Scholarly article on topic 'Biking practices and preferences in a lower income, primarily minority neighborhood: Learning what residents want'

Biking practices and preferences in a lower income, primarily minority neighborhood: Learning what residents want Academic research paper on "Social and economic geography"

CC BY-NC-ND
0
0
Share paper
Academic journal
Preventive Medicine Reports
OECD Field of science
Keywords
{}

Abstract of research paper on Social and economic geography, author of scientific article — Anne C. Lusk, Albert Anastasio, Nicholas Shaffer, Juan Wu, Yanping Li

Abstract This paper examines if, in a lower-income minority neighborhood, bicycling practices and bicycle-environment preferences of Blacks and Hispanics were different from Whites. During the summer of 2014, surveys were mailed to 1537 households near a proposed cycle track on Malcolm X Boulevard in Roxbury, MA. On the Boulevard, intercept surveys were distributed to cyclists and observations noted about passing cyclist's characteristics. Data were analyzed from 252 returned-mailed surveys, 120 intercept surveys, and 709 bicyclists. White (100%), Hispanic (79%), and Black (76%) bicyclists shown pictures of 6 bicycle facility types in intercept surveys perceived the cycle track as safest. More White mailed-survey respondents thought bikes would not be stolen which may explain why more Hispanics (52%) and Blacks (47%) preferred to park their bikes inside their home compared with Whites (28%), with H/W B/W differences statistically significant (p <0.05). More Hispanic (81%) and Black (54%) mailed-survey respondents thought they would bicycle more if they could bicycle with family and friends compared with Whites (40%). Bicyclists observed commuting morning and evening included Blacks (55%), Whites (36%) and Hispanics (9%). More Whites (68%) wore helmets compared with Hispanics (21%) and Blacks (17%) (p <0.001). More Blacks (94%) and Hispanics (94%) rode a mountain bike compared with Whites (75%). Minority populations are biking on roads but prefer cycle tracks. They also prefer to park bikes inside their homes and bicycle with family and friends. Wide cycle tracks (bicycling with family/friends) and home bike parking should be targeted as capital investments in lower-income minority neighborhoods.

Academic research paper on topic "Biking practices and preferences in a lower income, primarily minority neighborhood: Learning what residents want"

Accepted Manuscript

Biking practices and preferences in a lower income, primarily minority neighborhood: Learning what residents want

Anne C. Lusk, Albert Anastasio, Nicholas Shaffer, Juan Wu, Yanping

PII: S2211-3355(17)30006-2

DOI: doi:10.1016/j.pmedr.2017.01.006

Reference: PMEDR 404

To appear in: Preventive Medicine Reports

Received date: 18 May 2016

Revised date: 9 January 2017

Accepted date: 17 January 2017

Please cite this article as: Lusk, Anne C., Anastasio, Albert, Shaffer, Nicholas, Wu, Juan, Li, Yanping, Biking practices and preferences in a lower income, primarily minority neighborhood: Learning what residents want, Preventive Medicine Reports (2017), doi:10.1016/j.pmedr.2017.01.006

This is a PDF file of an unedited manuscript that has been accepted for publication. As a service to our customers we are providing this early version of the manuscript. The manuscript will undergo copyediting, typesetting, and review of the resulting proof before it is published in its final form. Please note that during the production process errors may be discovered which could affect the content, and all legal disclaimers that apply to the journal pertain.

Biking Practices and Preferences in a Lower Income, Primarily Minority Neighborhood:

Learning what residents want

Anne C. Lusk, Ph.D. (1) Albert Anastasio (1) Nicholas Shaffer, M.P.H. (2)

Juan Wu, ScD(l) Yanping Li, M.D. Ph.D. (1)

(1)Harvard T. H. Chan School of Public Health, Department of Nutrition, Boston, MA

(2)Boston University School of Public Health, Boston, MA

Anne C. Lusk - Corresponding Author

Department of Nutrition

Harvard School of Public Health

655 Huntington Ave, Building II Room 314

Boston, MA 02115

617-432-7076

617-432-2435 (fax)

AnneLusk@hsph. harvard. edu

ABSTRACT

This paper examines if, in a lower-income minority neighborhood, bicycling practices and bicycle-environment preferences of Blacks and Hispanics were different from Whites. During the summer of 2014, surveys were mailed to 1537 households near a proposed cycle track on Malcolm X Boulevard in Roxbury, MA. On the Boulevard, intercept surveys were distributed to cyclists and observations noted about passing cyclist's characteristics. Data were analyzed from 252 returned-mailed surveys, 120 intercept surveys, and 709 bicyclists. White (100%), Hispanic (79%), and Black (76%) bicyclists shown pictures of 6 bicycle facility types in intercept surveys perceived the cycle track as safest. More White mailed-survey respondents thought bikes would not be stolen which may explain why more Hispanics (52%) and Blacks (47%) preferred to park their bikes inside their home compared with Whites (28%), with H/W B/W differences statistically significant (p<0.05). More Hispanic (81%) and Black (54%) mailed-survey respondents thought they would bicycle more if they could bicycle with family and friends compared with Whites (40%). Bicyclists observed commuting morning and evening included Blacks (55%), Whites (36%) and Hispanics (9%). More Whites (68%) wore helmets compared with Hispanics (21%) and Blacks (17%)(p<0.001). More Blacks (94%) and Hispanics (94%) rode a mountain bike compared with Whites (75%). Minority populations are biking on roads but prefer cycle tracks. They also prefer to park bikes inside their homes and bicycle with family and friends. Wide cycle tracks (bicycling with family/friends) and home bike parking should be targeted as capital investments in lower-income minority neighborhoods.

