApplicationsUnderserved Populations

Antronette K. (Toni) Yancey, MD, MPHHealth Promoting Community Design

Bradley J. Cardinal, PhDThe Art of Health Promotion

Larry S. Chapman, MPHResearchData Base

Troy Adams, PhDFinancial Analysis

Ron Z. Goetzel, PhDMeasurement Issues

Shawna L. Mercer, MSc, PhD

Your Best Source for the Latest Research andBest Practices in Health Promotion

“ The American Journal of Health Promotion provides a forum for that rare commodity— practical and intellectual exchange between researchers and practitioners. ”

Kenneth E. Warner, PhDDean and Avedis Donabedian Distinguished University Professor of Public HealthSchool of Public Health, University of Michigan

“ The contents of the American Journal of Health Promotion are timely, relevant, andmost important, written and reviewed by the most respected researchers in our field. ”

David R. Anderson, PhD, LPSenior Vice President & Chief Health Officer, StayWell Health Management

Subscribe today...ANNUAL SUBSCRIPTION RATES: (Available 1/1/10. Good through 12/31/10)

INDIVIDUAL INSTITUTIONPrint & Online Print Online Print & Online

U.S. $139 $177 $359 $359

Canada and Mexico $148 $186 $359 $368

Other Countries $157 $195 $359 $377

Call 800-783-9913 (U.S. only) or 818-760-8520

Definition of Health Promotion“Health Promotion is the art and science of helpingpeople discover the synergies between their corepassions and optimal health, enhancing their motivationto strive for optimal health, and supporting them inchanging their lifestyle to move toward a state of optimalhealth. Optimal health is a dynamic balance of physical,emotional, social, spiritual, and intellectual health.Lifestyle change can be facilitated through acombination of learning experiences that enhanceawareness, increase motivation, and build skills and, mostimportant, through the creation of opportunities that openaccess to environments that make positive health practicesthe easiest choice.”

(O’Donnell, American Journal of Health Promotion, 2009, 24,1,iv)

DIMENSIONS OFOPTIMAL HEALTH

fOnline

subscriptionsnow available

Check out our new online format:http://www.HealthPromotionJournal.com/online.htm

ADfpSUB_2010_revV1:ADfp 3/5/10 3:47 PM Page 1

http://www.HealthPromotionJournal.com/online.htm

Health Promoting Community Design Route Preferences Among...

Documents

Transcript of Health Promoting Community Design Route Preferences Among...