Community-Level Strategies for Promoting Bicycling

CHAPTE R 6

Community-Level Strategies for Promoting Bicycling Community-level approaches for promoting or changing behavior are long-standing strategies for impacting population-level health outcomes. These approaches have the potential to influence participation in a behavior for all of those who are residing in the community or interacting with the community (e.g., visitors). When considering the community as a target for approaches, this implies that the community itself will be changing to support behaviors for its members. The community is a resource, and support for behavior change falls across multiple organizations or sectors to support the end goal (i.e., increased biking). Since a community incorporates social and cultural influences as well as the physical environment, organizations and policies, there are multiple opportunities for collaboration and connection to community members. The US Centers for Disease Control and Prevention strongly support the use of community-based strategies to promote and maintain positive health behaviors because of the significant body of evidence supporting their effectiveness.1 Building off the organizational level strategies discussed in Chapter 5, this chapter will discuss a number of broader approaches designed to impact biking behavior at a community level. These evidence-based strategies have evolved dramatically over the past decade in countries around the world and provide support for biking in the form of education/ encouragement (Open Streets/Ciclovias, educational campaigns, bicycle coalitions) or supportive engineering (end of trip facilities, bike shares, connection with public transportation). In conjunction with strategies discussed in other chapters, these approaches help to support biking at a broader scale.

Open Streets & Ciclovias Cicloviá (Spanish for cycleway) or Open Streets campaigns are events that close streets to automobiles for cyclists and pedestrians. These events are held by communities for a multitude of reasons that could be public health, environmental, economic, social, or community-building. Although Bogotá, Colombia is globally recognized as a the leader in Cicloviás (established in 1974), Seattle, Washington was among the first to launch a car-free

Bicycling for Transportation http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/B978-0-12-812642-4.00006-4

113

Copyright © 2018 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

114  Chapter 6 initiative in 1965, providing cyclists with an opportunity to ride between parks without car traffic.2 After having these events began, Open Streets programs have been launched across the world. A typical Open Streets event will involve planning from multiple community partners namely local government and law enforcement, neighborhood organizations, local citizen groups, and many others, depending on the scope of the event. Funding can range from full public funding to full private funding, with various hybrids in between. Communities outline a route for the event, with some only a few blocks long to others which are several miles long; routes can be linear or a loop. Events are held weekly, monthly, or annually, depending upon community interest, planning capabilities, and funding. Community residents are encouraged to bike, walk, wheel, rollerblade, skateboard, or any other type of movement along the route. Many communities include activity stations (e.g., yoga classes on the road), children’s activities (e.g., games, crafts), educational displays, food booths, or other community activities along the route.2 For many communities, “taking back” the street from the vehicle traffic is a goal of the event, encouraging physical activity, increasing familiarity with the streets and promoting confidence for pedestrians and cyclists. In the United States, a 2016 review of Open Streets events3 found 122 unique programs, with the majority launched since 2010. Most events were offered once a year for approximately 4 h, with a route of less than 5 km. Events were held in communities of all sizes, with an average reach of 5000–9999 participants. Sarimento4 noted that globally, the bulk of Cicloviás/Open Streets programs are found in Latin American Countries, noting significant expansion since 2000. Latin American Cicloviás found a median reach of 1600, a mean route length of 9.1 km with physical activity classes and events related to promoting biking were included at these events the majority of the time. Latin American events also were fairly successful at engaging low-income and ethnic minority populations.5 In terms of impact on relevant outcomes, evaluation efforts have attempted to capture the wide range of possible effects of Open Streets events. A 6-mile long Cicloviá in Los Angeles in 2014 attracted between 37,7000–53,950 participants and generated 1765,500–263,000 MET hours of energy expenditure. Researchers estimated this yield, compared with the cost of putting on the event, to be $1.29–1.91 (USD) per MET hour. Since many who attended the event indicated that would have been engaging in sedentary events, this investment could result in health improvements.6 Atlanta’s Streets Alive program, San Diego’s CicloSDias and San Francisco’s Ciclovia also saw a contribution to residents daily physical activity.7–9 A qualitative analysis of Open Streets programs in the United States revealed that increasing biking was among many communities’ goals for their initiatives. Many programs sought to reach diverse populations or specific neighborhoods to expose them to opportunities for physical activity. Communities noted a number of challenges associated with the events,

Community-Level Strategies for Promoting Bicycling  115 including funding, planning/organizing and logistics.10 It is difficult to determine the exact impact on biking in a community as a result of Open Streets programs; however, often other adjacent outcomes can impact biking. For example in San Diego, evaluation of their first Ciclovia found support for a bike share program as well as biking infrastructure11 and attendees indicated that they were aware of new transportation options as a result of a Fort Collins, Colorado Open Streets event.12

Educational or Promotional Campaigns Community-wide campaigns to promote or change a particular behavior have long been a staple of health promotion programs, known for their widespread reach and effectiveness.13 Many of these campaigns follow the tenants of social marketing to change behavior. The basic principles of social marketing include focusing on a specific behavior (e.g., biking to work, driver awareness of bicyclists), a consideration of the benefits (e.g., improved health, decreased accidents), and understanding the community’s needs and desires (e.g., attitudes towards bicycling).14 Another important part of these types of campaigns include audience segmentation, which refers to how different subgroups of the population are targeted. Segmentation could occur via demographics (e.g., teens, women, a particular ethnic group), by role (e.g., driver vs. bicyclist), in terms of readiness to change behavior (e.g., those who are contemplating biking to work), or by some other noticeable defining characteristic.

Share the Road and Safety-Oriented Campaigns Some campaigns oriented toward safety have focused primarily on driver behavior to engage safe practices on the road. One of the most widely used campaigns is the “Share the Road” campaign, focused on drivers and bicyclists co-existing on roadways. These types of campaigns may include not only permanent signage but also social marketing messages via print, web, radio, television, billboards, or social media. Campaigns have ranged from simple messages about sharing the roadway to those creating an emotional response. For example the Bike Pittsburgh campaign included photos and messages indicating that cyclists were local community members. The effectiveness of Share the Road campaigns is somewhat unknown, given their goal of widespread reach throughout communities evaluation is often challenging. In Queensland, Australia, a public education campaign was launched to raise awareness among motorists and cyclists for sharing the road. This campaign ran parallel with efforts to increase biking in general in the region and the focus on safety was imperative. Campaign activities included television advertisements and other promotional strategies and an evaluation found

116  Chapter 6 good awareness of the message, though an effect on driver behavior was not able to be assessed.15 In terms of the type of messaging, research has indicated that the phrasing of the message may be impactful. Hess and Peterson reviewed “Bicycles May Use Full Lane,” “Share the Road,” and shared lane markings to assess perceptions of safety. “Bicycles May Use Full Lane” signage communicated the message of sharing the road better than other signs, increasing perceptions of safety and better comprehension among cyclists and motorists.16 Though this study had a limited audience it indicates that it is important to consider the effect of the message’s impact on the intended audience within the community.

Standard Share the Road Signage.

Share the Road Sign at Ohio State University. Ohio State University.

