Between Dec 19, 2024 and Jan 2, 2025, datasets can be submitted to DRUM but will not be processed until after the break. Staff will not be available to answer email during this period, and will not be able to provide DOIs until after Jan 2. If you are in need of a DOI during this period, consider Dryad or OpenICPSR. Submission responses to the UDC may also be delayed during this time.

Browsing by Author "Schoner, Jessica E"

Now showing 1 - 3 of 3
  • Thumbnail Image
    Item
    Catalysts And Magnets: Built Environment Effects On Bicycle Commuting
    (2015) Schoner, Jessica E; Cao, Jason X; Levinson, David M
    What effects do bicycle infrastructure and the built environment have on people’s decisions to commute by bicycle? While many studies have considered this question, commonly employed methodologies fail to address the unique statistical challenge of modeling such a low mode share. Additionally, self selection effects that are not adequately accounted for may lead to overestimation of built environment impacts. This study addresses these two key issues by using a zero-inflated negative binomial model to jointly estimate participation in and frequency of commuting by bicycle, controlling for demographics, residential preferences, and travel attitudes. The findings suggest a strong self-selection effect and modest contributions of bicycle accessibility: that bicycle lanes act as “magnets" to attract bicyclists to a neighborhood, rather than being the “catalyst" that encourages non-bikers to shift modes. The results have implications for planners and policymakers attempting to increase bicycling mode share via the strategic infrastructure development.
  • Thumbnail Image
    Item
    Is Bikesharing Contagious?Modeling its effects on System Membership and General Population Cycling
    (Transportation Research Board, 2016) Schoner, Jessica E; Lindsey, Greg; Levinson, David M
    This paper presents new evidence about the role of bike share systems in travel behavior using a diffusion of innovation framework. We hypothesize that bike share systems have a contagion or spillover effect on (H1) propensity to start using the system and (H2) propensity to bicycle among the general population. We test the first hypothesis by modeling membership growth as a function of both system expansion and the existing membership base. We test the second hypothesis by using bike share activity levels near one’s home in a model of household-level bicycle participation and trip frequency. Our study shows mixed results. Bike share membership growth appears to be driven, in a small part, by a contagion effect of existing bike share members nearby. However, we did not identify a significant relationship between proximity to bike share and cycling participation or frequency among the general population. The findings hold implications for marketing, infrastructure investments, and future research about bike share innovation diffusion and spillover effects.
  • Thumbnail Image
    Item
    The Missing Link: Bicycle Infrastructure Networks and Ridership in 74 US Cities
    (2014) Schoner, Jessica E; Levinson, David M
    Cities promote strong bicycle networks to support and encourage bicycle com- muting. However, the application of network science to bicycle facilities is not very well studied. Previous work has found relationships between the amount of bicycle infrastructure in a city and aggregate bicycle ridership, and between microscopic network structure and individual tripmaking patterns. This study fills the missing link between these two bodies of literature by developing a standard methodology for measuring bicycle facility network quality at the macroscopic level and testing its association with bicycle commuting. Bicycle infrastructure maps were collected for 74 United States cities and systematically analyzed to evaluate their network structure. Linear regression models revealed that connectivity and directness are important factors in predicting bicycle commuting after controlling for demographic variables and the size of the city. These findings provide a framework for transportation planners and policymakers to evaluate their local bicycle facility networks and set regional priorities that support nonmotorized travel behavior, and for continued research on the structure and quality of bicycle infrastructure and behavior.