Promoting activity-friendly communities.

RESEARCH REVIEWMoving Toward Active Transportation:
How Policies Can Encourage Walking and Bicycling
INTRODUCTION

Walking and cycling for daily trips can provide valuable regular physical activity, butcurrently, few Americans walk or ride a bicycle as a part of their daily routine. Most
rely on their automobiles to go to work, shop for groceries, or just get around. As
a result, “active travel,” such as walking or biking for routine trips, is not a significant
part of daily life for most Americans, providing little, if any, regular physical activity.
Lack of physical activity is a major risk factor in over 5 million, or 9 percent,of premature deaths worldwide.1 In economic terms, the burden from lack of physicalactivity is estimated to be $117 billion dollars or 9–11 percent of total health carecosts in the U.S.2
According to the latest U.S. household travel survey data, only 11 percent of
all trips are taken by foot, 1 percent by bicycle, and 2 percent by public transport(which usually also involves either walking or riding a bicycle to and from a train
station or a bus stop).3 Higher rates of active travel are found in Western European
countries such as Germany, the U.K., and the Netherlands (Figure 1).4,5 Active travel
can be a big help in reaching recommended daily levels of physical activity of at least
30 minutes on most days, or 150 minutes per week.4,6

Produced with funding from the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation.

activelivingresearch.org

Active Living Research|

RESEARCH REVIEW| January 2016

page 2At the same time, obstacles to walking, bicycling, or use
Rates of Active Travel in America Are Lower
Than in Western European Countries4,5of public transport include:n Walking■■ Lack of connectivity of pedestrian or bike infrastructure;

FIGURE 1n Bicycling■■ Lack of sidewalks, crosswalks, and bikeways;

n Public transportation■■ Actual and perceived dangers of walking and cycling; and25
22■■ Poor supply of public transport.

22

Percentage of Trips

19

13 13
11

10

4
1

U.S.

2

2

GermanyUK

Active travel can be a significant source of regularphysical activity when built into daily routines, and in mostcases, it requires few skills, little extra time, and is inexpensive.
Most daily trips are within easy walking or biking distance(Figure 2).
This research review summarizes evidence on the healthbenefits and safety of active travel, and examines policies andprograms that can help increase active travel.

Netherlands

METHODOLOGY

Driving is a major source of physical inactivity andis associated with overweight and obesity. In a review of
10 studies, 8 provided evidence suggesting that higher levelsof driving (either as time or distance in a motor vehicle) areassociated with a higher risk of increased weight.7
One reason why so many people drive in the U.S. isdecades of car-centric planning, which has led to a systemthat makes driving convenient and cheap, but poses many
obstacles to walking, cycling, and transit use. Examples of ­car-centric planning include:■■ Transportation decisions have mostly been based on

measurements of the delays that cars experience on existingroads, a practice that can lead to the building of large roads
that only accommodate cars.8■■ A minimum supply of car parking mandated for most newbuildings, such as private homes, businesses, shops,
or restaurants. As a result, for most trips in the U.S., carparking is free, and there is often an ample supply of it.9■■ The federal government allows a deduction of up to$250 for car parking, compared to a $130 deduction forpurchasing transit/commuter tickets.10■■ Gasoline and vehicle taxes pay only about 60–70 percent ofroadway building and maintenance expenditures by all levelsof government. The rest is paid for by non-transport related
taxes, such as property, sales, or income taxes.11

The amount of research on both determinants of active travel
and the links between active travel and public health has
increased sharply over the last decade. This research review
updates the Active Living Research (ALR) brief on the same
topic from 2009.12 To assess the state of knowledge in thisvast and dynamic field, we examined peer-reviewed scholarly
review articles published between 2009 and 2015, using
search terms and combinations of search terms such as:active transport, active travel, bicycle, bicycling, bike, bike lane,bike share, built environment, connectivity, cycling, e-bike,education, enforcement, gasoline, GPS, infrastructure, landuse, open streets, parking, pedestrians, public transit, safety,
sidewalk, speed limits, topography, traffic, traffic calming,walking, network connectivity, traffic, traffic calming, walking,public transit, and public transport.
The databases searched were Web of Science, TRID,
PubMed, and Health Evidence. The identified review articles
were supplemented with select key original studies and reports.
KEY FINDINGSThe health benefits of physical activity in general havebeen well documented by hundreds of studies.13 Morerecently, a growing number of studies have confirmed
such benefits specifically for transport-related walking
and cycling.14–16■■ Physical activity has been associated with a risk reduction

