equity in cycling Capstone Project Spring 2021
School of Public Affairs
Acknowledgements Prepared for: Circulate San Diego Prepared by: Amber Mallard, Kathy Reyes & Rebecca Smith Faculty Mentors: Megan Welsh, PhD & Sherry Ryan, PhD
This report was prepared by graduate students from the Master of City Planning Program at San Diego State University with the helpful guidance of Circulate San Diego. Special thanks go to Dr. Megan Welsh who was our faculty mentor and guide throughout this process, as well as Dr. Sherry Ryan who shared her active transportation expertise and regional bicycling data resources with the team.
Table of Contents Introduction 7 Background...................................................................................................................7 Background (cont.)...................................................................................................8 1.2 Cycling Facility Types......................................................................................10 1.2 Cycling Facility Types (cont.)....................................................................... 11 Literature Review 13 2.1 Bicycle Ridership in the U.S........................................................................ 13 2.2 Gender Differences in Travel Behavior..............................................14 2.3 Travel Time............................................................................................................14 2.3 Travel Time (cont.)............................................................................................ 15 2.4 Safety........................................................................................................................ 15 2.4 Safety (cont.)........................................................................................................16 2.5 Racial Equity & The Urban Interface.................................................... 17 2.5 Racial Equity & The Urban Interface (cont.)...................................18 Study Design 20 3.2 Study Area..............................................................................................................21 3.3 Sampling & Recruitment Approach................................................... 24 3.4 Survey.......................................................................................................................25 3.5 Site Observations & Bicycle Counts.....................................................25 Analysis Approach 27 Analysis Results 27 4.1 Survey Analysis.................................................................................................. 27 Survey Cross Tabulation & Analysis.............................................................41 4.2 Bike Count Analysis.......................................................................................45 Survey & Bicycle Count Significant Findings....................................... 52 Recommendations 54 Conclusion 57 Works Cited 58
List of Figures
Figure 1.1 - Regional Bicycle Facility Map.................................................. 9 Figure 3.1 - Bike Count Locations Map.....................................................22 Figure 3.2 - Bike Count Location Photos................................................23 Figure 3.3 - Survey Marketing Sample.....................................................24 Figure 4.1 - Survey Respondent Zipcodes...............................................31 Figure 4.2 - Most Preferred Facility Type Photos..............................44 Figure 4.3 - 2010-2011 Bike Counts (Female)....................................... 45 Figure 4.4 - 2010-2011 Bike Counts (Male)............................................. 46 Figure 4.5 - 2021 Bike Counts (Female)................................................... 48 Figure 4.6 - 2021 Bike Counts (Male)......................................................... 49 Figure 5.1 - Implementation Recommendations............................. 54 Figure 5.2 - Local Site Implementation Example..............................55 List of Tables
Table 1.1 - Bicycle Facility Types in Miles..................................................... 9 Table 3.1- Local Best Practices & Policies................................................ 20 Table 3.2- Observation Conditions..............................................................25 Table 4.1- Survey Demographic Data....................................................... 27 Table 4.2- Transportation Safety & Road Conditions..................... 36 Table 4.3- Attitudes About Transportation Facilities..................... 39 Table 4.4- Attitudes About Transportation Culture....................... 39 Table 4.5- Attitudes Towards Negative Factors.................................40
List of Charts
Chart 4.1- Gender of Survey Respondents............................................28 Chart 4.2- Age of Survey Respondents...................................................28 Chart 4.3- Race/Ethnicity of Survey Respondents..........................29 Chart 4.4- Respondent Educational Attainment Level.............. 30 Chart 4.5- Bicycle Trip Purpose....................................................................32 Chart 4.6- Minutes Per Week Bicycling..................................................32 Chart 4.7- Days Bicycling Per Week..........................................................33 Chart 4.8- Home Work Life Balance.........................................................33 Chart 4.9- Cycling Trip Destination.......................................................... 34 Chart 4.10- Reasons for Cycling................................................................... 34 Chart 4.11- Comfort Level with Cycling....................................................35 Chart 4.12- Type of Mobility Education....................................................35 Chart 4.13- Respondents’ Children Mobility Education Received.......................................................................................................................36 Chart 4.14- Most Preferred Facility Types..............................................37 Chart 4.15- Minimum Acceptable Facility Preferences................38 Chart 4.16- Frequency by Gender................................................................41 Chart 4.17- Frequency by Race/Ethnicity................................................41 Chart 4.18- Comfort Level by Gender...................................................... 42 Chart 4.19- Comfort Level by Race/Ethnicity...................................... 42 Chart 4.20- Facility Preference by Gender...........................................43 Chart 4.21- Minimum Acceptable Facility Type by Gender......44 Chart 4.22 - 2010-2011 Bike Count Locations.......................................47 Chart 4.23 - 2021 Bike Count Locations................................................. 50 Chart 4.24 - 2010-2021 Percent Change by Gender.........................51
