Pedestrian and bicyclist motivation: an assessment of influences on pedestrians’ and bicyclists’ mode choice in Mt. Pleasant, Vancouver

Figures & data

Figure 1. Mt. Pleasant neighborhood infrastructure.

Figure 2. Walking survey results.

Table 1. Demographic group response rate, walking.

Demographic group	Response
Resident	199
Non-resident	94
18–34 year olds	165
35–65+ year olds	128
Male	162
Female	131
<50,000 per year	185
50–100,000+ per year	108
Some HS/Diploma	35
Some college	96
Bachelors	92
Postgraduate	70
Car owner	131
No car	162
Utilitarian	199
Non utilitarian	94
0–5 trips per week	41
6–10 trips per week	90
11+ trips per week	162

Source: Author.

Table 2. Wilcoxon test results, walking.

Comparison		Sig.
Opportunities for exercise	Concern for the natural environment	.022
Concern for the natural environment	A visually appealing environment	.486
A visually appealing environment	Distance to destination	.195
Distance to destination	Weather on a given day	.403
Weather on a given day	Sense of personal security	.009
Sense of personal security	Saving money	.576
Saving money	Cleanliness of neighborhood	.608
Cleanliness of neighborhood	Buffering from automobile traffic	.461
Buffering from automobile traffic	Presence of sidewalks	.872
Presence of sidewalks	Opportunities to talk or meet with friends or neighbors	.281
Opportunities to talk or meet with friends or neighbors	Ease of terrain	.278
Ease of terrain	Marked crosswalks with signals	.402
Marked crosswalks with signals	Enforcement of speeding and other traffic laws	.234

Source: Author.

Table 3. Friedman test results and groupings, walking.

Variable groups	Rank	M	Group	Sig.
Opportunities for exercise	1	3.17	1
Concern for the natural environment	2	3.04	2	.022
A visually appealing environment	3	3.01	2	.688
Distance to destination	4	2.90	2	.358
Weather on a given day	5	2.84	2	.054
Sense of personal security	6	2.63	3	.000
Saving money	7	2.58	3	.618
Cleanliness of neighborhood	8	2.54	3	.293
Buffering from automobile traffic	9	2.50	3	.276
Presence of sidewalks	10	2.48	3	.237
Opportunities to talk or meet with friends or neighbors	11	2.40	4	.016
Ease of terrain	12	2.32	4	.884
Marked crosswalks with signals	13	2.25	4	.084
Enforcement of speeding and other traffic laws	14	2.16	5	.004

Source: Author.

Table 4. Significant demographic relationships, walking.

Variable groups	Rank	Group	Sig. relationships
Opportunities for exercise	1	1	Female and bachelors
Concern for the natural environment	2	2	Female
A visually appealing environment	3	2	35–65+ and postgraduate
Distance to destination	4	2	Non-resident, bachelors, car owner/yes, and 0–5 trips
Weather on a given day	5	2	18–34 and 0–5 trips
Sense of personal security	6	3	Female and bachelors
Saving money	7	3	Car owner/no
Cleanliness of neighborhood	8	3	35–65+ and car owner/yes
Buffering from automobile traffic	9	3	35–65+
Presence of sidewalks	10	3	35–65+, $50–100,000+, and car owner/yes
Opportunities to talk or meet with friends or neighbors	11	4
Ease of terrain	12	4	Female
Marked crosswalks with signals	13	4	35–65+
Enforcement of speeding and other traffic laws	14	5	35–65+ and female

Source: Author.

Figure 3. Biking survey results.

Table 5. Demographic group response rate, biking.

Demographic group	Response
Resident	167
Non-resident	250
18–34 year olds	220
35–65+ year olds	197
Male	209
Female	208
<50,000 per year	225
50–100,000+ per year	192
Some HS/Diploma	23
Some college	93
Bachelors	164
Postgraduate	137
Car owner	210
No car	207
Utilitarian	312
Non utilitarian	105
0–5 trips per week	104
6–10 trips per week	146
11+ trips per week	167

Source: Author.

Table 6. Wilcoxon test results, biking.

Comparison		Sig.
Opportunities for exercise	Concern for the natural environment	.048
Concern for the natural environment	A visually appealing environment	.000
A visually appealing environment	Buffering from automobile traffic	.662
Buffering from automobile traffic	Presence of bike lanes	.990
Presence of bike lanes	Sense of personal security	.196
Sense of personal security	Saving money	.270
Saving money	Distance to destination	.070
Distance to destination	Presence of bike signals at intersections	.630
Presence of bike signals at intersections	Weather on a given day	.727
Weather on a given day	Ease of terrain	.000
Ease of terrain	Enforcement of speeding and other traffic laws	.033
Enforcement of speeding and other traffic laws	Cleanliness of neighborhood	.040
Cleanliness of neighborhood	Opportunities to talk or meet with friends or other cyclists	.001

Source: Author.

Table 7. Friedman test results and grouping, biking.

Variable groups	Rank	M	Group	Sig.
Opportunities for exercise	1	3.44	1
Concern for the natural environment	2	3.35	2	.043
A visually appealing environment	3	2.91	3	.000
Buffering from automobile traffic	4	2.89	3	.950
Presence of bike lanes	5	2.88	3	.985
Sense of personal security	6	2.82	3	.369
Saving money	7	2.75	3	.188
Distance to destination	8	2.62	4	.000
Presence of bike signals at intersections	9	2.6	4	.809
Weather on a given day	10	2.59	4	.858
Ease of terrain	11	2.41	5	.000
Enforcement of speeding and other traffic laws	12	2.27	6	.033
Cleanliness of neighborhood	13	2.15	7*	.142
Opportunities to talk or meet with friends or other cyclists	14	1.97	8	.000

^* Significance originally shown by Wilcoxon test results.

Source: Author.

Table 8. Significant demographic relationships, biking.

Variable groups	Rank	Group	Sig. relationships
Opportunities for exercise	1	1	Female, postgraduate, and car owner/yes
Concern for the natural environment	2	2	Female, <$50,000, and 6–10 trips
A visually appealing environment	3	3
Buffering from automobile traffic	4	3	Female and 0–5 trips
Presence of bike lanes	5	3	Female and 0–5 trips
Sense of personal security	6	3	Female and postgraduate
Saving money	7	3	18–34, female, <$50,000, and car owner/no
Distance to destination	8	4	Postgraduate, car owner/yes, and 0–5 trips
Presence of bike signals at intersections	9	4	Female, 0–5 trips
Weather on a given day	10	4	18–34, female, car owner/yes, and 0–5 trips
Ease of terrain	11	5	18–34, female, and 0–5 trips
Enforcement of speeding and other traffic laws	12	6	35–65+
Cleanliness of neighborhood and streets	13	7
Opportunities to talk or meet with friends or other cyclists	14	8	<50,000 and car owner/no

Source: Author.