INTRODUCTION

Race and income are often overlooked factors when considering locations for safe-from-traffic bicycle routes and secure bicycle parking. Race is a factor because more Hispanics (77.9%) and Blacks (76.2%) are burdened with obesity compared with Whites (67.2%) (Ogden, Carroll, Kit, & Flegal, 2014). To counter obesity, walking is often recommended but a study revealed that slow walking (2-3 Metabolic Equivalent of Task - METs)(Ainsworth et al., 2000) was not associated with controlling weight (A. C. Lusk, Mekary, Feskanich, & Willett, 2010). Brisk walking (>3-6 METs) (Ainsworth et al., 2000) was associated with controlling weight (A. C. Lusk et al., 2010) but for people who are overweight, walking can be difficult (Larsson & Mattsson, 2001). A walker, as does a runner, has to carry their bodyweight but with bicycling the bike bears the weight, lessening knee damage (Ransdell, Vener, & Huberty, 2009). Bicycling (8-16 METs)(Ainsworth et al., 2000) is an effective way to travel far and was shown to be associated with controlling weight (A. C. Lusk et al., 2010). Adoption of this physical activity is easier because, according to the 2001-2009 National Household Transportation Survey, more Black (90%) and Hispanic (30%) individuals are already commuting by bike compared with Whites (20%) (People for Bikes and Alliance for Biking and Walking).

Income is also a factor because the safest bicycle facilities are not being built in lower income communities. Bicycle environments, including safer cycle tracks (barrier-protected bicycle-exclusive paths) (A. C. Lusk et al., 2011; A. C. Lusk, Morency, Miranda-Moreno, Willett, & Dennerlein, 2013; Thomas & DeRobertis, 2013), are being built but neighborhoods receive funding for bicycle facilities based on bike counts, engineering decisions, and forceful advocacy (Buehler & Handy, 2008; Cradock et al., 2009). In North Carolina, nine out of ten residents in wealthier counties had active transportation in their plans compared with only one in

five residents in the lower-income areas (Aytur, Rodriguez, Evenson, Catellier, & Rosamond, 2008). In a study of 264 municipalities and counties across the country, 14% of higher-income neighborhoods had zoning/land use laws for bike lanes compared with only 5% of lower income neighborhoods (Thrun, Chriqui JF, SJ, DC, & FJ, 2012). As a result, superior bike facilities are provided in areas with many White, wealthier bicyclists and not in neighborhoods of color or lower socio-economic status (League of American Bicyclists and the Sierra Club; Powell, Slater, Chaloupka, & Harper, 2006; Roberts, 2014).

Perhaps lower income minority populations do not want safer bicycle facilities but in a study with 16,193 respondents, more Hispanics (53%) and Blacks (48%) expressed a willingness to bike more compared with Whites (44%) if they were physically separated from vehicles (People for Bikes and Alliance for Biking and Walking). If provided with safe bicycle environments, ethnic-minority and low income populations would have the largest projected increase in bicyclists (Sallis et al., 2013). Without the safest bicycle environments, the many bicyclists in the lower-income minority communities are more vulnerable. In lower-income communities in Austin, Texas, where many residents biked to work and there were no safe bicycle networks, there were more bicycle crashes (Yu, 2014). In the U.S., the age-adjusted biking deaths per 100,000 population are greater in Hispanics (0.28) and Blacks (0.23) compared with Whites (0.18) (People for Bikes and Alliance for Biking and Walking).

Though lower-income ethnic-minority populations might want safer bicycle facilities, the assumption cannot be that the bicycle facilities preferred by White bicyclists would be equally preferred by ethnic-minority residents. White, Black, and Hispanic residents might have different perceptions of risk of theft and thus might prefer different bike parking. White, Black, and Hispanic residents might have different opportunities to travel to places such as the Netherlands,

ride on a cycle track, or attend lectures about bicycle facilities to gain awareness. Therefore, a visual preference survey was mailed to bicycling and non-bicycling residents in a low income ethnic-minority neighborhood and distributed to bicyclists on a major bicycling street in that neighborhood. The study aimed to identify if, in a lower-income ethnic-minority neighborhood, bicycling practices and preferences about bike route designs and bike parking of Blacks and Hispanics were different from Whites, if lower-income minority populations were bicycling, and if the observed characteristics of Black and Hispanic bicyclists were different from White bicyclists (bike, clothing, helmet, child on the bike, or carrying items on the bike or in a backpack).

METHODS

Study population

Construction of a two-way cycle track on Malcolm X Boulevard in Roxbury, Massachusetts is in the 2013 Boston Bike Network Plan (Boston Department of Transportation, 2013) due to outside-advocacy that was guided by locals' preferences. Thus, the opportunity exists for pre-construction data collection. At the time of this study, Roxbury had no cycle tracks and only some miles of painted bike lanes and sharrows (double chevrons with a bicycle symbol to indicate to drivers and bicyclists to share the road). In 2010, Roxbury had a population of 59,640 individuals in which 42.7% identified as Black, 26.2% as Hispanic, and 21.2% as White (Boston Public Health Commission, 2013). Thirty-nine percent of Blacks, 24% of Whites, and 19% of Latinos were obese. Fifty-one percent of the female-headed households in Roxbury had children under the age of 18, 44% of households were headed by females, 31% of families lived with income below the poverty level, and 24% of individuals had less than a high school diploma. To approximate crime/theft risk, the average annual homicide per 100,000 residents

was 16.4 in Roxbury compared with 7.9 in all of Boston and nonfatal gunshot/stabbing was 2.2 in Roxbury compared with 0.9 for all of Boston. Human Subjects approval to conduct this research was received from the Harvard T. H. Chan School of Public Health. Mailed survey distribution and content

A random sample of mailing addresses (without names) from six 2010 Census Track/Block Groups near Malcolm X Boulevard in Roxbury, Massachusetts was received from John Snow, Inc. (JSI) in Boston. The original survey was pretested involving 12 community-representative volunteers who suggested shortening sections. A total of 1537 surveys were mailed in August of 2014. To better assure a high return, booklet envelopes were hand addressed and affixed with a return sticker with a bicycle drawing. The envelopes were meter stamped because neighborhood representatives perceived that as more official than a postage stamp. Two cellophane-wrapped mints were taped to the cover letter as incentive and a stamped addressed return envelope was included.

