downtown multimodal transportation study · ©2018 iqs research | downtown multimodal...

June 2018

2018 Downtown Multimodal

Transportation Study

IQS RESEARCH

308 North Evergreen Road, Suite 200

Louisville, KY 40243

P: 502-244-6600

F: 502-244-6296

www.iqsresearch.com

PROJECT MANAGER

Christina Shadle

Director of Account Services

[email protected]

This study elucidates the travel patterns of Louisville’s downtown working population and

identifies factors which influence workers’ decisions about utilizing alternative modes of

transportation (namely TARC, walking, bicycling, and bike sharing). The findings of this study are

based upon a survey of 1,053 respondents who work or study in downtown Louisville and were

recruited by convenience sampling. Where possible, findings are compared to those from a

similar 2014 study on this same topic.

©2018 IQS Research | Downtown Multimodal Transportation Study

2

About IQS Research

Founded in 1999, IQS Research is a custom market research and data

analytics firm. We provide precise and actionable insights about your

employees, communities, customers and markets. We are the trusted

partner that decision-makers rely on, not just to answer questions, but to

enable meaningful change.

For more information, please visit www.iqsresearch.com.

Material Accuracy

The intent of the Downtown Multimodal

Transportation Study and this subsequent

report is to provide accurate and authoritative

information about the means of

transportation used by employees and

students who work or study in downtown

Louisville. IQS Research makes reasonable

effort to ensure that all data are collected,

analyzed, and portrayed in an accurate and

factual manner. However, there is no

guarantee that these data are without flaws or

that the use of these data will prevent

differences of opinion or disputes, and IQS

Research bears no responsibility for their use

or consequences.

http://www.iqsresearch.com/


3

Table of Contents

About IQS Research 2

Material Accuracy 2

Executive Summary 5

Methodology 9

Sample Characteristics 11

Overview of Transportation 14

Distances Travelled 14

Modes of Transportation 15

Usage and Perceptions of Specific Modes 17

TARC 18

Utilization 18

Suggestions for Expanding TARC’s Ridership 21

Overall Perceptions among Downtown Workers 22

Walking 24

Frequency 24

Perceived Benefits of Walking 26

Suggestions to Increase Walking as Transportation 27

Overall Perceptions of Walking in Louisville 29

Bicycling 31

Ownership and Utilization 31

Perceived Benefits of Cycling 34

Suggestions to Increase Cycling in Louisville 35

Access to Safe Bike Lanes or Roads for Commuting 39

Overall Perceptions of Bicycling in Louisville 40

Bike Sharing 42

Overlap in Biking and Walking 48


4

Conflicts with Cyclists and Pedestrians 50

Conflicts with Cyclists 50

Conflicts with Pedestrians 52

Miscellaneous Driver-specific Experiences 55

Parking Costs 55

Speed Limits 55

Appendix 56

Trends Since 2007 in Commuting Modes in Louisville and Other Comparison Cities 56

Home ZIP Codes of Survey Respondents 59


5

Executive Summary

This study elucidates the travel patterns of Louisville’s downtown working population and identifies

incentives and barriers to wider usage of alternative transportation modes (namely TARC, walking,

bicycling, and bike sharing). The underlying data for this study consist of a survey completed by a

convenience sample of 1,053 employees who work in downtown Louisville. We summarize below

the key findings of this study.

Driving remains the dominant form of transportation, especially for commuting to work.

Like workers everywhere in the United States, Louisville’s downtown working population

overwhelmingly tends to commute by driving alone. Even when the weather is nice (and thus

bicycling or walking are relatively appealing), 84% of downtown workers drive alone on their typical

trip into work or school. In addition to those who drive alone, some 6% of workers ride with

family/friends; in total, about nine out of ten downtown workers goes to work or school by driving.

For trips outside of work, too, (e.g. errands or social activity), downtown workers also primarily rely

on their cars. However, for non-work trips, members of the downtown working population often

share rides with family and friends. For instance, while about 77% of downtown workers normally

run errands by driving alone, as many as 19% would say that they normally ride with family or

friends. For non-work trips, especially, workers are disinclined to use TARC. Even among the 5% of

workers who typically use TARC to get to work, only 14% normally use TARC to run errands and only

16% normally use TARC for social/recreational trips.

Relative to 2014, there appears to be no increase in the share of downtown workers who use

alternative modes of transportation, whether for commuting or for non-work trips such as errands

or social outings. Our secondary research on commuting trends over the last ten years in Louisville

and a set of comparison cities (e.g. Nashville) suggest that Louisville is unexceptional in this respect.

In the ten years between 2007 and 2016 (the last year for which annual city-specific commuting data

are available from the Census Bureau), there has been essentially little-to-no decline in per-capita

rates of commuting alone to work in Louisville or its comparison cities.


6

Most of the population has used TARC before, and experience (or lack thereof) informs their

suggestions for how to expand ridership.

Most members of the downtown working population have used TARC at some point in their past,

although as many as 34% have never ridden TARC and just 25% have used TARC in the past year. For

the most part, downtown workers (regardless of their usage of TARC) would primarily recommend

that if Louisville wanted to expand the ridership of TARC, it should make improvements to

cleanliness, safety, ride duration, and route coverage. However, as can be seen in the chart below,

these different groups do differ in the suggestions they would make. Those who have never stepped

foot on a TARC bus are especially inclined to suggest improvements be made to cleanliness and

safety, while those who have recently used TARC are especially likely to suggest that TARC should

better ensure the on-time arrival of its buses.


7

Walking is an uncommon means of transportation for commuting or conducting errands/shopping.

When asked the question, “How often do you walk to work/school or walk for shopping/errands?”,

the majority of our respondents said that they drive or take other means of transportation rather

than walking. About a third of downtown workers walk in order to conduct these kinds of trips, and

this minority is split between those who walk on a weekly basis or on a more infrequent basis. This

minority of workers who do walk is, like the minority of workers who frequently bike, especially likely

to live within 10 miles of their downtown workplace and are especially likely to identify as male.

Typically, workers attribute their lack of walking to the fact that they consider the trips they need to

make to be “too difficult” (e.g. too distant or requiring too much lifting), but many also often identify

a number of other discouraging factors, too (weather, for instance). When walkers are asked to

identify the aspects of walking which they value most, almost every walker would point to the health

or exercise benefits of walking. Beyond health, there are also a number of other commonly-

appreciated benefits, such as reducing one’s environmental impact. Asked to suggest ways to

increase walking as a mode of transportation in Louisville, walkers would most commonly suggest

adding sidewalks and/or improving their condition.