Community-Level Strategies for Promoting Bicycling  117

Bike Pittsburgh’s Share the Road Campaign. Bike Pittsburgh.

The Road Safety Trust Project, a partnership of the Cycling Action Network and Cycling New Zealand, was a comprehensive approach targeting cycling safety. The project included cyclist skills training for youth and adults and workshops for all road users (drivers, pedestrians, and cyclists). Reach for the project was widespread, including preparing 150 cyclists skills instructors to train 6297 youth, delivering road safety training to 580 adults,

118  Chapter 6 and offering 12 road user workshops, reaching 473 participants.17 This extensive safetyoriented program combined both messaging along with skill-building and awareness to have greater impact and reach throughout the community.

Campaigns or Strategies to Promote Community-Level Biking Although we discussed a number of campaigns to promote biking and active travel in schools, universities, and worksites in Chapter 5, relatively few campaigns have promoted biking behavior in general. The Give Active Transportation a Go! Campaign in London, Ontario was a collaborative within multiple divisions of London city government in 2015. The campaign was focused on promoting active travel within the city and used a variety of approaches to encourage biking. In addition to developing educational materials for their website and partnering with local worksites, they developed social media advertisements, had ads on the radio, and included campaign messages at local events. The campaign reported moderate reach and dissemination of their messages, but the impact on biking behavior was not assessed.18 A community-based cycling promotion program in Sydney, Australia used a social marketing framework, education about local biking resources, incentives (e.g., water bottles), and skill-based cycling courses. The intervention was successful in promoting cycling, with a significant increase in participation and use of bicycle infrastructure.19 Reviews of the limited number of interventions targeting biking specific have been focused in a variety of community settings targeting a range of populations and results have shown moderate improvements in rates of participation for different groups.20,21

Technology-Based Approaches As with other behavior change and health promoting initiatives, the use of technology is growing rapidly in this area. The US Department of Transportation Federal Highway Administration reviewed a variety of types of smartphone applications for travel choices.22 This agency identifies a number of app categories that could be useful for promoting biking, including: mobility trackers, public transit apps, trip aggregator apps (for those using multiple modes of travel within a trip), health-related apps, and environment and energy consumption apps. Many of these apps are consumer oriented for helping to change or increase behavior, as was highlighted in the university-based Active Lions app in Chapter 5, though a limited research exists on the effectiveness of these apps for active travel.23 Communities are increasingly using mobile technology to gather information on cycling behavior in a region in order to make repairs, adjustments to infrastructure or policy shifts. A white paper from the Pedestrian and Bicycle Information Center noted that crowdsourcing cycling information (gathering data from many users) offers broad and diverse perspectives, assistance with transportation planning, local and timely data from individuals who use and

Community-Level Strategies for Promoting Bicycling  119 interact with the environment. Building these forms of datasets can provide an opportunity for interaction and discussion between the users and the planners to ensure all voices are heard.24 The information garnered from these types of approaches include mobile apps that gather real time data on travel (e.g., Strava, Map my Fitness), thumbtack data where individuals can add points to a map about a specific location (e.g., identifying a road hazard location), or spatial inventory data where users share information about local environmental features (e.g., noting good cycle paths or trails). This information can be used to help plan further bike-related projects, allocate resources and identify problem areas. An example of a thumbtack type app is the Austin Ride Report which allows bicycle riders to report troublesome or exceptional street conditions. Information is shared within the user network to indicate which routes may be difficult for some riders and which may be more comfortable.25 The Toronto Cycling app is an example of an app that gathers trip information, including the route taken and length of the trip. Users can also complete a survey about their route after the trip.26 These types of technology-based approaches are one more tool for communities to use in promoting biking, as well as gathering insightful information for further planning.

Bicycle Advocacy Groups/Coalitions Perhaps the strongest tool most communities have in their toolbox for promoting biking is a bicycle advocacy group or coalition. These organizations, representing a defined region (e.g., city, county, or state), represent the needs and wants of the cycling community. Organizations can be entirely volunteer-led or a mixture of paid and volunteer staff. Typically these organizations serve their communities in multiple ways: providing education and encouragement through programs and campaigns, serving as an advocate to local law makers to support the needs of cyclists, providing insight on issues related to the environment and biking-related infrastructure, creating a social network around biking and overall being concerned with the “culture” of biking in their community. In large communities this organization serves as major partner for most biking related initiatives. A survey of bicycle coalitions indicated that they saw their most important role as serving as a voice for bikers in urban planning, indicating their importance within community networks. The most common partners that coalitions noted were parks and recreation departments, local schools, local media and transit organizations.27 The Alliance for Biking and Walking has consistently emphasized the importance of strong advocacy for promoting biking in communities; the noted in their 2016 Benchmarking Report that the majority of the top cities for biking in the United States have strong advocacy groups that support bicycle education for youth and adults, as well as community-wide events such as Bike to Work day.28 Additional data examined the relationship between the percent of a city’s population that actively commutes to work and the size and capacity of their biking and pedestrian advocacy groups. A strong positive relationship was found; cities like Seattle and Portland with strong advocacy groups saw among the highest rates of active travel while cities

120  Chapter 6 with relatively little or no advocacy representation like Dallas had among the lowest rates of active travel for big cities.29 This relationship is essential to understand the strong role that these coalitions can play, though many indicate a lack of capacity related to limited volunteers or financial resources or low capabilities for seeking funding.27 This is a modifiable factor and could easily be targeted with capacity building and training for these organizations in order to see a significant return on cycling related advocacy, education, and encouragement in communities.

Bike Share Programs Bike sharing is a way to increase access to bicycles for community members and visitors to a community. It is an important transit option for communities and provides residents and visitors the opportunity to bicycle for transportation while not having to commit to the costs or logistics associated with owning a bicycle. Bike sharing began in the 1970s with a few programs in Europe though programs have steadily increased globally.30 As of 2017, there were approximately 1000 bike sharing programs around the world, many at the community level, but also universities and businesses operate bike sharing programs. In the United States alone, there have been 88 million bike share trips take since 2010, with more than 40,000 public bike share bicycles nationwide as of 2016, showing the rapid growth in the country.31 Fig. 6.1 shows the countries with the most bike sharing programs. Bike sharing programs have significantly increased in Asian countries during the last decade, leading to expanded access to biking across the continent. Globally, bike share programs range in size and complexity to serve the needs of their community. Rental models have evolved with bike shares; previously they were coin-operated or used a paper-pencil checkout procedure, whereas current large scale bike shares use technology to facilitate use, payment and

Figure 6.1: Number of Bike Share Programs by Country.

Community-Level Strategies for Promoting Bicycling  121 check-ins. Large-scale programs feature multiple stations where bikes are docked. Users can check out a bike at the docking station via the attached kiosk with a smartphone application. Increasingly it is more common for the technology for checking in and out to be located in the bike rather than the kiosks; 13% of bike share bikes in circulation are now “smart bikes.”31 Bikes tend to be simple to use with basic features (baskets, lights, locks), single gear and coaster breaks and are visually distinct (color, design, signage). Bike share programs are operated in different ways in different communities; some are fully funded through the public sector, others are a public-private partnership and some operate as a private entity. The operation of the system can impact accessibility and interaction with other forms of transit in the community. For the most part, bike share trips are short; in the USA, trips last 12 min for members and 25 min for occasional users.31

San Diego, CA Bike Share Bicycle.