Because an individual cannot have a perception about an environment they have never seen, the three page double-sided mailed survey included 42 colored pictures. The first page included a representative picture of a: 1) road without a bicycle provision; 2) road with a sharrow (shared lane marking); 3) painted bike lane beside parallel parked cars; 4) painted bike lane beside a sidewalk curb; 5) shared use path; and 6) two-way cycle track. Pictures of cycle track/vehicle separators included: 1) posts and paint; 2) low concrete islands; 3) bushes in planters; and 4) trees and bushes. Other pictures were of a wide variety of options for parking their bike where they live, at work/school, and at shops. Questions included how, if a cycle track was built on Malcolm X Boulevard, they would perceive their neighborhood. Respondents were asked about their travel mode per week. They were also asked what, of the options, would make

them want to bicycle or bicycle more often, what they think of bicyclists, and how they would see themselves as a bicyclist. If they were a bicyclist, they were asked about their riding practices and where they currently park their bike. All respondents were asked for anonymous demographic information.

The respondents to could add their name and address to be eligible to receive by lottery either one check for $500 or one of five checks for $100. Three hand addressed reminder post cards were sent in spaced time increments in August and September to addresses for which either a returned envelope or a completed survey had not been received. Eighty-nine surveys were returned, leaving a balance of 1448 household-received surveys. In total, 252 completed surveys were mailed back, resulting in a return rate of 17%. Intercept survey to bicyclists on Malcolm X Boulevard

For three weeks in August, 2014, on three clear days each week from 7:30 until 9:30 AM and 4:30 until 6:30 PM, the two-page single-sided intercept surveys with colored pictures were mounted on clipboards with pencils and distributed to bicyclists riding on Malcolm X Boulevard. As a time-courtesy to passing bicyclists, this survey included the same but fewer questions as on the mailed survey. The same pictures of six bicycle environments and four cycle track-traffic separation design options were included. Questions were asked about their perception of the neighborhood if the cycle track was built and their demographics.

A table, with a banner and chairs, was set up on one side of the street and a person with a chair was on the other side so the survey station looked commanding. As the bicyclists approached, the purpose of the survey was explained and they were asked if they would complete the voluntary survey. In total, 120 intercept surveys were completed. No participation

rate was determined because some of the same bicyclists commuted and had earlier completed the survey.

Observations about bicyclists on Malcolm X Boulevard

During the same three weeks in August at the same location and at the same times in the morning and evening, observations of bicyclists who were riding on Malcolm X Boulevard were noted. In total, 709 bicyclists were visually identified for gender, age (child/younger than 14, adult, senior), wearing a helmet, type of bike (touring, Hubway-shared, traditional level-handlebar/durable-tire mountain bike), clothing (bike, skirt, regular), child on bike, carrying items on bike, carrying items in a backpack, and time of day biking (AM or PM). Statistical analysis

The demographic characteristics, perceptions, and preferences for bicycling and bike facility by race/ethnicity were compared and analyzed. Bicyclists included self-reported bicyclists from the mailed survey (~ 60%) and all bicyclists from the bicycle intercept survey (counted bicyclists were analyzed separately). Pairwise comparison was conducted between Whites, Blacks and Hispanics. A two-sample independent t-test was used to determine the differences in means if continuous variables were normally distributed and the non-parametric analog, Wilcoxon-Mann-Whitney test, if not. The Chi-square test was used to determine the difference in percentage and the Fisher's exact test when the assumptions for Chi-square test were violated. With respect to preferences for cycle tracks (Table 2), variables that differed between White, Black, and Hispanic were further adjusted using multivariate logistic regressions with variables including gender and age. Other variables were not included, such as BMI, because this would adjust away the factors that differ between the different ethnic groups. For survey questions that had ordinal responses, the top or bottom two categories (e.g. extremely safe

/very safe; strongly agree/agree) were combined in the analysis to maximize statistical power. All the hypothesis tests were two-sided and p < 0.05 was considered as statistically significant. SAS (SAS 9.3, SAS Institute, Cary, NC) was used to perform all the statistical analyses. RESULTS

Mailed and intercept study samples

In the mailed survey for residents in Roxbury who identified their race, 37% were White, 37% Black, and 11% Hispanic. (Table 1) Fifty-eight percent of Whites were male, 38% of Blacks male, and 15% of Hispanics male. There was a median of 2 children per household, and

the mean BMI of the mailed survey respondents was 26.5 kg/m , with the highest BMI among Hispanics at 29.5 kg/m . Only eight percent of all mailed survey respondents indicated they would not bike (no way no how). Ninety-seven percent of all respondents know how to ride, 60% own a bike, and 56% own a car, with 51% of Blacks owning a car. Of the mailed survey respondents who self-reported as bicyclists, 66% were White, 56% were Hispanic and 55% were Black.

