Out on the streets, we can all tell the number of bicyclists is growing. But, to gain the recognition we deserve, that rise needs to be backed by hard data.
That’s why Alta Planning + Design developed the National Bicycle and Pedestrian Documentation Project. According to Alta: “Without accurate and consistent demand and usage figures, it is difficult to measure the positive benefits of investments in these modes, especially when compared to the other transportation modes such as the private automobile… This nationwide effort provides consistent model of data collection and ongoing data for use by planners, governments, and bicycle and pedestrian professionals.”
By creating the resources and tools to conduct counts, the Project is making it easier for advocates and professionals to gather data to make the case for current and future bike paths, lanes and other facilities for bicycles and pedestrians. By collecting that data from communities nationwide, the Project also hopes to illuminate differences in overall trends in biking and walking based on regions’ demography, geography, and land use. The end result: A rich resource for planners and researchers alike that showcases the community benefits and rising popularity of biking and walking.
But the Project needs you! The official dates for the next nationwide count are coming up, September 11-13.
Alta has created everything you need – from instructions to surveys to volunteer training presentations – to contribute to this exciting national initiative. Learn more and get involved at www.bikepeddocumentation.org.
“The Washington region is a bike-commuter region,” Buehler told me. As he wrote in his study: “In 2008, 41 percent of all weekday bike trips in the region were commute- or work-related, compared to only 17 percent in other urbanized areas in the U.S. The high share of utilitarian trip purposes in the region is comparable with bike-friendly cities in Europe, such as Berlin or Amsterdam.”
D.C. has a history of planning for bicycling and has made significant progress, but Buehler warned against complacency. “Having big plans now does not mean that it will be implemented in the future,” he said. “It was interesting to see the ambitious plans from the 1970s that only got partially implemented. This could be a little bit of a warning for cycling advocates.”
“The development of the regional trail network was crucial to provide connection between jurisdictions and from neighborhoods to employment centers,” Buehler continued. “The new trend towards bike lanes is encouraging because it will complement the regional network.”
Buehler and his co-authors identified significant “spatial variability” in bicycling rates – some parts of the regions saw higher rider ship than other parts. So, what role did self-selection or ‘demographic determination’ have in explaining this variability?
“There is definitely some self-selection,” Buehler told me. “But the jurisdictions also built great facilities in neighborhoods in which people want to cycle. Most studies show that even after controlling for self-selection, transport infrastructure and the built environment still influence travel choices. If you offer safe and attractive cycling conditions, people will cycle – even those who have not considered cycling a mode of transport.”
At the same time, self-selection cannot be easily disentangled from travel demand. People who want to bike may demand bicycle infrastructure. The city then builds more bike infrastructure and even more people ride. Some may even move to the neighborhood because they want to use their bicycles — it’s difficult to disentangle the two.
So, what lessons can D.C. learn from this study? “I think D.C. and the other jurisdictions have to integrate their own bicycle network and to connect them across jurisdictional boundaries,” Buehler said. “DC, Arlington, and Alexandria have made great progress, but there are still many gaps.” According to Buehler, we’ll see more cyclists in all regions when conditions improve. The study also identified the important role the building shower, lockers, and bike parking play in encouraging bicycling. Plentiful car parking, on the other hand, is negatively associated with bicycling, meaning that the more parking is available, the fewer cyclists you can expect.
Flusche joined the League in April 2009 and has a B.A. in history from Syracuse University and a Masters of Public Administration with a concentration in public policy analysis from New York University.
Has anyone ever tried to tell you that there are too few bicyclists to reduce traffic congestion in any noticeable way? Well, new data shows that it doesn’t take large reductions in driving to see major improvements in traffic flow.
In 2011, total vehicle miles traveled (VMT) in the United States declined 1.2%. That means, due to the economy and other factors, Americans drove slightly less in 2011 than they did in 2010. But what makes that remarkable is the striking result: Congestion decreased 30%.
INRIX Traffic Scorecard
Bicyclists are everywhere, but we tend to flock to large dense cities – many of the places faced with the most congested roads and most likely to benefit from commuters leaving their cars at home in favor of their bikes.
Don’t worry if you’re not a bike commuter. It’s not just work trips that contribute to congestion. About half of all peak-hour trips are not work-related. If you’re riding instead of driving during morning and afternoon rush, you’re helping to ease congestion.
Talking Traffic 2011, NHTS, FHWA, Office of Highway Policy Information
Among other things, this is useful information for making the case to use Congestion Mitigation and Air Quality (CMAQ) Improvement funds for bicycling and walking projects.
Darren Flusche League Policy Director
Flusche joined the League in April 2009 and has a B.A. in history from Syracuse University and a Masters of Public Administration with a concentration in public policy analysis from New York University.
We have been gratified by the reception of our new website, Every Bicyclist Counts. The site is a memorial to cyclists who have been killed in the saddle. It is also a data-gathering tool that will help us learn more about the nature of fatal crashes — and hopefully prevent them. The project is meant to demonstrate the need for better reporting on these tragedies. We have already seen a lot of interest in this project from League members and cyclists in response to our latest appeal. If you would like to contribute, please donate here.
On Monday, we provided an early look at our very preliminary data. We are just beginning to track fatal crashes, but we are already re-examining some of our assumptions, based on the first 150 records.
We haven’t yet reported on all of the data we are collecting. Today, we want to share a little bit more about the information we’re collecting to give you a sense of what is to come.
Currently, we are collecting information in the following categories:
Date of incident
Age of cyclist
Gender of cyclist
Obituary
Location (street, city, state, closest intersection)
Driver age
Crash time
Photo
Land Use
Road Type
Where on Road the Collision Occurred
Collision Type
Vehicle Type
Driver at Crash Time
Cyclist at Crash Time
Wearing helmet
Sources
Legal Status
The purpose of these particular questions is to build upon the data captured by the federal Fatalities Analysis Reporting System (FARS) and add richness and detail that can’t be found there. This allows us to check our data against the official federal database, while gaining a more complete picture of why these deaths occurred. What type of collision was it? What were the contributing factors? What were the features of the road? Was the driver distracted? If so, by what?
Members of the public are invited to email Elizabeth Kiker at Elizabeth[at]bikeleague.org to notify us of cyclist fatalities as they occur or to add details about existing profiles. We want the most complete and up-to-date information possible.
We initially entered the deaths that we knew about in 2011. Please note that, going forward, we will only be able to track events that take place in 2012 and later. While we want to honor every cyclist, we are constrained in our ability to record past events. If we have missed any cyclists who were killed since January 1, 2012, please do let us know.
This practical constraint also explains why we are limiting the project to fatalities. We know that examining all crashes would be very instructive. Unfortunately, capturing those data would be a mammoth task, fraught with logistical complexity.
Thanks to the member contributions we’ve received so far, we’ve already added a new feature to Every Bicyclist Counts – a map. This custom, Google-powered map shows where the fatal crashes are occurring. Click here to see the map.
Flusche joined the League in April 2009 and has a B.A. in history from Syracuse University and a Masters of Public Administration with a concentration in public policy analysis from New York University.