Section 1: Introduction
6
Introduction Background
Sustainable transportation modes such as walking, cycling, and public transit are important for future communities in order to curb greenhouse gas emissions and prevent further impacts due to climate change. In particular, the City of San Diego’s Climate Action Plan (CAP) has identified various strategies in reducing greenhouse gas emissions. “Strategy 3: Bicycling, Walking, Transit, & Land Use” specifically plans to implement the “changing of land uses, adopting a new perspective on community design, [and] promoting alternative modes of travel” (pg. 23). Cycling goals are outlined via implementing the City of San Diego 2013 Bicycle Master Plan which would aim to increase bicycle commuters by 6% by 2020, and 18% by 2035 (pg. 35). The existing built landscape for bicycling in San Diego has grown over the last couple of decades. According to the City of San Diego Bicycle Master Plan, there are 510 total miles of existing bicycle facilities throughout San Diego (2013). Unfortunately the distribution amongst bike facility levels (Class I, Class II, and Class III) is imbalanced. There are more constructed bike paths along beachfront communities like Mission Bay Park and Pacific Beach, while Class III bike routes are located in less affluent communities with large major arterials. In conjunction with the City of San Diego’s Climate Action Plan, more bicycle facilities are planned to be constructed. The social fabric that exists in San Diego for bicycling resides in median numbers for levels of participation when compared to cities such as Portland and Phoenix. With a total number of 7,200 bicyclists in 2016, the City of San Diego ranks thirteenth amongst twenty-six cities with the most bicyclists according to the League of American Bicyclists ACS Survey Data Report (Where We Ride: Analysis of Bike Commuting in American Cities, 2016). As far as aggregated data, San Diego has one of the largest ongoing bicycle and pedestrian counters in the country and is a collaborative project between SDSU, County of San Diego Health and Human Services, and San Diego Association of Governments (HOME:: San Diego’s Regional Planning Agency, 2019). Although there is a comprehensive network of active transit counters, there is little published literature that provides insight on the gender disparity of cyclists in San Diego.
7
Background (cont.) With this disparity considered, there are barriers involved that prevent some groups, such as women, from being able to fully utilize and take advantage of these sustainable transportation choices, particularly cycling. In response, local nonprofit organization Circulate San Diego seeks to meet CAP goals by understanding the challenges women face in adopting these sustainable transportation choices. Representing San Diego State University’s School of Public Affairs, we sought to understand the barriers to equity in cycling by answering the following questions within the San Diego Region:
1. What are local, regional and state agencies doing to improve cycling safety and infrastructure? 2. How does cycling activity vary by gender? 3. How does cycling activity vary by infrastructure type? We also aimed to further understand barriers for minority groups as they relate to cycling, such as ways in which the built environment may influence patterns of engagement. A detailed review of current literature related to equity in cycling provides further insight into some of these challenges.
8
Figure 1.1 - Regional Bicycle Facility Map
County boundary and cycling infrastructure data courtesy of sandag.org
Table 1.1 - Bicycle Facility Types in Miles
Table by Kathy Reyes County boundary and cycling infrastructure data courtesy of sandag.org 9
1.2 Cycling Facility Types
Graphics done by Kathy Reyes Diagrams by CalTrans
Listed below are the various types of bicycling facilities available. These definitions are from CalTrans and serve as the standard for defining and descibing these facility types. Class I bikeways, also known as bike paths or shared-use paths, are facilities with exclusive right of way for bicyclists and pedestrians, away from the roadway and with cross flows by motor traffic minimized. Some systems provide separate pedestrian facilities. Class I facilities support both recreational and commuting opportunities. Common applications include along rivers, shorelines, canals, utility rights-of-way, railroad rights-ofway, within school campuses, or within and between parks. Class II bikeways are bike lanes established along streets and are defined by pavement striping and signage to delineate a portion of a roadway for bicycle travel. Bike lanes are one-way facilities, typically striped adjacent to motor traffic travelling in the same direction. Contraflow bike lanes can be provided on one-way streets for bicyclists travelling in the opposite direction. Class 2B are buffered bike lane provides greater separation from an adjacent traffic lane and/or between the bike lane and on-street parking by using chevron or diagonal markings. Greater separation can be especially useful on streets with higher motor traffic speeds or volumes.
