Table 2.
Socio-demographic and built-environment factors associated with bicycle commuting in Bogotá 2015 from the six fitted models, one for each combination of gender (male and female) and analysis zones (origin, route, and destination).
| Origin |
Route |
Destination |
||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Females | Males | Females | Males | Females | Males | |||||||
| Parametric terms: | OR | (95%CI) | OR | (95%CI) | OR | (95%CI) | OR | (95%CI) | OR | (95%CI) | OR | (95%CI) |
| Socio-demographic factors | ||||||||||||
| Occupation | ||||||||||||
| Other (ref) | 1.00 | 1.00 | ||||||||||
| Student | 0.31 | (0.14–0.71) | 0.78 | (0.46–1.34) | ||||||||
| Employed | 0.93 | (0.5–1.74) | 1.11 | (0.71–1.76) | ||||||||
| Driver's license | ||||||||||||
| No license (ref) | 1.00 | 1.00 | ||||||||||
| Motorcycle | 1.16 | (0.27–4.92) | 0.53 | (0.36–0.78) | ||||||||
| Other vehicles | 1.02 | (0.56–1.88) | 0.51 | (0.41–0.64) | ||||||||
| Household socio-economic status | ||||||||||||
| Very-low to low (ref) | 1.00 | 1.00 | ||||||||||
| Lower-middle | 0.83 | (0.52–1.3) | 0.76 | (0.55–0.97) | ||||||||
| Middle to high | 1.53 | (0.76–3.11) | 0.9 | (0.54–1.26) | ||||||||
| Motor vehicles ownership in the household | 0.58 | (0.36–0.91) | 0.53 | (0.3–0.76) | ||||||||
| Community factors | ||||||||||||
| Safety | ||||||||||||
| Collisions | 1.00 | (0.99–1.01) | 1.01 | (1.01–1.01) | 1.00 | (0.98–1.02) | 1.00 | (0.99–1.00) | 1.00 | (0.99–1.01) | 1.01 | (1.00–1.01) |
| Security | ||||||||||||
| Felonies per inhabitant | 1.00 | (1.00–1.00) | 1.00 | (1.00–1.00) | Ɨ | Ɨ | 1.00 | (1.00–1.00) | 1.00 | (1.00–1.00) | ||
| Built-environment factors | ||||||||||||
| Bicycle infrastructure | ||||||||||||
| Bicycle parking facilities | 0.86 | (0.6–1.24) | 0.96 | (0.8–1.12) | Ɨ | Ɨ | 0.96 | (0.83–1.11) | 1.02 | (0.96–1.09) | ||
| Bike paths length | 0.93 | (0.76–1.14) | 0.96 | (0.86–1.06) | 1.16 | (0.82–1.64) | 1.06 | (0.91–1.23) | 1.26 | (1.05–1.51) | 1.01 | (0.92–1.1) |
| Public transport accessibility | ||||||||||||
| Count of BRTa stations | 0.85 | (0.6–1.21) | 0.82 | (0.66–0.98) | Ɨ | Ɨ | 0.79 | (0.60–1.04) | 0.85 | (0.75–0.96) | ||
| Count of bus stops | 1.00 | (0.97–1.03) | 0.99 | (0.98–1) | Ɨ | Ɨ | 0.99 | (0.97–1.02) | 0.99 | (0.98–1.01) | ||
| Natural factors | ||||||||||||
| Average terrain slope | 0.84 | (0.78–0.89) | 0.93 | (0.91–0.95) | 0.82 | (0.75–0.9) | 0.88 | (0.85–0.91) | 0.98 | (0.93–1.02) | 0.97 | (0.95–0.99) |
| Smooth terms: | E.d.f | p-value | E.d.f | p-value | E.d.f | p-value | E.d.f | p-value | E.d.f | p-value | E.d.f | p-value |
| Socio-demographic factors | ||||||||||||
| s(Age) | 0.77 | 0.04 | 4.30 | <0.01 | ||||||||
| s(Commute distance) | 1.01 | <0.01 | 6.61 | <0.01 | ||||||||
| Built-environment factors | ||||||||||||
| Land use | ||||||||||||
| s(land use mix index) | 0.00 | 0.68 | 0.00 | 0.53 | Ɨ | Ɨ | 0.67 | 0.08 | 0.77 | 0.04 | ||
| Road network | ||||||||||||
| s(Proportion of Low LTSb roads) | 0.86 | 0.02 | 1.02 | <0.01 | 3.05 | <0.01 | 4.21 | <0.01 | 0.00 | 0.91 | 0.00 | 0.50 |
| s(Proportion of Extremely-high LTSb roads) | 0.00 | 0.38 | 0.00 | 0.69 | 0.00 | 0.69 | 0.64 | 0.10 | 0.36 | 0.20 | 0.00 | 0.58 |
| Deviance explained | 9.78% | 9.86% | 9.31% | 10.30% | 6.13% | 9.23% | ||||||
Link function: Logit.
s() refers to a spline function.
All the models were adjusted by socio-demographic factors.
a
Bus Rapid Transit system TransMilenio.
b
Level of Traffic Stress.
Ɨ
Not included in the model.