Skip to main content

Table 2 Results of linear regression models estimating associations between Bike Score® and componentsa, and cycling mode shareb

From: Bike Score®: Associations between urban bikeability and cycling behavior in 24 cities

   Model 1 Model 2 Model 3
Unadjusted estimates Bike score + City Term Bike Score Components + Bike Score Categorical
   City Term  
β (95 % CI) β (95 % CI) β (95 % CI) β (95 % CI)
Intercept   −2.6 (-2.9 to -2.3) −4.4 (−5.1 to −3.8) −1.4 (−2.4 to −0.3)
Bike Score (10-unit change) 0.6 (0.6 to 0.7) 0.5 (0.5 to 0.6)   
Destinations/Connectivity Score (10-unit change) 0.2 (0.1 to 0.2)   0.4 (0.3 to 0.4)  
Bike Lane Score (10-unit change) 0.3 (0.3 to 0.3)   0.2 (0.2 to 0.2)  
Hill Score (10-unit change) −0.1 (−0.2 to −0.1)   0.1 (0.1 to 0.2)  
Bike Score (categorical)     
 0 to 25 0 (Reference)    0 (Reference)
 >25 to 50 −0.2 (−1.3 to 1.0)    1.1 (0.1 to 2.2)
 >50 to 75 0.8 (−0.3 to 2.0)    1.8 (0.8 to 2.9)
 >75 to 90 2.0 (0.8 to 3.1)    2.6 (1.5 to 3.6)
 >90 to 100 3.5 (2.3 to 4.7)    4.0 (2.9 to 5.0)
City     
 New York, New York   Reference Reference Reference
 Ann Arbor, Michigan   2.3 (1.3 to 3.2) 3.4 (2.5 to 4.4) 2.5 (1.5 to 3.4)
 Austin, Texas   2.0 (1.5 to 2.4) 2.8 (2.3 to 3.2) 1.8 (1.3 to 2.2)
 Boston, Massachusetts   0.5 (0.4 to 0.9) 0.6 (0.2 to 1.0) 0.5 (0.1 to 0.9)
 Calgary, Alberta   0.0 (−0.4 to 0.4) 1.5 (1.0 to 1.9) 0.3 (−0.1 to 0.6)
 Chicago, Illinois   0.7 (0.5 to 0.9) 0.7 (0.5 to 0.9) 0.7 (0.5 to 1.0)
 Eugene, Oregon   9.3 (8.3 to 10.2) 10.3 (9.3 to 11.2) 9.4 (8.4 to 10.3)
 Fort Collins, Colorado   6.2 (5.3 to 7.1) 7.5 (6.6 to 8.4) 6.3 (5.3 to 7.2)
 Halifax, Nova Scotia   3.1 (2.0 to 4.2) 3.7 (2.6 to 4.8) 3.3 (2.2 to 4.4)
 Madison, Wisconsin   5.0 (4.3 to 5.8) 5.9 (5.1 to 6.6) 5.1 (4.4 to 5.8)
 Minneapolis, Minnesota   2.6 (2.0 to 3.1) 3.0 (2.5 to 3.5) 2.7 (2.2 to 3.2)
 Moncton, New Brunswick   0.5 (−0.9 to 1.8) 1.5 (0.1 to 2.9) 0.3 (−1.1 to 1.6)
 Montréal, Québec   3.4 (3.1 to 3.7) 3.7 (3.3 to 4.0) 3.4 (3.1 to 3.8)
 Portland, Oregon   5.4 (4.9 to 5.9) 5.8 (5.4 to 6.3) 5.4 (5.0 to 5.9)
 San Francisco, California   1.7 (1.3 to 2.1) 2.1 (1.6 to 2.5) 1.8 (1.4 to 2.2)
 Saskatoon, Saskatchewan   0.8 (0.0 to 1.6) 2.1 (1.3 to 3.0) 1.0 (0.2 to 1.8)
 Seattle, Washington   2.8 (2.4 to 3.3) 3.3 (2.8 to 3.8) 2.8 (2.3 to 3.3)
 St. John’s, Newfoundland and Labrador   0.3 (−0.8 to 1.4) 1.1 (−0.2 to 2.1) 10.6 (−0.2 to 21.4)
 Tempe, Arizona   2.8 (1.9 to 3.7) 3.6 (2.8 to 4.5) 3.1 (2.2 to 3.9)
 Toronto, Ontario   1.2 (1.0 to 1.5) 1.5 (1.3 to 1.8) 1.3 (1.0 to 1.5)
 Tucson, Arizona   1.4 (0.9 to 1.9) 2.4 (1.9 to 3.0) 1.4 (0.9 to 1.9)
 Vancouver, British-Columbia   2.8 (2.3 to 3.3) 3.0 (2.5 to 3.6) 2.9 (2.4 to 3.4)
 Victoria, British-Columbia   10.4 (9.1 to 11.6) 10.4 (9.2 to 11.7) 10.3 (9.0 to 11.6)
 Washington, DC   1.7 (1.3 to 2.2) 2.1 (1.6 to 2.5) 1.7 (1.3 to 2.1)
Adj-R2 0.12 (Bike Score, unadjusted) 0.35 0.36 0.34
AIC 12627 11035 10870  
  1. Data for 5664 Census Tracts in 24 Cities. Coefficients represent % mode share. Boldface indicates statistical significance (p < 0.05)
  2. aBike Score spatial data provided from Walk Score (May 2012 release); analysis here includes 3 components (Bike Lane Score, Hill Score, Destinations and Connectivity Score); spatial data aggregated to the census tract in ArcGIS
  3. bCensus tract level Journey to work Bicycle Mode Share (% commute by bike for workers aged 16 years and older) -American Community Survey, 5-year estimates (2012 5-year estimates), U.S. Census Bureau, 2013 American Community Survey; CA data is 2011 National Household Survey, Census tract level Journey to work Bicycle Mode Share for population aged 15 years and older with a usual place of work