In the bicyclist intercept survey on Malcolm X Boulevard, 36% were White, 32% Black, and 16% Hispanic with males comprising the majority at 78% Hispanic, 77% Black, and 72% White. The mean BMI of the intercept survey bicyclists was 25.1 kg/m with Blacks having the highest BMI at 26.7 kg/m . More Hispanics (47%) identified themselves as strong and fearless bicyclists compared with Blacks (21%) and Whites (16%). Preferences and practices of those surveyed

In the mailed survey that included responses from bicyclist and non-bicyclist residents, Whites (90%), Hispanics (74%) and Blacks (64%), thought they would feel extremely/very safe biking on the pictured cycle track. (Table 2) If the cycle track was built on Malcolm X

Boulevard, Whites (94%), Blacks (78%), and Hispanics (67%) thought biking safety would increase. In the bicyclist intercept survey, White (100%), Hispanic (79%) and Black (76%), bicyclists felt safest on the cycle track. Of all the combined preferences of bicyclists from the mailed and intercept surveys, 89% of White bicyclists preferred trees and bushes as cycle track separators compared with 74% of Hispanic bicyclists and 54% of Black bicyclists.

For current bike parking, 62% of Hispanic, 43% of White, and 40% of Black bicyclists who completed the mailed survey parked their bicycles inside their house. (Table 3) When asked preferences, 52% of Hispanic and 47% of Black bicyclist/non-bicyclist mailed-survey respondents wanted to park their bicycle inside their homes compared with only 28% of White bicyclist/non-bicyclist respondents. This may be because White bicyclist/non-bicyclist mailed-survey respondents (83%) agreed/strongly agreed that their bicycle would not be stolen compared with Hispanics (74%) and Blacks (67%). Only about 20% of White, Black, and Hispanic bicyclists preferred to park in the basement and far fewer preferred a shed, garage, or front porch. Bike cages at work/school and outdoor racks at shops were preferred over current parking practices. (Figure 1) More Hispanic (30%) and Black (24%) bicyclists/non-bicyclists agreed that most bicyclists are women, children, or seniors compared with Whites (5%). More Hispanic (81%) and Black (54%) bicyclists/non-bicyclists thought they would bicycle more if they could bicycle with their family and friends compared with Whites (40%). Observations about Bicyclists on Malcolm X Boulevard

Bike observations on Malcolm X Boulevard included Blacks (55%), Whites (36%), and Hispanics (9%) with counts for males as Black (94%), Hispanic (94%), and White (80%). More Whites (68%) wore helmets compared with Blacks (17%) and Hispanics (21%), more Hispanics (98%) and Blacks (97%) wore their regular/daily clothing compared with Whites (90%), and

more Whites (7%) wore spandex compared with Blacks (2%) and Hispanics (0%). More Blacks (94%) and Hispanics (94%) rode a regular bike (level-handlebar/mountain bike) compared with Whites (75%) while more Whites (19%) rode a racing bike (skinny-tire drop-down handlebar) compared with Blacks (5%) and Hispanics (6%). Few Whites (1%) and no Blacks or Hispanics rode with a child on the bike. More Whites (17%) carried items on their bike compared with Hispanics (3%) and Blacks (2%). Skirt-wearing is an indication of gender inclusion and comfortable bicycling environment and 4% of White, 0.30% of Black, and no Hispanic bicyclists wore a skirt while they bicycled.

DISCUSSION

Cycle tracks were the most preferred of the six bicycle facilities but more White residents/bicyclists preferred the cycle track compared with Blacks and Hispanics. This might be because White residents/bicyclists had knowledge about the function and safety of cycle tracks. Therefore, in lower income ethnic-minority neighborhoods, the different types of bicycle facilities should be described in the local press and community presentations. A pilot cycle track should also be built in these neighborhoods so residents can knowingly advocate for superior bicycle facilities (Weber, 2014). While the entire responsibility for improving bicycle environments should not fall upon lower-income ethnic-minority communities (Kumanyika et al., 2012), residents should be given a voice (Whitt-Glover, Crespo, & Joe, 2009).

The bike observations revealed that more Whites (68%) wore helmets compared with Blacks (17%), a finding corroborated in a study on helmets, race, and pediatric cyclists (Gulack et al., 2015). Even with the research that helmets lower the risk of head injuries (Thompson, Nunn, Thompson, & Rivara, 1996) and after passage of a youth helmet law, more White than Black high school students in Florida, Dallas, and San Diego wore helmets (Kraemer, 2016).

Though helmet laws are intended to be beneficial, these laws have discouraged bicycling (Robinson, 2007) and lower income minority residents would gain the most from this physical activity. If helmet laws are passed, lower-income ethnic-minority residents would also suffer disproportionately due to the cost of tickets. In Tampa, more Black bicyclists were cited (5.3%) than Whites (3.2%) (Ridgeway, Mitchell, Gunderman, Alexander, & Letten, 2016) and in Minneapolis, where 61% of the population is White and 18% Black, more Black bicyclists (48%) were cited for an infraction than Whites (35%) (Hoffman & Kmiecik, 2016). Helmet wearing can be encouraged but helmet laws would not equally serve lower-income ethnic-minority populations.

The bike observations also revealed that Blacks are bicycling in higher numbers than Whites and have their own bike-appearance with mountain bikes, regular clothes, and no items carried on their bikes. Few bicyclists were female, carried a child on the bike, or wore a skirt, all signs about bicycle environment comfort. The observations demonstrated that more insights could be learned from having a person in the field than if only tube sensors count tires.

For bicycle parking, while many White, Black, and Hispanic bicyclists currently park their bicycle in their house, more Black and Hispanic bicyclists and non-bicyclists preferred to park their bikes inside their house. This might be because, compared with Blacks and Hispanics, more Whites had the perception that bikes would not be stolen. As theft of pedals or a saddle can bring economic hardship to a lower income family, affordable housing should be designed so that bike parking is provided inside each dwelling unit. With the in-unit bike parking, bike-seated children and grocery-laden bikes could be wheeled in near the kitchen.

