U.S. Census: 10 best, worst cities for bike commuting
As posted earlier, the U.S. Census Bureau released its American Community Survey last week. Among the shocking findings: Americans overwhelmingly continue to drive alone to work. "The survey, gathered over the course of (2005), found that driving to work was the favored means of commute of nearly nine out of 10 workers (87.7 percent), with most people (77 percent) driving alone."The survey hailed Portland, Oregon as best for bicycling mode share among the 50 largest U.S. cities. Nationally, only 0.4 percent of commuters use a bicycle. The top ten U.S. cities for percentage of bicycling commuters:
City / PercentageThe bottom 10 U.S. cities for bike commuting:
Portland / 3.5
Minneapolis / 2.4
Seattle / 2.3
Tucson / 2.2
San Francisco / 1.8
Sacramento / 1.8
Washington DC / 1.7
Oakland / 1.5
Honolulu / 1.4
Denver / 1.4
City / PercentageBicycle advocates always look at census figures with some scepticism. The U.S. Census consistently undercounts bicyclists; for example counting multimodal (bike/transit) as one "journey to work" mode, typically the longer mode. The Census also ignores non-work trips, which are the majority of all trips. And it generally undercounts low-income and immigrant populations, who may have higher rates of bicycling for transportation. (See the Census tables.)
Dallas / 0.2
Nashville / 0.2
Oklahoma City / 0.2
Charlotte / 0.2
San Antonio / 0.1
Omaha / 0.1
Wichita / 0.1
Indianapolis / 0.1
Memphis / 0.1
Kansas City (MO) / 0.0
I've been puzzling over these figures, trying to understand what they suggest. That the coastal West is generally more hospitable to bicycle commuting than the South? That compact, dense cities are better for bike commuting than sprawling, sparsely inhabited cities? That cities with diverse multimodal options beyond driving make bicycling more appealing? What do you think these results say?
Image: Web capture
Visit: Paul Dorn's Bike Commuting Tips Site
posted by Paul Dorn at 9:52 PM
15 Comments:
I think it says not very much. DC is in the top ten list, except that DC isn't so much a "city" as "a bunch of connected suburbs". Unless you both live and work within the District itself, which is really expensive, you probably won't have a bikeable commute.
Then you get out into the suburbs, where I work, and the roads around it are so unfriendly to cyclists that even I, a two year veteran of commuting daily in Pittsburgh, just couldn't brave it every day.
DC is not great for cycling. Everything is too spread apart, and the suburbs are designed for Hummers and minivans.
I believe it says that heat and humidity are more of a deterrent to cycling than rain and cold. You can dress for rain and cold. You can only undress for heat and humidity. Of course it could just be all of that sweet tea.
Hi Paul, I found your blog yesterday from Fritz's "while I'm away" post. I'm Phil in Portland.
West vs. South: Rex is right, although bike commute numbers drop off a lot once it starts raining here in the winter. The climate out here in Western Oregon is more moderate and a lot less humid than the South.
There's been a lot of conscious planning by the city to both create bicycle boulevards on higher traffic streets and provide maps for taking lower traffic streets.
Buses and MAX trains have racks and hooks for bikes, so multimodal is much easier. The public transit system is really good, and without it, I actually think our biking numbers would be higher.
Portland's population is also more self-selecting than somewhere like DC metro, since a high proportion of people move here for "quality of life" rather than for job reasons (which partially explains why our unemp rate is about double DC's).
Portland has an urban growth boundary, which has helped keep it relatively compact. It makes homes a bit more expensive since developers can't sprawl everywhichway into farmland and get a subsidy for the infrastructure required to do so. There's been a lot of public money put into building high-rise residential (expensive stuff) within the city, so that someone who previously would have lived outside the city and driven would now be walking or taking the streetcar.
It's actually only within the last 5 or so years that bike commuting has really taken off. It's been nearly doubling every year, so it's both a recent and rapid phenomenon.
I think it supports the 'Build it and they will come' theory of biking. Portland, Seattle, San Fran, and Tuscon have all made an effort to make themselves more bikeable cities. The cities in the bottom ten which are located in the plains states seem like they would be fine to bike in, at least during the warmer months, but have not made the effort that those in the top ten have.
I am SO glad to have discovered your blog, Paul - great work you are doing.
My first impression is this - A city like Portland - Seattle to a lesser degree - makes a full commitment to develop transportation around alternatives to the car. Is it that simple? Maybe, maybe not. But Phil in Portland's comment -
"It's actually only within the last 5 or so years that bike commuting has really taken off. It's been nearly doubling every year, so it's both a recent and rapid phenomenon".
Tells us a lot about how quickly we can turn it around.
I'm in Atlanta and can say it is the dense areas that are best for cycling. It is where you have more pedestrians, cars travel slower, and there are more options for catching a bus or train.
The density also helps educate both cyclists and motorists about sharing the road.
Two more comments based on the previous ones:
1) "Build it and they will come" might not necessarily be be true, but if you don't build it, they definitely won't come.