Many downtown workers own a bike, but it’s fairly uncommon to regularly use one for trips.

While 54% of workers have a working bicycle, only 15% use their bicycles for trips on a weekly basis,

with most bicycle owners using them for trips only once a month or less. Demographically, the kinds

of workers who bike on a frequent basis differ from the rest of the downtown working population in

a few respects. For instance, bikers (and especially frequent bikers) are especially likely to describe

themselves as physically active, live within 10 miles of their work, and identify their gender as male.

The most commonly suggested improvements for encouraging biking consist of adding or improving

bike lanes or paths.

When we asked survey respondents, to tell us what they consider to be the most important

improvements for increasing bike ridership in Louisville, we found the most common suggestions

involve adding or improving bike lanes and paths rather than, say, creating more bike parking

spaces or reducing speed limits along popular bicycling routes.


8

Perhaps underlying the common suggestion to add bike lanes is the fact that only 22% of bicycle

owners would say that there are contiguous bike lanes or roads that they could safely use to ride

from home to work. Among such bicycle owners—who generally tend to live within 10 miles of their

downtown workplace—it is fairly common to commute to work by bicycle: 20% of such workers

normally commute by bike when the weather is nice, compared to 2% of those without safe,

contiguous bike lanes or roads to work.

Most of the downtown working population either never or at most infrequently bikes or walks as

means of transportation.

When it comes to walking and biking for one’s trips, two similarly physical activities, the downtown

working population can be divided into three categories of workers:

1. 35% who neither bike nor walk as a means of transportation

2. 43% who bike or walk, but at most on an infrequent basis

3. 22% of works who either bike or walk on a frequent basis

Nearly every worker is aware of LouVelo, and 5% have rented a LouVelo bike.

In total, 96% of workers have seen a LouVelo bike before, and 5% have rented one; as such, two and

a half times more people have ridden LouVelo than typically use their bicycle for commuting. There

are a number of reasons given by workers for why they haven’t rented a LouVelo bike, the most

common being that they simply don’t have a need for them. For instance, many workers simply

don’t take short trips downtown, while others already have a bike available to them.

We find that LouVelo users differ from non-users in a few respects. Most notably, workers who have

used LouVelo before tend to live much closer to downtown compared to non-users (especially

compared to non-users who’ve never seen a LouVelo bike before). In addition, LouVelo users are

especially likely to already possess a bicycle: 75% of the workers who’ve used LouVelo already own a

working bicycle, in contrast to 53% of workers who’ve never used LouVelo but do own a bike.


9

Methodology

Data for this study were gathered using an online survey designed by IQS Research in partnership

with Louisville Metro Government. Louisville Metro Government led the data collection, distributing

the survey invitation link through a variety of channels including direct contact with employers

located in the downtown Louisville area who shared the invitation with their employees; through

email communication from the Louisville Downtown Partnership to its listserv; and to the general

public through social media such as Facebook. Due to the method of survey distribution, these data

are a convenience sample rather than a random, representative sample of the downtown working

population. As such, statistics based on these data are likely to be especially reflective of sub-

populations with greater access to the online survey (e.g. skilled professionals or employees of

organizations more engaged with Louisville Metro Government).

The survey data collection period lasted from May 7, 2014 to May 25, 2014. During this time IQS

Research received a total of 1,356 responses.

Since this study was designed to focus on

the transportation habits of the

downtown working population, we asked

respondents to indicate whether they

worked in either the 40202 or 40203 zip

codes (shown in the map at right). Those

respondents who either declined to

provide the ZIP code of their work

location or indicated that they work in a

ZIP code other than 40202 or 40203 were

removed from the final dataset used in

this study. Of the total 1,356 responses

received, 303 (22%) were excluded from

analysis.

In total, the final sample of responses for this study consists of 1,053 completed surveys. If these

data were assumed to be a random sample from the general population of approximately 65,000

downtown workers, they would yield estimates with a margin of sampling error of ±3% at a

confidence level of 95%.1

1 This approximate population size come from Louisville Downtown Partnership’s “Historical employment by

year in CBD” estimates, available here: https://louisvilledowntown.org/wp-

content/uploads/2016/07/EmplHist.pdf.

https://louisvilledowntown.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/07/EmplHist.pdf

https://louisvilledowntown.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/07/EmplHist.pdf


10

IQS designed the survey instrument, which asked participants about their transportation habits

concerning TARC public transportation, bicycling, and walking. The first section of the survey asked

questions concerning the modes of transportation that a respondent typically used on different

types of trips. Next, individual sections were designed to measure utilization and attitudes about

specific modes of transportation, including TARC, bicycling, bike sharing, and walking. The survey’s

length varied according to responses made by survey-takers (for example, some questions were

only asked to persons who indicated that they own a bicycle): as a result, the survey’s length could

extend to at least 35 questions and at most 45 questions.

This study was designed to be comparable to a similar study conducted by IQS Research in May

2014 that measured many of the same behaviors and attitudes for the same population of

downtown workers. Both studies employ the same definition of ‘downtown workers’ (i.e. persons

aged 18 or older who work or study in the 40202 or 40203 ZIP codes) and, in order to aid

comparability, rely on several identical survey items (e.g. “Do you currently own or have access to a

working bicycle”).


11

Sample Characteristics

In order to understand the transportation needs of the workers we surveyed and understand how

well they represent the broader downtown working population, there is value in considering their

demographic characteristics, such as employment status or age.

In terms of employment, nearly every respondent to the survey is employed full-time. This is similar

to the set of respondents to the 2014 survey, 94% of whom were employed full-item. Of the

students who participated in the survey, 100% are employed full- or part-time. The employers

included in this study span a variety of industries and sizes, including Louisville Metro Government

itself, large private organizations such as Humana, and non-profits organizations such as Norton

Healthcare and the Kentucky Science Center. This can be seen in the table below, which displays a

random sample of twenty survey-takers’ responses to the question “What is the name of your

employer?”

“What is the name of your employer?” Random sample of 20 responses, excluding non-answers such as “Prefer not to say”

Ackerson & Yann, LLP

Gresham Smith & Partners

Humana

Humana

Kentucky Science Center, Inc.

LMG

Louisville Metro

Mercer

Mercer

Mercer

Metro Government

Metro Government

Norton

Norton Healthcare

Norton Healthcare

PNC Bank

Republic Bank

Republic Bank

Republic Bank

Republic Bank


12

Within our sample, four out of five workers begin work between 7:00 AM and 9:00 AM and end

between 3:00 PM and 5:00 PM. As can be seen in the chart below, few respondents begin working

before 5:00 AM and few respondents end after 7:00 PM. This is similar to the set of respondents

who participated in the 2014 study.