10
1.2 Cycling Facility Types (cont.)
Graphics done by Kathy Reyes Diagrams by CalTrans
Class III bikeways, or bike routes, designate a preferred route for bicyclists on streets shared with motor traffic not served by dedicated bikeways to provide continuity to the bikeway network. Bike routes are generally not appropriate for roadways with higher motor traffic speeds or volumes. Bike routes are established by placing bike route signs and optional shared roadway markings (sharrow) along roadways. Class 3B Bicycle Boulevard is a shared roadway intended to prioritize bicycle travel for people of all ages and abilities. Bicycle Boulevards are typically sited on streets without large truck or transit vehicles, and where traffic volumes and speeds are already low, or can be further reduced through traffic calming A Class IV separated bikeway, often referred to as a cycle track or protected bike lane, is for the exclusive use of bicycles, physically separated from motor traffic with a vertical feature. The separation may include, but is not limited to, grade separation, flexible posts, inflexible barriers, or on-street parking. Separated bikeways can provide for one-way or two-way travel. By providing physical separation from motor traffic, Class IV bikeways can reduce the level of stress, improve comfort for more types of bicyclists, and contribute to an increase in bicycle volumes and mode share. Source definitions from CalTrans Bikeway Classification July 2017
11
Section 2: Literature Review
12
Literature Review Researchers have demonstrated perceived correlations between engagement in cycling and variables such as safety, travel time, and household duties. For the purpose of this research, we defined engagement in cycling for purposes of both transport and recreation. For instance, women’s engagement and cycling frequencies occur at various scales and are dependent on perceived safety of the environment and gendered social power hierarchies, that in turn manifest personal trip preferences.
2.1 Bicycle Ridership in the U.S Over the last couple of decades, climate change has been elevated as a largescale issue that we must work hard to mitigate. We have seen a concerted effort to reduce greenhouse gases at both local and state levels across the United States through various climate action plans enforced by local agencies. This has led to an increase in bicycling for commuting purposes. Female cyclist commuting patterns have also increased along with these concerted efforts to reduce greenhouse gases. According to new data collected from the app Strava Metro, women reported forty-seven percent more bike rides in 2020 than in 2019 (Fennessy, 2021). This indicates a growing trend in cycling as a more representative activity to partake in rather than the usual marketing that it is only for white males. In growing metropolitan areas, like New York, female ridership has seen a dramatic increase, the number of women using bikes in 2020 elevated to eighty-two percent over the last year (Fennessy, 2021). While there has been an effort to move away from car use within the United States, as aforementioned; there has been a great emphasis on automobile infrastructure in the past. This focus led to less investment in safe, viable bicycle infrastructure within communities. While individual behaviors are impacted by social environment and attitudes along with the physical environment, it is fairly evident that land use patterns and infrastructure impact the safety of bicyclists. This in turn, has created concern particularly in women about whether bicycling is a practical commuting option. Females are much more apt to cycle off-road or separated from traffic as it seems less risky (Emond, Tang & Handy, 2009).
13
2.2 Gender Differences in Travel Behavior Not only are women more risk-averse when it comes to bicycling, but they generally take on more of the household duties. This might influence their preference in transportation choice. However, this can be greatly impacted by the social environment. Although males’ trip chaining (grouping errands and other activities in one trip) has increased, women’s trips still tend to be for the bulk of shopping or errand-running within households (Emond, Tang & Hardy, 2009). Women also tend to carry out more of the child rearing activities which might influence their transportation mode choice. Women are the “indicator species’’ as to whether a city is bicycle friendly for many of these reasons (Akar, Fischer & Namgung, 2013). According to a recent survey published by LA Metro, the travel behaviors in women and their concerns about safety are causing riders to alter their behavior – to consider their clothing choices or, for those who have other options, simply not ride transit. These safety concerns are keeping women from riding Metro and exposing those who do ride Metro to stress and fear of being victimized (LA Metro, 2019). With so many factors regarding making a decision about whether to participate in active transit and public transportation, travel behavior is far more calculated for women than their male counterparts.
