Advertisement

Bicycle commuting in an automobile-dominated city: how individuals become and remain bike commuters in Charlotte, North Carolina

  • Kevin B. Caldwell
  • Robert H. W. Boyer
Article

Abstract

In Charlotte, North Carolina less than one half of 1% of commuters ride a bicycle to work despite several decades of public investment in bicycle infrastructure and planning. Like many fast-growing cities of North America, Charlotte’s rapid physical growth in the past half-century has left its residents little option but to navigate the city by car. To date, research on utility cycling has paid relatively little attention to the practice of bicycle commuting in auto-dominated cities. This article uses grounded theory methodology to build a context- and time-sensitive explanation of how individuals adopt and sustain the practice of bicycle commuting in Charlotte. Through interviews with 26 Charlotte-area bicycle commuters—20 men and 6 women, mean age 40.3—, we find that, according to subjects interviewed, initiating and sustaining the practice of bicycle commuting involves the renegotiation of relationships between the cyclist and (1) the bicycle, (2) other local cyclists, (3) urban space, and (4) the workplace. Dynamics in these relationships are overlapping and simultaneous. This time- and context-sensitive explanation broadens the array of policy interventions that complement the infrastructure-centered approach to promoting cycling in Charlotte today. Elected officials, planners, and bicycle advocates stand to benefit by understanding the transition to cycling as a process of social learning that exposes individuals interested in bicycle commuting to less hostile “neighborhood” thoroughfares.

Keywords

Bicycle Urban cycling Utility cycling Grounded theory methodology Social practice theory 

Notes

Acknowledgements

This paper is derived from research conducted for the completion of the first author’s unpublished Masters Capstone Project. Preliminary results were presented at the 2017 conference of the American Association of Geographers (Boston, MA). The authors wish to thank the anonymous interview subjects that participated in the study, Dr. Heather Smith and Dr. Loril Gossett for their methodological and theoretical guidance, as well as Dr. Jennifer Bonham for her comments on a earlier draft.

Compliance with ethical standards

Conflict of interest

All authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.