Earlier this year, the League of American Bicyclists quietly launched a new website called Every Bicyclist Counts. The site tracks bicyclist fatalities, and, it does this for several reasons.
First, it serves as a memorial for fallen cyclists. Every bicyclist matters and we want to honor the memory of those who have lost their lives bicycling, while also providing a place for grieving friends and family to pay tribute in the comments, if they wish.
Second, we recognize that we all have a lot to learn about the circumstances of fatal crashes. To improve safety on our roads, we need to better understand what leads to fatal crashes and other bicyclist deaths (they’re not all crashes).
Third, we want to try to improve the response to, coverage of, and follow-up to every one of these fatal crashes. We believe that if we can hold a spotlight to the police, justice system, and media response to these incidents, we may be able to improve the quality of such responses over time.
This month, we sent out an appeal to League members describing Every Bicyclist Counts and asking for support for this important memorial, data-gathering, and awareness-raising tool. We immediately heard from members who were appreciative of the project – and eager to find out more about what we’ve learned so far.
In recognition of the interest in new data on bicycling fatalities, we decided to share some of what we know up to this point. However, please treat these data as highlypreliminary. Imagine a big “Draft – Data not final” watermark on the page behind all that follows.
Flusche joined the League in April 2009 and has a B.A. in history from Syracuse University and a Masters of Public Administration with a concentration in public policy analysis from New York University.
UPDATE: If you haven’t yet sent a letter to your Senators asking for their support to preserve the American Community Survey, you can do so through the American Planning Association.
One of the most common laments of the bicycling policy community is the lack of consistent, reliable data on bicycle travel. As of last week, when the House voted to eliminate the U.S. Census Bureau’s American Community Survey (ACS), the only comprehensive, national survey that captures bike commuting data at the local level is in danger of being cut.
ACS data in action
It’s not just bike commuting data that would be lost if Congress eliminates the ACS. It’s a whole range of economic, household, and community information. ACS data are used by all sorts of decision-makers. Federal, state, and local governments make critical decisions about how to distribute resources based on ACS data. Academics and researchers at think tanks use ACS data to track trends.
Private businesses, large and small, use the ACS to assess population profiles and spending power of neighborhoods, influencing investment decisions. Target, for example, decides what size packages to carry in their stores based on population density statistics from the ACS: the denser the neighborhood, the smaller the containers for smaller apartments and folks carting their purchases on transit. It is for its economic importance that organizations like the Chamber of Commerce, which often oppose government spending, strongly support preserving the ACS and have come out against the House vote.
Here’s the Census Bureau Director on the necessity of the ACS:
Of course, the ACS is a critical source of transportation data. ACS commuting data are used by planners and engineers to mitigate traffic congestion by gauging peak travel demand. The ACS allows public and private investors to measure the success (or failure) of their transportation infrastructure investments. Transit planners use it to determine unmet transportation needs. And – most important of all! – the ACS tracks bicycle commuters (among the other modes).
We’ve talked before about the limitations of the survey question, but the ACS is undeniably one of the most important national data sources for bicycling. (The intermittent National Household Travel Survey, NHTS, is another important one.) The ACS is annual, giving us the ability to track change over time. The ACS is the source of our commuterstatistics and a cornerstone of the Alliance for Biking & Walking’s biennial Benchmarking Report.
Without the ACS, it would become harder to show the results of your community’s bicycling investments, especially in comparison to other cities, since the standardized methodology makes comparisons more reliable. And we wouldn’t be able to tell you that bicycle commuting increased 40 percent nationally since 2000 and 77 percent in Bicycle Friendly Communities.
Now that the House has voted to 1) make the survey optional, and 2) to do away with it all together, it is up to the Senate to block both measures. The National Low Income Housing Coalition is hosting a sign-on letter to tell the Senate the importance of the ACS. If you’re part of an organization that would like to sign the letter, email your organization’s name, along with the city and state in parentheses (city, state abbreviation) to Brendan Nichols bnichols@ccmc.org at The Census Project. The letter is available here.
Darren Flusche League Policy Director
Flusche joined the League in April 2009 and has a B.A. in history from Syracuse University and a Masters of Public Administration with a concentration in public policy analysis from New York University.
Earlier today, America Bikes unveiled a new survey that shows overwhelming support to increase or maintain federal funding for biking and walking. Are you part of that 83 percent? Share this infographic with your friends — and elected officials!
Credit: America Bikes
Carolyn Szczepanski Communications Director
Carolyn joined the League in March 2012, after two years at the Alliance for Biking & Walking. In addition to managing the League's blog, magazine and other communications, Carolyn organized the first National Women's Bicycling Summit and launched the League's newest program: Women Bike. Before she crossed over to advocacy, she was a professional journalist for nearly 10 years.
Bicycling and walking make up 12 percent of all trips and 14 percent of all traffic fatalities and yet receive only 1.6 percent of federal transportation funding. What more do you need to make the case for investments in bicycling and walking? Well, if you think of something it is probably covered in Bicycling and Walking in the United States: 2012 Benchmarking Report released today by the Alliance for Biking and Walking.
Here are some of the highlights
In 2009, 40% of trips in the United States were shorter than 2 miles, yet 87% of these trips are by car. Twenty-seven percent of trips were shorter than 1 mile. Still, Americans use their cars for 62% of these trips.
While bicycling and walking fell 66% between 1960 and 2009, obesity levels increased 156%.
Seniors are the most vulnerable bicyclists and pedestrians. Adults over 65 make up 10% of walking trips, yet comprise 19% of pedestrian fatalities. This age group accounts for 6% of bicycling trips, yet 10% of bicyclist fatalities.
Bicycling and walking projects create 11-14 jobs per $1 million spent, compared to just 7 jobs created per $1 million spent on highway projects. Cost benefit analysis show that up to $11.80 in benefits can be gained for every $1 invested in bicycling and walking.
On average, the largest 51 U.S. cities show a 29% increase in bicycle facilities since the 2010 report. Cities report that 20,908 miles of bicycle facilities and 7,079 miles of pedestrian facilities are planned for the coming years (much of this contingent upon funding).
Darren Flusche League Policy Director
Flusche joined the League in April 2009 and has a B.A. in history from Syracuse University and a Masters of Public Administration with a concentration in public policy analysis from New York University.
2. The outline of the House transportation re-authorization bill would entirely eliminate Transportation Enhancements, along with the Safe Routes to School and Recreational Trails programs. Even the vague language about eligibility seems to imply that states would have to jump through additional hoops to use federal funds on bicycling and walking projects.
But what would it look like if we didn’t have Transportation Enhancements, Safe Routes to Schools (and the non-motorized transportation pilot program) and the Recreational Trails program?
Here’s the amount of federal money states have spent on bicycling and walking projects each year since 1992:
Click to enlarge.
We’ve seen tremendous growth over the past twenty or so years, with a notable spike during the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act, the stimulus. Active transportation projects are popular and local and regional agencies are increasingly calling for these types of projects, but they need support from federal funds.
Here is where the funds came from, by funding program:
What if we didn’t have Transportation Enhancements, Safe Routes to School & the Pilot Program, and Recreational Trails?