2.3 Travel Time As women have become more immersed in the workforce over the last few decades, there has also been an increase in the length of their daily trips. Between 19902000 alone women averaged nearly 5% more trips per day than men. While both men’s and women’s trips both increased, men only spent 3.3 more minutes on travel, whereas women’s trips increased by 7.5 minutes on average (Gosen & Purvis, 2005).
14
2.3 Travel Time (cont.) In studies done in Santiago, Chile and other cities around the globe, they are starting to pay more attention to women’s experiences, the unique mobility needs of women and girls are rarely taken into account in urban and transportation planning (L. Gauvin et al., 2019). This reveals that the women and female identifying individuals experience has not been a prominent factor in transportation and city planning, and without authoritative figures to provide a space for such perspective, it is forgotten. Another study stated that childcare duties are often considered a significant cause of mobility inequalities for women. Oftentimes, a higher fertility rate was associated with a larger gender mobility gap.
2.4 Safety Safety is an important consideration for cyclists. According to a review of a mixedmethods study about the fear of cycling by Ravensbergen et. al; many cyclists are afraid of getting hurt, especially within the context of vehicle injuries. This is a product of how a cyclist interacts with the built environment, in which they cite “lack of cycling infrastructure, poor connectivity of existing infrastructure, or heavy traffic” (Ravensbergen et. al, 2020). Additionally, cyclists within the 26-person study were found to have mixed temporal perceptions of safety, with 12 participants fearing cycling at night due to decreased visibility. Meanwhile, 5 participants described feeling safer at night “even though visibility was worse, because there was less traffic” (Ravensbergen et. al, 2020). The review also looked at the differences between gender and fear of injury. Men in the study were found more likely to start cycling earlier in life compared to women participants. As the study authors put it:
“if men are encouraged to cycle more than women in certain patriarchal societies… then more than women, men are given the opportunity to develop cycling skills which may result, through an uneven accumulation of experience and tacit knowledge, in greater confidence and less fear of being injured (Ravensbergen et al, 2020).”
15
2.4 Safety (cont.) Social gender norms between men and women, issued at a young age, impact a person’s experience and confidence in cycling and therefore their perceptions of safety. Another study showed that the participation of women within the active transportation environment was dependent on the physical structure and the perceived safety that is associated with it. In Valencia Spain, the built environment affected the interaction of women and mobility. Moreover, females showed greater preference than males for greenways and cycling around parks while job density is negatively associated with females’ share of trip (M.Pellicer-Chenoll et al., 2020).This indicated that a presence of physical separation away from busy vehicular traffic is preferred amongst women. In addition, the perception of safety indicated the time of day in which these trips are made in that same study in Spain. The third peak was lower among women than men, probably due to the different perception of safety at late hours, since women are more risk averse than men (M.Pellicer-Chenoll et al., 2020). The data suggests that due to normative social practices, women and bicycling trips revolve more around daytime activities that occur daily, like child rearing and procurement of household goods. Lastly, the perception of safety indicated the spatiality of these bicycle trips amongst women. In a study revealing gender gaps in urban mobility, women’s movements were shown to be more spatially localized than men, as shown by the distributions of range by gender (L. Gauvin et al., 2019). Within the study it revealed that men tend to travel at farther distances between destination points and with no time constraints because their awareness of safety is seldom at risk. From the data collected, this exemplifies that women based their bicycle trips upon locality, often avoiding the outward fringes of a city where safety is perceived to be at risk.
