1Bicycle Commuting and Facilities in Major U.S. Cities:If You Build Them, Commuters Will Use Them – Another LookJennifer Dill and Theresa Carr, Portland State UniversityABSTRACTSome surveys indicate that providing bicycle lanes and paths may encourage more people to commute by bicycle.The presence of a striped lane or separated path can increase a cyclist’s perception of safety. With growing concernsover traffic congestion and vehicle pollution, public policy makers are increasingly promoting bicycling as analternative for commuting and other utilitarian trip purposes. States and local spending on bicycle facilities hasincreased significantly over the past decade. Previous studies have linked higher levels of bicycle commuting tovarious demographic and geographic variables. At least one analysis showed that cities with higher levels of bicycleinfrastructure (lanes and paths) also saw higher levels of bicycle commuting. This research affirms that finding byanalyzing data from 35 large cities across the U.S. This cross-sectional analysis improves on previous research byincluding a larger sample of cities, not including predominantly ‘college towns,’ and using consistent data from theCensus 2000 Supplemental Survey. While the analysis has limitations, it does support the assertion that new bicyclelanes in large cities will be used by commuters.INTRODUCTIONIncreasing concern over vehicle congestion and pollution in urban areas has led to an interest in promoting bicycleuse for non-recreation (utilitarian) purposes. This interest is evident at all levels of government. In the IntermodalSurface Transportation Efficiency Act (ISTEA) of 1991, the U.S. Congress opened up new sources of funding forbicycle facilities. These new funding sources continued with the Transportation Equity Act for the 21stCentury(TEA-21) of 1998 and have impacted spending nationwide. In 1991, states and MPOs spent $17.1 million in federalfunds on stand-alone bicycle and pedestrian projects. This figure grew to $339.1 million in 2001 (1). In addition,federal planning requirements now include consideration of bicyclists in state and MPO long-range transportationplans. Bicycle projects must be considered in conjunction with all newly constructed and reconstructed facilitieswhere bicycling is permitted (2). Promoting bicycle travel for utilitarian purposes is a federal objective. In 1994, theU.S. Department of Transportation released the National Bicycling and Walking Study (NBWS). One of the goalsof the NBWS was to double the share of trips made by foot or bicycle (3).With an increased public policy focus on bicycling, researchers and planners are trying to better comprehend whatmotivates people to use a bicycle instead of a motorized vehicle. The 1994 NBWS reviewed existing literature tounderstand why bicycling is not used more extensively (4). Reasons were categorized as either “1. Subjective factorswhich have less to do with measurable conditions than with personal perception and interpretation of one’s needs”or “2. Objective, physical factors which exist for everyone, though they may not be weighed equally by everyone”(p. 6). Subjective factors include distance, traffic safety, convenience, cost, valuation of time, valuation of exercise,physical condition, family circumstances, habits, attitudes and values, and peer group acceptance. Objective factorsinclude climate, topography, presence of bicycle facilities and traffic conditions, access and linkage, andtransportation alternatives. Pucher et al identify eight factors that affect the level of cycling in North America: publicattitude and cultural differences; public image; city size and density; cost of car use and public transport; income;climate; danger; and cycling infrastructure (5).Public policy can influence most of these factors, to varying degrees. Current U.S. policy has focused largely onproviding bicycle infrastructure, mainly through new funding made available through ISTEA and TEA-21 (5).Based on studies from the late 1970s and early 1980s, the NBWS concluded that bikeways (i.e., lanes and paths)“will significantly affect subjective perceptions of safety” (p. 11). The study also cited surveys conducted by avariety of sources. For example, 12 – 17 percent of the active bicyclists surveyed in Phoenix, AZ, Seattle, WA, andPortland, OR identified a ‘lack of facilities’ as a reason for not commuting to work by bicycle. Trip distance was themost frequently cited reason. A Harris Poll conducted in 1991 found that 49 percent of active bicycle riders who didnot currently commute by bicycle said they would sometimes commute by bicycle if there were safe bike lanes.Similar surveys in Davis, CA and Seattle, WA found that 12 and 41 percent, respectively, of cyclists wouldTRB 2003 Annual Meeting CD-ROM Paper revised from original submittal.2commute by bicycle if there were safer routes. The results of these types of surveys, however, are influenced by thewording of the questions and they only reveal what people might do, rather than what they actually do.EMPIRICAL RESEARCHOf course, actual behavior does not always reflect stated preferences or desired choices. Using attitudinal surveys topredict shifts in travel due to bicycle improvements can overestimate demand for new facilities (6). While Pucher etal agreed that separate bike lanes and paths make cycling more attractive to non-cyclists, they did not find any“rigorous statistical studies” that demonstrated their impact on cycling. They also speculated that, to some extent,the provision of such facilities could be a response to the level of cycling in an area, rather than a cause.Bicycling is predominantly a recreational activity in the U.S. Data from the Bureau of Transportation Statistics(BTS) Omnibus Survey for 2002 reveals that 14.3 percent of the adult respondents rode a bicycle in the previousmonth (7). Of those, 53.9 percent did so primarily for recreation and 31.2 percent did so primarily for exercise. Only4.9 percent bicycled primarily for commuting to work or school and 7.5 percent for personal errands. The survey didnot ask for secondary purposes. Also, those people bicycling primarily for exercise might be going to work. Of thebicycle commuters, 11.0 percent rode primarily on bike lanes, compared to 5.6 percent of the recreational cyclists.McDonald and Burns (8) found that regular bicycle commuters in Phoenix adjusted their routes to use bicyclefacilities,