Just imagine all for trails, bridges, and road facilities that would not exist without the blacked out funds.
Now, here’s the picture for FY2011, using newly released numbers from the Federal Highway Administration:
And without dedicated funds?
Pretty bleak. As these charts illustrate, it is going to be a critical year for the National Bike Summit to maintain dedicated funding for bicycling and walking projects and fight for bicyclists’ rights. Register now.
Darren Flusche League Policy Director
Flusche joined the League in April 2009 and has a B.A. in history from Syracuse University and a Masters of Public Administration with a concentration in public policy analysis from New York University.
Kory Northrop created these graphics to show the relationship between bicycle commuting, safety, and government spending. His aim, he writes, was to present bicycling-related data ‘in a manner that is more easily digestible [which] is important to informing policymakers and the public about these issues.”
Kory presents, graphically, data from our tables of American Community Survey bicycle commuting data to show bicycle commuter rates by state, with boxes that illustrate the gender mode split (the larger the yellow box, the more female cyclists). The graph is interactive: you can scroll through the years from 2005 to 2010.
Using the list of US cities with populations over 60,000, Kory graphed commuter data, sort-able by the number of bike commuters, the percentage of bicycle commuters, and the number of female and male bicyclists.
Next, Kory presents the number of bicyclist fatalities in the 50 states for each year since 2000. For the years 2005 through 2010 he calculated a fatality rate using the number of bicycle commuters as the denominator.
Then Kory shows the amount of FHWA Federal-Aid transportation funds states spent on bicycle and pedestrian projects since 1992. The size of the circle represents per capita spending. This is a topic close to our hearts. For more information on accessing federal funds for bicycling and walking projects, please visit our Advocacy Advance website.
Finally, there is an overview that shows commuter levels and fatalities over the years.
Vote now. We’d love to see Kory’s graphic win the challenge.
But if you’re not sold, you have another bicycling graphic option to choose. This one shows roadway bicycle “accidents” on several roads in Chicago. (Ed. note, we know the preferred term is crash.)
Flusche joined the League in April 2009 and has a B.A. in history from Syracuse University and a Masters of Public Administration with a concentration in public policy analysis from New York University.
If a picture is worth a thousand words, what is an infographic worth?
In an effort to spread the word about bicycling’s benefits and popularity, Bike Walk Twin Cities created this infographic as part of Bike Walk Move, a local campaign to encourage more biking and walking in the Minneapolis and St. Paul area.
“The infographic says, ‘Hey, look how many people are getting around on bikes,’” says Hilary Reeves, Communications Manager of Bike Walk Twin Cities. “We wanted to gather some local stats and put them in a bit of context. The stats get your attention; validate things.”
The Bike Walk Move campaign spreads the word about new bicycling options in the Twin Cities resulting from the federal Non-motorized Transportation Pilot Program administered by Transit for Livable Communities. “We want people to know they can make their way all across the metro, and beyond, on a lot of new routes, including bicycle boulevards,” Reeves says. The Twin Cities, along with Columbia, MO, Marin County, CA, Sheboygan County, WI, received the pilot project funds to increase bicycling and walking as transportation.
The numbers show growth in bicycling and walking, suggesting a wider acceptance, generally, of the bike as a way to get around. The Twin Cities have a higher share of female cyclists than most places and, of course, their famously intrepid winter cyclists show up in the data – one in five cyclists ride throughout the winter. Overall, the data show the cost-effectiveness of bicycling investments. “As Minneapolis Mayor Rybak has noted, you get a lot of bang for the buck with these investments,” Reeves says.
The infographic is one piece of an ongoing effort under the Bike Walk Move moniker to expand audiences for bicycling. The campaign has tabled at farmers markets, partnered with the local Major Taylor Bicycling Club, and put ads on buses featuring local bicyclists and their reasons for choosing to bike or walk, such as “infinity miles to the gallon.” “The effort is really trying to be inclusive,” Reeves says, “To say, you can do this, too.”
Flusche joined the League in April 2009 and has a B.A. in history from Syracuse University and a Masters of Public Administration with a concentration in public policy analysis from New York University.
The 2010 US Census Bureau American Community Survey (ACS) bike to work data that we analyzed this weekand last has sparked a lot of conversation and press coverage as communities gauges their biking levels and compare themselves to one another. Not surprisingly, we tend to zero in on the biking data. But there is a whole world of journey-to-work data out there in the ACS results.
That’s where Brian McKenzie and Melanie Rapino at the US Census bureau come in. They reviewed the 2009 ACS journey to work data to give us all a general overview of commuting in America.
The first point they make is a very important one, especially for those of us interested in cycling levels:
In the United States, commutes make up less than 20 percent of all trips taken.
Commutes can present challenges to bicycling that don’t necessarily exist for other utilitarian trips. They’re a fixed distance. We don’t all have the luxury of living near work. Sometimes our commutes are outside of comfortable biking distance. Sometimes there a dress code, and nowhere to get cleaned up. Sometimes bikes aren’t allowed in our work buildings. We don’t all work at Bicycle Friendly Businesses. But none of this means that we don’t ride for other purposes. Our need to look at commuting data — because consistent, comparable data for different geographic areas isn’t readily available — means that we’re only learning about one in five of all of the trips we’re making. The need for better data is considerable.
That said, there’s a lot we can learn from commuter travel data. The folks at the Census Bureau made the following observations (taken directly from their report):
Commuting highlights from the 2009 ACS are:
Over three-quarters of the nation’s workers drove alone to work.
Workers took an average of 25.1 minutes to get to work.
Hispanic workers carpooled at a rate of 16.4 percent, compared with 9.5 percent for non-Hispanic workers.
The rate of public transportation usage among the foreign-born population was 10.8 percent, more than twice that of the native-born population, at 4.1 percent.
Suburban workers drove alone at a rate of 81.5 percent, compared with 72.1 percent for workers living inside of a principal city.
The New York-Northern New Jersey-Long Island, NY-NJ-PA Metro Area had the longest average commute, at 34.6 minutes.
The 10 metro areas with the shortest average commute times have populations of fewer than 300,000 people.
Using the 2009 ACS data for Metropolitan Statistical Areas (not the city geographies that we use), they put together these tables for bicycling and walking:
Flusche joined the League in April 2009 and has a B.A. in history from Syracuse University and a Masters of Public Administration with a concentration in public policy analysis from New York University.
Last week, we shared with you the 2010 US Census Bureau American Community Survey bicycle commuting data. Here is a visual representation of the trends:
Thanks to Kate Powlison at Bikes Belong for putting together this very attractive graph using ACS data to show the growth of bike commuting since 2000 in the largest Bicycle Friendly Communities, non-BFCs, and the national rate. Click on the image for a larger version.
Another version here, without the 70 city average:
The notes on the American Community Survey are worth repeating:
ACS limitations, notes, and cautions
The ACS asks only about commuting. It does not tell us about bicycling for non-work purposes.
Results are based on a survey of a sample of the population. Surveys take place throughout the year. The journey to work question asks respondents about the previous week.