16
2.5 Racial Equity & The Urban Interface Sustainability has been an emphasis within the planning field, but it’s inherent marginalization of communities of color often goes unseen. According to a Portland journal, City and Community, the rapid trend of green gentrification has caused an outpouring of displacement for communities of color (Lubitow et al., 2019). Green gentrification occurs when cities create new luxury housing developments with greening to clarify the relationship between sustainability and gentrification (Lubitow et al., 2019). This means that green gentrification and sustainability narratives merge together to drive investment capital in neighborhoods in racialized and classed ways (Lubitow et al., 2019). It creates an imbalanced economic divide with a gap widening larger than ever. Green gentrification often includes infrastructure upgrades within communities and with those upgrades, separated bicycle paths and cycle tracks are often installed. Those that experience green spaces are often assumed to have economic privilege while spaces that do not have any green amenities are generalized to come from lower income brackets. With this dichotomy, other complex issues arise. Another category of intersectionality that must be considered is the frequency of racial profiling and its role as a social deterrent for Black, Indigenous, and other People of Color (BIPOC) to engage in bicycle facilities. With the introduction of green gentrification and displacement for communities of color comes the complex issue of mobility justice and racial profiling. In Portland, the topic of bicycling while being a minority is a politicized debate. According to a study, people of color consistently discussed their feelings of anxiety in relation to biking in public spaces due, largely, to perceptions that their visibility on the street made them targets for violence or police surveillance (Lubitow et al., 2019). When one’s experience on the street is inundated with feelings of vulnerability and anxiety, the likeliness to engage in any particular activity on the street is non-existent. The anticipated fear of police surveillance while making a daily commute through bicycling has been found as a large deterrent for individuals of color. For the purpose of this research proposal, understanding how social cohesion can break this barrier to cycling and create a safe atmosphere for communities of color is a topic of exploration.
17
2.5 Racial Equity & The Urban Interface (cont.) Communities of lower income brackets also suffer due to the lack of bicycle facilities made available to them. It is reported in Santiago, Chile that accessibility of cycling infrastructure is only afforded to the communities of higher income earnings than those that live in poorer neighborhoods (Mora et al., 2021). As a result, communities of lower income suffer from chronic illnesses such as obesity and diabetes. Linkages towards lack of daily mobility, such as walking or riding a bike, show strong correlation with neighborhoods that exhibit no cycling infrastructure due to the uncomfortable environmental settings along their street interface. If one’s surroundings does not enable them to enjoy a walk or bicycle ride outside, then one remains immobile.
18
Section 3: Study Design
19
Study Design The Equity in Cycling project utilized an array of different data collection and analysis methods. Part of our research was to determine existing policies or programs in place to increase women’s mobility safety in the City of San Diego. We reviewed local and statewide planning documents in a comparison study to see which policies and programs specifically consider women’s safety, and analyzed the differences between them. These planning documents included: the City of San Diego Bicycle Master Plan; the City of San Diego General Plan (Mobility Element); the SANDAG San Diego Regional Bike Plan; and the CALTRANS State Bicycle + Pedestrian Plan.
Table 3.1- Local Best Practices & Policies Goals 1. A city where bicycling is a viable travel choice, particularly for trips less than 5 miles. 2. A safe comprehensivelocal and regional bikeway network. 3. Environmental quality, public health, recreation and mobility benefits through increased cycling.
Relevant Policies
City of San Diego
City of San Diego Bicycle Master Plan, Mobility Element
1. Identify and implement a network of bikeways that are feasible, fundable, and serve bicyclists’ needs 2. Identify the general location and extent of streets, sidewalks, trails, and other transportation facilities and services needed to enhance mobility in community plans 3. Design an interconnected street network within and between communities
Goals 1. Significantly increase levels of bicycling throughout the San Diego Region 2. Improve bicycling safety 3. Encourage the development of Complete Streets 4. Support reductions in Greenhouse Gas Emissions 5. Increase community support for bicycling
San Diego Association of Governments (SANDAG)
Relevant Policies SANDAG San Diego Regional Bike Plan
1. Improve the connectivity and quality of the regional bicycle network. 2. Provide policy direction and funding to assist local jurisdictions with bicycle planning and project implementation 3. Institutionalize Complete Streets principles in roadway planning, design, and maintenance policies.
Goals 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6.
Improve multimodal mobility and accessibility for all people Preserve multimodal transportation system Support a vibrant economy Improve public safety and security Foster livable and healthy communities and promote social equity Practice environmental stewardship
Relevant Policies
California Department of Transportation (CALTRANS)
CALTRANS State Bicycle + Pedestrian Plan
1. 2. 3. 4. 5.