2) Once you actually have facilities that are easy for casual cyclists to use, you get more "regular" people cycling. More people cycling means that drivers get used to having cyclists on the road and know how to deal with them. It also means that more people get to know what it's like to be riding in traffic, so they are more careful towards cyclists because they know how scary it can be sometimes.
jett is right on. I commute 10 miles one way, and it is all urban street and trail from the 'burbs, but we've had a rash of bikers getting smacked by cars on the open roads beyond the city.
we have TONS of bike trails here, though. and a soon to be voted on extra tax to get more. nice. I can't believe the increase in bikes I see daily out there. it is awesome.
awesome pages and blog. commuters rule! velo happiness!
I used to commute by bike in Atlanta - which is a horrible city for bicycling! I was very pleased to see Portland (one of my favorite U.S. cities) at the top of the list.
I currently live in Amsterdam, the Netherlands, which is probably the best city in the world for bike commuting. The vast majority of the population here commutes by bicycle all year long, even during our long, cold, wet winters. Here are the factors that I think contribute to such a great bicycling atmosphere:
- the infratructure is there. There are just as many bike paths there are roads. They are clearly marked, well maintained, and in most cases, seperated from the car traffic. There are even seperate traffic lights for the bikes. Indeed, if you build it, they will come.
- it is a highly dense city with almost no suburbs at all. Because of this, the government has actively supported bicycling and public transport instead of cars.
- it's not too hot, and it's flat!
- It is very difficult to own a car here. They're expensive, taxes are extremely high, parking is practically non-existent, and the roads are always clogged with traffic. It is important to note that the government knows about these problems, and chooses to keep it that way!
- The culture supports bikes. EVERBODY bikes here, and they have for generations. Kids learn to bicycle almost as soon as they can walk. Bikes are affordable and simple - most are 1 gear with backpedal brakes, meaning that you don't have to be an cycling geek in order to be "accepted" as a bike commuter.
All these things, plus the obvious health and environmental benefits, make cycling the obvious answer. It is simply the better choice. Now why can't more U.S. cities learn from this?
I live in Arlington, Virginia, right outside of DC. I can bike on a paved bike trail 17.5 miles to work with 95%+ on a paved trail. I have to cross only a few heavy traffic roads. The trail is mostly level and very well maintained. If I go in the opposite direction, I can take the same trail to the Potomac and see the Lincoln Memorial along the way. That trail goes all the way down to where the Potomac runs into the Chesapeake Bay (past Mt Vernon I think).
If I don't want to bike the entire 17.5 mi, I can bike half the distance, jump on a Metro bus for a dollar each way. $2 to commute 35 miles in a pretty dense suburban environment? Not too bad I'd say.
The trails go far beyond what I described. I come to Reston, Va from the East. I've talked with other co-workers who have biked from various other parts, from the south, from the west. The bike trails run all over.
http://www.commuterpage.com/biketrails.htm
Does the DC listing include Arlington? I have read that on a county by county analysis, Arlington County has one of the highest counties in the US for cycling rate. I live in Arlington and cycle to ork in Tysons Corner. My fiance cycles to work within Arlington. The trails and roads are quite full with cyclists
Im a few months late on my comment.
I live in San Antonio, and I can see why its in the bottom 10. SA is a huge city, unless you live and work downtown, which is rare, riding to work is not safe option.
Cycling enthusiasts get together and ride in large groups downtown to make up for the inability to commute.
We often talk about how great it would be if SA was like Portland, but its just not going to happen.
I would think by DC they do in fact mean DC itself, not the vast network of suburbs surrounding it.
The list is a ranking of cities, not suburbs, and if they did mean DC plus its suburbs, I would think they would have called it "Wash. DC metropolitan area," or something to that effect.
Also, while I agree that DC does not have bustling, big city like New York for example, it isn't what I'd call a bunch of suburbs strung together either--not in my opinion at least. Drop anyone in most parts of DC and I don't think they'd ID the area as feeling suburban.
I don't think it's really fair to judge DC based on the bikability of its suburbs, when by their very nature, many suburbs are going to be sprawling and designed mainly for auto traffic, not bike or pedestrains.
Add the suburbs of any of the other cities, and their bikability would be affected as well in all likelihood.
I am a bike commuter in Nashville. The reason that bike commuting is scarce in Nashville is that the greater population of this city is fat and lazy. I have never met more people who were overweight and with more excuses for being so. I have to contend with those same fatsos who honk and tell me to get off the road so that there is more room for their fat cars and inadequate driving skills.
I live (and commute to work) in the Kansas City suburbs. I think one of the biggest factors is how auto-friendly a city is. Here are some reasons KC is bike-hostile:
1) The city is a car paradise with a grid of major streets and many freeways. Smaller roads are a suburban tangle of dead ends and winding roads.
2) The SUV-happy car culture is hostile to bikes, or anything that slows them down.
3) The weather is unpredictable here. 40 degree temperature swings are not uncommon in a day. Neither are weeks below 10 degrees, weeks above 90 degrees, weeks when it never stops raining, and months above 80% humidity.
4) In the city, public transit is spotty. In the suburbs, it is non-existent, so we bikers can't combine our trips with a bus or rail option to extend our range.
Post a Comment
<< Home