Who travels where
Behavior of pedestrians and micromobility users on transportation infrastructure
Bibliographic Data
| ID | 12295245 |
|---|---|
| Authors | Kevin Lanza (0000-0002-5259-6745, The University of Texas Health Science Center at Houston, corresponding author), Kathryn G Burford (0000-0001-5500-9609, The University of Texas Health Science Center at Houston), Katie Burford, Leigh Ann Ganzar (0000-0003-4401-3797, The University of Texas Health Science Center at Houston) |
| Year | 2021 |
| Volume | 98 |
| Pages | 103269-103269 |
| Publication date | 2021-12-24 |
| Peer Reviewed | Yes |
| Open Access | Yes |
| Type | ARTICLE |
| Venue | Journal of Transport Geography (JOURNAL) |
| Journal identifiers | ISSN: 0966-6923 • E-ISSN: 1873-1236 |
| Publisher | Elsevier BV (PUBLISHER) |
| DOI | 10.1016/j.jtrangeo.2021.103269 |
| OpenAlex | W4200212259 |
| Language | EN |
| Citations received | 4 |
| References cited | 25 |
Cities are investing in active transportation networks, yet little is known about travel behavior of different non-vehicle modes in the presence of multiple types of transportation infrastructure. At two sites in Austin, Texas, USA, with a cycle track, sidewalk, and street in parallel, we determined where different modes traveled and the likelihood of crossing from one infrastructure to another and of using “recommended” infrastructure—defined as sidewalk for walkers, dog walkers, and runners and bike lane with traffic for cyclists, e-scooter riders, and other wheeled micromobility users. We created the Mobility Behavior Tool to conduct observations of travelers on 50-m-long, straight segments of the parallel infrastructure at sites for one-hour sampling periods (n = 16 periods) in April–May 2021. In our sample (n = 2245 individuals), we observed that 20% of travelers crossed into other infrastructure and 35.8% used not recommended infrastructure. Using binomial logistic regression, we found statistically significant odds ratios for dog walkers (3.17), cyclists (0.56), e-scooter riders (1.85), and other micromobility users (3.06) crossing into other infrastructure compared to walkers (p 0.05). A second model predicted statistically significant odds ratios for dog walkers (1.74), runners (3.88), e-scooter riders (1.38), and other micromobility users (2.74) using not recommended infrastructure compared to walkers (p 0.05). Potential reasons for differences in travel behavior by mode include levels of understanding of local regulations and situational awareness, infrastructure preferences, frequency of passing, and propensity for weaving, swerving, and subversive behavior. Municipalities should consider how infrastructure design influences travel behavior and the travel efficiency, comfort, and safety of all modes
Business · Computer security · Environmental health · Internet privacy · Transport engineering · Computer Science · Engineering · Evacuation and Crowd Dynamics · Medicine · Transportation Planning and Optimization · Urban Transport and Accessibility
Systematic literature review of built environment effects on physical activity and active transport – an update and new findings on health equity
Do the Health Benefits of Cycling Outweigh the Risks?
Health impact assessment of active transportation
Physical activity, exercise, and chronic diseases
Interrater reliability
Are e-scooters polluters? The environmental impacts of shared dockless electric scooters
Effects of trees, gardens, and nature trails on heat index and child health
The Integration of Electric Scooters
| Unique citing works | 4 |
|---|---|
| Citations per year | 2 |
| Citation span | 2024 - 2025 (2) |
| Citation velocity | recent |
| Highly cited | No |
| Citation types | Neutral: 4 |