San Diego, CA Bike Share Docking Station.

122  Chapter 6 The largest bike sharing programs have streamlined checkout procedures and interact well with other forms of transportation in the city. A list of the largest bike sharing programs in the world is found in Table 6.1.32 Overwhelmingly, both the largest number of bike share programs and the largest programs are found in China. As noted by the year implemented in Table 6.1, there was a significant increase in programs after 2010. Chapter 10 also discusses the ride of bike share programs in Asia. Table 6.1: Largest bike share programs. City

Country

Year Launched

Number of Bicycles Number of Stations

Hangzhou Xi’an Weifang Taiyan Suzhou Ningbo Paris Zhuzhou Shanghai Xuhou Beijing Taizhou Zhuhai Yangzhou Zhongshan Wuhu London Qingzhou Hohhot Kunshan Huizhou Shaoxing New York City Mexico City Taipei Montreal Foshan Barcelona Nantong Chicago Seoul Warsaw Jiaxing Brussels

China China China China China China France China China China China China China China China China UK China China China China China USA Mexico China Canada China Spain China USA South Korea Poland China Belgium

2008 2011 2013 2012 2009 2013 2007 2011 2009 2012 2012 2010 2012 2014 2011 2012 2010 2010 2013 2011 2012 2011 2013 2010 2009 2009 2010 2007 2013 2013 2015 2012 2011 2009

85,800 52,000 46,780 41,000 41,000 30,000 20,600 20,000 19,000 18,000 17,000 13,500 12,800 12,500 12,380 12,000 11,945 10,300 10,140 10,000 10,000 9,000 8,020 6,500 6,406 6,200 6,000 6,000 6,000 5,837 5,600 4,660 4,500 4,200

3770 1800 2100 1262 1785 1240 1541 1058 600 480 538 345 526 407 589 553 772 550 330 343 100 204 525 452 196 540 380 420 300 576 450 316 316 346

Source: Meddin R, DeMaio P. BikeSharing map; 2017. https://www.google.com/maps/d/u/0/viewer?ll=1.054627907727608%2C42.890624&spn=143.80149%2C154.6875&hl=en&msa=0&z=1&source=embed&ie=UTF8&om=1&mid=1UxYw9YrwT_ R3SGsktJU3D-2GpMU.

Community-Level Strategies for Promoting Bicycling  123

Benefits of Bike Share Programs Considering the widespread potential impact of bike share programs, it is essential to consider the benefits associated with bike share programs, which include health, economic and environmental outcomes. Communities considering the development of a bike share program will need to consider the balance of these outcomes along with any associated costs (perceived or actual) to address the transportation needs of their population. Health Outcomes As we outlined in Chapter 2, the benefits of regular participation in biking or active travel are well established, included a decreased risk of chronic disease, pre-mature mortality, improved fitness and body composition and fewer mental health problems. As a review by Bauman indicates, it is difficult to separate the positive health effects of biking from any kind of impact that bike share programs offer.33 Perhaps the most significant effect the bike share programs have is to offer increased access for the general population to the benefits of biking. Many regular bike share users tend to be already active and typically engage in active travel frequently, though Bauman estimates that access to a bike share program will benefit about 3.3% of the population that already cycle but do not currently meet physical activity guidelines, resulting in positive health outcomes.33 An examination of the bike share in Montreal, Canada (featured in the case study) found that the launch of the bike share program was associated with an increase in mode share for biking, and this shift away from passive forms of travel could result in the noted health benefits of cycling.34 Case Study 6.1: BIXI Bike Share in Montreal The BIXI bike share in Montreal, Quebec, Canada was launched in 2009 with 5000 bikes and has grown to be the largest program in Canada, rivaling other programs from around the world in size. By 2016 the program has 6200 bikes and 540 stations throughout the city of Montreal, operating between April and November, resulting in 4,099,829 trips. BIXI offers annual, short-term and daily memberships for frequent users as well as short-term access for occasional use. Although members account for 81% of all trips, occasional users represent 90.8% of all users.35 Montreal presents some significant natural challenges to their bike share, but BIXI addresses these issues well. Essentially an island in the Saint Lawrence River surrounded by hilly slopes, biking can be a challenge. The majority of the BIXI stations are located downtown in a flatter region of the city and the bike share program takes care to rebalance almost hourly throughout the day to address downhill/commuting into the city challenges. Additionally, the presence of long and snowy winters means that the bike share program shuts down in the winter months; typically between November and April. The Montreal bike share has been thoroughly researched from a variety of perspectives, providing insight into not only its own operation but also for other programs. As the city prepared to launch the bike share, researchers aimed to document public perceptions of bike

124  Chapter 6 share programs in general, as well as public transportation. They found that perceptions of bike share were much more positive if people were living near a potential bike share station (i.e., they would see direct benefit). They also found that negative perceptions declined over time as people were exposed to the program.36 In terms of benefit to the community, it was determined that it took a little while for the community to directly recognize the benefits; the related increases in cycling were recognized more so in the second year of implementation.34,37 Use of the bike share was associated with younger age, higher education, greater intention and self-efficacy for biking, proximity to a bike share station and already using bicycling as a mode of commute.38,39 Unlike many cities, the Montreal bike share program has good access for individuals of all income levels; analyses showed that low-income neighborhoods had better access to transportation infrastructure, including bike share, compared with higher income neighborhoods.40 The Montreal BIXI bike share program remains an example for other North American bike share programs in terms of reach and impact throughout the city.

In addition to the benefits associated with bike share use, it is essential to consider some of the possible negative health outcomes, namely injury resulting from crashes. Long-time opponents of bike share programs will often indicate that more people riding bicycles in a community will result in an increase in automobile-cyclist or pedestrian-cyclist crashes. Despite these common concerns, there are limited data to support this claim. Fishman and Schepers’ longitudinal examination of global bike share programs noted that the introduction of a bike share program was associated with a decreased risk of bike injury and that bike share users were less likely than other cyclists to be injured or killed.41 However, in an analysis of North American bike share cities, Graves42 found that the introduction of a bike share program was associated with a community-wide increase in cycling-related head injuries relative to comparison cities with no bike share program. Given the higher rates of cycling injury in North America relative to other countries, this finding is not surprising.43,44 This presents some debate on the requirement of helmet use with bike share programs, which weighs the added barrier to bike share use of access to helmets with prevention of injury. Many critics point to helmet use requirements as a contributing factor to the 2017 failure of the Seattle, Washington bike share program.45–47 Helmet use among bike share users varies greatly by city and country. An analysis of helmet use for riders of New York’s Citi Bike found a use rate of 2.9%–9.2%, depending on docking station location, with an average of 11.1% of users wearing helmets. Cyclists coming into the city were more likely to wear a helmet compared with those who were outgoing.48 In Toronto, rates of helmet use for bike share users varied by gender (females > males) and age (older > younger) but did not vary by employment status, education or income level.49 Fisher and colleagues’50 analysis of bike share users in Boston, MA and Washington DC noted that bike share users (48.6%) were less likely to wear a helmet than those riding private bicycles (80.8%), also noting that men were less likely to wear helmets as well as those who rode on weekends compared with weekdays. Further research is needed to examine predictors of helmet use and the impact on injury rates, though much of the existing evidence and industry opinion indicate that helmet use remains a significant challenge for bike share programs.51,52