for premature death and a number of chronic diseases.
Estimated risk reductions between the most active and theleast active groups are substantial, i.e., about 30 percent
for all causes of death; 20–35 percent for cardiovasculardisease, coronary heart disease and stroke; 30–40 percent
for type 2 diabetes; about 30 percent for colon cancer; andabout 20 percent for breast cancer.13

Produced with funding from the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation.

activelivingresearch.org

Active Living Research|

RESEARCH REVIEW| January 2016■■ A growing evidence base, specifically on cycling or walking,confirms the health benefits already observed in studies on
general physical activity.14-16■■ For people who cycle or walk for any purpose at a level
corresponding to World Health Organization (WHO)recommendations for physical activity (i.e., 150 minutes /week), the risk of mortality for all causes is reduced byabout 10 percent.14,17■■ Two separate reviews found that the risk of cardiovasculardiseases is reduced by 16 percent for people who walk
3 hours per week18 and by 11 percent for people who
actively commute (compared to people who do not actively
commute).19
The health benefits of active transportation exceed its
risks of injury and exposure to air pollution.
■■ Reviews of 30 health impact modeling studies, whichquantify benefits from walking or cycling due to increases inphysical activity, as well as resulting risks from exposure to
air pollution or crashes, have consistently demonstrated that
health benefits from active travel outweigh risks.20–22■■ A study in the San Francisco Bay Area assessing the healthimpacts from shifting short car trips to walking and cycling
found that 1,501 premature deaths would be avoided
annually due to increases in physical activity, while 61
pedestrians or cyclists would be at risk of dying each year
from crashes.23■■ The risk associated with traffic crashes and the level of

exposure to air pollution can vary greatly by location,24,25
impeding walking or cycling on high-traffic roads.
■■ Cycling can result in greater exposure to air pollution

because air pollution concentrations are typically increased
along roads, and elevated breathing rates from the effort ofcycling can lead to higher intake of pollutants.26,27 However,there are no studies available that link exposure to air
pollution from cycling directly to long-term health effects.28
Safety is a key consideration for promoting active
travel. Importantly, places with higher levels of walking
and cycling also have greater safety for pedestrians.

Safety concerns, both real and perceived, are a major
deterrent to active travel. Crashes and injuries have severe
consequences, and there is a growing body of evidence onsafer infrastructure design. Yet, for widespread acceptanceof active transportation, low crash risks are not sufficient —active travel needs to feel safe as well.

Produced with funding from the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation.

page 3■■ Fatality risks in the U.S. are much greater for all modes oftravel than in most Western European countries, whether
measured per capita or per mile traveled, and both on andoff motorways.29 For example, the cycling fatality rate in the
U.S. is five times higher than in the Netherlands or Denmark,indicating that there is room for improvement. Nonetheless,with approximately 5.5 cyclists killed per 100 million km
cycled, deadly crashes are rare even in the U.S.30,31■■ The principle of “safety in numbers” has been observed

widely. Studies have shown that bicycling safety is greaterin countries and cities with higher levels of bicycling, andthat bicycling injury rates fall as levels of bicycling increase.
The same is true for walking. Safety and promotion of active
travel therefore go hand in hand.32–34■■ The underlying reasons for “safety in numbers” are notclear.35 One rationale is that drivers have increased
awareness in areas where cyclists and pedestrians arecommonly seen. However, while it could be that a higher
number of walkers and cyclists improve safety in thisway (“safety in numbers”), it could also be that safety
improvements to infrastructure increases the numbers ofwalkers and cyclists (“numbers in safety”).28■■ Both more cycling and greater safety are typically observedin environments with better and more infrastructure andmore pro-walk/bike policies and programs.35
Provision of convenient, safe, and connected walking
and cycling infrastructure is at the core of promoting
active travel.

