Findings and Lessons from Safe Routes to Transit (SR2T) David Weinzimmer, SafeTREC, UC Berkeley PedsCount!, May 2014
Safe Routes to Transit (SR2T) Funded by Regional Measure 2 (2004), $20M in total funding Purpose: increase biking & walking to regional transit by making it easier, faster, and safer Eligible projects: public agencies pursuing bicycle and pedestrian projects near regional transit stations Examples: Pedestrian/bikeway facility construction Lighting improvements, wayfinding signage Secure bicycle storage Planning for station bike & pedestrian access; removal of barriers near stations
Methodology Two forms of data collection Surveys (postcard and intercept surveys) Observational data (driver, pedestrian, bicycle behavior) Baseline data: Fall 2011; follow-up: Fall 2012 & 2013 Treatment and control sites, difference-indifference methodology
Study Sites Treatment sites (7) Balboa Park, Bay Fair, Civic Center, Glen Park, Lafayette, Palo Alto (Caltrain), Pittsburg Control sites (2) Fremont, Rockridge Stations include both urban and suburban settings
Surveys Postcard and intercept surveys to reach broad sample, distributed during morning peak hours All surveys ask: home location intermediate stops travel time by mode out-of-pocket costs Intercept surveys also ask: perceptions of traffic safety perceptions of air quality awareness of changes around the station Sample size: 1,186 (Pre); 1,452 (Post)
Survey Results Mode shift towards walking and biking as a main mode Improved perceptions of traffic risk, which may improve long-term potential for mode shift Economic benefits around stations
Mode Shift Mode share of walking increased 3.1% compared to control sites; as a main mode increased 1% Bicycling increased more than 3% at both treatment and control sites, reflecting broader trends Driving decreased 2.5% compared to control sites (1.7% as a main mode) Compared to 0.06% increase in walking and bicycling from 2011 to 2012 (American Community Survey)
Mode Shares Change in Mode Shares (Percentage Points) 5.0% 4.0% 3.0% 3.1 2.5 2.5 2.0% 1.0% 0.0% 0.4 0.3-1.0% -2.0% -3.0% -4.0% -2.5-3.2-5.0% Walk Bike Bus Drive Other Nonmotorized only Change: Treatment Change: Control Difference in difference Alternative only
Main Mode Shares Change in Main Mode Shares (Percentage Points) 4.0% 3.0% 2.8 2.0% 1.0% 1.0 1.4 1.7 0.4 0.0% -1.0% -2.0% -1.7-3.0% Walk Bike Bus Drive Other Nonmotorized only -2.5 Change: Treatment Change: Control Difference in difference Alternative only
Mode Shift Greatest gender difference observed in bike main mode share: Women: 1.6% to 3.1% (p=0.111) Men: 4.8% to 9.1% (p=0.007) Walking: 25%+ main mode share until the highest age group (65+) Bicycling did not drop off substantially until the 55+ age group Zero- or single-car households much more likely to walk and bike Car free: 43.5% walk, 7.4% bike Two car: 24.1% walk, 2.8% bike
Perceptions of Traffic Risk Perceptions of traffic risk while biking decreased 0.8 points (5-pt scale; p=0.059) compared to control sites Perceived traffic risk also improved while driving in urban areas drivers may welcome better bike infrastructure and certainty on roadways Perception Choice: biking main mode share was 16% among urban respondents expressing concern about traffic risk While Walking While Biking While Driving Overall Urban Suburban Overall Urban Suburban Overall Urban Suburban Control 0.3-0.1 0.4 0.6 1.1 0.7 0.4 0.7 * 0.1 Treatment 0.1 0.2-0.1-0.2-0.1-0.3-0.1 0.0-0.2 Difference in Difference -0.2 0.3-0.5-0.8 * -1.2-1.0 * -0.5-0.8 * -0.2
1.5 Changes in Perceptions of Traffic Risk ( g ) 1.0 1.1 0.7 0.7 0.5 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.1 0.0-0.5-0.1-0.1-0.5-0.1-0.3 0.0-0.2-0.2-1.0-1.0-0.8-1.2-1.5 Urban, While Walking Suburban, While Walking Urban, While Biking Suburban, While Biking Urban, While Driving Suburban, While Driving Control Treatment Difference in Difference
Economic Benefits Compare (1) main mode share to (2) share of each mode among types of stops on the way to station Drivers are under-represented for all types of stops except childcare Pedestrians are over-represented among stops for food & drink (42.1% vs. 30.3% mode share) Bicyclists also over-represented among stops for food & drink (6.3% vs 4.9% mode share)
Economic Benefits Effects were even stronger among urban subset of stations Over-representation of bicyclists among stops for food & drink: 2.3 percentage points at urban stations, 1.4 percentage points among all stations In urban areas, 63.2% of those stopping for food & drink walked or biked (48.4% at all stations) Suggests localized economic benefits from SR2T-like improvements
Average Travel Costs
Summary of Key Points Mode shift towards walking and biking as a main mode, decrease in driving Improved perceptions of traffic risk for biking: may improve long-term potential mode shift; also improvements for urban driving Economic benefits, both in terms of out-out-pocket expenditures and stops for food & drink
Future Research Currently there are no legislated calls for evaluating effectiveness; future policies should follow MTC s lead of allocating funding for this purpose More research needed on the impact of these types of projects on perceptions of safety, and the subsequent impact on mode choice Could further examine Health impact of mode shift (physical health & air quality) Relative effectiveness of different types of improvements
Thank you Sean Co Metropolitan Transportation Commission (funder) Matthew Ridgway, Meghan Mitman Fehr & Peers Transportation Consultants (prime) Rebecca Sanders, Jill Cooper, Heidi Dittrich Safe Transportation Research & Education Center, UC Berkeley
Questions