Community-Level Strategies for Promoting Bicycling  125 Economic and Environmental Outcomes As with any strategy designed to increase biking, the potential for positive economic and environmental outcome is present. Much of the hypothesized potential on the environmental impact of bike share programs is focused on mode substitutions, with a decrease in the number of trips in personal vehicles and resulting reduction in air pollution as the main positive outcome.53 Despite this potential, the research in this area is very limited and conflicting. A review by Fishman52 indicates a small mode shift from personal vehicle to bike share in Washington DC, Lyon France, Dublin Ireland, and Minneapolis Minnesota, with most bike share trips a result of a shift from public transport or walking, so large environmental impacts may not have recognized. Other research of Montreal and Toronto bike shares have shown similar results.51 Nonetheless, bike shares contribute to many of the environmental benefits from greater levels of community biking outlined in Chapter 2. The economic benefits of bike share programs have been examined from a variety of perspectives. An analysis of the Capitol Bikeshare program showed that businesses perceived a positive impact of bike share on both their sales and the neighborhood, and most were open to having a bike share station located in front of their business.54 Spending per week at local businesses was also noted to be higher near bike share stations in Washington. Data from Europe also found increased access and spending at tourist destinations with access to bike share.55 As outlined in Chapter 5, having infrastructure to promote biking has been shown to have a positive impact on business, and supporting bike share falls in line with these findings. Beyond the impact on economic interactions, bike share contributes to the economic benefits of a bikeable community as outlined in Chapter 2. Data from Montreal showed that properties within an 800m buffer of a bike share station were associated with a 2.7% increase in housing value. A study of the Pittsburgh Healthy Ride Bike Share showed that the installation of a bike share system led to increased sales and rental process in the zip codes where stations were located.56 Further research is needed to document how bike share impacts the local economy.

Challenges of Bike Shares Throughout the world, most bike shares face challenges, either from a logistical perspective or from user-related issues (e.g., rates of ridership). How a program addresses these challenges can result in the success or failure of the bike share, though many issues can be prevented or adequately planned for. Redistribution Use patterns for bike shares will vary widely by geographic location, time of day or by season, which presents a significant challenge in having bikes available where and when they are needed. Typically the bike share operator must use a vehicle of some type to transport bikes from different stations to ensure that supply equals demand. This function

126  Chapter 6 within a bike share program is typically costly and time consuming and, if using fossilfuel powered vehicles, can have a negative environmental impact.53,57 Some programs have opted to use different forms of cargo bikes to transport bike share bikes or alternative fuel vehicles. Providing real-time information about bike availability, via web or applicationbased platforms, can help facilitate more efficient use of the system and combat some of these issues.58 Research in the planning phase can help combat some of the issues associated with rebalancing; however, most programs will still need to address this challenge.30

Cargo Bike for Redistributing Bike Share Bicycles. Peter Meitzler.

Link With Public Transportation Ideally a bike share program interacts seamlessly with other forms of transportation in a community and both are more effective if the systems work well together.59 This could include supportive infrastructure such as adequate bike parking at transit stations or bike share stations near a major transit center. Other strategies could include logistical support where bike share is managed by a transportation authority and user fees could be linked with public transit passes. As noted above, some research suggests that bike share is often both complimentary and competitive with public transit, which presents a challenge for cooperation. In Hangzhou, China research indicated that this was the case and an effort was made to adjust where stations were located to best serve the needs of the community and overall decrease car use.60 In Najing, China, a study indicated that perceived utility of the connectivity to transit was moderated by demographics: female, older and lowincome transit users were less likely to connect to transit with bike share compared with others.61 Analyses have indicated that the busiest bike share stations are closest to busy

Community-Level Strategies for Promoting Bicycling  127 transit stations have the highest rate of utilization.62 Adequate planning is essential to best leverage bike share within an existing transportation network; a review of bike share programs in Austin, Texas and Chicago, Illinois found a weak relationship with bike share and transit, highlighting the importance of intermodal planning.63

Bike Share Station Outside Denver’s Union Station.

Other challenges bike share programs are associated with promoting use. A survey of bike share programs64 found that they perceived they did a poor job of reaching women, racial or ethnic minorities, low-income residents, and older adults. The most commonly cited barrier for bike share use was knowledge for use of and awareness of the bike share, presenting challenges, though modifiable ones, for education and encouragement. Most bike share programs indicated that increasing users and improved marketing were among their top shortterm goals. Understanding the factors that influence bike share use is important to document in order to develop targeted and tailored programs.

Factors Influencing Bike Share Use As outlined in Chapter 4 for general biking, the factors that influence bike share use can be categorized as personal, social/cultural, and environmental. Several reviews33,52 have looked comprehensively at these factors in an attempt to address issues associated with ridership and use. It is important to consider both modifiable factors; to see where efforts can be focused for education or encouragement; as well as non-modifiable factors; which may indicate where targeted efforts are needed or solutions needed for programmatic or environmental problems. Personal: Males are more likely than females to use bike share programs; as well such use is higher among younger residents, and in the United States and United Kingdom use

128  Chapter 6 is higher among Whites.38,52,65 As with biking in general, rates of use among low-income residents vary widely by location and no discernable trends are noted.33 Demographic trends for use indicate where programs can target specific populations, offering incentives, programming or outreach opportunities. Other research has identified the importance of understanding an individual’s motivation,66 attitudes and perceived behavioral control65,67, intention and self-efficacy,39 all of which could be targeted with educational or encouragement campaigns. One health-related barrier of bike sharing is a lack of fitness for irregular riders. The availability of electric bikes which offer pedal assistance, especially on hilly terrain can help address this challenge. The University of Tennessee’s cycleUshare was the first fully automated electric bicycle sharing program in the US. Charging stations were solar-powered and offered a sustainable solution for powering the fleet. Research with this fleet found that the energy expenditure for e-bike trips was approximately 24% lower than with traditional bicycles and participants reported lower perceived exertion and greater enjoyment.68 In Madrid, Spain, e-bikes were included as a part of the bike share to assist riders traveling up the city’s many hills. The inclusion of e-bikes had the original goal of reducing car travel and reducing congestion in the city by promoting travel on the city’s 1600+ bikes spread throughout 165 stations in the city. This option may help to address some of the fitness and health related barriers to bike share use.69

University of Tennessee E-bike Charging Station.

Community-Level Strategies for Promoting Bicycling  129

E-bike Station in Madrid. Nicole Vairo.