In terms of income, survey respondents typically belong to households with a combined annual

income of at least $75,000, and it is uncommon to belong to a household with an income below

$35,000. Compared to the set of respondents who participated in the 2014 survey, household

incomes appear to be slightly higher; in 2014, the median household income of 2014 respondents

was between $50,000 and $75,000, and about one-in-five respondents had household incomes

below $35,000. In part, this may be due to inflation that’s occurred in the four years since the 2014

study.


13

As can be seen in the chart below, two-thirds of respondents are currently married and one quarter

have never married. Two-thirds live in households without children. These rates are very similar to

those of the 2014 study.

As was the case in 2014, respondents’ ages typically range 25 to 64 years of age, with a median age

of about 45 years.

In terms of race, respondents by and large identify as Caucasian, with the remainder most

commonly identifying as Black or African American. In this respect, too, respondents to the 2018

study are very similar to respondents to the 2014 study.


14

Overview of Transportation

Distances Travelled Based on our sample data, the downtown working population predominantly lives in areas outside

of downtown. As can be seen in the map below, which displays the distribution of respondents’

homes across centrally-located ZIP codes 2, respondents to this survey come from many different

parts of Louisville and the surrounding area. Most commonly, respondents come from the eastern

part of the city (i.e. ZIP codes such as 40207 or 40299).

As a result, members of the downtown working population typically travel 11 to 15 miles to work.

2 Some of the more remote ZIP codes of respondents to this study (e.g. Frankfort’s 40601) are not shown here

but can be seen in a larger-scale map available in the appendix of this report.


15

Modes of Transportation Like workers everywhere in the United States, Louisville’s downtown working population

overwhelmingly tends to commute by driving alone. Even when the weather is nice (and thus

bicycling or walking are relatively appealing), 84% of downtown workers drive alone on their typical

trip into work or school. In addition to those who drive alone, some 6% of workers ride with

family/friends: in total, then, about nine out of ten workers goes to work or school by driving.

Compared to the workers we surveyed in 2014, the workers surveyed in 2018 are more likely to

drive alone and less likely to use TARC. However, because the samples collected in both years are

convenience samples, it is unclear to what degree this reflects genuine changes among the

downtown working population rather than simple differences between the types of respondents

who participated in the 2014 survey compared to the 2018 survey. Nonetheless, it seems likely that

the share of workers who drive alone has certainly not decreased, in light of these survey data as

well as Census data that indicate that the share of Louisville’s workers driving alone to work has

remained a virtually flat 80% each year between 2007 and 2016 (see appendix for additional details).


16

For trips outside of work (e.g. errands or social activity), downtown workers still primarily rely on

their cars and tend to drive alone. However, for non-work trips, members of the downtown working

population often share rides with family and friends. For instance, while about 77% of downtown

workers normally run errands by driving alone, as many as 19% would say that they normally ride

with family or friends. Riding with family/friends is especially common for social or recreational trips,

for which downtown workers are about equally likely to ride with family/friends as they are to drive

alone.

In addition, downtown workers are relatively disinclined to use TARC for non-work trips. For

instance, only 1% of downtown workers indicating that they use TARC for social/recreational trips.

Even among the 5% of workers who typically use TARC to get to work, only 14% normally use TARC

to run errands and only 16% normally use TARC for social/recreational trips.

These patterns are essentially unchanged since 2014, as can be seen in the chart below.

For the large majority of workers, weather has little influence on which mode of transportation they

use: when survey respondents were asked whether their “primary mode of transportation change[s]

based on the weather,” 90% answered “no.” However, weather is usually influential among those

who bicycle or walk for transportation: for instance, 75% of respondents who bicycle to get to work

and 70% of respondents who walk to get to work indicated that their primary mode of

transportation changes based on the weather. Similarly, 24% of respondents who use TARC to get to

work indicated that their primary mode of transportation changes based on the weather.


17

Usage and Perceptions of Specific Modes

Having seen how different modes of transportation are broadly used for the downtown working

population’s various needs (e.g. commuting, running errands, etc.), we will examine in further detail

the ways that workers use and think about three alternate modes of transportation: TARC (i.e. public

transportation); walking; and bicycling. We discuss each of these modes in detail in the following

three sections of this report, focusing on the factors that influence workers’ decisions to use or avoid

each mode and how these factors vary according to their utilization of that mode.


18

TARC Utilization Most members of the downtown working population have used TARC in the past, although as many

as 34% have never ridden TARC and for 41% of the population it has been at least a year since they

last boarded a TARC bus.

Compared to 2014, downtown workers are similarly likely to have ridden TARC, both in a general

sense and in the last year specifically as well.


19

In terms of demographics, users and non-users of TARC differ in three significant respects. First,

compared to non-users of TARC, workers who have ridden TARC before tend to live closer to their

work (and hence closer to downtown as well). This is especially the case for those who have ridden

TARC in the past year, two-thirds of whom live within 10 miles of their workplace.

Secondly, workers who have ridden TARC more recently are especially likely to identify as Black or

African-American, especially compared to workers who have never used TARC before. This is

perhaps related to the fact that workers who live closer to downtown are slightly more likely to

identify as Black or African-American (for instance, 9% of workers who commute at most 10 miles

identify this way, compared to 6% of workers who commute over 10 miles).


20

Finally, we find that recent TARC users are especially likely to identify their gender as male,

compared to downtown workers who’ve never ridden TARC or have only ridden it over a year ago.


21

Suggestions for Expanding TARC’s Ridership In order to identify opportunities to expand TARC’s ridership, we asked survey respondents to

indicate what type of improvement they believe is most important “to encourage more people to

ride TARC in Louisville,” drawing from a fixed list of improvements (e.g. “adding more routes”) as well

as the option to write in a particular suggestion of their own. We found that, on the whole,

downtown workers most commonly suggest improvements to cleanliness, safety, route coverage,

and ride duration.3 As can be seen in the chart below, the kinds of suggestions offered by workers

vary according to how recently one has ridden TARC in two respects. First, those who have never or

less recently ridden TARC are especially likely to suggest that TARC should increase its cleanliness

and safety. Second, those who have recently used TARC are especially likely to suggest that TARC

should improve the punctuality of its buses.