Evaluate multimodal life cycle costs in project decision making Expand engagement in multimodal transportation planning and decision making Integrate multimodal transportation and land-use development Integrate health and social equity in transportation planning and decision making Integrate environmental considerations in all stages of planning and implementation
Policies and goals from City of San Diego, SANDAG, and CalTrans websites 20
3.2 Study Area Our team conducted site observations within nine communities throughout the County of San Diego. These locations included Kearny Mesa, Mission Hills, Solana Beach, North Park, City Heights, Downtown City of San Diego, Hillcrest, East Village/Sherman Heights area and Mira Mesa. This gave us a better understanding how infrastructure might be impacting cycling rates for different groups based on what type of bicycle facilities are in place. We also conducted manual counts at these locations to gain a better understanding of gender disparities specific to the sites.
21
Figure 3.1 - Bike Count Locations Map
County boundary and road infrastructure data courtesy of sandag.org
22
Figure 3.2 - Bike Count Location Photos
1. Coast Hwy & Lomas Santa Fe
2. Mira Mesa Blvd & Scranton
3. Kearny Villa Rd. & Aero Dr.
4. Presidio Dr. & Taylor St.
5. El Cajon Blvd. & Hwy 805
6. University Ave. & 9th Ave.
17. N.Harbor Dr. & Hawthorne St.
8. Park Blvd. & S. Morley Field Dr.
9. Market St. b/w 24th & 25th St. All photos captured by Team Equity & Cycling SDSU 2021
23
3.3 Sampling & Recruitment Approach Our team utilized a convenience sampling method for our Equity and Bicycling Survey which was used in conjunction with site specific observations. We contacted several organizations within the San Diego region and asked if they would be willing to share our survey through poster pdf, url link or QR code. We advertised the survey in SDSU’s City Planning Association monthly newsletter and on its social media accounts. We also shared through our personal social media accounts, as well as through the School of Public Affairs Instagram and Canvas page. Through these various marketing tools, we were able to gain a pretty large sample size.
Figure 3.3 - Survey Marketing Sample
School of Public Affairs
HEY THERE! DO YOU CYCLE? we want your input
We are SDSU City Planning graduate students studying equity and bicycle usage patterns in the San Diego region. We hope this survey will provide beneficial information that explores barriers that inhibit bicycle ridership among San Diegans. The survey is anonymous – we are not collecting any information that can be traced back to you. This survey should take approximately 8-10 minutes. Thank you for your time!
PLEASE TAKE OUR SURVEY
CLICK HERE
contact our team: equitycyclingstudysdsu@gmail.com
Survey marketing graphics by Kathy Reyes
24
3.4 Survey The main data collection instrument used for this project was the survey tool. We referenced previous cycling surveys put out in the region and state to frame some of our language. It was constructed using the Qualtrics platform and distributed through several organizations in San Diego. The following survey questions that were included in the inquiry are located in the appendices section of this report (under “Survey”).
3.5 Site Observations & Bicycle Counts The secondary and third data collection instruments utilized for this project were site observations and bicycle counts. The tool we developed for this included the setting, type of facility, surrounding land use and weather, as well as bicycle counts based on gender and age categories. The bicycle counts were conducted over a series of weekends during the hours of 10:00am to 12:00pm and separated into 15 minute observational increments. The site locations for these bicycle counts were chosen based on ArcGIS mapping data gathered from the San Diego Regional Bike Counts, as well as environment typology. The following bicycle count tool was utilized while making these observations in the field. This bicycle count tool is located in the appendices section of this report (under “Bike counts”).