Social and cultural: Formative research for a university-based bike share highlighted the importance of social support for making the bike share successful and a part of the campus culture.70 In Minneapolis, having community support and creating norms around biking was noted to be import for the success of the bike share in a low-income community71 and a worksite bike share noted similar findings, indicating the importance of cultural norms and support for bike share use.72 In Montreal, a study of the public perceptions of the bike share was assessed, and perceptions of the bike share were more likely to be positive is an individual lived closer to a bike share station and perceived benefits (e.g., improved health) of the bike share improved across time.36 Environmental: Built and natural environmental influences on bike share use are well-studied. Hot or poor weather, steep terrain, or poor air quality have all been noted deterrents of bike share programs.31,52,73 Supportive biking infrastructure, station placement, and proximity to stations remain among the strongest influences on bike share use, indicating the importance for adequate research for station location.33,38,52,62,74,75

130  Chapter 6

End of Trip Facilities As noted earlier, one significant influence on biking among adults is the availability of support at the final destination. This can include the availability of ample, adequate bike parking, community accessible end of trip facilities (e.g., lockers, showers) or other things to improve the safety and convenience of bike travel. As outlined in Chapter 5, the Presence of some of these at schools, worksites or universities to support biking is also essential; however, the availability of these at the community level will have the potential for much larger impact. Chapter 7 will discuss how these facilities integrate with micro and macro level community design.

Bicycle Parking The availability of biking at the end of one’s trip remains one of the most important influences on an individual’s decision to travel via bike.44,76,77 Ideally, bike parking has high visibility for cyclists to spot easily when they arrive, provide security with adequate lighting and surveillance and space to secure bicycles, offers weather protection, and adequate clearance for maneuvering bicycles in and out of the rack.78,79 Racks used for short-term parking may offer more in terms of clearance and access whereas long-term parking would benefit more from weather protection. Features vary widely by rack design; different types of racks are found in Table 6.2. Significant research has indicated that the availability of bike parking can be a major facilitator or barrier to traveling via bicycle. Research on commuters in Washington DC found that having lots of car parking deterred biking while having access to adequate bike parking increased the likelihood of bike travel.82 On university campuses, proximal bike parking and distal car parking were also noted to encourage travel by bike.83,84 Different localities around the world have approached the availability of bike parking from a variety of methods. For example, in 2010, the government of Queensland, Australia passed a law indicating that end of trip facilities (which includes bicycle parking) must be included for all new major developments and additions within a designated area. This mandated that commercial office buildings, shopping centers, tertiary education facilities, and hospitals must have designated space for adequate bicycle parking.85 Other cities such as Philadelphia, Los Angeles, San Francisco, Vancouver, and Toronto have developed standards related to the availability and placement of bike parking through the city. Throughout this book we will continue to highlight the importance of well-designed bike parking as a method for encouraging travel by bicycle.

Bicycle Centers Although the availability of showers and lockers rooms are discussed elsewhere in this book (Chapters 5 and 7), bicycle centers are a community-level support for travelers with the potential for widespread reach. These centers provide services and support for individuals traveling via bicycle through physical infrastructure, and in many cases social support as well.

Table 6.2: Common types of bicycle parking (all photos also included separately). Type

Photo

Description A commonly used, easy to pull in rack. Can be accessible from both directions. Portable and can be freestanding. Only supports the bicycle at the wheel.

Double deck

Used to increase bicycle storage capacity in places with limited space. Upper tier racks adjust down to be easily accessible.

(Continued)

Community-Level Strategies for Promoting Bicycling  131

Triangle hinge racks

Type Decorative rack

U-Rack

Photo

Description Designed to fit in with the décor or landscape of an area.

U-racks are among the most common types of rack. Easily placed in a variety of locations. Offers support for the bike in 2 places, easy to lock.

132  Chapter 6

Table 6.2: Common types of bicycle parking (all photos also included separately). (cont.)

An extension of the U-rack but accommodates more bicycles. Only supports the bike in one spot.

Post and ring racks

Short vertical posts with a ring to allow for locking. Often used as bollards as well. Only supports the bike in one spot.

(Continued)

Community-Level Strategies for Promoting Bicycling  133

Wave rack

Type Grid bike racks

Wheel well secure

Photo

Description A pull in rack, space efficient but difficult to use a U-lock. Only supports the bicycle at the wheel.

Rack cradles one wheel with a loop for locking. Only supports the bicycle at the wheel.

134  Chapter 6

Table 6.2: Common types of bicycle parking (all photos also included separately). (cont.)

A secure, typically closed in space for storing a bicycle. Can be horizontal or vertical.

Bicycle barn

Secure facility, often with limited access that stores multiple bicycles.

Source: Federal Highway Administration. Lesson 17: Bicycle Parking and Storage. In: Federal Highway Administration University course on bicycle and pedestrian transportation. Washington (DC): U.S. Department of Transportation; 2006; Broom N. Essentials of bike parking. Lexington (KY): Association of Pedestrian and Bicycle Professionals; 2015.

Community-Level Strategies for Promoting Bicycling  135

Bicycle lockers

136  Chapter 6 Although there is no set requirement of features, most centers include ample secure, protected bicycle parking, access to showers and lockers and other features (e.g., education classes, bicycle repair facilities). There are different models of public and privately funded facilities; however, typically community members purchase a membership to access the center. The cycle center at King George Square in Brisbane Australia’s business district has a bicycle storage area, towel service, bicycle maintenance and repair shop, locker rooms and easy, safe access for cyclists operated by a private company in partnership with city government. Residents can purchase a membership to the facility and short-term use fees are also in place. An evaluation of the impact of this facility indicated the mode shift to biking was primarily from public transportation rather than automobile travel; however, analyses revealed a decline in number of vehicle miles traveled.86 Similar to the case study of the Santa Monica Bicycle Center, this facility reached predominately males, indicating some room for growth in how cycle centers serve the needs of women. In North America, Community bicycle centers are found in many cities including St. Louis, Chicago, Washington DC, San Francisco, and Tempe, AZ. In Europe, bicycle centers are found in Germany, the Netherlands, and Spain and Melbourne and Brisbane Australia have multiple bicycle center locations. The Santa Monica Bicycle Center is featured in the case study and outlines the extensive community reach of the center. The availability of facilities such as lockers and showers is noted to support biking in many different studies,76,77,87,88 though there is limited research to examine their direct impact on mode share. Case Study 6.2: Santa Monica Bicycle Center Contributors: Ron Durgin & Marcos Gonzales Located in the downtown area, the Santa Monica Bike Center serves as a “one-stop-shopping” for the biking needs of the community and is the largest full-service bike commuting facility in the United States. The Center, established in 2011, was developed as a public-private partnership between the City of Santa Monica, the company Bike & Park Santa Monica, and non-profit Sustainable Streets, to address some of the goals laid out in the city’s bike action plan. The unique mix of infrastructure, social support, education and advocacy make the Center a valuable community resource. Built in a space that originally housed just 27 car parking spots, the Center provides endof-trip facilities for members which include 24/7 access to secure bicycle parking, showers, lockers, towel service, and bike commuting consultation. Membership ranges from 200–275 individuals, depending on the season, is about 65% male and reflects the ethnic diversity of the city. For community members and visitors the Center offers valet bike parking, bike maintenance and repair with a mechanic available daily, bike education classes, bike rentals, and guided tours. The Commuter Bike Loaner program offered by the Center was developed to increase bike commuting among those who live or work in Santa Monica. It helps to remove some of the