3 Most of the write-in suggestions are elaborations of the fixed options. For example, 11% of

commenters made a response such as “all of the above.” Or, for instance, rather than checking the

option “adding more routes,” 13% of the commenters made suggestions such as “[add] more routes

in neighborhoods, not just main roads,” and 10% of the commenters refrained from checking

“cleaner and safer buses” and instead made comments such as “Security! Crime in this city is

ridiculous. I do not feel safe on TARC buses.”


22

Overall Perceptions among Downtown Workers Thinking about public transportation in general, about three out of four downtown workers would

agree with the statement that “public transportation is important to Louisville’s future.” This is

similar to what we found in 2014, although the perceived importance of public transportation is

perhaps less prevalent now than in 2014.

As was found to be the case in 2014, we find that the perceived importance of public transportation

is strongest among those who’ve recently used TARC and is weakest among those who’ve never

ridden on TARC.


23

When it comes to overall outlooks for public transportation in Louisville, few downtown workers

would say that Louisville “is headed in the right direction in creating an effective public

transportation system.” Instead, downtown workers tend to express ambivalence or disapproval.

Compared to 2014, outlooks seem to be even less positive.

Regardless of how recently they’ve used TARC, downtown workers usually express ambivalence or

outright pessimism about the direction of public transportation in Louisville. However, among

recent users (and non-recent past users, to a lesser extent), there tends to be a greater share of

workers who express optimism about the direction of public transportation.


24

Walking Frequency Overall, most of the downtown working population never walks to get to work/school or to run

errands or go shopping, instead preferring other means of transportation. As can be seen in the

chart below, only about a third of downtown workers ever walk in order to conduct these kinds of

trips, and this minority is split between those who walk on a weekly basis or on a more infrequent

basis. This pattern appears to be essentially no different than in 2014, when 68% of survey

respondents indicated that they never walk to get to work, school, shopping, or errands and only

14% indicated that they walk at least one or two times per week.

Among the majority of ‘non-walkers’, the most commonly-cited reason for not walking is that the

trips one needs to make are “too difficult” (e.g. too distant), although it is common to cite other

reasons, such as concerns about traffic or weather.


25

As can be seen in the following tables, there are a few ways in which walkers differ demographically

from non-walkers. Most significantly, walkers (and weekly walkers especially) are much more likely

to live within 10 miles of their work (i.e. closer to downtown) and are more likely to describe

themselves as physically active. In addition, walkers are much more likely to identify their gender as

male compared to non-walkers (44% vs. 31%).

Self-assessed Physical Activity Non-walkers Infrequent walkers Weekly walkers

I consider myself to be a very physically active person 20% 30% 35%

I consider myself to be a somewhat physically active person 48% 47% 47%

I consider myself to be physically active sometimes 22% 19% 15%

I do not consider myself to be a physically active person 10% 4% 3%

Age Non-walkers Infrequent walkers Weekly walkers

18 to 24 2% 4% 4%

25 to 34 25% 26% 21%

35 to 44 21% 23% 30%

45 to 54 26% 23% 21%

55 to 64 21% 20% 17%

65 years or older 4% 3% 9%

Gender Non-walkers Infrequent walkers Weekly walkers

Male 31% 41% 44%

Female 68% 59% 56%

Other 1% 0% 0%

Race Non-walkers Infrequent walkers Weekly walkers

American Indian/Alaskan Native 1% 1% 2%

Asian 3% 3% 0%

Black or African American 7% 5% 12%

Caucasian 88% 88% 85%

Hispanic/Latino 2% 3% 2%

Native Hawaiian/Other Pacific Islander 0% 1% 0%

Other 3% 1% 3%

Marital Status Non-walkers Infrequent walkers Weekly walkers

Married/Partnered 66% 56% 67%

Divorced 10% 11% 10%

Widowed 1% 2% 4%

Single 23% 31% 19%

Living with Children Non-walkers Infrequent walkers Weekly walkers

Yes 35% 31% 33%

No 65% 69% 67%

Household Income Non-walkers Infrequent walkers Weekly walkers

Less than $25,000 2% 2% 0%

$25,000 to less than $35,000 6% 5% 7%

$35,001 to less than $50,000 12% 14% 9%

$50,001 to less than $75,000 22% 22% 21%

More than $75,000 59% 57% 63%

Commute Distance Non-walkers Infrequent walkers Weekly walkers

I do not have to commute to go to work 0% 1% 6%

1 to 5 miles 13% 32% 45%

6 to 10 miles 18% 37% 23%

11 to 15 miles 29% 17% 13%

16 to 20 miles 17% 9% 5%

21 to 25 miles 11% 2% 4%

26 or more miles 12% 3% 4%


26

Perceived Benefits of Walking When walkers are asked to identify the aspects of walking which they value most, almost every

walker would point to the health benefits of walking, and most would point to the fact that walking is

a form of exercise. Beyond health, there are also a number of other commonly-appreciated benefits,

such as reducing one’s environmental impact. From a list of ten specific benefits written on the

survey (e.g. “Travel time is less stressful”), the average respondent selected eight. These patterns are

fairly consistent among both weekly walkers and infrequent walkers, although weekly walkers are

more likely to say that they especially value not having to find a parking spot and having travel time

be less stressful.

The 8% of walker respondents who wrote in benefits other than those specifically listed mentioned a

variety of benefits, such as the following:

• “I live in the Highlands and walking is a great way to stay connected with my neighborhood.”

• “More social interactions.”

• “I pay less for parking, since I park further away; therefore I can get a brisk walk in to and

from the office.”

• “Can bring my dog with me easily!”


27

Suggestions to Increase Walking as Transportation In order to identify opportunities to increase walking as a means of transportation, we asked survey

respondents to indicate what type of action they believe is most important “to encourage more

people to walk as a means of transportation in Louisville,” drawing from a fixed list of options (e.g.

“offer incentives for walking”) or optionally writing in a verbatim suggestion. Most commonly,

respondents (especially weekly and even infrequent walkers4) suggested adding sidewalks and/or

improving their condition. However, it was equally common for respondents to select one of the

other fixed options listed on the survey, and many respondents chose to write in their own

suggestion. When writing in suggestions, some 1% of respondents wrote that Louisville actually can’t

or shouldn’t increase walking (e.g. “Don’t waste money encouraging people to walk”) and 1%

commented that they couldn’t pick only one item as most important (leaving comments such as “all

of the above”).

4 Suggestions to add or improve sidewalks were made by 40% of weekly walkers and 45% of

infrequent walkers, compared to 33% of non-walkers.


28

To illustrate the kinds of suggestions that were written in by respondents, we provide a sample of

exemplary comments below.

