Have Paved Trails and Protected Bike Lanes Led to More Bicycling in Atlanta?: A Generalized Synthetic-Control Analysis. Issue 4 (12th April 2022)

• Record Type: Journal Article
• Authors: Garber, Michael D.; Flanders, W. Dana; Watkins, Kari E.; Lobelo, Felipe; Kramer, Michael R.; McCullough, Lauren E.
• Is Part Of: Epidemiology. Volume 33:Issue 4(2022)
• Page Start: 493
• Page End: 504
• Publication Date: 2022-04-12
• Subjects: Synthetic control -- Causal inference -- Atlanta BeltLine -- Bicycle infrastructure -- Big data -- Built environment; Epidemiology -- Periodicals; Epidemiology -- Environmental aspects -- Periodicals; Epidemiology -- Periodicals; 614.405
• DOI: 10.1097/EDE.0000000000001483
• Languages: English
• ISSNs: 1044-3983

Abstract

Abstract : Background: Bicycling is an important form of physical activity in populations. Research assessing the effect of infrastructure on bicycling with high-resolution smartphone data is emerging in several places, but it remains limited in low-bicycling US settings, including the Southeastern US. The Atlanta area has been expanding its bicycle infrastructure, including off-street paved trails such as the Atlanta BeltLine and some protected bike lanes. Methods: Using the generalized synthetic-control method, we estimated effects of five groups of off-street paved trails and protected bike lanes on bicycle ridership in their corresponding areas. To measure bicycling, we used 2 years (October 1, 2016 to September 30, 2018) of monthly Strava data in Atlanta's urban core along with data from 15 on-the-ground counters to adjust for spatiotemporal variation in app use. Results: Considering all infrastructure as one joint intervention, an estimated 1.10 (95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.99, 1.18) times more bicycle–distance was ridden than would have been expected in the same areas had the infrastructure not been built, when defining treatment areas by the narrower of two definitions (defined in text). The Atlanta BeltLine Westside Trail and Proctor Creek Greenway had especially strong effect estimates, e.g., ratios of 1.45 (95% CI: 1.12, 1.86) and 1.55 (1.10, 2.14) under each treatment-area definition, respectively. We estimated that other infrastructure had weaker positive or no effects on bicycle–distance ridden. Conclusions: This study advances research on the topic because of its setting in the US Southeast, simultaneous assessment of several infrastructure groups, and data-driven approach to estimating effects. See video abstract at, http://links.lww.com/EDE/B936 .