More Blacks and Hispanics thought bicyclists were mostly women, children, and seniors and more Blacks and Hispanics thought they would bike more if they could bike with family and

friends. To comfortably bicycle with someone, the bicyclist would prefer to ride beside and not in front or behind their companion. Therefore, cycle tracks in lower income ethnic-minority neighborhoods should be wide to enable side-by-side riding with family and friends. (C.R.O.W., 2006; Rietveld & Daniel, 2004).

More Blacks and Hispanics also preferred low concrete islands or posts/paint compared with Whites who preferred trees and bushes. As landscaping could provide a greater sense of separation from road traffic and Blacks and Hispanics wanted to bicycle with family and friends, perhaps trees-as-separation could still be considered in lower income neighborhoods. With the need to cool cities (Flocks, Escobedo, Wade, Varela, & Wald, 2011), limbed up trees could provide shade and a perception of safety from crime (Donovan & Prestemon, 2012).

Other studies have utilized visual preference surveys with pictures of cycle tracks but the race of the survey participants was not included.(Winters & Teschke, 2010) Residents and bicyclists in Roxbury preferred cycle tracks and studies confirm that cycle tracks are perceived as safer (A. Lusk, Wen, & Zhou, 2014; Monsere, Dill, McNeill, clifton, & Foster, 2014; Winters & Teschke, 2010) and are safer than the road or other bike facilities (Federal Highway Administration, 2015; A. C. Lusk et al., 2011; A. C. Lusk et al., 2013; Thomas & DeRobertis, 2013). Over half of the mailed-survey respondents were female and the cycle track was most preferred, as confirmed in other studies that included gender (Garrard, Rose, & Lo, 2008; Harris, Jenkins, & Glaser, 2006; A. Lusk et al., 2014). Strengths and Limitations

The mailed survey response rate was only 17% but the findings about bike environment preferences are confirmed in other studies. Only one picture was included for each bicycle environment and that might not have captured all designs. The intercept survey did not have a

response rate because commuters had earlier completed the survey. The bike observations were conducted in August and bicyclists would vary seasonally. The mailed surveys were sent during August when people might have been on vacation or housing was vacant. Observations about passing bicyclists (age, race, etc.) were deduced by the researchers. Though this survey was only conducted in one lower-income minority neighborhood, the findings can be generalized to other lower-income minority neighborhoods in Northeastern and Western regions in the U.S. The terrain is relatively flat, the traffic reflective of a city, and the percentage of commuting bicyclists in Boston (1.7%) similar to other large cities in the northeastern (1.0%) or the west (1.4%). ((McKenzie, 2014) CONCLUSION

Cycle tracks should be targeted as capital investments in lower income minority neighborhoods to achieve greater construction benefits related to health than only creating cycle tracks in wealthier neighborhoods. Minority populations are biking and have even adopted their own bike appearance. Cycle tracks in lower income neighborhoods should be built wide enough for side-by-side riding because Blacks and Hispanics want to ride with family and friends. Affordable housing should include bike parking rooms inside the housing units because Black and Hispanics preferred to park their bicycles inside their house or apartment.

Conflict of Interest

The authors declare there is no conflict of interest. Acknowledgements

This research was supported by Coverys. The Helen and William Mazer Foundation had provided prior support that revealed Malcolm X Boulevard was the resident-chosen location for a cycle track.

Bibliography

Ainsworth, B. E., Haskell, W. L., Whitt, M. C., Irwin, M. L., Swartz, A. M., Strath, S.J., . . . Leon, A. S. (2000). Compendium of physical activities: an update of activity codes and MET intensities. MedSci Sports Exerc, 32(9 Suppl), S498-504.

Aytur, S. A., Rodriguez, D. A., Evenson, K. R., Catellier, D. J., & Rosamond, W. D. (2008). The

sociodemographics of land use planning: relationships to physical activity, accessibility, and equity. Health Place, 14(3), 367-385. doi:10.1016/j.healthplace.2007.08.004

Boston Department of Transportation. (2013). Boston Bike Network Plan. Retrieved from Boston:

http://www.cityofboston.gov/images_documents/Boston%20Bike%20Network%20Plan%2C%20 Fall%202013_F I NAL_tcm3-40525.pdf

Boston Public Health Commission. (2013). Health of Boston 2012-2013: A Neighborhood Focus. Retrieved from Boston: http://www.bphc.org/healthdata/health-of-boston-report/Documents/HOB-2012-2013/HOB12-13_FullReport.pdf

Buehler, T., & Handy, S. (2008). Fifty Years of Bicycle Policy in Davis, California. Transportation Research Record: Journal of the Transportation Research Board, 2074, 52-57.

C.R.O.W. (2006). Design Manual for Bicycle Traffic (Vol. Record 25). Netherlands: National Information and Technology Platform for Infrastructure, Traffic, Transport, and Public Space.

Cradock, A. L., Troped, P. J., Fields, B., Melly, S. J., Simms, S. V., Gimmler, F., & Fowler, M. (2009). Factors associated with federal transportation funding for local pedestrian and bicycle programming and facilities. J Public Health Policy, 30 Suppl 1, S38-72.

Donovan, G., & Prestemon, J. (2012). The Effect of Trees on Crime in Portland, Oregon. Environment and Behavior, 44, 3-30.