The journey to work question asks about the primary mode of transportation to work. The wording of the question undercounts the actual amount of bike commuting that occurs. It does not count people who rode once or twice a week or people who bike to transit (if the transit leg is longer than the bike leg).
Since the ACS is a survey of a sample, the results are estimates. The ACS releases a margin of error along with the estimate. Users can add and subtract the margin of error value from the estimate to find the top and bottom of the range within which the ACS is 90 percent confident in their estimate lies. Refer to the2010 city table for margins of error.
Changes among years may not be statistically significant. Be cautious when drawing conclusions based on one year changes. Look at the trend over a number of years.
The numbers reported here are for the “principal city,” not the larger Metropolitan Statistical Area (MSA).
UPDATE: A note of caution from the US Census Bureau: ”The 2009 ACS and 2010 ACS 1-year estimates use different Census base years for the population estimates used in the ACS weighting. Estimates of population size are not comparable between 2009 and 2010. Estimates of percent distributions, rates, and ratios should be compared with caution. For more details, visit the ACS Research Note Change in Population Controls [PDF 366K].” The Bureau is urging users to use caution in interpreting the results, but not suggesting that users avoid comparisons all together.
For detailed questions about methodology, contact the American Community Survey Office at 301-763-9810.
Darren Flusche League Policy Director
Flusche joined the League in April 2009 and has a B.A. in history from Syracuse University and a Masters of Public Administration with a concentration in public policy analysis from New York University.
For the third year in a row, data released by the US Census Bureau’s American Community Survey show that more than half of one percent of American workers use a bicycle as their primary mode of transportation to work. While this number represents nearly 40 percent growth since 2000, it also shows that we still have a lot of work to do in making our communities truly welcoming to bicyclists.
Updated with graph:
Kate Powlison at Bikes Belong put together this very attractive graph using the data to show the growth of bike commuting since 2000 in the largest Bicycle Friendly Communities, non-BFCs, and the national rate.
A look at the country’s 70 largest cities shows that the communities that have done the most to promote bicycling through engineering, education, encouragement, enforcement, and evaluation – determined by the League’s Bicycle Friendly America program – have seen greater increases in bike commuting over the past decade than non-Bicycle Friendly Communities.
Since 2005, the 38 Bicycle Friendly Communities among the 70 largest cities saw a 95 percent average increase in bicycle commuting. In contrast, the 32 non-Bicycle Friendly Communities (among the largest 70) grew 46 percent. Since 2000, large Bicycle Friendly Communities grew 78 percent, compared to 55 percent for large non-BFCs.
You can see the variations on the year-by-year table of bike commuting levels for the 70 largest US cities, but overall the general and the specific city trends are upward.
The ACS asks only about commuting. It does not tell us about bicycling for non-work purposes.
Results are based on a survey of a sample of the population. Surveys take place throughout the year. The journey to work question asks respondents about the previous week.
The journey to work question asks about the primary mode of transportation to work. The wording of the question undercounts the actual amount of bike commuting that occurs. It does not count people who rode once or twice a week or people who bike to transit (if the transit leg is longer than the bike leg).
Since the ACS is a survey of a sample, the results are estimates. The ACS releases a margin of error along with the estimate. Users can add and subtract the margin of error value from the estimate to find the top and bottom of the range within which the ACS is 90 percent confident in their estimate lies. Refer to the 2010 city table for margins of error.
Changes among years may not be statistically significant. Be cautious when drawing conclusions based on one year changes. Look at the trend over a number of years.
The numbers reported here are for the “principal city,” not the larger Metropolitan Statistical Area (MSA).
UPDATE: A note of caution from the US Census Bureau: ”The 2009 ACS and 2010 ACS 1-year estimates use different Census base years for the population estimates used in the ACS weighting. Estimates of population size are not comparable between 2009 and 2010. Estimates of percent distributions, rates, and ratios should be compared with caution. For more details, visit the ACS Research Note Change in Population Controls [PDF 366K].” The Bureau is urging users to use caution in interpreting the results, but not suggesting that users avoid comparisons all together.
For detailed questions about methodology, contact the American Community Survey Office at 301-763-9810.
Darren Flusche League Policy Director
Flusche joined the League in April 2009 and has a B.A. in history from Syracuse University and a Masters of Public Administration with a concentration in public policy analysis from New York University.
In celebration of Bike to Work Week, we are launching a new bike commuting data tool to help you find out how many bicycle commuters are in your city.
Just go to the page and find your community from the drop-down menu. You can see the number of bicycle commuters, the percentage of bicycle commuters, the share who are female, and the percent of the population in college. There are 244 cities on the list. Only the cities with populations greater than 65,000 are available. Communities without American Community Survey commuter estimates were removed. For the 90 largest US cities, you can also find the number of miles of bike lanes and paths.
If you’d like to work with the numbers in spreadsheet form, you can download them.
The Census Bureau collects American Community Survey (ACS) data from a sample of the population in the United States, not from the whole population. All American Community Survey (ACS) data are estimates. For margins of error for the estimates above, download the full table labeled “RAW data.”
2009 ACS data were collected between January 1, 2009 and December 31, 2009 from cities with population of 65,000 and greater. In the tables above, cities for which the ACS did not have journey to work estimates were removed. This is generally due to small samples and privacy concerns.
The population estimates come from the ACS and not the decennial census or the Census Bureau’s Population Estimates Program.
Bicycling data
The bicycling data in the tables above record only journeys to work. They do not account for all bicycling in the community.
Further, the data record only the primary mode used during the week surveyed. Commuters are not counted as bicyclists if they rode two out of five days in the week, or if they rode to transit and the transit trip was longer than the bike portion.
Commuters who bicycle every day in the summer but were surveyed in the winter were not counted as cyclists. (The ACS surveys an equal number of respondents each month, so seasonal differences are accounted for overall.) The survey question can be said to capture the number of regular, primary bicycle commuters, but it is not an estimate of how many people ride to work on a given day.
Lane and path mileage
Staff of the League of American Bicyclists collected the number of bicycle lane and paths miles from 90 of the 100 largest US cities in January 2010. Bike lanes were counted as “center-line miles,” meaning that a mile of bike lane on a one-way street was counted as one mile and a mile of road with bike lanes in both directions was also counted as one mile. Path mileage was collected based on the number of miles of dedicated bike path or multi-use path, based on AASHTO definitions.
Darren Flusche League Policy Director
Flusche joined the League in April 2009 and has a B.A. in history from Syracuse University and a Masters of Public Administration with a concentration in public policy analysis from New York University.
A different kind of bike map. Click on image for larger version courtesy of WeBikeEugene.org
This one is for our visual learners. Kory Northrop, a master’s student in the Environmental Studies program at the University of Oregon studying GIS and bicycle transportation, has used available public data, ArcMap, Adobe Illustrator and Photoshop to create this bicycling infographic.
The graphic shows the ACS bicycle commuter mode share and the number of female and male bike commuters in each state. The ratio of female to male bicyclists is considered an important indicator of bicycle-friendliness. In several of the cities with the highest bicycle mode share in Europe, female bicyclists outnumber male bicyclists. That is not the case in any state or large city in the US.