Table 3.2- Observation Conditions Bicycle Count Site Observations Site
Setting Type
Facilities
Surrounding Land Use (2 mi. radius)
Weather
Kearny Mesa - Beaches Corridor
Urban
Bike lane with standard signing and striping
Office
Fair
Uptown | Mission Hills
Urban
Paved multi-use path, road with marked shoulders
Parks or open space
Fair
Coastal Rail Trail
Suburban
Road with marked shoulders (min 2 ft wide)
Retail
Very Cold
North Park
Urban
Road with no marked shoulders (less than 2 ft wide)
Retail
Fair
Harbor Drive - Little Italy
Urban
Sidewalk and bike lane with standard signing and striping
Residential
Very Hot
Hillcrest
Urban
Unpaved trail
Mixed use
Very Hot
North Park - City Heights
Urban
Road with marked shoulders (min 2 ft wide)
Parks or open space
Fair
Southeastern San Diego
Urban
Road with no shoulders (less than 2 ft wide)
Residential
Fair
Mira Mesa Corridor
Suburban
Road with no shoulders (less than 2 ft wide)
Office
Very Hot
Conditions recorded by Team Equity & Cycling SDS U 2021
25
Section 4: Analysis Approach
26
Analysis Approach The analysis involved two different study designs. We utilized the survey data to identify and examine demographic information of our respondents and conducted a cross-analysis with answers relating to the reason for cycling, trip purpose, cycling frequency, comfort level cycling and bicycle facility preferences. We wanted to have a holistic understanding of how things such as gender and race/ethnicity might impact an individual’s preferences, ability and comfort as it relates to cycling.
We were also given access to San Diego Regional Bike Count data
shapefiles from SDSU School of Public Affairs Transportation Lab. We utilized this data in ArcGIS and pinpointed 9 locations where we wanted to conduct site observations and bike counts by gender and age. The count data from 2010 & 2011 was then compared with the count data that we collected in spring of 2021 to document the change over time during the last decade and note the percentage/total differences.
Analysis Results 4.1 Survey Analysis
Table 4.1- Survey Demographic Data
Respondents N = 258 Gender
Age
Race/Ethnicity
Education Level
Female (41.67%)
19 and younger (0.40%)
Black or African American (5%)
Elementary (0.4%)
Male (54.76%)
20-29 (19.92%)
Asian, South Asian or Pacific Islander (11.07%)
Middle school/junior high (0.4%)
Non-Binary (1.59%)
30-39 (30.68%)
Native American or Alaska Native (1.79%)
High School (4.35%)
Preferred Not to Say (1.98%)
40-49 (18.33%)
Hispanic or Latinx (12.86%)
College (46.64%)
50-59 (14.74%)
European White (57.86%)
Graduate degree or higher (48.22%)
60-69 (10.36%)
Middle Eastern or Arab American (0.71%)
70 and over (5.58%)
Mixed Race (7.5%) Afro-Caribbean (0%) Other (3.21%)
Data collected via Qualtrics Table done by Becca Smith
27
Chart 4.1- Gender of Survey Respondents
Data collected via Qualtrics Chart done by Team Equity & Cycling
Chart 4.1 illustrates the statistical analysis of respondents by gender identity. Respondents were asked in the survey to identify what gender identity they identify with. After the data was collected, a majority percentage of riders identified as male with 54.8% and a female ridership of 41.7%. This data is consistent with historical count data where bicycle ridership in the male population is more than the female population.
Chart 4.2- Age of Survey Respondents
Data collected via Qualtrics Chart done by Team Equity & Cycling
28
Chart 4.2 presents the statistical analysis of respondents by age range. Respondents were asked in the survey to identify what age bracket they are in. After the data was collected, a large percentage of respondents were between the ages of 30-39 years old with 20-29 year olds and 40-49 year olds as the second and third largest age groups of bicycle ridership in San Diego.
Chart 4.3- Race/Ethnicity of Survey Respondents
Data collected via Qualtrics Chart done by Team Equity & Cycling
Chart 4.3 shows the statistical analysis of respondents by race and ethnic identity, Respondents were asked in the survey to identify their racial and ethnic backgrounds. Among the choices listed were: Black or African American, Asian, South Asian or Pacific Islander, Native American or Alaska Native, Hispanic or Latinx, European White, Middle Eastern or Arab American, Mixed Race, Afro Caribbean, and Other. After the data was collected, a majority of respondents identified as European White while inversely the least represented major racial and ethnic demographic are Black and African American respondents.
29
Chart 4.4- Respondent Educational Attainment Level
Data collected via Qualtrics Chart done by Team Equity & Cycling
Chart 4.4 exemplifies the statistical analysis of respondents by level of education attained. Respondents were asked in the survey to identify the highest level of education they have attained. After the data was collected, a large portion of the respondents attained a graduate degree or higher (48.2%).