Federal Highway Administration. (2015). Separated Bike Lane Planning and Design Guide. Retrieved from

http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/environment/bicycle_pedestrian/publications/separated_bikelane_p dg/pageOO.cfm

Flocks, J., Escobedo, F., Wade, J., Varela, S., & Wald, C. (2011). Environmental Justice Implications of Urban Tree Cover in Miami-Dade County, Florida. Environmental Justice, 4(2), 125-134.

Garrard, J., Rose, G., & Lo, S. K. (2008). Promoting transportation cycling for women: the role of bicycle infrastructure. Prev Med, 46(1), 55-59. doi:S0091-7435(07)00303-9 [pii]

10.1016/j.ypmed. 2007.07.010

Gulack, B., Englum, B., Rialon, K., Talbot, L., Keenan, J., Rice, H., . . . Adibe, O. (2015). Inequalities in the use of helmets by race and payer status among pedeatric cyclists. Paper presented at the 10th Annual Academic Surgical Congress, Las Vegas, NV.

Harris, C., Jenkins, M., & Glaser, D. (2006). Gender Differences in Risk Assessment: Why do Women Take Fewer Risks than Men? Judgment and Decision Making, 1(1), 48-63.

Hoffman, M. R., & Kmiecik, A. (2016). Bicycle Citations and Related Arrests in Minneapolis 2009-2015. Retrieved from

https://d3n8a8pro7vhmx.cloudfront.net/mplsbike/pages/3970/attachments/original/14761379 57/MBC_Police_Citations_Report_Final2_small.pdf?1476137957

Kraemer, J. D. (2016). Bicycle helmet laws and persistent racial and ethnic helmet use disparities among urban high school students: a repeated cross-sectional analysis. Inj Epidemiol, 3(1), 21. doi: 10.1186/s40621-016-0086-3

Kumanyika, S., Taylor, W. C., Grier, S. A., Lassiter, V., Lancaster, K. J., Morssink, C. B., & Renzaho, A. M.

(2012). Community energy balance: a framework for contextualizing cultural influences on high

risk of obesity in ethnic minority populations. Prev Med, 55(5), 371-381. doi:10.1016/j.ypmed.2012.07.002 Larsson, U. E., & Mattsson, E. (2001). Perceived disability and observed functional limitations in obese

women. IntJ Obes Relat Metab Disord, 25(11), 1705-1712. League of American Bicyclists and the Sierra Club. The New Majority: Pedaling Towards Equity.

Retrieved from http://bikeleague.org/sites/default/files/equity_report.pdf Lusk, A., Wen, X., & Zhou, L. (2014). Gender and used/preferred differences of bicycle routes, parking, intersection signals, and bicycle type: Professional middle class preferences in Hangzhou, China. Journal of Transport & Health, 1, 124-133. Lusk, A. C., Furth, P. G., Morency, P., Miranda-Moreno, L. F., Willett, W. C., & Dennerlein, J. T. (2011).

Risk of injury for bicycling on cycle tracks versus in the street. Inj Prev, 17, 131-135. Lusk, A. C., Mekary, R. A., Feskanich, D., & Willett, W. C. (2010). Bicycle riding, walking, and weight gain

in premenopausal women. Arch Intern Med, 170(12), 1050-1056. Lusk, A. C., Morency, P., Miranda-Moreno, L. F., Willett, W. C., & Dennerlein, J. T. (2013). Bicycle

Guidelines and Crash Rates on Cycle Tracks in the United States. Am J Public Health, 103(1), 1240-1248.

McKenzie, B. (2014). Modes Less Traveled-Bicycling and Walking to Work in the United States: 2008-

2012. Retrieved from https://www.census.gov/prod/2014pubs/acs-25.pdf Monsere, C., Dill, J., McNeill, N., clifton, K., & Foster, N. (2014). Lessons from the Green Lanes: Evaluating Protected Bike Lanes in the U.S. Retrieved from

http://pdxscholar.library.pdx.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1143&context=cengin_fac Ogden, C. L., Carroll, M. D., Kit, B. K., & Flegal, K. M. (2014). Prevalence of childhood and adult obesity in

the United States, 2011-2012. Jama, 311(8), 806-814. doi:10.1001/jama.2014.732 People for Bikes and Alliance for Biking and Walking. Building Equity Race, ethnicity, class, and protected bike lanes: An idea book for fairer cities. Retrieved from http://b.3cdn.net/bikes/60e4ef 1291e083cada_8ym6ip7pw.pdf Powell, L. M., Slater, S., Chaloupka, F. J., & Harper, D. (2006). Availability of physical activity-related

facilities and neighborhood demographic and socioeconomic characteristics: a national study. Am J Public Health, 96(9), 1676-1680. Ransdell, L., Vener, J., & Huberty, J. (2009). Masters Athletes: An analysis of Running, Swimming, and

Cycling Performance by Age and Gender. J ExercSci Fit, 7(2), S61-S73. Ridgeway, G., Mitchell, O., Gunderman, S., Alexander, C., & Letten, J. (2016). An Examination of Racial Disparities in Bicycle Stops and Citations Made by the Tampa Police Department. Retrieved from https://assets.documentcloud.org/documents/2812648/An-Examination-of-Racial-Disparities-in-Bicycle.pdf Rietveld, R., & Daniel, V. (2004). Determinants of bicycle use: do municipal policies matter?