Physically separating cyclists and pedestrians from cars, wheremotorized traffic volumes and speeds are high, is important.
So is reducing vehicle speeds and traffic volume through trafficcalming on other streets.
■■ Cyclists seem to favor streets with little and slow motorized

traffic as well as separate paths and/or lanes overcycling on roadways with high volumes of fast-moving
motorized traffic.36■■ For pedestrians, the presence of sidewalks, crosswalks,

and paths can reduce crash risk and increase convenienceand comfort.37■■ Areas with more amenities for biking and walking, such as

sidewalks, bicycle lanes, or paths are associated with more
active commuting to school.38■■ Shorter distances between home and a bike route,provisions of separate paths and cycle tracks, andseparation from traffic are all related to increases in cycling.39

activelivingresearch.org

Active Living Research|

RESEARCH REVIEW| January 2016

page 4■■ Several studies indicate that the fear of cycling on roads with■■ The available evidence consistently suggests that there is a

motorized traffic is greater among inexperienced cyclists,risk-averse individuals, women, and younger cyclists.36 Bikepaths and separate facilities are perceived as safer which
may help less confident cyclists make the decision to ridea bicycle.37

positive relationship between bikeway networks and cycling
levels.36 Bikeway networks typically consist of bike paths,
bike lanes, and local streets with low speeds and volumesof motorized traffic.
■■ Street connectivity is associated with more active travelto school.38 Streets with higher connectivity have smaller,
shorter blocks, and offer shorter or more pleasant routes.

■■ Bike parking and shower and locker facilities at work areassociated with more bike commuting. Free car parking at
work is associated with less bike commuting.40■■ Walking and cycling can be increased by community-scale■■ Sidewalks, crosswalks, and paths, can reduce walking crashurban design and land use policies. These include zoning
regulations and building codes, that encourage transitoriented development, higher street connectivity, higher
density of development, and having more stores, jobs andschools within walking distance of where people live.48

risk, and increase walking. By increasing active transport,these features tend to reduce total crash rates owing to the“safety in numbers” effect.41■■ Area-wide urban traffic calming efforts have been shownon average to reduce the number of crashes with injuries
by about 25 percent on residential streets, and 10 percent
on main roads.42

F I G U R E 2 Most Daily Trips in U.S. Are Within Easy
Walking or Biking Distance3■■ Less car travel per capita, slower car travel speeds, narrowlanes, and traffic calming in dense urban areas help increase
traffic safety.43
studies suggest that such efforts are cost-effective,44even without considering the various additional benefits(i.e., reduced traffic congestion and pollution) associatedwith increases in active travel.45
Aside from specific infrastructure for cyclists andpedestrians, the way neighborhoods and communities
are built affects levels of active travel.

Percentage of Trips■■ Besides the health benefits that active travel promises,

61
54
49

48
39
27

< 1 mile< 2 miles< 3 miles< 4 miles< 5 miles> 5 miles

The so-called “Five Ds” of the built environment — Density,
Diversity, Design, Destination, and Distance to transit— havebeen found to reduce car use and promote walking, cycling,
and public transportation usage. Effects of individual measuresrelating to the “Five Ds” are small, but the joint effect ofmultiple measures may be large.46 Density of people, housing,workplaces and /or intersections results in reduced travel
distances, which favors walking and cycling.

Walking or biking for daily travel needs can be promoted
as a convenient and competitive option through programs
that shift travel behavior.

■■ Traffic volume, highway density, and traffic speeds are■■ Programs that were tailored to individuals or small groups

negatively associated with levels of active travel, whilesmaller block size, access to public transport, retail,neighborhood shops, and street connectivity are positively
associated with levels of bicycle ridership.47■■ Shorter blocks and more opportunities to cross roadways

are associated with more walking.46

Produced with funding from the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation.

