A Complete Street Intervention for Walking to Transit, Nontransit Walking, and Bicycling: A Quasi-Experimental Demonstration of Increased Use

Abstract

Background Complete streets require evaluation to determine if they encourage active transportation. Methods Data were collected before and after a street intervention provided new light rail, bike lanes, and better sidewalks in Salt Lake City, Utah. Residents living near (<800 m) and far (≥801–2000 m) from the street were compared, with sensitivity tests for alternative definitions of near (<600 and <1000 m). Dependent variables were accelerometer/global positioning system (GPS) measures of transit trips, non-transit walking trips, and biking trips that included the complete street corridor. Results Active travel trips for Near-Time 2 residents, the group hypothesized to be the most active, were compared to the other three groups (Near-Time 1, Far-Time 1, and Far-Time 2), net of control variables. Near-Time 2 residents were more likely to engage in complete street transit walking trips (35%, adjusted) and non-transit walking trips (50%) than the other three groups (24–25% and 13–36%, respectively). Bicycling was less prevalent, with only one of three contrasts significant (10% of Near-Time 2 residents had complete street bicycle trips compared to 5% of Far-Time 1 residents). Conclusions Living near the complete street intervention supported more pedestrian use and possibly bicycling, suggesting complete streets are also public health interventions.

Geographic regions for assessing built environmental correlates with walking trips: A comparison using different metrics and model designs

“…However, a distance effect was observed in the larger sample of residents in this same neighborhood. Residents living near the complete street after it was completed increased their active travel along the complete street corridor and used it more than residents living farther away (Brown et al, 2016). Other studies have found a distance effect after a two year follow-up after the intervention was completed (Goodman et al, 2013).…”

Walkability, complete streets, and gender: Who benefits most?

“…For instance, following a California complete street renovation there was no increase in cyclists, but a 37% increase in pedestrians (Shu et al, 2014); these mixed findings are difficult to interpret because no comparison street was included to control for potential shifting of transportation practices over time. Although street renovations are sometimes related to more self-reported walking (Pazin et al, 2016) or accelerometer-measured walking (Brown et al, 2016), other studies show no increased use after street renovations (Boarnet et al, 2013) or greenway construction (West and Shores, 2011, 2015). Past evaluations of the complete street reported in the current study showed more nearby residents used complete street transit than before (Brown et al, 2015), and more people were counted at transit stops than before (Werner et al, 2016).…”

Urban space and physical activity are a risk factor for cardiovascular diseases

“…Исследование Moving Across Places (MAPS) [26,27] обобщило результаты практической реализации в США подхода улучшения инфраструктуры, подразумевающего модернизацию не всего района проживания, а так называемой "полной улицы" (Complete Street). Политика "полных улиц" приобрела популярность в 2000-х годах и принята к реализации в 30 из 50 штатов США [28].…”

“…По результатам исследования для расстояния проживания от "полной улицы" выявлен самостоятельный эффект на ФА. Так, время транспортной и рекреационной ФА выше у участников исследования, близко проживающих (800 метров) к "полной улице", по сравнению с далеко и очень близко живущими (1000 и 600 метров) [27]. Аналогичные тенденции (статистически не значимые) выявлены по времени пользования велосипедами.…”