Community-Level Strategies for Promoting Bicycling  137 initial barriers to bike commuting by offering a chance to borrow a bicycle and accessories (lock, panniers, and lights) for 2 weeks and a trial membership to the Center. Additionally the Center provides the riders a little assistance with route planning and other necessary skills for commuting. It is estimated that 60%–70% of individuals who enter the program end up being regular bike commuters. The Center, in partnership with Sustainable Streets, provides instruction from a League of American Bicyclists Cycling Instructor on biking skills and bike mechanic basics. Additionally the Center serves as a social hub for biking in the community, providing opportunities for building support and comradery. A ride tailored to local senior citizens not only builds biking skills for local residents but also helps with understanding issues and needs associated with biking for this population. In addition to these services, the Center serves as a key advocate for biking in the community, contributing a strong voice for biking related issues throughout the region. Additionally the Center provides consulting services for communities and organizations looking for solutions from experts to address bike-related issues. Their Bicycle Friendly Business program has helped several local businesses seek the designation from the League of American Bicyclists; the Center itself has been recognized as a platinum level business. The Santa Monica Bike Center aims to be more than an end-of trip facility for members or a beginning-of-trip facility for visitors seeking rentals, rather they hope to reach farther and engage non-bikers, impact the quality of life for the community and remain a key partner for promoting biking in the city.

Bicycles for Rent. Santa Monica Bike Center.

138  Chapter 6

Lockers for Members. Santa Monica Bike Center.

The Santa Monica Bike Center. Santa Monica Bike Center.

Public Transportation Support The link between public transportation systems and bicycling has been long established and the benefits of a well-designed connection increase mode share of both.59 The expanded network with a transit-biking connection allows for great options for travel with minimal

Community-Level Strategies for Promoting Bicycling  139 environmental impact and greater positive health outcomes. As noted above, having an adequate end of trip facilities increases rates of biking for transportation, and transit stations have longed played a significant role in providing these facilities. In the Netherlands where rates of travel by both modes are very high, large facilities outside of major train stations in Delft or Utrecht can house thousands of bicycles.89 As noted above, bicycle centers in or close to major transit hubs also provide support for biking at a community hub. These types of centers are located in major cities around the world. In Sao Paolo, Brazil ASCOBike, the largest bicycle parking facility in the Americas, is located next to a large suburban train station and offers parking spaces for 1700 bicycles for members who pay a small fee each month. Members are also provided with safety education, refreshments, bicycle maintenance and advocacy for bike-related issues.90 These types of facilities offer support for multi-modal trips for many members of the community. The impact of end of trip facilities at transit stations has not been extensively studied. In San Francisco, an examination of the installation of bike facilities at transit hubs found that increased infrastructure at these points did lead to an increase in bike traffic and that the partnership between transit agencies, local city governments and bicycle advocacy groups are essential for the success of this connection.91 In addition to end of trip facilities at transit stations, the ability for public transit to safety and adequately carry bicycles also facilities multi-modal trips. Bike racks on buses are most common in North American cities compared with European cities; 72% of American and 80% of Canadian buses have the capacity to carry bicycles.59,92 A study of transit agencies show that despite the initial cost, the investment yielded increased ridership and patronage and expanded the transit service area.93 Due to space constraints on many rail systems, bicycles may be permitted during off-peak times, numbers may be limited or an extra fee may be charged.59 As noted above, for communities with bike share programs, the placement of bike share stations near major transit stations is also an effective strategy for increasing use for both modes of travel.94

Bicycle Rack on Public Transportation Ferry.

140  Chapter 6

Conclusion Community-based strategies for promoting biking offer a number of significant benefits for reaching the masses and increasing population-level biking. Although physical environmental approaches are important for impacting community biking participation, many of the encouragement and educational strategies outlined in the current chapter and in combination with institution-based strategies from Chapter 5 provide a comprehensive approach to changing behavior. Different communities have used a variety of approaches for targeting biking, with varying success. The evidence-based strategies outlined here provide a foundation for communities to build initiatives to fit the needs, preferences and resources of their citizens.

References 1. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Strategies to prevent obesity and other chronic diseases: the CDC guide to strategies to increase physical activity in the community. Atlanta (US): Department of Health and Human Services; 2011. 2. Alliance for biking and walking. The open streets guide. Washington (DC): Open Streets Project; 2012. 3. Hipp JA, Bird A, van Bakergem M, Yarnall E. Moving targets: promoting physical activity in public spaces via open streets in the US. Prev Med 2016;. 4. Sarmiento OL, Diaz Del Castillo A, Triana CA, Acevedo MJ, Gonzalez SA, Pratt M. Reclaiming the streets for people: insights from Ciclovias Recreativas in Latin America. Prev Med 2016;. 5. Torres A, Sarmiento OL, Stauber C, Zarama R. The Ciclovia and Cicloruta programs: promising interventions to promote physical activity and social capital in Bogota, Colombia. Am J Public Health 2013;103(2): e23–30. 6. Cohen D, Han B, Derose KP, Williamson S, Paley A, Batteate C. CicLAvia: evaluation of participation, physical activity and cost of an open streets event in Los Angeles. Prev Med 2016;90:26–33. 7. Torres A, Steward J, Strasser S, Lyn R, Serna R, Stauber C. Atlanta streets alive: a movement building a culture of health in an urban environment. J Phys Act Health 2016;13(2):239–46. 8. Engelberg JK, Carlson JA, Black ML, Ryan S, Sallis JF. Ciclovia participation and impacts in San Diego, CA: the first CicloSDias. Prev Med 2014;69(Suppl. 1):S66–73. 9. Zieff SG, Kim MS, Wilson J, Tierney PA. “Ciclovia” in San Francisco: characteristics and physical activity behavior of Sunday Streets participants. J Phys Act Health 2014;11(2):249–55. 10. Eyler AA, Hipp JA, Lokuta J. Moving the barricades to physical activity: a qualitative analysis of open streets initiatives across the United States. Am J Health Promot 2015;30(1):e50–8. 11. CicloSDias. Evaluation of San Diego’s first CicloSDias Open Streets Event. San Diego (CA): San Diego State University School of Public Affair; 2014. 12. Heimann N. Evaluation of Open Streets: A comprehensive report of Fort Collins’ first Open Streets event. Fort Collins (CO): City of Fort Collins; 2014. 13. Task Force on Community Preventive Services. The guide to community preventive services. New York: Oxford University Press; 2005. 14. Storey JD, Saffitz GB, Rimon JG. Social Marketing. In: Glanz K, Rimer BK, Viswanath K, editors. Health behavior and health education. Theory, research and practice. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass; 2008 pp. 435–464. 15. Thornton B. It takes two to Tango: evaluation of the share the road campaign, Queensland. Brisbane (Queensland, Australia): Paper presented at: Safe Cycling, Conference 2000; 2000. 16. Hess G, Peterson MN. “Bicycles may use full lane” signage communicates US roadway rules and increases perception of safety. PLoS One 2015;10(8):16.