■■ Some behavior-change programs that targeted information

or advice to groups already motivated to walk or bike were
found to be effective in shifting as much as a 5 percent of allhousehold trips from cars to walking or cycling.49
who were already motivated to change their behavior
resulted in increased walking overall by 30–60 minutes per
week, and walking for transportation by 15–30 minutes
per week in the short term.50■■ However, there is currently insufficient evidence that bythemselves, programs targeting the general population, suchas car pooling,51,52 financial incentives,53 and mass media
efforts and publicity campaigns49,54 result in population-level
increases in active travel.

activelivingresearch.org

Active Living Research|

RESEARCH REVIEW| January 2016■■ Programs such as Bike to Work Day introduce people tobike riding, and there is some evidence to suggest that theyaffect commuting habits, at least in some participants.55■■ Ciclovía events — temporarily closing streets to motorized

traffic and giving exclusive street access to pedestrians,
cyclists, and other non-motorized modes of transportation —may have positive health outcomes, but more study isneeded.56■■ There are bikeshare programs in over 800 cities worldwide.

The available data suggests that adopters of bikeshareare primarily those who also use public transit and those
who walk.57
Policies that improve public transport, or make car
use less attractive, increase the competitiveness ofactive travel modes.
■■ The much higher cost of car ownership and use innorthern Europe compared to the U.S. encourages
bicycling, especially combined with limited car parking,car-free zones, comprehensive traffic calming, andlower overall speed limits, which reduces the overall
convenience and attractiveness of car use.33■■ Promoting public transit can also be one strategy toencourage walking and cycling, as each trip via public
transit typically begins and ends with walking or cycling.
One review suggested that the extra physical activity
associated with public transit was typically 12–15 minutes
per person per day. In the U.S., 29 percent of those who
use transit got 30 minutes or more of daily physical activity
just from walking to and from public transit stops.58■■ Giving employees cash instead of employer-paid parking

can reduce levels of single-occupant cars, and increase
rates of car pools, transit use, walking and biking.54■■ Car-free city centers also reduce driving and increase

walking and public transport use.54■■ Lower speed limits for cars increase safety for cyclists andpedestrians, and also increase the relative speed of cycling
when compared to motorized traffic.33

page 5by their personal needs, preferences and attitudes, but also by
a complicated mix of physical and social environments.59–61
Provision of convenient, safe, and connected walking andcycling infrastructure is at the core of promoting active travel.
A key purpose of such infrastructure should be to protect
pedestrians and bicyclists from cars, which is identified as amajor barrier. Aside from specific infrastructure for cyclists andpedestrians, the way entire neighborhoods and communities
are built affects levels of active travel, since community design
determines whether trip origins and destinations are sufficiently
close to each other to be covered by foot or bicycle. Policies
that improve public transport can boost active travel as anaccess mode to transit, while policies that make car use lessattractive will increase the competitiveness of active travelmodes. Moreover, such efforts may be complemented throughpromotional programs that emphasize active travel as aconvenient and healthy travel option.
There is clear indication that policies to promote active
travel will work best when implemented in comprehensive
packages; these may include infrastructure and facility
improvements, pricing policies, and education programs toachieve substantial shifts towards active modes. Measures that
promote public transit and policies that make car travel lessconvenient can also be included in a comprehensive packageof policies and programs.33,37,54,62Champions will be needed at all levels of government toembed active travel into transportation policy and guidelines.
Traditionally, urban street and bikeway design standards in the
U.S. have been focused on moving automobiles, and haveoften limited the implementation of innovative infrastructure forpedestrians and cyclists.63 While some standards have started
to change, more changes may be needed to promote walking
and cycling. Studying innovative infrastructure measures(e.g., in pilot projects) may help achieve design standards that
promote active travel.
While there remains considerable uncertainty about the
precise effects of specific measures on levels of walking or
cycling, the evidence is strong to support the conclusion thatin general such efforts are warranted in light of the substantial
health benefits to be gained from increasing active travel.
FUTURE RESEARCH NEEDSCONCLUSIONS AND POLICY IMPLICATIONS

Active travel, such as walking and cycling, can substantially
increase levels of regular physical activity. The health benefitsof physical activity have been well documented and apply towalking and bicycling for travel. Studies indicate that the healthbenefits of active travel exceed any associated risks of injury
and exposure to air pollution. Designing policies and programs
to increase walking and cycling is challenging, because
individuals’ decisions to walk or cycle are not only determined

Produced with funding from the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation.