References

  1. American Community Survey: Means of transportation to work 5-year estimates 2011–2015. United States Bureau of the Census (2015)Google Scholar
  2. Bonham, J., Wilson, A.: Bicycling and the life course: the start-stop-start experiences of women cycling. Int. J. Sustain. Transp. 6(4), 195–213 (2012).  https://doi.org/10.1080/15568318.2011.585219 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Boyer, R.: Recreational bicycling as a ‘gateway’ to utility bicycling: the case of Charlotte, NC. Int. J. Sustain. Transp. 1, 4 (2017).  https://doi.org/10.1080/15568318.2017.1382622 Google Scholar
  4. Buehler, R., Dill, J.: Bikeway networks: a review of effects on cycling. Transp. Rev. 36(1), 9–27 (2016).  https://doi.org/10.1080/01441647.2015.1069908 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Buehler, R., Pucher, J.: Cycling to work in 90 large American cities: new evidence on the role of bike paths and lanes. Transportation 39(2), 409–432 (2012).  https://doi.org/10.1007/s11116-011-9355-8 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Charlotte Department of Transportation: Charlotte BIKES. City of Charlotte, North Carolina (2017). http://charlottenc.gov/Transportation/Programs/Documents/Charlotte%20BIKES%20Final.pdf
  7. Cho, J.Y., Lee, E.-H.: Reducing confusion about grounded theory and qualitative content analysis: similarities and differences. Qual. Rep. 19(32), 1 (2014)Google Scholar
  8. Cleary, J., Mcclintock, H.: The Nottingham cycle-friendly employers project: lessons for encouraging cycle commuting. Local Environ. 5(2), 217–222 (2000).  https://doi.org/10.1080/13549830050009364 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Dill, J., Carr, T.: Bicycle commuting and facilities in major US cities: if you build them, commuters will use them. Transp. Res. Rec. J. Transp. Res. Board 1828, 116–123 (2003)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Dill, J., Voros, K.: Factors affecting bicycling demand: initial survey findings from the Portland, Oregon, Region. Transp. Res. Rec. J. Transp. Res. Board 2031(December), 9–17 (2007).  https://doi.org/10.3141/2031-02 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Gatersleben, B., Appleton, K.M.: Contemplating cycling to work: attitudes and perceptions in different stages of change. Transp. Res. Part A: Policy Pract. 41(4), 302–312 (2007).  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tra.2006.09.002 Google Scholar
  12. Glaser, B., Strauss, A.: The Discovery of Grounded Theory: Strategies for Qualitative Research. Aldine Transaction, New Brunswick (1967)Google Scholar
  13. Guell, C., Panter, J., Ogilvie, D.: Walking and cycling to work despite reporting an unsupportive environment: insights from a mixed-method exploration of counterintuitive findings. BMC Public Health 13(497), 1–10 (2013)Google Scholar
  14. Hamidi, S., Ewing, R.: A longitudinal study of changes in urban sprawl between 2000 and 2010 in the United States. Landsc. Urban Plan. 128(August), 72–82 (2014).  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.landurbplan.2014.04.021 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Handy, S.L., Xing, Y.: Factors correlated with bicycle commuting: a study in six small US cities. Int. J. Sustain. Transp. 5(2), 91–110 (2011).  https://doi.org/10.1080/15568310903514789 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Heinen, E., Maat, K., van Wee, B.: The role of attitudes toward characteristics of bicycle commuting on the choice to cycle to work over various distances. Transp. Res. D: Transp. Environ. 16(2), 102–109 (2011).  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.trd.2010.08.010 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Hunt, J.D., Abraham, J.E.: Influences on bicycle use. Transportation 34(4), 453–470 (2007).  https://doi.org/10.1007/s11116-006-9109-1 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Jackson, K.T.: The drive-in culture of contemporary America. In: LeGates, R.T. (ed.) City Reader. Taylor & Francis, London (1985)Google Scholar
  19. Krizek, K.J., Barnes, G., Thompson, K.: Analyzing the effect of bicycle facilities on commute mode share over time. J. Urban Plan. Dev. 135(2), 66–73 (2009).  https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)0733-9488(2009)135:2(66) CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Larson, J., El-Geneidy, A.M.: A travel behavior analysis of urban cycling facilities in Montréal, Canada. Transp. Res. D: Transp. Environ. 16(2), 172–177 (2011).  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.trd.2010.07.011 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Lindlof, T.R., Taylor, B.C.: Qualitative Communication Research Methods, 2nd edn. Sage, Thousand Oaks (2002)Google Scholar
  22. Mitra, R., Ziemba, R.A., Hess, P.M.: Mode substitution effect of urban cycle tracks: case study of a downtown street in Toronto, Canada. Int. J. Sustain. Transp. 11(4), 248–256 (2017).  https://doi.org/10.1080/15568318.2016.1249443 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Monsere, C., Dill, J., McNeil, N., Clifton, K.J., Foster, N., Goddard, T., Berkow, M., et al.: Lessons from the green lanes: evaluating protected bike lanes in the US (2014). https://works.bepress.com/kelly_clifton/6/
  24. Nehme, E.K., Pérez, A., Ranjit, N., Amick, B.C., Kohl, H.W.: Sociodemographic factors, population density, and bicycling for transportation in the United States. J. Phys. Activity Health 13(1), 36–43 (2016).  https://doi.org/10.1123/jpah.2014-0469 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Nelson, A.C., Allen, D.: If you build them, commuters will use them. Transp. Res. Rec. 1578, 79–83 (1997)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Prins, R.G., Panter, J., Heinen, E., Griffin, S.J., Ogilvie, D.B.: Causal pathways linking environmental change with health behaviour change: natural experimental study of new transport infrastructure and cycling to work. Prev. Med. 87(June), 175–182 (2016).  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ypmed.2016.02.042 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Pucher, J., Buehler, R.: Why Canadians cycle more than Americans: a comparative analysis of bicycling trends and policies. Transp. Policy 13(3), 265–279 (2006).  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tranpol.2005.11.001 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Pucher, J., Buehler, R.: Making cycling irresistible: lessons from The Netherlands, Denmark and Germany. Transp. Rev. 28(4), 495–528 (2008).  https://doi.org/10.1080/01441640701806612 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Pucher, J., Buehler, R., Seinen, M.: Bicycling renaissance in North America? an update and re-appraisal of cycling trends and policies. Transp. Res. Part A: Policy Pract. 45(6), 451–475 (2011).  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tra.2011.03.001 Google Scholar
  30. Shove, E., Walker, G.: What is energy for? social practice and energy demand. Theory Cult. Soc. 31(5), 41–58 (2014).  https://doi.org/10.1177/0263276414536746 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Shove, E.: Beyond the ABC: climate change policy and theories of social change. Environ. Plan. A 42(6), 1273–1285 (2010).  https://doi.org/10.1068/a42282 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Shove, E., Pantzar, M., Watson, M.: The Dynamics of Social Practice: Everyday Life and How It Changes. Sage, Thousand Oaks (2012)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Strauss, A., Corbin, J.: Basics of Qualitative Research: Grounded Theory Procedures and Techniques. Sage, Thousand Oaks (1998)Google Scholar
  34. Suddaby, R.: From the editors: what grounded theory is not. Acad. Manag. J. 49(4), 633–642 (2006)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Wardman, M., Tight, M., Page, M.: Factors influencing the propensity to cycle to work. Transp. Res. Part A: Policy Pract. 41(4), 339–350 (2007).  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tra.2006.09.011 Google Scholar
  36. Watson, M.: How theories of practice can inform transition to a decarbonised transport system. J. Transp. Geogr. 24(September), 488–496 (2012).  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jtrangeo.2012.04.002 CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC, part of Springer Nature 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Geography & Earth SciencesUniversity of North Carolina at CharlotteCharlotteUSA

Personalised recommendations