Transportation Research Part A, 38, 531-550. Roberts, L. (2014). 'Bike Lanes are White Lanes!': The Social Implications of Urban Active Transportation Planning in the Built Environment of Portland, OR. (Bachelor of Arts), Lewis & Clark Collete, Portland, OR. Retrieved from https://ds.lclark.edu/sge/wp-content/uploads/sites/121/2014/05/RobertsFinalThesis.pdf Robinson, D. L. (2007). Bicycle helmet legislation: can we reach a consensus? Accid Anal Prev, 39(1), 86-

93. doi:10.1016/j.aap.2006.06.007 Sallis, J. F., Conway, T. L., Dillon, L. I., Frank, L. D., Adams, M. A., Cain, K. L., & Saelens, B. E. (2013). Environmental and demographic correlates of bicycling. Prev Med, 57(5), 456-460. doi:10.1016/j.ypmed.2013.06.014 Thomas, B., & DeRobertis, M. (2013). The safety of urban cycle tracks: a review of the literature. Accid Anal Prev, 52, 219-227.

Thompson, D. C., Nunn, M. E., Thompson, R. S., & Rivara, F. P. (1996). Effectiveness of bicycle safety

helmets in preventing serious facial injury. Jama, 276(24), 1974-1975. Thrun, E., Chriqui JF, SJ, S., DC, B., & FJ, C. (2012). Using Local Land Use Laws to Facilitate Physical Activity - A BTG Research Brief. Retrieved from

http://www.bridgingthegapresearch.org/_asset/5q86hg/btg_land_use_pa_FINAL_03-09-12.pdf Weber, J. (2014). The process of crafting bicycle and pedestrian policy: A discussion of cost-benefit

analysis and the multiple stream framework. Trnsport Policy, 32, 132-138. Whitt-Glover, M. C., Crespo, C. J., & Joe, J. (2009). Recommendations for advancing opportunities to increase physical activity in racial/ethnic minority communities. Prev Med, 49(A), 292-293. doi:10.1016/j.ypmed.2009.08.003 Winters, M., & Teschke, K. (2010). Route preferences among adults in the near market for bicycling:

findings of the cycling in cities study. Am J Health Promot, 25(1), 40-47. Yu, C. Y. (2014). Environmental supports for walking/biking and traffic safety: income and ethnicity disparities. Prev Med, 67, 12-16. doi:10.1016/j.ypmed.2014.06.028

Table 1. Descriptive characteristics of participants in the Roxbury, MA mailed and intercept surveys (Summer 2014)

Mailed survey Intercept survey All bicyclists - Mailed and Intercept

All White Black Hispanic All White Black Hispanic All White Black Hispanic

(n=252) (n=93) (n=94) (n=27) (n=120) (n=43) (n=38) (n=19) (n=248) (n=104) (n=90) (n=34)

Male % a 43 58 38 15 75 72 77 78 62 67 59 55

Age, %ac

18-24 9 15 2 12 38 30 >35 56 20 18 14 32

25-35 28 41 17 38 25 26 21 38 28 38 16 35

36-45 11 15 10 8 12 9 12 6 11 12 9 6

46-55 20 18 23 4 12 18 0 19 18 24 0

56-65 17 3 30 27 11 ^19 12 0 17 10 27 23

66-75 11 8 16 7 3 5 3 0 7 5 9 3

76 and older 2 0 1 4 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

BMI (kg/mz), 26.5 24.8 27.9 29.5 25.1 24.9 26.7 24.9 25.6 24.8 27.4 26.4

ao c mean

Biking

confidence, % 0

Strong and fearless 15 18 12 19 24 16 21 47 23 22 18 38

Enthusiastic and 36 42 30 41 53 37 42 44 52 40 35

confident

Interested but 41 35 46 50 34 30 39 11 31 26 38 24

concerned

No way no how 8 4 12 12 1 0 3 0 3 0 5 3

No. of child, 2 1 2 1

median

Child age (years), 10 7 12 9

mean a

Know how to ride 97 100 97 89

a bicycle, %

Own a bike, % a 60 72 47 52

Own a car, % 56 61 51 59

Days/week of

traveling, median

Car 2 1 2 3

Walking 4 3 5 5

Bus/train 3 2 3 2

Bicycle a 2 3 0 1

Other 0 0 0 1

Language spoken

at home, %a

English 79 92 80 32

Not English 8 1 10 12

Mixed 14 7 11 56

Education, % a

No high school 4 0 5 15

High school 18 3 28 26

2 years college 17 9 26 22

4 years college 28 42 17 19

Graduate school 30 44 20 15

Other 3 2 3 4

Self-reported 59 66 55 56

bicyclist, %

Total time / day on

a bike, %§

5-15 mins 5 5 8 9

16-59 mins 48 55 46 18

1 hour 24 27 21 36

> 1 hour 22 13 26 36

Days/week of

biking, median§

Work/schoola 3 3 0 3

Shopping/personal 2 2 2 3

Recreation 2 1 2 3

p-value < 0.05 in Mailed survey;u p-value < 0.05 in Intercept survey;c p-value < 0.05 in all bicyclists; All p-values were calculated only between White and Black.

For continuous variables, a two-sample independent t-test was used for normally distributed variables whereas Wilcoxon-Mann-Whitney test was used for non-normally distributed variables.

For categorical variables, a chi-square test was used or a Fisher's exact test when at least one of the category has an expected frequency of five or less. Calculated only among self-reported bicyclists.