Reduce distance between destinations

• “Change the zoning laws so that there are many more mixed residential/commercial areas. If

there were more things in my area that I could walk to, I would if my knees and hips don't

hurt.”

• “Homes are not near businesses to be able to walk to work nor are shopping centers. Unless

you order your food and household items the walk to a Target, Kroger or Walmart could be

miles.”

Improve safety

• “Reduce the crime so you don't feel like you are going to get mugged when you walk. Get the

vagrants/beggars off the street so you are not constantly harassed for money.”

• “A large problem for pedestrians is cars constantly running red lights downtown.”

Improve public transportation

• “TARC offering more stops and times in the suburbs to get people to work locations so they

can walk.”

• “More reliable public transportation. I would walk or ride my bicycle far more regularly if I

could take a train part of the way to work.”

Improve infrastructure

• “Create intermittent destinations like parklets, etc.. MAKE BETTER PUBLIC/PLAZA SPACE”

• “Safe places to park free and walk in the downtown area.”

Reduce construction

• “There is so much of downtown being torn up for construction, it's truly difficult to navigate

as a pedestrian.”

Can’t or shouldn’t increase walking

• “You can't - neighborhood arrangements don't allow for it.”

Multiple fixed response options

• “I recommend both the first two items - more sidewalks and improve existing sidewalks AND

educate drivers about the laws regarding pedestrians AND bicycles.”

Other

• “Some crosswalks are confusing. Some pedestrians need education!”


29

Overall Perceptions of Walking in Louisville Safety

Overall, the downtown working population tends to view walking as not particularly safe: asked to

rate the safety of walking in Louisville, workers are more likely to rate walking as “not at all safe”

then “completely safe,” and many would express an ambivalent rating of safety. Compared to 2014,

the perception that walking is unsafe in Louisville is at least as prevalent in 2018 and is perhaps even

more common.

Regardless of whether or how frequently workers walk to work/school or for shopping and errands,

most workers would express at least trepidation about the safety of walking in the city. However, as

can be seen clearly in the chart below, frequent walkers are relatively inclined to think of Louisville

as safe for walking.


30

Outlook

Downtown workers are divided about the direction in which Louisville’s headed when it comes to

being pedestrian-friendly. As can be seen in the chart below, many downtown workers are

ambivalent on the question, and the share of workers who agree that Louisville is headed in the

right direction are at least matched by those who disagree. This is similar to the opinions of

downtown workers in 2014, if perhaps less positive.

Within the overall population, we find that workers who at least sometimes walk for trips to work,

school, shopping or errands tend to be relatively likely to approve of the direction in which

Louisville’s headed. However, even this subset of workers is equally likely to disapprove or approve

of the direction of the city.


31

Bicycling Ownership and Utilization Among the downtown working population, about half of the working population owns a working

bicycle (or at least has access to one). This rate is similar to what we found in 2014, if perhaps

slightly higher.

Among the half of the downtown working population without a bicycle, there are a number of

reasons for not owning a bicycle. Typically, out of the five factors listed in the chart below, workers

point to one or two for why they don’t have a bicycle.


32

Although about half of the members of the downtown working population have a working bicycle

available to them, only 15% of downtown workers use a bicycle for any kind of trip on a monthly or

more frequent basis. Instead, most workers with bikes could be considered “infrequent bikers,” who

use their bikes for trips only once a month at the most. This is essentially unchanged since 2014.

Demographically, the kinds of workers who bike on a frequent basis differ from the rest of the

downtown working population in a few respects. For instance, as can be seen in the following page’s

tables, compared to workers who don’t own bikes (who we’ll refer to as “non-owners”), the workers

who bike frequently are especially likely to describe themselves as physically active (this is also true

to a lesser extent for infrequent bikers). Notably, frequent bikers also tend to live relatively close to

their workplaces, with 68% living within 10 miles of work. In addition, frequent bikers are much more

likely to identify their gender as male and, like infrequent bikers as well, tend to have higher

household incomes compared to non-owners.


33

Self-assessed Physical Activity Non-owners Infrequent Bikers Frequent Bikers





Age Non-owners Infrequent Bikers Frequent Bikers

18 to 24 3% 2% 4%

25 to 34 26% 23% 26%

35 to 44 20% 25% 26%

45 to 54 20% 29% 26%

55 to 64 23% 20% 13%


Gender Non-owners Infrequent Bikers Frequent Bikers

Male 27% 37% 53%

Female 73% 63% 47%

Other 1% 0% 0%

Race Non-owners Infrequent Bikers Frequent Bikers


Asian 3% 2% 2%





Other 2% 2% 3%

Marital Status Non-owners Infrequent Bikers Frequent Bikers


Divorced 11% 9% 8%

Widowed 2% 2% 1%

Single 29% 18% 24%

Living with Children Non-owners Infrequent Bikers Frequent Bikers

Yes 28% 42% 33%

No 72% 58% 67%

Household Income Non-owners Infrequent Bikers Frequent Bikers

Less than $25,000 2% 1% 1%

$25,000 to less than $35,000 9% 2% 7%

$35,001 to less than $50,000 16% 9% 5%

$50,001 to less than $75,000 23% 20% 23%

More than $75,000 50% 67% 63%

Commute Distance Non-owners Infrequent Bikers Frequent Bikers


1 to 5 miles 18% 16% 40%

6 to 10 miles 19% 23% 28%

11 to 15 miles 26% 27% 15%

16 to 20 miles 16% 14% 7%

21 to 25 miles 8% 10% 3%



34

Perceived Benefits of Cycling When bikers are asked to identify the aspects of cycling which they value most, almost every biker

would point to the health benefits of cycling. While there are other commonly-appreciated benefits

of cycling, such as reducing one’s environmental impact, these are much less likely to be cited by

bikers as key benefit. In general, cost and convenience factors (e.g. not having to find a parking

space) are factors which are relatively uncommon for bikers to identify as being of especially high

value to them. These patterns are fairly consistent among both frequent and infrequent bikers,

although frequent bikers tend to be much more likely to describe any of the factors listed in the

relevant survey question as being a key benefit of bicycling.


35

Suggestions to Increase Cycling in Louisville In order to gauge interest in various ways that cycling could be encouraged in Louisville, we

presented survey respondents with a list of potential improvements to Louisville’s policies or cycling

infrastructure and culture (e.g. “separated bicycle lanes” or “slower speed limits”) and asked them to

choose which they think would be most important to encouraging cycling. While no single

improvement was agreed upon by respondents to be the most important, we found that

improvements related to bike lanes and paths tend to be more popular than the other kinds of

improvements listed, such as reduced speed limits or a “share the road” message campaign. In

addition, as can be seen in the chart below, we found that the improvements identified by workers

as especially important are similar regardless of whether one owns a bike or how frequently one

rides it.