Community-Level Strategies for Promoting Bicycling  141 17. Cycling New Zealand. Road Safety Trust Project 2013–2015. Cambridge (NZ): Cycling New Zealand; 2015. 18. Healthy Communities and Injury Prevention Team. Give active transportation a go! Campaign. London (ON): Middlesex-London Health Unit; 2016. 19. Rissel CE, New C, Wen LM, Merom D, Bauman AE, Garrard J. The effectiveness of community-based cycling promotion: findings from the Cycling Connecting Communities project in Sydney, Australia. Int J Behav Nutr Phys Act 2010;7(1):8. 20. Vuori I. Promoting cycling: a review of interventions. Clin J Sport Med 2011;21(6):542–4. 21. Yang L, Sahlqvist S, McMinn A, Griffin SJ, Ogilvie D. Interventions to promote cycling: systematic review. BMJ 2010;341:c5293. 22. Shaheen SA, Cohen AP, Zohdy I, Kock B. Smartphone applications to influence travel choices: practices and policies. Transportation UDo. Washington (DC): Federal Highway Administration; 2016. 23. Bopp M, Sims D, Rovniak L, Matthews SA, Poole E, Colgan J. There’s an app for that: Development of a smartphone app to promote active travel to a college campus. J Transp Health 2016;3(3):305–14. 24. Smith A. Crowdsourcing pedestrian and cyclist activity data. Washington (DC): Pedestrian and Bicycle Information Center; 2015. 25. Ride Report. Ride Report Austin; 2017. Available from: https://ride.report/austin. 26. City of Toronto. Toronto Cycling App; 2017. Available from: http://www1.toronto.ca/wps/portal/contentonly?v gnextoid=5c555cb1e7506410VgnVCM10000071d60f89RCRD&vgnextchannel=6f65970aa08c1410VgnVCM 10000071d60f89RCRD&appInstanceName=default. 27. Bopp M, Sims D, Vairo N, Hentz-Leister E. Examining capacity and functioning of bicycle coalitions: a descriptive study. Front Public Health 2017;5:296. 28. Alliance for Biking & Walking. Bicycling and walking in the United States: 2016 benchmarking report. Washington (DC): Alliance for Biking & Walking; 2016 198. 29. Alliance for Biking & Walking. Bicycling and walking in the United States: 2014 benchmarking report. Washington (DC): Alliance for Biking & Walking; 2014 198. 30. Toole Design Group. Bike sharing in the United States: state of the practice and guide to implementation. Washington (DC): Federal Highway Administration; 2012. 31. National Association of City Transportation Officials. Bike Share in the US: 2010–2016; 2017. Available from: https://nacto.org/bike-share-statistics-2016/. 32. Meddin R, DeMaio P. BikeSharing Map; 2017. Available from: https://www.google.com/maps/d/u/0/ viewer?ll=1.054627907727608%2C-42.890624&spn=143.80149%2C154.6875&hl=en&msa=0&z=1&source =embed&ie=UTF8&om=1&mid=1UxYw9YrwT_R3SGsktJU3D-2GpMU. 33. Bauman A, Crane M, Drayton BA, Titze S. The unrealised potential of bike share schemes to influence population physical activity levels—A narrative review. Prev Med 2017;. 34. Fuller D, Gauvin L, Kestens Y, Morency P, Drouin L. The potential modal shift and health benefits of implementing a public bicycle share program in Montreal, Canada. Int J Behav Nutr Phys Act 2013;10:66. 35. BIXI Montreal. Open data; 2017. Available from: https://www.bixi.com/en/open-data. 36. Belanger-Gravel A, Gauvin L, Fuller D, Drouin L. Implementing a Public Bicycle Share Program: impact on perceptions and support for public policies for active transportation. J Phys Act Health 2015;12(4): 477–82. 37. Fuller D, Gauvin L, Kestens Y, et al. mpact evaluation of a public bicycle share program on cycling: a case example of BIXI in Montreal, Quebec. Am J Public Health 2013;103(3):e85–92. 38. Fuller D, Gauvin L, Kestens Y, et al. Use of a new public bicycle share program in Montreal, Canada. Am J Prev Med 2011;41(1):80–3. 39. Belanger-Gravel A, Gauvin L, Fuller D, Drouin L. Association of implementation of a public bicycle share program with intention and self-efficacy: the moderating role of socioeconomic status. J Health Psychol 2016;21(6):944–53. 40. Fuller D, Gauvin L, Kestens Y. Individual- and area-level disparities in access to the road network, subway system and a public bicycle share program on the Island of Montreal, Canada. Ann Behav Med 2013;45 (Suppl. 1):S95–S100.

142  Chapter 6 41. Fishman E, Schepers P. Global bike share: what the data tells us about road safety. J Safety Res 2016; 56:41–5. 42. Graves JM, Pless B, Moore L, Nathens AB, Hunte G, Rivara FP. Public bicycle share programs and head injuries. Am J Public Health 2014;104(8):e106–11. 43. Buehler R, Pucher J. Trends in walking and cycling safety: recent evidence from high-income Countries, with a focus on the United States and Germany. Am J Public Health 2017;107(2):281–7. 44. Pucher J, Dijkstra L. Promoting safe walking and cycling to improve public health: lessons from The Netherlands and Germany. Am J Public Health 2003;93(9):1509–16. 45. Small A. The four horsemen of the bike share apocalypse; 2017. Available from: https://www.citylab.com/ transportation/2017/01/seattle-bike-share-pronto-goes-under/513575/. 46. Gutman D. Seattle’s Pronto bike share shut down on March 31. Seattle Times March 31, 2017. 47. Zagster. Why did Seattle’s bike share fail?; 2017. Available from: https://www.zagster.com/blog/blog/why-didseattles-bike-share-fail-pronto. 48. Basch CH, Ethan D, Zybert P, Afzaal S, Spillane M, Basch CE. Public bike sharing in New York City: helmet use behavior patterns at 25 Citi Bike stations. J Community Health 2015;40(3):530–3. 49. Friedman SM, Adamson M, Cleiman P, et al. Helmet-wearing practices and barriers in Toronto Bike-Share users: a case-control study. CJEM 2016;18(1):28–36. 50. Fischer CM, Sanchez CE, Pittman M, et al. Prevalence of bicycle helmet use by users of public bikeshare programs. Ann Emerg Med 2012;60(2):228–31. 51. Shaheen SA, Martin EW, Cohen AP, Finson RS. Public bike sharing in North America: early operator and user understanding. San Jose (CA): Mineta Transportation Institute; 2012. 52. Fishman E, Washington S, Haworth N. Bike share: a synthesis of the literature. Transp Rev 2013;33(2): 148–65. 53. Shaheen SA, Guzman S, Zhang H. Bikesharing Across the Globe. In: Pucher J, Buehler R, editors. City Cycling. Cambridge (MA): MIT Press; 2012. 54. Buehler R, Hamre A. Economic benefits of capital bikeshare. A focus on users and businesses. Alexandria (VA): Virginia Tech, Urban Affairs and Planning; 2014. 55. European Cyclists’ Federation. Shopping by bike: best friend of your city centre. Brussels (Belgium): European Cyclists’ Federation; 2016. 56. Pelechrinis K, Kokkodis M, Lappas T. On the value of shared bike systems in urban environments: evidence from the real estate market. Pittsburgh (PA): University of Pittsburgh; 2015. 57. Buchner D, Miles R. Seeking a contemporary understanding of factors that influence physical activity. Am J Prev Med 2002;23(2 Suppl. 1):3–4. 58. Kaspi M, Raviv T, Tzur M. Bike-sharing systems: user dissatisfaction in the presence of unusable bicycles. IISE Trans 2017;49(2):144–58. 59. Pucher J, Buehler R. Intergration of cycling with public transportation. In: Pucher J, Buehler R, editors. City cycling. Cambridge (MA): MIT Press; 2012. 60. Shaheen SA, Zhang H, Martin EW, Guzman S. China’s Hangzhou public bicycle. understanding early adoption and behavioral response to bikesharing. Transp Res Rec 2014;2247:34–41. 61. Ji YJ, Fan YL, Ermagun A, Cao XN, Wang W, Das K. Public bicycle as a feeder mode to rail transit in China: The role of gender, age, income, trip purpose, and bicycle theft experience. Int J Sustain Transp 2017;11(4): 308–17. 62. Noland RB, Smart MJ, Guo ZY. Bikeshare trip generation in New York City. Transp Res Pt A Policy Pract 2016;94:164–81. 63. Griffin GP, Sener IN. Planning for bike share connectivity to rail transit. J Public Trans 2016;19(2):1–22. 64. Hentz-Leister E, Bopp M, Vairo N, Sims D. Understanding bike share reach, use, access and function: an exploratory study. J Transp Health (under review). 65. BikePlus. Public bike share users survey results 2016. Leeds (UK): Carpplu Bikeplus; 2017. 66. Bejarano M, Ceballos LM, Maya J. A user-centred assessment of a new bicycle sharing system in Medellin. Transp Res Pt F Traffic Psycho Behav 2017;44:145–58.

