The District of Columbia is enjoying rapid growth in cycling, evident through trends in census mode share data and in the presence of more cyclists out on the street. The District Department of Transportation (DOT) has spent significant resources in the past two decades to improve active transportation planning, outreach, and infrastructure delivery. These efforts have led to the District’s recognition as a cycling-friendly city. Now the District DOT is taking stock of what has been done to improve cycling thus far and to determine what to do next. The District DOT is starting to ask what is driving the growth in the cycling mode share. How can the District understand, nurture, and expand on that growth in the cycling mode share? This study explored underlying relationships in which the District’s cycling mode share was present. The analysis dug deeply by doing (a) a statistical analysis to identify key factors that influenced cycling and (b) a spatial analysis that defined trends in accessibility to cycling facilities and the mobility of the cycling network. Findings from this research will help inform District DOT planners on what policy, operational, outreach, and capital investment levers to consider as they continue to promote cycling in the District going forward.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
moveDC. District Department of Transportation, Washington, D.C., 2015.
DillJ., and CarrT.. Bicycle Commuting and Facilities in Major U.S. Cities: If You Build Them, Commuters Will Use Them. Transportation Research Record: Journal of the Transportation Research Board, No. 1828, 2003, pp. 116–123. https://dx.doi.org/10.3141/1828-14.
6.
MoudonA. V., LeeC., CheadleA. D., CollierC. W., JohnsonD., SchmidT. L., and WeatherR. D.. Cycling and the Built Environment, a U.S. Perspective. Transportation Research Part D: Transport and Environment, Vol. 10, No. 3, May2005, pp. 245–261. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.trd.2005.04.001.
7.
TaylorD., and MahmassaniH. S.. Analysis of Stated Preferences for Intermodal Bicycle–Transit Interfaces. Transportation Research Record, No. 1556, 1996, pp. 86–95. https://dx.doi.org/10.3141/1556-11.
8.
TilahunN. Y., LevinsonD. M., and KrizekK. J.. Trails, Lanes, or Traffic: Valuing Bicycle Facilities with an Adaptive Stated Preference Survey. Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice, Vol. 41, No. 4, May2007, pp. 287–301. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tra.2006.09.007.
9.
AkarG., and CliftonK. J.. Influence of Individual Perceptions and Bicycle Infrastructure on Decision to Bike. Transportation Research Record: Journal of the Transportation Research Board, No. 2140, 2009, pp. 165–172. https://dx.doi.org/10.3141/2140-18.
10.
ParkerK. M., GustatJ., and RiceJ. C.. Installation of Bicycle Lanes and Increased Ridership in an Urban, Mixed-Income Setting in New Orleans, Louisiana. Journal of Physical Activity and Health, Vol. 8, Supplement 1, 2011, pp. S98–S102. https://doi.org/10.1123/jpah.8.s1.s98.
11.
NelsonA. C., and AllenD.. If You Build Them, Commuters Will Use Them: Association Between Bicycle Facilities and Bicycle Commuting. Transportation Research Record, No. 1578, 1997, pp. 79–83. https://dx.doi.org/10.3141/1578-10.
12.
PucherJ., and BuehlerR.. Analysis of Bicycling Trends and Policies in Large North American Cities: Lessons for New York City. Research and Innovative Technology Administration, U.S. Department of Transportation, and the University Transportation Research Consortium, New York, 2011.
13.
Bike to Work Day 2017. Event information. Metropolitan Washington, D.C., region. League of American Bicyclists, Washington, D.C., 2016. http://www.biketoworkmetrodc.org/event-info. Accessed July 18, 2016.
LucasK., van WeeB., and MaatK.. A Method to Evaluate Equitable Accessibility: Combining Ethical Theories and Accessibility-Based Approaches. Transportation, Vol. 43, No. 3, 2016, pp. 473–490. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11116-015-9585-2.
17.
DillJ.Measuring Network Connectivity for Bicycling and Walking. Presented at 83rd Annual Meeting of the Transportation Research Board, Washington, D.C., 2004.
GreavesS., EllisonR., EllisonA., CraneM., RisselC., and StandenC.. Changing in Cycling Following an Infrastructure Intervention. Presented at 37th Australasian Transport Research Forum, Sydney, Australia, 2015.
20.
NiakiM. S. N., SaunierN., and Miranda-MorenoL. F.. A Methodology to Quantify Discontinuities in a Cycling Network: Case Study in Montreal Boroughs. Presented at 95th Annual Meeting of the Transportation Research Board, Washington, D.C., 2016.
21.
BoisjolyG., and El-GeneidyA.. Are We Connected? Assessing Bicycle Network Performance Through Directness and Connectivity Measures: A Montreal, Canada, Case Study. Presented at 95th Annual Meeting of the Transportation Research Board, Washington, D.C., 2016.
22.
LeeY. J., ChoiJ. Y., YuJ., and ChoiK.. Geographical Applications of Performance Measures for Transit Network Directness. Journal of Public Transportation, Vol. 18, No. 2, 2015, pp. 89–110. https://doi.org/10.5038/2375-0901.18.2.7.
An Overview of Transportation and Environmental Justice. Publication FHWA-EP-00-013. FHWA, U.S. Department of Transportation, 2000.
25.
PérezB. O., DeyS. S., and MaY.. Toward a More Meterless Parking System: User Demographic Factors Influencing Adoption and Usage of Pay by Cell (PBC) Services in Washington, D.C. Presented at 95th Annual Meeting of the Transportation Research Board, Washington, D.C., 2016.
