Journal of Public Health Policy

, Volume 30, Supplement 1, pp S95–S110 | Cite as

Bicycling for Transportation and Health: The Role of Infrastructure

Transportation

Abstract

This paper aims to provide insight on whether bicycling for everyday travel can help US adults meet the recommended levels of physical activity and what role public infrastructure may play in encouraging this activity. The study collected data on bicycling behavior from 166 regular cyclists in the Portland, Oregon metropolitan area using global positioning system (GPS) devices. Sixty percent of the cyclists rode for more than 150 minutes per week during the study and nearly all of the bicycling was for utilitarian purposes, not exercise. A disproportionate share of the bicycling occurred on streets with bicycle lanes, separate paths, or bicycle boulevards. The data support the need for well-connected neighborhood streets and a network of bicycle-specific infrastructure to encourage more bicycling among adults. This can be accomplished through comprehensive planning, regulation, and funding.

Keywords

bicycling bicycle infrastructure bicycle lanes and paths global positioning system active living active transport 

References

  1. de Geus B, De Smet S, Meeusen R . Determining the intensity and energy expenditure during commuter cycling. Br J Sports Med. 2007;41:8–12.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Wen LM, Rissel C . Inverse associations between cycling to work, public transport, and overweight and obesity: findings from a population based study in Australia. Prev Med. 2008;46:29–32.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Federal Highway Administration. National Bicycling and Walking Study Five Year Status Report by the U.S. Department of Transportation. Washington, DC: Federal Highway Administration; 1999.Google Scholar
  4. Federal Highway Administration. Summary of Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) Pedestrian and Bicyclist Activities Prepared for 2002 Transportation Research Board Meeting. Washington, DC: Federal Highway Administration; 2002.Google Scholar
  5. Pucher J, Komanoff C, Schimek P . Bicycling renaissance in North America? Recent trends and alternative policies to promote bicycling. Transp Res Part A – Policy Practice. 1999;33:625–654.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. League of American Bicyclists. Bicycle Friendly Communities. Available at http://www.bikeleague.org/programs/bicyclefriendlyamerica/communities/, accessed 30 October 2008.
  7. Pucher J, Dijkstra L . Promoting safe walking and cycling to improve public health: lessons from the Netherlands and Germany. Am J Public Health. 2003;93:1509–1516.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Pucher J, Buehler R . Why Canadians cycle more than Americans: a comparative analysis of bicycling trends and policies. Transp Policy. 2006;13:265–279.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Pucher J, Dijkstra L . Making walking and cycling safer: lessons from Europe. Transp Quart. 2000;54:25–50.Google Scholar
  10. National Household Travel Survey. Available at http://nhts.ornl.gov/, accessed 30 October 2008.
  11. U.S. Census Bureau. 2006 American Community Survey. Available at http://factfinder.census.gov/home/saff/main.html?_lang=en, accessed 30 October 2008.
  12. Plaut PO . Non-motorized commuting in the U.S. Transp Res Part D – Transp Environ. 2005;10:347–356.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, and Bureau of Transportation Statistics. National Survey of Pedestrian and Bicyclist Attitudes and Behaviors: Highlights Report. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Transportation; 2003.Google Scholar
  14. Dill J, Voros K . Factors affecting bicycling demand: initial survey findings from the Portland, Oregon, region. Transp Res Rec. 2007;2031:9–17.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Shafizadeh K, Niemeier D . Bicycle journey-to-work: travel behavior characteristics and spatial analysis. Transp Res Rec. 1997;1578:84–90.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Moudon AV, Lee C, Cheadle AD, Collier CW, Johnson D, Schmid TL, et al. Cycling and the built environment, a U.S. perspective. Transp Res Part D – Transp Environ. 2005;10:245–261.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Health Canada. 1998 National Survey on Active Transportation; Summary Report. Go for Green; 1998. Available at http://safety.fhwa.dot.gov/ped_bike/docs/bike_flash.pdf, accessed 30 October 2008.
  18. Garrard J, Rose G, Lo SK . Promoting transportation cycling for women: the role of bicycle infrastructure. Prev Med. 2008;46:55–59.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Federal Highway Administration. National Bicycling and Walking Study, Case Study No. 1: Reasons Why Bicycling and Walking are Not Being Used More Extensively as Travel Modes. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Transportation; 1992.Google Scholar
  20. Cervero R, Duncan M . Walking, bicycling, and urban landscapes: evidence from the San Francisco Bay Area. Am J Public Health. 2003;93:1478–1483.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Dill J, Carr T . Bicycle commuting and facilities in major U.S. cities: if you build them, commuters will use them. Transp Res Rec. 2003;1828:116–123.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Antonakos CL . Environmental and travel preferences of cyclists. Transp Res Rec. 1994;1438:25–33.Google Scholar
  23. Tilahun NY, Levinson DM, Krizek KJ . Trails, lanes, or traffic: valuing bicycle facilities with an adaptive stated preference survey. Transp Res Part A – Policy Pract. 2007;41:287–301.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Stinson M, Bhat C . Commuter bicyclist route choice: analysis using a stated preference survey. Transp Res Rec. 2003;1828:107–115.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Nelson AC, Allen D . If you build them, commuters will use them. Transp Res Rec. 1997;1578:79–83.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Howard C, Burns EK . Cycling to work in Phoenix: route choice, travel behavior, and commuter characteristics. Transp Res Rec. 2001;1773:39–46.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Krizek KJ, El-Geneidy A, Thompson K . A detailed analysis of how an urban trail system affects cyclists’ travel. Transportation. 2007;34:611–624.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Aultman-Hall L, Hall FL, Baetz BB . Analysis of Bicycle Commuter Routes Using Geographic Information Systems: Implications for Bicycle Planning. Transp Res Rec. 1998;1578:102–110.Google Scholar
  29. Bureau of Transportation Statistics. How Bike Paths and Lanes Make a Difference. BTS Issue Brief. Washington, DC: Bureau of Transportation Statistics; 2004.Google Scholar
  30. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Prevalence of physical activity, including lifestyle activities among adults – United States, 2000–2001. MMWR Morb Mortal Wkly Rep. 2003;52 (32):764–769.Google Scholar
  31. Murakami E, Wagner DP . Can using global positioning system (GPS) improve trip reporting? Transp Res Part C – Emerging Technol. 1999;7:149–165.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Moritz WE . Survey of North American bicycle commuters: design and aggregate results. Transp Res Rec. 1998;1578:91–101.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Population Research Center. 2007 Oregon Population Report. Portland, OR: Portland State University; 2008.Google Scholar
  34. Adler S, Dill J . The evolution of transportation planning in the Portland region. In: Ozawa CP, editor. The Portland Edge. Washington, DC: Island Press; 2004.Google Scholar
  35. Institute of Portland Metropolitan Studies. Metropolitan Briefing Book. Portland, OR: Portland State University; 2007.Google Scholar
  36. Ainsworth B, Haskell WL, Whitt MC, Irwin ML, Swartz AM, Strath SJ, et al. Compendium of physical activities: an update of activity codes and MET intensities. Med Sci Sports Exerc. 2000;32:S498–S516.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Stopher P, FitzGerald C, Zhang J . Search for a global positioning system device to measure person travel. Transp Res Part C – Emerging Technol. 2008;16:350–369.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Palgrave Macmillan 2009

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Nohad A. Toulan School of Urban Studies and Planning, Portland State UniversityPortlandUSA

Personalised recommendations