A number of research needs remain in this area. Little is known
about the specific effectiveness of any one factor in increasing
walking or cycling, and for that matter, it remains unknown what
the ideal mix of policies would be. Research can also help identify
the specific policies or actions that can be taken by federal,state, regional and local agencies to increase active travel. As theevidence grows, there will also be a need to develop evidencebased tools that planners, engineers, advocates and politicians
can use to make the case for active travel.

activelivingresearch.org

Active Living Research|

RESEARCH REVIEW| January 2016

page 6

Improvements in data collection and evaluation methods,
such as repeated (longitudinal) assessments applied to naturalexperiments and interventions, at sufficiently large scale, andwith systematic consideration of a wide range of relevant
factors are warranted. Such studies have only recently begun
to emerge.64 A recent review included seven studies of active
transportation interventions (such as bike lanes, trails, or lightrails) and found mostly positive results for physical activity
outcomes.65
More generally, an improved understanding of thedeterminants of active travel behavior is required to improveand develop new, more effective measures to promote active
travel. Of particular interest is the area of safety — both withregards to reducing crash risks, as well as understanding how
people’s perceptions of crash risks may discourage active
travel. Cost-effectiveness studies would also be useful as a tool
for policy-makers.
In the area of health impacts, one aim of research is tolearn more about whether people substitute activity gained intransportation for other physical activities, by reducing their
participation in sports or other forms of exercise.
Finally, in order for active travel to contribute to publichealth, it is crucial to understand how it can be promoted insubgroups of the population least likely to engage in physicalactivity.28 This implies considering the equity distribution ofpolicy, program, and infrastructure interventions to promote
active travel.50

ENDNOTES

Prepared by Ralph Buehler, PhD, School of Public and International
Affairs, Urban Affairs & Planning, Virginia Tech; Thomas Götschi, PhD,
Institute for Epidemiology, Biostatistics, and Prevention, Universityof Zurich; and Meghan Winters, PhD, Faculty of Health Sciences,
Simon Fraser University.

10 U.S. Department of the Treasury, Internal Revenue Service. 26 CFRPeer review provided by David R. Bassett, Jr., PhD, The Universityof Tennessee; Sean Co, Tool Design Group; and Ruth L. Steiner, PhD,
MBA, University of Florida.

Funding for highways and disposition of highway-user revenues, allunits of government, 2012, Table HF 10. www.fhwa.dot.gov/policy
information/statistics/2012/hf10.cfm. Accessed November 24, 2015.

Cover photo “Biking Along” by Matt Johnson. Licensed under aCreative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 2.0 Generic(CC BY-NC-SA 2.0). Accessed 14 Dec 2015.
Acknowledgement: The authors would like to thank Virginia Tech
graduate student Kyle Lukacs for his help collecting and organizing
the literature. We would also like to thank the Metropolitan Instituteat Virginia Tech for financially supporting Lukacs’ work.

1

Lee IM, Shiroma EJ, Lobelo F, Puska P, Blair SN, Katzmarzyk PT.
Effect of physical inactivity on major non-communicable diseases
worldwide: an analysis of burden of disease and life expectancy.
Lancet. 2012;380(9838):219-229.

2

Carlson SA, Fulton JE, Pratt M, Yang Z, Adams EK. Inadequate
physical activity and health care expenditures in the United States.
Prog Cardiovasc Dis. 2015;57(4):315-323.

3

U.S. Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration.
Our nation’s travel. Analysis of the 2009 NHTS. In: Transportation
UDo, ed. Washington, DC; 2010.

4

Buehler R, Pucher J, Merom D, Bauman A. Active travel in Germany
and the U.S. Contributions of daily walking and cycling to physicalactivity. Am J Prev Med. 2011;41(3):241-250.

5Bassett DR, Jr, Pucher J, Buehler R, Thompson DL, Crouter SE.
Walking, cycling, and obesity rates in Europe, North America, andAustralia. J Phys Act Health. 2008;5(6):795-814.