The graphic also highlights the 10 cities with the largest bicycle mode share (among the largest 70 US cities) and indicates their Bicycle Friendly Community (BFC) status. At the bottom of the visual, Kory graphs the per capita and total federal spending on bicycle and pedestrian projects since 1990.
Kory chose bicycle commuting as the topic for his design project because he is a bike commuter and “wanted to produce something to raise awareness for bicycle transportation.” The graphic will serve as a reference in his thesis research on bicycle transportation modeling.
He says he learned a lot about the extent of the regional differences in bicycle commuting while doing the project, especially the relatively high mode shares of Alaska and Montana. “Another thing that struck me was how quickly things changed between 2004-2009: roughly 300,000 more people started commuting by bicycle, government spending more than doubled, and the number of bicycle-related fatalities decreased by nearly 50 percent, if you factor in the increases in ridership,” Kory wrote in an email. [Ed. note: the rate of fatalities per ten thousand bike commuters was cut in half in that period.]
While planning the project, Kory reached out to us in an effort to make the graphic useful for advocates. “My hope is that advocates and bicyclists can use this to reach out to more people and continue to raise awareness about bicycle transportation issues,” he said. “There are still areas within bicycle transportation that need a lot of work, such as the disparity between male and female bicyclists, and it is my hope that this project can be used to rally support and make the case for these issues.”
Nice work, Kory.
Darren Flusche League Policy Director
Flusche joined the League in April 2009 and has a B.A. in history from Syracuse University and a Masters of Public Administration with a concentration in public policy analysis from New York University.
The average annual number of bicycle/motor vehicle crashes in Minneapolis between 1993 and 1999 was 334. Since 2000, the number has dropped 20 percent to 269.
Why? Are fewer people in Minneapolis riding these days? No.
In fact, according to the US Census and American Community Survey data, the number of Minneapolitans regularly biking to work more than doubled between 1990 and 2008 (3,000 to 8,000). This increase is supported by the city’s counts, which show a 174 percent increase in bicyclists in downtown Minneapolis between 2003 and 2008.
[Click on graphs for larger images. Note: The flat grey line between 1993 and 1999 is because the Census did not have yearly counts until the ACS came around in 2005.]
“People are so used to seeing bicyclists — love them or hate — and they don’t want to hit them,” Shaun Murphy, coordinator of the city’s non-motorized transportation program, told the Minneapolis-St. Paul Star Tribune. He also told the Tribune that the “hot spots” for bike-motorist accidents are not located around the University of Minnesota, where bicycling is common, because drivers there are so used to watching for bikes. Here is that heat map:
The data from Minneapolis are just the latest example of this counter-intuitive relationship between more bicycling and fewer crashes that has become known as the “safety in numbers” concept after the famous 2003 study from Peter Jacobsen. New York City has shown a similar trend (source: Transportation Alternatives):
This is the kind of news we love to report on. Thanks to UrbanVelo for drawing our attention to it. Please let me know (darren [at] bikeleague.org) if there are any Safety in Numbers examples that I missed.
Darren Flusche League Policy Director
Flusche joined the League in April 2009 and has a B.A. in history from Syracuse University and a Masters of Public Administration with a concentration in public policy analysis from New York University.
I’ve been poring over the 2009 American Community Survey numbers this morning, looking at the 70 largest U.S. cities and their bike to work data. Notwithstanding my colleague Darren’s caveats about the limitations of the data, all of which are valid and important to remember, it’s pretty interesting to see what’s happening at the 60,000 foot level.
For example, some of the “better” cities were worried that after a year of phenomenal growth in 2008, the numbers would look bad in 2009. That didn’t really happen – Portland and Minneapolis dropped 2% and 10% respectively but are still well ahead of the pack of large cities; Portland’s change is well within the margin of error of the survey; and their long term trends are both still really impressive! Overall, it was encouraging to see that there was no decline given many predictions that use would return to its pre-gas price hike level.
From a Bicycle Friendly Community perspective, we were glad to see that some of our newer awardees consolidated their status with good growth: new bronze’s Pittsburgh (76%), Baltimore (72%), Indianapolis (62%), and Tulsa (50%) all posted impressive gains in 2009, as did San Antonio at 25%. There were BIG increases posted in existing BFCs like Colorado Springs (166%) and Lexington, Ky. (137%) and some similarly whopping increases in un-designated cities that are perhaps more surprising – look at Atlanta (111%), Dallas (219%), Raleigh (122%) and Virginia Beach (192%) among the surprises. We weren’t so surprised to see New Orleans (174%), Omaha (151%), Kansas City (53%) and Boston (36%) on the list, as we know how hard they are trying to get on the leader board.
Again, all these numbers are relative. Try finding a Dutch city with a 5.81% mode share for bikes (Portland’s U.S. chart-topping 2009 number); if there is one, it would be considered terribly bike-hostile and would probably be disowned (or given to the Belgians)!
Another thing I looked for: how are my tips for “cities to watch” in the next couple of years doing? Long Beach had a year of consolidation with 6% growth; San Francisco moved ahead of Sacramento with ten percent growth, and would have had Salt Lake City (SLC) right behind them if the latter was just a little bit bigger. Recently upgraded silver level SLC had a 2.65% bike mode share but isn’t one of the 70 largest cities.
Andy Clarke was appointed to the position of Executive Director in April of 2004 after successfully leading efforts to create, interpret and implement the various transportation programs that are available to improve conditions for bicycling and walking as the League’s State and Local Advocacy Director. Before joining the League in February 2003, Clarke was on contract to provide technical assistance to the highly regarded Pedestrian and Bicycle Information Center on site at the Federal Highway Administration. He is on the Board of Directors for America Bikes, and a member of the Association of Pedestrian and Bicycling Professionals.
Despite predictions that the number of Americans biking to work would fall after gas prices returned to ‘normal’ in 2009, the percentage has held steady at 0.55 percent. The Bicycle Friendly Communities (BFC) among the 70 largest cities also held steady with a 1 percent increase, while non-BFCs increased their commuter share by 26 percent. BFC cities still have on average about twice the percentage of commuters as non-BFC cities.
The numbers on these tables are estimates produced by the US Census Bureau based on samples of the population. There can be a large margin of error, especially for the smaller cities. See below for a discussion of the limitations of the ACS methodology.
About the American Community Survey and its limitations
The Census Bureau has released American Community Survey data for over 6,600 geographic areas that meet the 65,000 population threshold. Population sizes are based on July 1, 2009 population estimates from the Census Bureau’s Population Estimates Program, for most legal geographic areas.
The American Community Survey is the country’s largest household survey with an annual sample size of about 3 million addresses. The survey uses questionnaires and interviews to gather information on demographic, economic, and housing characteristics, including journey to work information. Annual estimates are available for geographic areas with populations of 65,000 or more, although because of limited sample sizes, bike commuting estimates are not available for all of those locations. The ACS replaces the Census Long Form questionnaire, which was given to one in six Census-takers every ten years.
