Page 1
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.
Page 2
©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.
Page 3
©2018 IQS Research | Downtown Multimodal Transportation Study
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
Page 4
©2018 IQS Research | Downtown Multimodal Transportation Study
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
Page 5
©2018 IQS Research | Downtown Multimodal Transportation Study
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.
Page 6
©2018 IQS Research | Downtown Multimodal Transportation Study
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.
Page 7
©2018 IQS Research | Downtown Multimodal Transportation Study
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.
Page 8
©2018 IQS Research | Downtown Multimodal Transportation Study
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.
Page 9
©2018 IQS Research | Downtown Multimodal Transportation Study
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.
Page 10
©2018 IQS Research | Downtown Multimodal Transportation Study
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”).
Page 11
©2018 IQS Research | Downtown Multimodal Transportation Study
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
Page 12
©2018 IQS Research | Downtown Multimodal Transportation Study
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.
Page 13
©2018 IQS Research | Downtown Multimodal Transportation 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.
Page 14
©2018 IQS Research | Downtown Multimodal Transportation 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.
Page 15
©2018 IQS Research | Downtown Multimodal Transportation Study
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).
Page 16
©2018 IQS Research | Downtown Multimodal Transportation Study
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.
Page 17
©2018 IQS Research | Downtown Multimodal Transportation Study
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.
Page 18
©2018 IQS Research | Downtown Multimodal Transportation Study
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.
Page 19
©2018 IQS Research | Downtown Multimodal Transportation Study
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).
Page 20
©2018 IQS Research | Downtown Multimodal Transportation Study
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.
Page 21
©2018 IQS Research | Downtown Multimodal Transportation Study
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.”
Page 22
©2018 IQS Research | Downtown Multimodal Transportation Study
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.
Page 23
©2018 IQS Research | Downtown Multimodal Transportation Study
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.
Page 24
©2018 IQS Research | Downtown Multimodal Transportation Study
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.
Page 25
©2018 IQS Research | Downtown Multimodal Transportation Study
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%
Page 26
©2018 IQS Research | Downtown Multimodal Transportation Study
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!”
Page 27
©2018 IQS Research | Downtown Multimodal Transportation Study
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.
Page 28
©2018 IQS Research | Downtown Multimodal Transportation Study
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!”
Page 29
©2018 IQS Research | Downtown Multimodal Transportation Study
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.
Page 30
©2018 IQS Research | Downtown Multimodal Transportation Study
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.
Page 31
©2018 IQS Research | Downtown Multimodal Transportation Study
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.
Page 32
©2018 IQS Research | Downtown Multimodal Transportation Study
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.
Page 33
©2018 IQS Research | Downtown Multimodal Transportation Study
33
Self-assessed Physical Activity Non-owners Infrequent Bikers Frequent Bikers
I consider myself to be a very physically active person 16% 26% 43%
I consider myself to be a somewhat physically active person 50% 46% 43%
I consider myself to be physically active sometimes 23% 20% 14%
I do not consider myself to be a physically active person 11% 8% 0%
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%
65 years or older 7% 1% 5%
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
American Indian/Alaskan Native 1% 1% 2%
Asian 3% 2% 2%
Black or African American 9% 6% 5%
Caucasian 86% 90% 89%
Hispanic/Latino 2% 2% 3%
Native Hawaiian/Other Pacific Islander 0% 0% 0%
Other 2% 2% 3%
Marital Status Non-owners Infrequent Bikers Frequent Bikers
Married/Partnered 59% 71% 67%
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
I do not have to commute to go to work 1% 1% 3%
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%
26 or more miles 12% 9% 3%
Page 34
©2018 IQS Research | Downtown Multimodal Transportation Study
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.
Page 35
©2018 IQS Research | Downtown Multimodal Transportation Study
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.
Page 36
©2018 IQS Research | Downtown Multimodal Transportation Study
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.”
Page 37
©2018 IQS Research | Downtown Multimodal Transportation Study
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.”
Page 38
©2018 IQS Research | Downtown Multimodal Transportation Study
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.”
Page 39
©2018 IQS Research | Downtown Multimodal Transportation Study
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.
Page 40
©2018 IQS Research | Downtown Multimodal Transportation Study
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.
Page 41
©2018 IQS Research | Downtown Multimodal Transportation Study
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.
Page 42
©2018 IQS Research | Downtown Multimodal Transportation Study
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%.
Page 43
©2018 IQS Research | Downtown Multimodal Transportation Study
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
I consider myself to be a very physically active person 19% 23% 40%
I consider myself to be a somewhat physically active person 41% 48% 46%
I consider myself to be physically active sometimes 22% 21% 15%
I do not consider myself to be a physically active person 19% 8% 0%
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%
65 years or older 3% 5% 4%
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%
Page 44
©2018 IQS Research | Downtown Multimodal Transportation Study
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.
Page 45
©2018 IQS Research | Downtown Multimodal Transportation Study
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.”
Page 46
©2018 IQS Research | Downtown Multimodal Transportation Study
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.”
Page 47
©2018 IQS Research | Downtown Multimodal Transportation Study
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."
Page 48
©2018 IQS Research | Downtown Multimodal Transportation Study
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.
Page 49
©2018 IQS Research | Downtown Multimodal Transportation Study
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
I consider myself to be a very physically active person 14% 24% 38%
I consider myself to be a somewhat physically active person 51% 46% 46%
I consider myself to be physically active sometimes 23% 22% 14%
I do not consider myself to be a physically active person 12% 8% 2%
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%
65 years or older 7% 2% 6%
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
American Indian/Alaskan Native 1% 1% 2%
Asian 3% 2% 1%
Black or African American 9% 6% 8%
Caucasian 85% 90% 87%
Hispanic/Latino 2% 2% 3%
Native Hawaiian/Other Pacific Islander 0% 0% 0%
Other 3% 2% 3%
Marital Status Neither bike nor walk Bike or walk, but infrequently at most Bike or walk on a frequent basis
Married/Partnered 61% 67% 65%
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
I do not have to commute to go to work 1% 1% 3%
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%
26 or more miles 14% 8% 5%
Page 50
©2018 IQS Research | Downtown Multimodal Transportation Study
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.
Page 51
©2018 IQS Research | Downtown Multimodal Transportation Study
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.
Page 52
©2018 IQS Research | Downtown Multimodal Transportation Study
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.
Page 53
©2018 IQS Research | Downtown Multimodal Transportation Study
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.
Page 54
©2018 IQS Research | Downtown Multimodal Transportation Study
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.
Page 55
©2018 IQS Research | Downtown Multimodal Transportation Study
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.
Page 56
©2018 IQS Research | Downtown Multimodal Transportation Study
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.
Page 57
©2018 IQS Research | Downtown Multimodal Transportation Study
57
Trends in the Share of Workers Commuting to Work Using Public Transportation
Page 58
©2018 IQS Research | Downtown Multimodal Transportation Study
58
Trends in the Share of Workers Commuting to Work by Bicycle
Page 59
©2018 IQS Research | Downtown Multimodal Transportation Study
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?”