6World Health Organization. Global strategy on Diet, Physical Activity
and Health. Recommended levels of physical activity for adults aged
18-64 years. Available at www.who.int/dietphysicalactivity/factsheet_adults/en/. Accessed November 24, 2015.

7

McCormack GR, Virk JS. Driving towards obesity: A systematized
literature review on the association between motor vehicle travel timeand distance and weight status in adults. Prev Med. 2014;66:49-55.

8Hiatt R. An alternative to auto LOS for transportation impact analysis.
Transportation Research Board 85th Annual Meeting (No. 06-2306).
2006. Available at http://trid.trb.org/view.aspx?id=777382.

9

Shoup D. The High Cost of Free Parking, Updated Edition. Chicago,
IL: APA Planners Press; 2011.
601.602: Tax forms and instructions, Qualified Transportation Fringe
Benefit. In: Service IR, ed. Washington, DC; 2014. Available at www.
irs.gov/pub/irs-drop/rp-14-61.pdf. Accessed November 24, 2015.

11 U.S. Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration.

12 Rodriguez D. Active Transportation: Making the Link fromTransportation to Physical Activity and Obesity. A Research Brief.
Princeton, NJ: Active Living Research, a National Program of
the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation; 2009. Available at
http://activelivingresearch.org/active-transportation-making-linktransportation-physical-activity-and-obesity.
13 Physical Activity Guidelines Advisory Committee. Physical Activity

Guidelines Advisory Committee Report, 2008. Washington, DC:‘[U.S. Department of Health and Human Services; 2008. Available at
http://health.gov/paguidelines/report/pdf/CommitteeReport.pdf.
14 Kelly P, Kahlmeier S, Gotschi T, et al. Systematic review and meta-

analysis of reduction in all-cause mortality from walking and cycling
and shape of dose response relationship. Int J Behav Nutr Phys Act.
2014;11(1):132.
15 Oja P, Titze S, Bauman A, et al. Health benefits of cycling: a systematic

review. Scand J Med Sci Sports. 2011;21(4):496-509.

Produced with funding from the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation.

activelivingresearch.org

Active Living Research|

RESEARCH REVIEW| January 201616 Saunders LE, Green JM, Petticrew MP, Steinbach R, Roberts H.

What are the health benefits of active travel? a systematic review oftrials and cohort studies. PLoS One. 2013;8(8):e69912. doi:10.1371/
journal.pone.0069912.
17 Woodcock J, Franco OH, Orsini N, Roberts I. Non-vigorous physicalactivity and all-cause mortality: systematic review and meta-analysis
of cohort studies. Int J Epidemiol. 2011;40(1):121-138.
18 Hamer M, Chida Y. Walking and primary prevention: a meta-analysis

of prospective cohort studies. Br J Sports Med. 2008;42(4):238-243.
19 Hamer M, Chida Y. Active commuting and cardiovascular risk:

A meta-analytic review. Prev Med. 2008;46(1):9-13.
20 Doorley R, Pakrashi V, Ghosh B. Quantifying the health impacts ofactive travel: assessment of methodologies. Transport Rev.
2015;35(5):559-582.
21 Mueller N, Rojas-Rueda D, Cole-Hunter T, et al. Health impact

assessment of active transportation: a systematic review. Prev Med.
2015;76:103-114.
22 Teschke K, Reynolds CCO, Ries FJ, Gouge B, Winters M. Bicycling:

health risk or benefit? UBC Med J. 2012;3(2):6-11.
23 Maizlish N, Woodcock J, Co S, Ostro B, Fanai A, Fairley D. Healthcobenefits and transportation-related reductions in greenhouse gas
emissions in the San Francisco Bay area. Am J Public Health.
2013;103(4):703-709.
24 Holm AL, Glümer C, Diderichsen F. Health Impact Assessment of