Community-Level Strategies for Promoting Bicycling  143 67. Curto A, de Nazelle A, Donaire-Gonzalez D, et al. Private and public modes of bicycle commuting: a perspective on attitude and perception. Eur J Public Health 2016;26(4):717–23. 68. Langford BC. A comparative health and safety analysis of electricassist and regular bicycles in an on-campus bicycle sharing system [dissertation]. Knoxville: Graduate School, The University of Tennessee; 2013. 69. BiciMAD; 2017. Available from: https://www.bicimad.com/. 70. Webster KM, Cunningham CJ. Preparing for bike-sharing: insight from focus groups and surveys, Chattanooga, Tennessee, 2010. Health Promot Pract 2013;14(1):62–8. 71. Kretman Stewart S, Johnson DC, Smith WP. Bringing bike share to a low-income community: lessons learned through community engagement, Minneapolis, Minnesota, 2011. Prev Chronic Dis 2013;10:E138. 72. Choy LB, Smith HH, Espiritu J, Higa E, Lee T, Maddock J. Insights in public health: initiating bicycle sharing in Hawai’i: lessons learned from a Small Pilot Bike Share Program. Hawaii J Med Public Health 2015;74(10): 348–51. 73. Campbell AA, Cherry CR, Ryerson MS, Yang X. Factors influencing the choice of shared bicycles and shared electric bikes in Beijing. Transp Res Pt C Emerg Technol 2016;67(June):399–414. 74. Zhang Y, Thomas T, Brussel MJ, van Maarseveen MF. Expanding bicycle-sharing systems: lessons learnt from an analysis of usage. PLoS One 2016;11(12):e0168604. 75. Zhang Y, Thomas T, Brussel M, van Maarseveen M. Exploring the impact of built environment factors on the use of public bikes at bike stations: case study in Zhongshan, China. J Transp Geogr 2017;58:59–70. 76. Buehler R, Pucher J, Gerike R, Gotschi T. Reducing car dependence in the heart of Europe: lessons from Germany, Austria, and Switzerland. Transp Rev 2017;37(1):4–28. 77. Pucher J, Dill J, Handy S. Infrastructure, programs, and policies to increase bicycling: an international review. Prev Med 2010;50(Suppl. 1):S106–25. 78. Victoria Transport Policy Institute. Bicycle parking: bicycle parking, storage and changing facilities; 2015. Available from: https://www.vtpi.org/tdm/tdm85.htm. 79. Transport Canada. Bicycle end of trip facilities: a guide for Canadian municipalities and employers. Ottawa (ON): Publishing and Depository Services Public Works and Government Services Canada; 2010. 80. Federal Highway Administration. Lesson 17: Bicycle parking and storage. Federal Highway Administration University course on bicycle and pedestrian transportation. Washington (DC): U.S. Department of Transportation; 2006. 81. Broom N. Essentials of Bike Parking. Lexington (KY): Association of Pedestrian and Bicycle Professionals; 2015. 82. Buehler R. Determinants of bicycle commuting in the Washington, DC region: the role of bicycle parking, cyclist showers, and free car parking at work. Transp Res Pt D Transp Environ 2012;17(7):525–31. 83. Bopp M, Kaczynski AT, Wittman P. Active commuting patterns at a large, midwestern college campus. J Am Coll Health 2011;59(7):605–11. 84. Bopp M, Sims D, Colgan J, Rovniak L, Matthews SA, Poole E. An examination of workplace influences on active commuting in a sample of University Employees. J Public Health Manag Pract 2016;22(4):387–91. 85. Sarnat JA, Golan R, Greenwald R, et al. Exposure to traffic pollution, acute inflammation and autonomic response in a panel of car commuters. Environ Res 2014;133:66–76. 86. Burke MI. Are cycle centers effective transport interventions? Evaluating King George Square Cycle Center in Brisbane, Australia. Transp Res Rec 2011;2247:118–25. 87. Heinen E, Van Wee B, Maat K. Commuting by bicycle: an overview of the literature. Transp Rev 2010;30(1): 59–96. 88. Pucher J, Buehler R. Making cycling irresistible: lessons from the Netherlands, Denmark and Germany. Transp Rev 2008;28(4):495–528. 89. Goodyear S. The Dutch (of course) just mastered bicycle parking; 2015. Available from: https://www.citylab. com/transportation/2015/06/the-dutch-of-course-just-mastered-bicycle-parking/394676/. 90. Press E. ASCOBIKE: largest bicycle parking facility in the Americas; 2009. Available from: http://www.streetfilms.org/ascobike/.

144  Chapter 6 91. Cervero R, Caldwell B, Cuellar J. Bike-and-ride: build it and they will come. J Public Transp 2013;16(4): 83–105. 92. Pucher J, Buehler R. Integrating bicycling and public transport in North America. J Public Transp 2009;23(3): 79–104. 93. Hagelin C, Datz A. A return on investment analysis of bikes-on-bus programs. University of South Florida: National Center for Transit Research. Center for Urban Transportation Research; 2005. 94. Buehler R, Pucher J. Big city cycling in Europe, North America, and Australia. In: Pucher J, Buehler R, editors. City cycling. Cambridge (MA): MIT Press; 2012.