Using the decennial Census and the annual American Community Surveys, the U.S. Census bureau has asked the same question about means of travel to work over time, making it is one of the best sources for tracking trends in bicycling to work levels. However, there are several limitations to using the ACS as a measure of bicycling levels. Bicycling’s share of all trips is nearly three time large than bicycling’s share of commuter travel — the 2000 Census estimated that 0.34 percent of American workers usually bike to work, in contrast, the 2001 National Household Transportation Survey (NHTS) estimated that 0.9 percent of all trips were made by bicycle — therefore, the ACS bicycle commuter percentage should not be interpreted as equivalent to the proportion of all trips.
In addition, the ACS and the decennial Census undercount bicycle commuting levels. They ask for the principal mode of travel the worker usually used to get from home to work during the previous week.
Workers were asked to list only the means of transportation they used on the largest number of days in that week. This means that if the respondent rode a bicycle to work two days but drove three, they would not be counted as a cyclist. Likewise, workers were asked only for the means of transportation used for the longest distance during the trips. If someone biked one mile to a bus stop and rode the bus for two miles they would not be recorded as a bicyclist.
Finally, it is important to note that the results of the ACS (and the Census long form) are only estimates based on population samples. The ACS releases an estimate of the number of workers 16 years old and over and the estimated number of workers who used each mode (drive alone, car-pool, public transportation, walk, bike, taxi, or motorcycle). The estimates are used to calculate the share of workers using each mode. Along with these estimates, the ACS publishes the margin of error, a range within which they can be 90 percent confident that the true number falls. For example, the in 2008 ACS estimated with 90 percent confidence that the number of bicycle commuters in New York City was between 21,162 and 27,694. The given estimate is 24,428 with a +/- range of 3,266. For communities with low counts of bicycle commuters this range can be quite large, in few cases the +/- range can be as large as the estimated number of bike commuters. Plano, Texas, for example, has an estimate of 230 and a +/- range of 235, meaning the ACS estimates with 90 percent confidence that the actual number of bike commuters is between zero (since negative five is impossible) and 465. For simplicity’s sake, these tables use the mid-point in the range, but when reading the tables, keep in mind that all percentages are in fact just estimates, some with large margins of error.
Notes:
As stated above, the ACS numbers are estimates – differences among years or cities may not be statistically significant.
These numbers are based on the “principal city,” not the larger Metropolitan Statistical Area (MSA).
Population numbers in the tables have been updated to reflect the Census Bureau population estimates.
Darren Flusche League Policy Director
Flusche joined the League in April 2009 and has a B.A. in history from Syracuse University and a Masters of Public Administration with a concentration in public policy analysis from New York University.
The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration’s (NHTSA) National Center for Statistics and Analysis has released new fatality data for 2009. While it’s still hard to fathom that more than 33,000 people were killed in our streets last year, the trend is in the right direction. The total number of traffic fatalities dropped 9.7% from 37,423 to 33,808. Cyclist fatalities dropped somewhat faster: a 12% decline from 718 in 2008 to 630 in 2009. One disappointment is that pedestrian fatalities declined at a slower rate than the others, lowering 7.3% from 4,414 to 4,092.
It’s encouraging that fatalities are down, but what was the cause? NHTSA published a table that includes a line for the fatality rate, showing fatalities per 100 million vehicle miles travels. This line shows that fatalities are down, despite a slight increase in vehicle miles traveled, VMT. (This paragraph was edited to correct an earlier error.)
So, what about cyclists? Once again we run in data collection problems. While the DOT carefully estimates auto VMT, we are still stuck with feeble data on bicycling rates — and none have been released for 2009. Bicycle commuting jumped up in 2008. Was that a spike or did the trend continue into 2009? If the increase continued, then the fatality rate would have lowered and that would be good news. Stay tuned for the future release of the American Community Survey commuter data for 2009.
Injuries, based on estimates from the National Automotive Sampling System (NASS) General Estimates System (GES), declined for pedestrians to a statistically significant degree, but not for cyclists. So why are we seeing a decrease in cyclist fatalities but not in injuries?
Darren Flusche League Policy Director
Flusche joined the League in April 2009 and has a B.A. in history from Syracuse University and a Masters of Public Administration with a concentration in public policy analysis from New York University.
When bicycling advocates approach their elected officials to encourage them to support bicycling-friendly policies, one of the first rules is: be informed.
The Bureau of Transportation Statistics has made being informed about transportation statistics in the fifty states a little easier, with their new publication, the accurately, if not flashily, titled: STATE TRANSPORTATION STATISTICS, 2009.
The report consolidates existing sources on a range of transportation topics from safety to miles traveled, and from freight to air travel. Not surprisingly, the document is short on data on bicycling, since there is a general lack of comprehensive bicycling data available. Even in their reporting of the American Community Survey data, they group the results for bicycle commuters with motorcyclists and taxi cab passengers.
Nonetheless, the document is 143 pages of ‘did you know?’ For example, did you know that the United States has 4.04 million miles of public road and more than 600,000 bridges?
The bulk of the report focuses on comparing states. It reminds us that California (3,434), Texas (3,382), and Florida (2,978) had the most traffic fatalities in 2008, but that Wyoming (30), Mississippi (27), and Montana (24) had the most fatalities per 100,000 residents. Florida (2.7), Louisiana (2.4), Nevada (2.2), and South Carolina (2.2) had the highest pedestrian traffic fatality rates per 100,000 people.
One of the few times bicycling comes up is regarding helmet laws. No states require helmet use for adult bicyclists, but 22 states have helmet laws for children (age varies).
You might have guessed that New York State, with all that good transit in its most populous city, has the fewest licensed drivers (per driving age population,) but did you know that Illinois has the most?
Speaking of transit, the New York City metropolitan area has the most transit trips (4.2 billion a year). They do not break the numbers down by transit trips per capita, so the largest metropolitan areas generally have the largest number of transit trips; however Washington, DC, and San Francisco, CA, have notably more transit trips than the cities immediately above them in population. Freeway-heavy Los Angeles has the second most transit trips – 84.5 percent of them are by bus.
Which states had the most vehicle miles traveled per person in 2008? Mississippi (14,875), followed by two western states: Oklahoma (13,315) and New Mexico (13,243).
Which state has the highest gas prices before taxes? Home of the pipeline, Alaska.
Which state draws its highest share of energy consumption from the transportation sector? Hawaii – 58.8 percent of its energy use comes from transportation (the number includes jet fuel; it’s an archipelago, after all).
Which state registered the most new hybrid cars in 2007? California absolutely crushes the competition in this category. It registered 97,000 hybrids compared to 19,000 in Florida and 17,000 in New York and Texas. The top ten states account for 60 percent of hybrid registrations.
Finally, which metropolitan areas have the most air pollution (measured in days with an Air Quality Index over 100)? The answers: Riverside, CA, Los Angeles, CA, Sacramento, CA, San Diego, CA, New York City, Philadelphia, PA, and Atlanta, GA.
Creative use of these data should prove useful in making the case for bicycling transportation. (Please send examples.) And if nothing else, it makes for interesting reading for the data-obsessed.
