Interesting new report on cycling in major North American cities

.PDF

 

Whole thing is worth reading, but here are a few things I thought were interesting:

 

—Chicago > New York. Don't know why Chicago has such an inferiority complex toward New York in re: cycling, because it is really a miserable place to ride and this brings some numbers to back that. In 1990, the two towns had an equal cycling mode share; New York's has doubled since, while Chicago's has quadrupled. We also get credit for bike-transit integration, having lots of bike parking, community outreach and enforcement of cyclists' rights (???). Good work, local cycling advocates! Easy to take things for granted.

 

—No one rides in Chicago. Better than New York or not, 1.2% mode share is kind of pathetic, 20% that of Portland (and yes, a lot of that is because we have a semi-decent transit system). I tend to think that as little as anyone wants to hear it, cyclists are treated more deferentially than they ought to be by planners and officials considering that nearly no one bikes. This is also a very dangerous place to ride! About twice as dangerous as any other city other than New York, which is off the charts. (Really, cycling in New York sucks.) On the other hand we have WAY more cycling cops than anyone else, which is cool.

 

—We don't have any bike lanes. Along with New York we have the lowest percentage of roads with lanes and paths, about an eighth what Minneapolis or Portland have—and that after having doubled in the last ten years.

 


—Poor people ride bicycles. The lower fourth of the income distribution is responsible for 31% of trips in the cities under consideration (Chicago, Portland, Washington, San Francisco, Minneapolis, New York, Montreal, Vancouver and Toronto). Not that everyone in the lower quarter fits this stereotype, but it really irritates me that cycling advocate types tend to not consider poor people who ride crappy old bikes for lack of other options not to be cyclists. Also worth noting that politicians aren't stupid and are aware that a lot of cycling is done by poor people, who they don't care about.

 

Views: 55

▶ Reply to This

Replies to This Discussion

Permalink Reply by Duppie on April 5, 2011 at 1:26pm

Thanks for posting that Dr. Doom.

 

Here is one interesting tidbit I found:

Only 10% of the bike trips is done by members of a car-free household. 63% of bike trips is done by members of a household that has 2 or more cars. Maybe we can keep that in mind the next time we have a car-bashing thread.

Permalink Reply by ad on April 6, 2011 at 3:48am

Having spent some time in the Twin Cities, it seems pretty apparent IMHO that one reason cycling took off so much is because their mass transit situation is pretty horrible.  They're definitely making some improvements with the light rail, but as a whole it seems like a much more car-centric city than say Chicago, San Francisco, New York or Portland.  In Minneapolis, it's often a decision between either driving or biking somewhere.  If you don't own or want to use a car for a trip in the city, the bike becomes a much more important tool to get around.  Madison, which has several green way bike paths around the city, is also very similar in that regard. 

 

I don't say any of that to belittle either cities' efforts to support cycling, which are pretty amazing.  I just highlight the above as one factor that has maybe lead to an explosion in cycling in Minneapolis that isn't as present in Chicago.  Although our mass transit system certainly isn't perfect, it's developed enough to allow people to get around fairly well without having to necessarily rely on cars or bikes.  Same with New York.           

Permalink Reply by Andrew on April 6, 2011 at 6:27am
—Poor people ride bicycles. The lower fourth of the income distribution is responsible for 31% of trips in the cities under consideration (Chicago, Portland, Washington, San Francisco, Minneapolis, New York, Montreal, Vancouver and Toronto). Not that everyone in the lower quarter fits this stereotype, but it really irritates me that cycling advocate types tend to not consider poor people who ride crappy old bikes for lack of other options not to be cyclists. Also worth noting that politicians aren't stupid and are aware that a lot of cycling is done by poor people, who they don't care about.

Is there any more discussion in this forum regarding some of the ideas mentioned above?  I did a few searches, but none have yielded satisfactory results, and I am hoping some long-time members might recall such conversations (if they happened).  Thanks!

 

(edited formatting for readability)

Permalink Reply by S on April 6, 2011 at 6:50am


Andrew N said:

Is there any more discussion in this forum regarding some of the ideas mentioned above?  I did a few searches, but none have yielded satisfactory results, and I am hoping some long-time members might recall such conversations (if they happened).  Thanks!

I don't think there's really been much of a discussion of that.  For better or for worse, most of the conversations here are more focused on social/community aspects rather than social justice/advocacy.  And most of the later tends to focus on issues affecting the northside cycling community.  Most of it is just demographics, people on the net and with the time to participate tend to be from higher socio-economic classes and so the discussions revolve around things that matter to them.