increased cycling to place of work or education in Copenhagen. BMJ
Open. 2012;2(4):e001135. doi:10.1136/bmjopen-2012-001135.
25 Woodcock J, Tainio M, Cheshire J, O’Brien O, Goodman A. Healtheffects of the London bicycle sharing system: health impact modellingstudy. BMJ. 2014;348:g425. doi:dx.doi.org/10.1136/bmj.g425.
26 Bigazzi AY, Figliozzi MA. Review of urban bicyclists’ intake and uptakeof traffic-related air pollution. Transport Rev. 2014;34(2):221-245.
27 Karanasiou A, Viana M, Querol X, Moreno T, de Leeuw F. Assessmentof personal exposure to particulate air pollution during commuting
in European cities — recommendations and policy implications.
Sci Total Environ. 2014;490:785-797.
28 Götschi T, Garrard J, Giles-Corti B. Cycling as a part of daily life: areview of health perspectives. Transport Rev. 2015:1-27. doi:10.1080/0
1441647.2015.1057877.
29 International Transport Forum. Risk indicators. IRTAD Database.

Available at http://internationaltransportforum.org/irtadpublic/pdf/risk.
pdf. Accessed November 24, 2015.
30 Pucher J, Buehler R. Making cycling irresistible: lessons from theNetherlands, Denmark, and Germany. Transport Rev.
2008;28(4):495-528.
31 Pucher J, Buehler R. City Cycling. Cambridge, MA; London, England:

MIT Press; 2012.
32 Jacobsen PL. Safety in numbers: more walkers and bicyclists, safer

walking and bicycling. Inj Prev. 2003;9(3):205-209.
33 Pucher J, Dill J, Handy S. Infrastructure, programs, and policies topage 734 Elvik R. The non-linearity of risk and the promotion of environmentally

sustainable transport. Accident Anal Prev. 2009;41(4):849-855.
35 Jacobsen PL, Ragland DR, Komanoff C. Safety in numbers for walkers

and bicyclists: exploring the mechanisms. Inj Prev. 2015;21(4):217-220.
36 Buehler R, Dill J. Bikeway networks: a review of effects on cycling.

Transport Rev. 2015. doi:10.1080/01441647.2015.1069908.
37 Krizek KJ, Forsyth A, Baum L. Walking and Cycling International

Literature Review Melbourne, AU: Victoria Department for Transport;
2009. Available at http://economicdevelopment.vic.gov.au/__data/
assets/pdf_file/0010/1091908/WalkingCyclingLiteratureReview.pdf.
38 Galvez MP, Pearl M, Yen IH. Childhood obesity and the built

environment. Curr Opin Pediatr. 2010;22(2):202-207.
39 Fraser SD, Lock K. Cycling for transport and public health: asystematic review of the effect of the environment on cycling. Eur J
Public Health. 2011;21(6):738-743.
40 Buehler R. Determinants of bicycle commuting in the Washington, DC

region: the role of bicycle parking, cyclist showers, and free car
parking at work. Transport Res D-TR E. 2012;17(7):525-531.
41 Litman T. Transportation and public health. Annu Rev Public Health.

2013;34:217-233.
42 Elvik R. Area-wide urban traffic calming schemes: a meta-analysis ofsafety effects. Accid Anal Prev. 2001;33(3):327-336.
43 Ewing R, Dumbaugh E. The built environment and traffic safety:

a review of empirical evidence. J Plann Lit. 2009;23(4):347-367.
44 Cavill N, Kahlmeier S, Rutter H, Racioppi F, Oja P. Economic analysesof transport infrastructure and policies including health effects related
to cycling and walking: a systematic review. Transp Policy.
2009;15(5):291-304.
45 Litman T. Quantifying the benefits of nonmotorized transportation forachieving mobility management objectives. Transp Res Rec.
2004;1441:134-140.
46 Ewing R, Cervero R. Travel and the built environment: a meta-analysis.