Darren Flusche League Policy Director
Flusche joined the League in April 2009 and has a B.A. in history from Syracuse University and a Masters of Public Administration with a concentration in public policy analysis from New York University.
Bicycle and pedestrian program managers are common in U.S. cities and, along with other transportation planners and bicycling advocates, are a critical part of creating a bicycle-friendly community. Staff help communities plan for and respond to the needs of cyclists and pedestrians.
Why Communities and States Need Bicycle and Pedestrian Staff, an Advocacy Advance Report released today, analyses 40 of the largest U.S. cities and shows that cities with bicycle and pedestrian staff have higher levels of bicycling than the cities without staff. Cities with larger staff – both in count and per capita – have higher levels of bicycling than cities with smaller staffs.
The Alliance for Bicycling & Walking surveyed the 50 largest U.S. cities to find how many bicycle and pedestrian staff they employed. Of the forty cities that responded, only two do not have any staff dedicated to bicycle and pedestrian issues. More than half of the responding cities have one or two staff spending at least part of their time on them. A quarter of the cities have more than four staff working on bike and pedestrian issues.
What impact do bicycle and pedestrian staff have on bicycling levels? The U.S. Census Bureau’s American Community Survey measures the percentage of workers who use the bicycle as their primary mode of transportation to work. Comparing staffing levels to the commuter data shows that larger bicycle and pedestrian staffs are correlated with higher bike commuter levels. The cities without bike staff had the lowest average bike commuter share.
As the size of a city’s staff increases the average bike commuter share also increases. Cities with more than four staff averaged a ten times greater share of bicycle commuters than cities without staff – 2.1 percent compared to 0.2 percent. The cities with more than four staff had more than three times the average bike commuter share of cities with four or fewer – and double that of cities with three to four staff. This shows that cities that make a serious commitment to bicycle planning see a greater return on investment than cities with fewer staff. The same trend exists when using the number of staff per million residents. The ten cities with six or more staff per million people had an average bike commuter share of 2.4 percent, more than four times the average for cities with one or fewer staff members.
Flusche joined the League in April 2009 and has a B.A. in history from Syracuse University and a Masters of Public Administration with a concentration in public policy analysis from New York University.
For all of those who have been following Ray LaHood’s blog the Fast Lane and the U.S. DOT Policy Statement on Bicycling Accommodations for including bicycling and walking as viable forms of transportation, you know that there has been an uproar of shock and unreasonable comments amongst the car-centric transportation supporters. But those who favor car-only options are actually the minority. People want options, and we can’t argue the numbers. Thanks to a national poll conducted by Transportation for America we know that four out of five voters–82 percent–support the idea of an expanded U.S. transportation system. Also according to the survey, 59 percent of Americans would choose to reduce road congestion by adding more transportation choices — like bicycling and pedestrian options.
The poll also showed that most voters have no choice but to drive their car but wanted more options.
LaHood writes on his blog the Fastlane, “This is not just Ray LaHood’s agenda, this is the American agenda; people want alternatives to the automobile.” Urge your governor and state DOT to support the USDOT policy statement on bicycling and walking.
Meghan Cahill League Director of Communications
Cahill joined the League in December 2008 and has a BA in Media Communications with a concentration in Italian Studies from the College of Charleston.
If you were given $26.5 billion worth of transportation funds and tasked with spending it as quickly as possible to create as many jobs as possible, what would you do with it?
This may be a thought experiment for you and me, but for state Departments of Transportation last year it was a real question. They answered it. America Bikes has analyzed the Federal Highway Administration’s Fiscal Management Information System (FMIS) to see what share of the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act (ARRA) stimulus funds were committed to bicycle and pedestrian projects.
According to the analysis, $734 million were obligated for bicycle and pedestrian projects – 3 percent of all ARRA transportation spending. (During a normal year, only about 1.5 percent goes to bicycle and pedestrian projects.) Most came from Transportation Enhancements (TE) set-asides. Of the dozen different activities that qualify for TE money, more than half (58 percent, $456 million) of the TE spending went to the three bicycle and pedestrian projects categories. States prioritize bicycling and walking over the other eligible TE activities.
In an additional sign that state DOTs recognized the job-creation benefits of bicycle and pedestrian projects, $125 million went to bicycle and pedestrian projects in areas with large populations (over 200,000) from flexible funds. Another $109 million came from flexible statewide funds. When states could spend the money on anything they chose, they spent more than $200 million on bicycle and pedestrian projects – that’s in addition to TE money.
This means that states recognized the job-creating benefits of bicycle and pedestrian projects: they generally require less concrete and materials, so a higher share of cost goes to salaries; they tend to be relatively small and quick to get going; the small size means there is a high cost benefit for the public who uses the facilities; there are a lot of worthy projects to choose from.
To make sure the ARRA were injected into the economy quickly, the law required states to commit $800 million dollars in TE funds by March 2, 2010. By the deadline, 98 percent had been committed. The stimulus experience shows that bicycle and pedestrian projects and other TE projects can be initiated quickly, perhaps more quickly than many other types of projects. This same dedication to TE needs to continue during the course of normal operating procedure.
Finally, America Bikes’ analysis uncovered, once again, the enormous problems with getting reliable information from FMIS – only national source of transportation spending. State DOTs very often fail to code projects correctly as bicycle or pedestrian projects. As a result, the federal government under estimates spending on non-motorized projects. During an earlier analysis, America Bikes identified more $50 million in trail, sidewalk, and bike lane projects that were miscoded by spot checking just a few states. Some of the specific errors have since been corrected. However, this is systematic problem of neglect that still exists. We support the secretary’s call for better data collection on bicycle ridership. Tracking bicycle and pedestrian spending should also be a priority.
See how much of your state’s Transportation Enhancements funds were obligated, how much went to bike and pedestrian projects and how much of the flexible funding went to bike/ped in your state: READ THE AMERICA BIKES ANALYSIS and other America Bikes resources.
Darren Flusche League Policy Director
Flusche joined the League in April 2009 and has a B.A. in history from Syracuse University and a Masters of Public Administration with a concentration in public policy analysis from New York University.
Good planning requires knowing something about who you are planning for. An accurate understanding of bicycling in the U.S. is necessary to build proper accomodation, show support and interest in bicycling, track growth, measure safety, and calulate health and air quality benefits. (Counts matter: San Jose has been able to use their 2008 bike data to secure $1,377,000 in grant funding for new projects.)
Unfortunately, good data on bicycling and walking levels are hard to come by. Even the best national measures have limitations. The National Household Travel Survey cannot be reliably broken down to the local level – though it does tell us that the length of the average bicycle trip is about two miles. The U.S. Census Bureau’s American Community Survey (ACS) asks only about journeys to work and counts only some bike commuters – it misses bike-to-work trips by people who mostly use other modes or split the trip with transit. Some communities have relied on deceminal census data for their bike planning, which combines the methodological shortcomings of the ACS with nearly decade-old numbers. With the growth we’ve seen in bicycling and bike commuting, that is like relying on a elementary school transcripts to determine college admissions.