Permalink Reply by Kevin C Dormant on April 6, 2011 at 8:18am

Not sure I agree with the "poor people" conclusion. I'm probably going to lose the formatting here but:

"In 2001 there was almost no difference in bike mode shares among the four income quartiles (Table 3). By comparison, the 2009 NHTS indicates a somewhat higher bike mode share in the lowest income quartile (1.3%) than in the top two income quartiles (1.1%). Although cycling rates do not vary much by income, it seems likely that low-income persons cycle mainly for work trips and other utilitarian purposes, while high-income persons may cycle more for recreation and exercise."

                                         Bike Share of All                        Share of All Bike

                                                Trips                                                Trips

Household Income              2001                 2009                    2001                     2009

Lowest Quartile                        0.8              1.3                     25%                        31%

Second Quartile                        0.8              0.8                     25%                       21%

Third Quartile                          0.9               1.1                     22%                       25%

Highest Quartile                      0.8                 1.1                   28%                       23%

Pucher and Buehler Bicycling Trends and Policies in Large North American Cities p. 5

If anything, I thought the uniformity of the rates and mode share across income levels was pretty surprising.

Permalink Reply by Joel on April 6, 2011 at 9:17am
We would need to see more detailed statistics to make a call on the "poor people".  According to Table 2, 46% of bicycle trips are for recreation/vacation.  It could be the case that wealthier people are out for fun on the weekend riding the trails, while the poor are biking to work because they lack alternatives.
Permalink Reply by Dr. Doom on April 6, 2011 at 2:39pm

I wouldn't want to overstate the point, and it's fair to note that there isn't info on just who these people are, but a third again as many trips are being taken by people in the lowest quartile than are being taken by people in the upper. Given how responsive the political system is to higher income citizens that strikes me as pretty significant and telling.

Either way, there isn't a lot of advocacy on behalf of people who wouldn't necessarily identify as cyclists, and it's a bit weird. It reminds me of the way people glamorize messenger style without noticing that a lot of messengers are older guys on semi-functional mountain bikes.

Permalink Reply by Joe Studer 8.0 mi on April 7, 2011 at 3:19am

I have to say, I am consistently struck by the sources and information that you bring to these discussions. 

 

Well done, Kevin!

Kevin Conway said:

Not sure I agree with the "poor people" conclusion. I'm probably going to lose the formatting here but:

"In 2001 there was almost no difference in bike mode shares among the four income quartiles (Table 3). By comparison, the 2009 NHTS indicates a somewhat higher bike mode share in the lowest income quartile (1.3%) than in the top two income quartiles (1.1%). Although cycling rates do not vary much by income, it seems likely that low-income persons cycle mainly for work trips and other utilitarian purposes, while high-income persons may cycle more for recreation and exercise."

                                         Bike Share of All                        Share of All Bike

                                                Trips                                                Trips

Household Income              2001                 2009                    2001                     2009

Lowest Quartile                        0.8              1.3                     25%                        31%

Second Quartile                        0.8              0.8                     25%                       21%

Third Quartile                          0.9               1.1                     22%                       25%

Highest Quartile                      0.8                 1.1                   28%                       23%

Pucher and Buehler Bicycling Trends and Policies in Large North American Cities p. 5

If anything, I thought the uniformity of the rates and mode share across income levels was pretty surprising.

Permalink Reply by Kevin C Dormant on April 7, 2011 at 4:31am
Thanks, but I can't take credit for this. I merely cited to a table from the report posted by the good Dr. Does that change your comment?

Joe Studer said:

I have to say, I am consistently struck by the sources and information that you bring to these discussions. 

 

Well done, Kevin!


Permalink Reply by Joe Studer 8.0 mi on April 7, 2011 at 4:55am

Not really.  You've posted your fair share of (to me) obscure data sources. 

 

Your comment does confirm, however, that I need to read the report from Dr. Doom's original posting and that, generally, it is good to read the source material before commenting.

Permalink Reply by Steven Vance on April 10, 2011 at 9:45pm
If you can, read the rest of John Pucher's publications, starting with "Making Cycling Irresistible" (PDF).

Joe Studer said:

Your comment does confirm, however, that I need to read the report from Dr. Doom's original posting and that, generally, it is good to read the source material before commenting.

RSS

Groups

© 2008-2016   The Chainlink Community, L.L.C.   Powered by

Disclaimer  |  Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service