36

In addition to asking survey respondents to choose a most important type of improvement, we

asked respondents to list any other kinds of efforts they think should be done to encourage cycling.

In response, about half of the survey’s respondents declined to mention anything else; 2% indicated

that Louisville should actually spend less on biking and bike lanes; and the rest offered a small

handful of suggestions, as can be seen in the chart below.

To illustrate the meaning of these suggestions, we provide below a list of representative, verbatim

comments that are characteristic of these types of suggestions.

Expand/improve bike lanes

• “Plastic poles separating drivers from bike so that bikers are a little more safe because the

drivers might see them with the white plastic poles say, look bikers.”

• “When there are bicycle lanes, they are often littered with debris. Bicycle lanes need a

sweeping schedule due to debris being pushed to the sides by automobiles.”

Provide motorist/biker training

• “More education of the driver. Lots of people think that cyclists are breaking rules by not

staying in lanes or on sidewalk if there is not a dedicated lane. I don't feel safe bicycling with

my child. (And I take my child pretty much everywhere I go).”

• “Not only do cars need to learn to share the road, bikers need to learn the road rules as

well.”


37

Provide biker accommodations

• “Encouraging business to install bike racks. Expand bike lane system to connect more of the

city. Complete Louisville loop and expand on bike lanes through parks and green space to

allow for more casual intercity transit without sharing roads with cars.”

• “Businesses need to get on board and make it possible. There's nowhere to par my bike.

There's nowhere to shower and change clothes.”

Generally improve safety

• “I do not feel safe riding a bike downtown, especially during peak travel times. There is a lot

of construction going on on my commute route causing drivers to become frustrated and

more aggressive driving. Not to mention many lanes are blocked.”

• “Bringing down the crime rate. Louisville's crime index is at 5 with 100 being the safest.

Addressing the crime rate is of utmost importance. None of the walking programs or cycling

programs mean anything until the crime index gets better.”

Improve roads

• “Improve roads where biking is common - example: parts of Frankfort Ave are very narrow

and the pavement is uneven, and that would be a major roadway bringing people downtown

while on a bike.”

Reduce driving

• “Make it less convenient to drive everywhere. Limit parking, lower speed limits, stop

expanding roads.”

Increase density in planning

• “Denser community planning. Have residential & commercial properties closer together. If

people have less distance to travel, it will encourage alternatives to a car.”

Pro-bike advertising

• “PR, communications efforts, more organized events, etc. to shift the local culture to one that

embraces cyclists and pedestrians. I often ride my bicycle on weekend mornings, but rush

hour drivers are impatient and intolerant of cyclists.”

Improve public transportation

• “Again, more reliable public transportation would go a long way towards allowing me to cycle

to work. When I worked closer to home (and had access to a shower at the office), I would

ride to work 3-5 days a week, weather permitting. Working 12 miles from home creates too

many obstacles - commute time would be far longer than I'd like, plus I do not have access to

shower when I arrive and don't want to stink up the office. If I could get halfway to work and

ride the rest of the way, I'd love it, but the TARC system is highly unreliable, especially once

you get outside the city proper.”


38

Lower speed limits

• “Speed limits need to be enforced (and lowered to at least 25 on all residential streets,

especially on State routes.).”

Spend less money on biking and bike lanes

• “Louisville to very spread out. It is usually too far to go from place to place on a bike. This is

a car town and it would be ridiculous to inconvenience drivers more to accommodate the

few bikers that there are. I feel the city has already spent way too much money trying to

encourage this when the streets themselves need repair, not more paint for bike lanes.”

Other suggestions

• “People need to learn not to be so rushed and do less.”


39

Access to Safe Bike Lanes or Roads for Commuting Perhaps underlying the common suggestion to add bike lanes is the fact that only 22% of bicycle

owners would say that they enjoy contiguous bike lanes or roads that they could safely use to ride

from home to work. Encouragingly, among such bicycle owners, commuting to work by bicycle is

fairly common: 20% of such workers normally commute by bike when the weather is nice, compared

to 2% of those without safe, contiguous bike lanes or roads to work. More broadly, 50% of bike

owners with access to a safe contiguous bike lane/road to work say that use their bike for trips

frequently, compared to 20% of bike owners without such access.

These 22% of bike owners are generally concentrated close to downtown, with almost half living

within five miles of work and 83% living within 10 miles of their work.


40

Overall Perceptions of Bicycling in Louisville Safety

Just as the downtown working population tends to view walking in Louisville as not particularly safe,

so too do many workers view bicycling as at least somewhat unsafe. Compared to 2014, this

perception is similarly prevalent in 2018.

Regardless of whether or how frequently workers use bicycles for trips, most workers would express

at least some trepidation about cycling in the city. However, as can be seen clearly in the chart

below, frequent bikers are relatively less inclined to view cycling in Louisville as unsafe.


41

Outlook

In the same ways that downtown workers are divided about the direction in which Louisville’s

headed when it comes to being pedestrian-friendly, workers are also divided about whether

Louisville is headed in the right direction in becoming a bicycle-friendly community. As can be seen

in the chart below, many downtown workers are ambivalent on the question, and the share of

workers who agree that Louisville is headed in the right direction are at least matched by those who

disagree.

This division and ambivalence is especially pronounced among those who do not own a bike,

compared to infrequent bikers and, especially, frequent bikers, who tend to be relatively likely to

approve of the direction in which Louisville’s headed.


42

Bike Sharing In addition to ascertaining the downtown working population’s views on bicycling in general, we also

measured awareness and utilization of the fairly new LouVelo bike share program.

Nearly every member of the downtown

working population is aware of the LouVelo

bike-share program, having at least seen

them in and around downtown before.

However, out of every 100 hundred

downtown workers who are aware of the

LouVelo bike-share program, only five have

actually rented on of its bikes. Thus, the

share of all downtown workers who have

rented a LouVelo bike before amounts to

4.6%.


43

Demographically, there are a handful of respects in which LouVelo users differ from non-users. Most

notably, workers who have used LouVelo before tend to live much closer to downtown compared to

non-users (especially compared to non-users who’ve never seen a LouVelo bike before).