One indomitable west-bound male, with helmet
To make up for this, many communities do their own counts, often calling on volunteers for help. In appreciation for all of the bike counts that provide research data (Portland, LA, San Fransico, Pilladelphia, New York City,) I decided to volunteer for the bike count in nearby Arlington, VA. What better way to wind down from the National Bike Summit?
This Saturday’s count was rescheduled from the Snowmageddon weekend, but the change in date didn’t ensure pleasant weather. The cold rain kept all but the most dedicated away. For those of you familiar with the DC area, I was camped out on a stretch of Four Mile Run at 27th Road for two hours. Fortunately, I was able to duck under an overpass.
Despite the nasty weather (and disappointing counts), it felt good help add to the greater bike-count body of knowledge. In order to make sure that disparate counts happening in communities all over the country can truly add to our knowledge of bicycling levels, Alta Panning + Design and the Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE) launched the National Bicycle & Pedestrian Documentation Project. They have guidelines to standardize the various counts in an attempt to make them comparable.
Flusche joined the League in April 2009 and has a B.A. in history from Syracuse University and a Masters of Public Administration with a concentration in public policy analysis from New York University.
The good news is that the share of all trips made by bicycle is up 25 percent since 2001, to one percent. The bad news is that even short trips are still dominated by privately owned vehicles, a category of vehicle that does not include bikes. Half of all trips are three miles or less, but fewer than 2 percent of those trips are made by bicycle, while 72 percent of them are driven. Private vehicles like cars, pick-up trucks, and SUVs, account for 60 percent of trips of a mile or less. Think about that next time you hear people wondering why we have such big problems with the environment, health and childhood obesity, and traffic congestion.
Eighty-five percent of bicycling trips are three miles or less, but nearly 58 percent of transit trips are longer than that. This fact — that most transit trips are longer than most bike trips — reinforces the compatible nature of the two. In regions with transit service, biking and transit together will get you pretty much wherever you want to go. Transit agencies should do more to promote bike-transit connections.
There are many worthy tables and graphs to be made with this data. For now, here is a simple one that illustrates the 30-40-50 trip distance concept. That is, nearly 30 percent of trips are a mile or shorter, 40 percent are two miles or shorter and 50 percent are three miles or shorter. It gives you a sense of how much of our daily travel involves distances that can be easily walked and biked.
Our thanks to the FHWA Office of Policy for help accessing these data.
Darren Flusche League Policy Director
Flusche joined the League in April 2009 and has a B.A. in history from Syracuse University and a Masters of Public Administration with a concentration in public policy analysis from New York University.
Bicycling’s share of all trips in the US hit an even 1 percent in 2009. That’s up 25 percent since 2001. Bicycling’s journey to work and school numbers both top out at 0.7 percent.
More NHTS Numbers (change from 2001 to 2009)
* Bicycling and walking are up to 12 percent of all trips- an increase of 25 percent.
* Bicycling is an even 1.0 percent of all trips, up from 0.8 – a 25 percent increase.
* Walking is up to 10.9 percent of all trips from 9.6 – also a 25 percent increase.
* Transit + bike/walk is at 16 percent.
Darren Flusche League Policy Director
Flusche joined the League in April 2009 and has a B.A. in history from Syracuse University and a Masters of Public Administration with a concentration in public policy analysis from New York University.
As we reported earlier, according to the US Census Bureau’s 2008 American Community Survey (ACS), released on September 22, 2009, 0.55 percent of Americans use a bicycle as the primary means of getting to work. This is up 14 percent since 2007, 36 percent from the first ACS in 2005, and 43 percent since the 2000 Census. (Note that the ACS methodology under-counts cycling by not counting bicycle commuters who biked just once or twice the week they were surveyed or most cyclists who bike and use public transportation for their trip to work.)
Click here to view theACS journey to work results for the 70 largest US cities, including the 27 largest Bicycle Friendly Communities (BFCs), since 2000. Scroll right (or click on the following links) to find the share of American workers who bicycle, walk, use public transportation and drive alone. The tables show the share of commuters for 2000, 2005, 2006, 2007, 2008, and their percent change over time. (UPDATE: the “largest BFC average” was updated on October 22 to include the four newest BFCs that are among the 70 largest US cities.)
Click here to view the ACS journey to work results for the 50 US states (and Puerto Rico). Use the tabs at the bottom for bicycle commuters and walking commuters. The sheets also include the amount of federal dollars spent on bicycle and pedestrian project between 2000 and 2008.
On average, the 70 largest cities in the US, from New York City (population eight million) to Plano, Texas (population 259,000), had higher bicycle commuter levels and larger increases than the national average. The average bicycle commuter share for the largest 70 US cities in 2008 was 0.93 percent, having grown by nearly 50 percent since 2000.
Among the 70 largest cities, the 27 that have been designated by the League of American Bicyclists as Bicycle Friendly Communities (BFCs) for their pro-bicycling policies saw even higher levels of bicycle commuting and greater increases over the past eight years. In 2008, the average BFC bicycle commuter share was 1.5 percent, nearly three times the national average. BFCs also grew 60 percent more than the national average and 40 percent more than the 70 largest city average.
Bicycle Friendly Communities far outpaced the 43 largest non-BFCs, whose average bicycle commuter share is growing slower than even the national average. Between 2000 and 2008, the bicycle commuter share in the 27 largest BFCs increased by nearly 70 percent. In contrast, the share in the non-BFC cities increased only 23 percent, to 0.57 percent. This strongly suggests that the efforts of the BFCs to improve bicycling conditions by investing in engineering, education, encouragement, enforcement, and evaluation and planning are paying off with larger increases in bicycle commuters.
Some of the fastest growing communities were those that started with relatively low bicycle commuter shares in 2000. Nashville and Cleveland tripled their share, and Cincinnati doubled its, but all three still have not reached three-quarters of a percent. On the other hand, some the cities with the highest bicycle commuter levels in 2000 also saw some of the largest increases. Platinum BFC Portland, OR saw the largest growth among all 70 large cities, more than tripling their bike share, to nearly 6 percent. See complete summary for more.
Darren Flusche League Policy Director
Flusche joined the League in April 2009 and has a B.A. in history from Syracuse University and a Masters of Public Administration with a concentration in public policy analysis from New York University.
According to the US Census Bureau’s 2008 American Community Survey (ACS), released today, 0.55% of American workers use a bicycle as the primary means of getting to work. This is up 14 percent since 2007, 36 percent from the first ACS in 2005, and 43 percent since the 2000 Census. See the League of American Bicyclists’ analysis of the numbers for the 70 largest US cities and the 50 states. You can look up this information for hundreds of communities and all of the states using the American Fact Finder.
Percent of Americans who bike to work
2000 Census: 0.38%
2005: 0.40%
2006: 0.45%
2007: 0.48%
2008: 0.55%
Percent Change
2000 to 2008: 43.40%
2005 to 2008: 35.80%
2007 to 2008: 14.30%
NOTES: The ACS numbers are estimated by the Census bureau based on samples taken year-round. The numbers in the tables above are rounded, if you calculate the percentages based on the rounded numbers, you’ll get different values than are presented in the second table.
Blog
Subscribe