Table 2. Perceptions and preferences about facilities in Roxbury, MA (Summer 2014)_

Mailed survey Intercept survey All bicyclists

White Black Hispanic White Black Hispanic White Black Hispanic

Biking facility, %

Extremely/very safe

Road with a sharrow 9a 19a 376 16 29 21 13a 20ab 29b

Bike lane by curb 32a 31a 56b 53 50 47 42 40 59

Cycle track 90a 64b 74b 100a 76b 79b 95a 66b 79b

Bike lane by car 7a 10a 26b 9 11 32 10a 10a 29b

Road 3 5 11 0 5 5 3 6 9

Shared-used path 80a 43b 5630 77 68 84 79a 53b 74a0

Separation for cycle track, %

Prefer a lot/some

Bushes in planters 69 59 51 70 61 74 69a 54b 65ab

Low concrete island 76 63 70 51a 61ab 790 68 57 76

Posts and paints 65 63 70 53 68 58 63 66 71

Trees and bushes 90a 56b 63b 91a 55b 74ab 89a 54b 74a

If a cycle track was built, %

Increase a lot/some

Living desirability 86a 49b 48b 91a 66b 84ab 89a 59b 65a

Driving safety 55 56 52 65 68 79 57 64 62

Walking safety 50 43 44 72 74 74 59 57 76

Biking safety 94a 78\ 67° 100a 95ab 840 95a 86ab 71°

Biking likelihood 70 54 63 81 79 74 80 70 71

a,b Pairwise comparison was conducted between Whites, Blacks and Hispanics; numbers (in the same line) without same upper letters mean statistically significant difference at P value <0.05 based on logistic regression analysis adjusted for age (18-24; 25-45, 46-65, 56 and older), and gender (male or female).

Table 3. Further inquiry from the mailed survey about preferences and perceptions in Roxbury, MA (Summer 2014)

White Black p* Hispanic White Black p*

Preferred bike parking location,'1' % Home

Outside the house Front porch Garage Shed Basement Inside the house

Work/school

Outside on a post Outdoor rack Bike cage Garage Inside at cubicle

Outside on a post Outdoor rack Outdoor covered area In the store Take the bike along

Perception about bicyclists% They don't pollute They are friendly

Mostly women, children, or seniors

The area is safer from crime They improve economy A car driver might hit them They do not obey laws They slow down car drivers

13 10 8

10 7 8 113 4 24 25 8

28 47 52

29 34 52

30 34 28 26 15 0

11 10 8 39 34 48 42 44 40

85 78 78

48 41 56

5a 24b 30b

29 30 26

39 38 44

88a 67b 81at>

55 55 59

34 43 52

Current bike parking location,§(p % Home

Outside the house Front porch Garage Shed Basement Inside the house

Work/school

Outside on a post Outdoor rack Bike cage Garage Inside at cubicle

Outside on a post Outdoor rack Outdoor covered area In the store Take the bike along

Factors encouraging biking%

The neighborhood is safe Paths/cycle tracks exist

Hispanic

20 20 23

43 40 62 0.77

11 12 23

37 29 31

7 10 8

17 10 0

11 12 8 0.002

49 26 31

39 30 46

2 15 0

bicyclist? %

83 83 81

82 80 89

80 78 89

86 90 93

33a 47a 74b

76 72 70

Perception about him/herself being a

I would be more fit and trim I would enjoy - bicycling

Set a good example for my children

Save on transportation

They don't belong on the road with cars

They are healthier They cause car crashes They hit pedestrians

21a 34ab

75a 55b

12a 30b

52b Wear work/school clothes 67ab Easy to park bicycle 3& Bicycles won't be stolen

22 Showers and lockers at work

40a 54b

59 59 74 59 41 44 81° 33 48 41 37

Maps and signs of routes Bathrooms/water on the route Bike with family and friends Look good biking Could carry things on a bike Have access to a bike shop No helmet hair

§ Results were based on a subgroup of participants from the Roxbury survey who self-reported as bicyclists. The sample size was 61 for White, 52 for Black and 15 for Hispanic.

* p value was calculated based on the difference between White and Black.

11 All the percentage results reflected agree/strongly agree, aba,b Pairwise comparison was conducted between Whites, Blacks and Hispanics; numbers (in the same line) without same upper letters mean statistically significant difference at P value <0.05 based on logistic regression analysis adjusted for age (18-24; 25-45, 46-65, 56 and older), and gender (male or female).

9 The number in a column under the same category might not add to 100 because the percentage for "other" responses was not shown.

Table 4. Characteristics of bicyclists counted on the road in Roxbury, MA (Summer 2014)__

White Black Hispanic P*

No. of bicyclists 253 393 63

Male, % 80 94 94 <.001

Age group, % <.001

Child 0 12 5

Adult 93 86 95

Senior 7 2 0

Wearing a helmet, % 68 17 21 <.001

Type of bike, % <.001

Touring 19 5 6

Hubway 5 1 0

Regular 75 94 94

Type of clothing, % <.001

Bike 7 2 0

Skirt 4 0.30 2

Regular/daily 90 97 98

Child on the bike, % 1 0 0 0.30

Carrying items on the bike, % 17 2 3 <.001

Carrying items in the backpack, % 64 66 57 0.37

Biking in the evening, % 50 61 44 0.004

* p value was calculated among three race/ethnicity groups.

NUSCRIPT

Figure 1 Preferred and current bike parking location among different study population in Roxbury, MA (Summer 2014)

a,b Pairwise comparison was conducted between Whites, Blacks and Hispanics; column without same upper letter means statistically significant difference at P value <0.05 level based on logistic regression analysis adjusted for age (18-24; 25-45, 46-65, 56 and older), and gender (male or female).

Inside the house at home

Fig. 1

Bike cage ativork/sehool

Prefer ■ Current Outdoor rack of shops

White Black Hispanic

HIGHLIGHTS

1. Cycle tracks were perceived as the safest by Whites, Blacks, and Hispanics.

2. More Blacks and Hispanics preferred to park their bikes inside their homes.

3. More Blacks and Hispanics want to bicycle with family and friends.

4. More Blacks were biking on Malcolm X in Roxbury compared with Whites.

5. Fewer Blacks and Hispanics wear helmets and more bike in regular clothes.