In addition, LouVelo users are especially likely to already possess a bicycle: 75% of the workers

who’ve used LouVelo already own a working bicycle, in contrast to 53% of workers have never used

LouVelo but own a bike. Furthermore, those who’ve rented a LouVelo bike also tend to be frequent

bikers as well: 58% of those who’ve rented a LouVelo bike before tend to use a bicycle for trips on a

frequent basis, compared to 13% of those who’ve seen but never rented a LouVelo bike.

Coinciding with the fact that LouVelo users tend to own bikes and often use them, LouVelo users

also exhibit some of the distinct demographic patterns of bike owners and frequent bikers overall.

Specifically, those who’ve rented a LouVelo bike before are especially likely to consider themselves

to be physically active, be under the age of 55, and identify their gender as male.

Self-assessed Physical Activity Has not seen a LouVelo bike Has not used LouVelo Has used LouVelo





Age Has not seen a LouVelo bike Has not used LouVelo Has used LouVelo

18 to 24 5% 3% 6%

25 to 34 41% 24% 33%

35 to 44 14% 23% 23%

45 to 54 30% 25% 25%

55 to 64 8% 22% 8%


Gender Has not seen a LouVelo bike Has not used LouVelo Has used LouVelo

Male 38% 34% 52%

Female 59% 66% 48%

Other 3% 0% 0%


44

In order to understand why so many downtown workers have not rented a LouVelo bike, we asked

survey respondents to specify the reasons why they haven’t rented a bike, choosing from a set of

fixed options (e.g. “I don’t know how to rent one”) as well as writing in any other reasons that apply

to them. As can be seen in the chart below, there are a number of reasons given by workers for why

they haven’t rented a LouVelo bike. The leading reason, however, is simply that most workers don’t

have a need for the LouVelo bikes. For instance, many workers simply don’t take short trips

downtown, while others already have a bike available to them (their own or, say, a bike from a

company’s employee-only bike share).

In total, 15% of those who haven’t rented a LouVelo bike before (despite having seen one) cite issues

which could potentially be ameliorated through documentation at LouVelo stations, in particular 1)

not knowing how to rent a LouVelo bike and 2) not knowing which streets have bike lanes or shared-

lane markings. However, even absent these issues, 84% of this subset of workers still cite other

reasons for not renting a LouVelo bike which are arguably more difficult to address than barriers

associated with a lack of information.


45

To illustrate the meaning of the open-ended comments written by survey respondents who haven’t

rented a LouVelo bike, we provide a representative sample of comments below.

Safety concerns

• “I don't like riding in downtown Louisville. It isn't safe.”

• “I see people driving their cars in bike lanes all the time. It is not safe.”

Prefer to walk or drive

• “I'll walk to a place for lunch from work, but for anything else.. I HAVE A CAR. Plus, you can

avoid all the panhandlers in your car.”

• “Seems just as easy to walk. My downtown trips are typically short enough to walk.”

Already have a bike available

• “I commute on my own bike.”

• “I work for Humana and we have the same bikes as a benefit.”

Lack of need

• “Don't come downtown outside of work and don't have a need for a bike while working.”

• “I drive in from Indiana. Why do I need a bike once I get here.”

Logistical concerns

• “Can they come with baskets or something to hold your purse or small items?”

• “Can’t ride a bike in work clothing”

Health issues

• “I am unable to use a bike do to health reasons.”

Too expensive

• “I think the cost is a little high for the rental timeframe.”

Other

• “There are not enough bike lanes on my route.”

• “Usually in too much of a hurry.”

• “Waiting for nice weather.”

• “The bikes are silly looking; dress code, laptops, etc.”


46

Perceptions of LouVelo among Users

Among the workers who’ve rented a LouVelo bike before, most feel that the LouVelo stations

downtown are located in convenient places for them, albeit to a limited extent.

Asked to pick a best aspect of LouVelo, there is no single feature of the service that a majority of

previous users would agree on, but the most commonly-cited features relate to the bikes’

convenience relative to using one’s own bike. For instance, a third of LouVelo users would say that

the best aspect is that “[they] don’t have to worry about maintaining [their] own bike” and 12%

would say that the best aspect is that they “don’t have to worry about bringing a bike to work.”


47

Below are the comments made by respondents who pointed to something else as being the best

aspect of the LouVelo service:

• "Great for visitors or folks who never cycle."

• "It increases the visibility of biking as a transportation option."

• "It can make people who wouldn't normally bike think differently about cycling."

• "All of the first three: Convenient station locations, The price is affordable, I don't have to

worry about maintaining my own bike.”

• "Enjoy riding a bike, no parking needed for car."

• "Great for CBD, but more locations in the burbs would be great."

• "I think it is best for people from out of town, ergo, not having to bring a bike on a trip."

• "The more bikes on the roads the better - makes us look progressive."


48

Overlap in Biking and Walking When it comes to walking and biking for one’s trips, the downtown working population can be

divided into three categories of workers:

• 35% of workers who neither bike nor walk as a means of transportation

• 43% of workers who bike or walk, but at most on an infrequent basis

• 22% of workers who either bike or walk on a frequent basis

This can be seen clearly in the chart below, which summarizes the population in terms of how

frequently workers walk or bike. As might be apparent from this chart, there is some degree of

similarity between individuals workers’ usage of cycling and walking. For instance, 40% of frequent

bikers also walk on a weekly basis, in comparison to 9% of non-bike owners and 9% of workers who

bike but on an infrequent basis.


49

Demographically, there are a few general differences between these three categories of workers.

Most notably, downtown workers who bike or walk (especially on a frequent basis) are much more

likely to live within 10 miles of their downtown workplace and tend to be especially likely to describe

themselves as physically active. In addition, workers who bike or walk (especially frequently) are

relatively likely to identify their gender as male, and it is relatively uncommon for frequent bikers or

walkers to be over the age of 54. These can be seen in the tables below, which compare the

demographic backgrounds of each of the three previously-mentioned groups of workers,

Self-assessed Physical Activity Neither bike nor walk Bike or walk, but infrequently at most Bike or walk on a frequent basis





Age Neither bike nor walk Bike or walk, but infrequently at most Bike or walk on a frequent basis

18 to 24 3% 3% 3%

25 to 34 27% 24% 24%

35 to 44 19% 23% 28%

45 to 54 21% 27% 25%

55 to 64 24% 22% 13%


Gender Neither bike nor walk Bike or walk, but infrequently at most Bike or walk on a frequent basis

Male 25% 36% 46%

Female 74% 63% 54%

Other 1% 0% 0%

Race Neither bike nor walk Bike or walk, but infrequently at most Bike or walk on a frequent basis