JAPA. 2010;76(3):265-294.
47 Cui Y, Mishra S, Welch TF. Land use effects on bicycle ridership:a framework for state planning agencies. J Transp Geogr.
2014;41:220-228.
48 Heath GW, Brownson, RC, Kruger J, et al. The effectiveness of urban

design and land use and transport policies and practices to increase
physical activity: a systematic review. J Phys Act Health.
2006;3(Suppl1):S55-S76.
49 Ogilvie D, Egan M, Hamilton V, Petticrew M. Promoting walking andcycling as an alternative to using cars: systematic review. BMJ.
2004;329(7469):763. doi:dx.doi.org/10.1136/bmj.38216.714560.55.
50 Ogilvie D, Foster CE, Rothnie H, et al. Interventions to promote

walking: systematic review. BMJ. 2007;334(7605):1204. doi:dx.doi.
org/10.1136/bmj.39198.722720.BE.
51 Hosking J, Macmillan A, Connor J, Bullen C, Ameratunga S.

Organisational travel plans for improving health. Cochrane Database
Syst Rev. 2010(3):CD005575. doi:10.1002/14651858.CD005575.pub3.

increase bicycling: an international review. Prev Med. 2010;50
Suppl1:S106-125.

Produced with funding from the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation.

activelivingresearch.org

Active Living Research|

RESEARCH REVIEW| January 2016

52 Macmillan AK, Hosking J, L. Connor J, Bullen C, Ameratunga S.

A Cochrane systematic review of the effectiveness of organisational
travel plans: Improving the evidence base for transport decisions.
Transp Policy. 2013;29(0):249-256.
53 Martin A, Suhrcke M, Ogilvie D. Financial incentives to promote active

travel: an evidence review and economic framework. Am J Prev Med.
2012;43(6):e45-e57.
54 Scheepers CE, Wendel-Vos GCW, den Broeder JM, van Kempen

EEMM, van Wesemael PJV, Schuit AJ. Shifting from car to active
transport: a systematic review of the effectiveness of interventions.
Transport Res A-Pol. 2014;70:264-280.
55 Piatkowski D, Bronson R, Marshall W, Asce M, Krizek KJ. Measuring

the impacts of bike-to-work day events and identifying barriers toincreased commuter cycling. J Urban Plan Dev. 2015;141(4). doi:dx.
doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)UP.1943-5444.0000239.
56 Sarmiento O, Torres A, Jacoby E, Pratt M, Schmid TL, Stierling G.

The Ciclovía-Recreativa: a mass-recreational program with publichealth potential. J Phys Act Health. 2010;7(Suppl2):S163-S180.
57 Fishman E. Bikeshare: a review of recent literature. Transport Rev.

2015. doi:10.1080/01441647.2015.1033036.
58 Rissel C, Curac N, Greenaway M, Bauman A. Physical activity

associated with public transport use — a review and modelling ofpotential benefits. Int J Environ Res Public Health. 2012;9(7):2454-2478.

page 860 Panter JR, Jones A. Attitudes and the environment as determinantsof active travel in adults: what do and don’t we know? J Phys Act
Health. 2010;7(4), 551-561.
61 Willis DP, Manaugh K, El-Geneidy A. Cycling under influence:summarizing the influence of perceptions, attitudes, habits, and social
environments on cycling for transportation.” Int J Sustain Transport.
2015;9(8):565-579.
62 Yang L, Sahlqvist S, McMinn A, Griffin SJ, Ogilvie D. Interventions topromote cycling: systematic review. BMJ. 2010;341:c5293. doi:dx.doi.
org/10.1136/bmj.c5293.
63 National Association of City Transportation Officials. Urban Street

Design Guide. Washington, DC: National Association of City
Transportation Officials, 2015. Available at http://nacto.org/publication/
urban-street-design-guide/. Accessed November 24, 2015.
64 Sahlqvist S, Goodman A, Cooper AR, Ogilvie D, iConnect consortium.

Change in active travel and changes in recreational and total physicalactivity in adults: longitudinal findings from the iConnect study. Int J
Behav Nutr Phys Act. 2013;10(1):28. doi:10.1186/1479-5868-10-28.
65 Mayne SL, Auchincloss AH, Michael YL. Impact of policy and built

environment changes on obesity-related outcomes: a systematic
review of naturally occurring experiments. Obes Rev.
2015;16(5):362-375.

59 Heinen E, van Wee B, Maat K. Commuting by bicycle: an overview

of the literature. Transport Rev. 2010;30(1):59–96.

Produced with funding from the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation.

activelivingresearch.org