Asian 3% 2% 1%





Other 3% 2% 3%

Marital Status Neither bike nor walk Bike or walk, but infrequently at most Bike or walk on a frequent basis


Divorced 11% 9% 10%

Widowed 1% 2% 2%

Single 27% 22% 23%

Living with Children Neither bike nor walk Bike or walk, but infrequently at most Bike or walk on a frequent basis

Yes 28% 40% 35%

No 72% 60% 65%

Household Income Neither bike nor walk Bike or walk, but infrequently at most Bike or walk on a frequent basis

Less than $25,000 2% 2% 0%

$25,000 to less than $35,000 8% 4% 8%

$35,001 to less than $50,000 17% 10% 8%

$50,001 to less than $75,000 23% 20% 22%

More than $75,000 50% 65% 62%

Commute Distance Neither bike nor walk Bike or walk, but infrequently at most Bike or walk on a frequent basis


1 to 5 miles 12% 18% 37%

6 to 10 miles 17% 24% 27%

11 to 15 miles 30% 25% 16%

16 to 20 miles 17% 14% 7%

21 to 25 miles 10% 9% 4%



50

Conflicts with Cyclists and Pedestrians

Conflicts with Cyclists Fortunately, most workers travelling downtown (whether by car, foot, or bike) only experience

infrequent conflicts with cyclists.

For the 54% of workers who experience conflicts on a basis more frequent than just “rarely, if ever,”

the most widespread sort of conflicts are those that occur on streets without bike lanes or when

cyclists are encountered riding on the sidewalk. This can be seen in the chart below, which displays

the percentages of workers who indicated that a particular written description on the survey (e.g.

“people riding on the sidewalk”) applies to at least some of their conflicts.


51

For the sake of completeness, respondents were allowed to write in descriptions of any other kinds

of conflicts they experience with cyclists. Having categorized their written description into a handful

of categories (shown in grey in the preceding chart), we present below a sample of written

descriptions that are representative of each of these categories.

Traffic law violations

• “Cyclists ignore stop signs/red lights or they switch between road and sidewalk to leapfrog

traffic.”

• “Cyclists riding the wrong direction on the street when there aren't bike lanes; riders not

obeying traffic rules”

Bikers blocking traffic

• “They are riding in the same lane as cars.”

• “Drivers braking & going around slow bikes or bicyclist holding back traffic.”

Bad biking practices

• “Bikers and walkers that do not pay attention.”

Other

• “I feel like I’m going to hit them.”

In terms of demographic characteristics such as age or income, the kinds of workers who rarely if

ever have conflicts with cyclists largely resemble the kinds of workers who have conflicts on a more

frequent basis. In other respects, too, these two groups of workers are largely similar. The largest

difference between these two groups of workers is that those who have more frequent conflicts with

cyclists are less likely to bike or walk as a means of transportation, as can be seen in the chart below.


52

Conflicts with Pedestrians Just as it is fairly uncommon for workers to experience conflicts with cyclists downtown, it is also

similarly uncommon for workers to experience conflicts with pedestrians.

Among the 53% of downtown workers who do experience conflicts with pedestrians on a basis

frequent than just “rarely, if ever,” the most commonly-experienced conflicts involve pedestrians

who enter the street because of a closed-off sidewalk or pedestrians jaywalking in order to catch a

bus.


53

While the most common types of conflicts were those specifically mentioned in the survey as fixed

options, (e.g. “people crossing intersections against the light to catch the bus”), many survey

respondents wrote descriptions of other kinds of conflicts (usually jaywalking), as in the examples

below.

Jaywalking (independent of buses and construction)

• “Crossing mid-block from parking garage to work.”

• “People constantly walk across the street with no crosswalk. Can't tell you how many times

I've had to slam on my breaks.”

• “Hard to make a turn if people keep walking after the Do Not Walk sign appears.”

Distracted pedestrians

• “People not paying attention when leaving work during the day. it's not busi riders it's people

who commute being on their phones and trying to get to their cars.”

• “People crossing against the lights/midblock, distracted pedestrians.”

Panhandling

• “Vagrants approaching my vehicle in an intersection, peddlers in an intersection begging for

money.”

Other conflicts

• “Construction equipment in driving/riding lanes without proper permit for lane closure. They

seem to feel an impunity since they never get fined.”

• “People getting in/out of their car when parked at the meters.”

• “Slow vs fast walkers on sidewalk.”

Just as conflicts with cyclists are less common among the workers who bike or walk as a means of

transportation, as can be seen in the chart below, so too are conflicts with pedestrians less common

among such workers.


54

In general, we find that the workers who report having conflicts with pedestrians also tend to be the

same workers who report having conflicts with cyclists. Among the 53% of workers who report

having conflicts with pedestrians more than just rarely, 71% also report that they have conflicts with

cyclists more than just rarely. Conversely, 66% of workers who report having conflicts with

pedestrians only rarely if ever also say that they only rarely if ever have conflicts with cyclists.


55

Miscellaneous Driver-specific Experiences

Parking Costs Among the 84% of workers who typically drive alone to work, the average personal cost of parking at

work each month amounts to $44, although about a third of those who drive alone actually pay

nothing for parking. Those who do pay a nonzero monthly cost spend an average of $67 per month.

Speed Limits Among the overall population of downtown workers, the speed limit is widely (but not universally)

understood to be roughly 25mph. The main break from this consensus consists of almost one fifth

of workers who believe the speed limit to be at least 30mph.


56

Appendix

Trends Since 2007 in Commuting Modes in Louisville and Other Comparison Cities In order to contextualize the commuting patterns of the downtown working population, we used

Census Bureau data5 to compare the mode shares of workers in Louisville to mode shares of

workers in the cities classified by the Louisville Downtown Partnership as comparison cities (e.g.

Nashville, Tennessee). In the charts that follow, the 10-year trends from 2007 to 2016 among

Louisville’s workers (specifically workers who reside in Jefferson County but not in one of the small

cities inside it such as Jeffersontown) are compared to workers in each of the comparison cities.

Trends in the Share of Workers Driving Alone to Work

5 As of the time of this report’s writing, 2016 is the most recent year for which annual commute data

are available for Louisville and its comparison cities.


57

Trends in the Share of Workers Commuting to Work Using Public Transportation


58

Trends in the Share of Workers Commuting to Work by Bicycle


59

Home ZIP Codes of Survey Respondents In the map below, we display the full set of home ZIP codes listed by survey respondents in

response to the question “What is your home ZIP code?”

downtown multimodal transportation study · ©2018 iqs research | downtown multimodal...

Documents