30
Figure 4.1 - Survey Respondent Zipcodes
County boundary and road infrastructure data courtesy of sandag.org
31
Chart 4.5- Bicycle Trip Purpose
Data collected via Qualtrics Chart done by Team Equity & Cycling
Chart 4.5 presents the statistical analysis of cycling trip purpose. Respondents
were asked what type of trips they take when they use their bicycle. A large percentage of respondents preferred using their bike for recreation 29.4% or exercise 28.2%, only 19.2% utilized cycling as their mode of transportation.
Chart 4.6- Minutes Per Week Bicycling
Data collected via Qualtrics Chart done by Team Equity & Cycling
Chart 4.6 presents minutes per week that respondents cycled. Time spent cycling ranged from 10-15 minutes and >120 minutes. Most respondents 50.4% cycled an average of >120 minutes per week. Whereas only 13.5% said they cycled 10-15 minutes. The rest of participants landed somewhere in between. 32
Chart 4.7- Days Bicycling Per Week
Data collected via Qualtrics Chart done by Team Equity & Cycling
Chart 4.7 presents cycling frequency per week, detailing how many days participants cycled. Most used their bicycle 1-2 days a week at 45.6% and 36.9% of respondents said they cycled 3-4 days a week. Only 3.3% said they cycled every day
Chart 4.8- Home Work Life Balance
Data collected via Qualtrics Chart done by Team Equity & Cycling
Chart 4.8 details whether or not a respondent’s home or work life impacted their ability to use their bicycle. It was distributed pretty evenly. 49.8% of individuals said no it did not, and 50.2% said that yes, it did impact their ability.
33
Chart 4.9- Cycling Trip Destination
Data collected via Qualtrics Chart done by Team Equity & Cycling
Chart 4.9 details where individuals were taking trips on their bicycle. It asked what cycling destinations they had. All of the responses were fairly equal, however stores/services at 18.4% and social destinations 17.7% were trips taken slightly more often. Schools were the least frequented by bicycle at 4.1%
Chart 4.10- Reasons for Cycling
Data collected via Qualtrics Chart done by Team Equity & Cycling
Chart 4.10 details why individuals chose to utilize their bicycle for the trips mentioned in the previous question. The responses for this question were fairly equally distributed. Many said that they cycled because it was healthy 23.6% or joyful 22.3%, and only 1.1% said that it was their only option. 34
Chart 4.11- Comfort Level with Cycling
Data collected via Qualtrics Chart done by Team Equity & Cycling
Chart 4.11 detailed what respondents’ comfort level with bicycling was, especially given the available facilities wherever they choose to cycle. An overwhelming amount said that they were enthused and confident bicycle riders at 54.9% and only 2.4% said there was no way, no how, that they would feel comfortable cycling. 26.9% also said they were strong and fearless riders and 15.8% said they are interested in cycling but concerned.
Chart 4.12- Type of Mobility Education
Data collected via Qualtrics Chart done by Team Equity & Cycling
Chart 4.12 presents the type of mobility education respondents received. 37.4% individuals said they did not receive any mobility education. 32.8% said they received driving education and 22.7% received cycling education. Minimal respondents said they received walking 4%, or transit use 3.1% education. 35
Chart 4.13- Respondents’ Children Mobility Education Received
Data collected via Qualtrics Chart done by Team Equity & Cycling
Chart 4.13 details the mobility education respondents children (K-12) received. Most respondents did not have school aged children 70.6%. The next largest percentage, 14.6%, said that their kids do not receive mobility education. 5.5% received cycling education. 4% received driving education. 1.8% received transit use education and 3.3% received walking education.
Table 4.2- Transportation Safety & Road Conditions Q11 - Transportation safety and road conditions: On a scale from 1 (Not at all Important) to 5 (Very Important) please indicate how each of the following might encourage you to increase the amount of cycling you participate in. 1 (Not Important)
Count
2
Count
3 (Neutral)
Count
4
Count
5 (Very Important)
Count
Reduced traffic speeds
5.67%
14
4.45%
11
18.22%
45
20.24%
50
51.42%
127
247
More aware drivers
2.83%
7
1.21%
3
10.12%
25
12.96%
32
72.87%
180
247
Fewer vehicles
5.28%
13
5.69%
14
23.58%
58
20.33%
50
45.12%
111
246
Lighting
6.97%
17
10.25%
25
31.15%
76
18.85%
46
32.79%
80
244
Police presence
42.45%
104
24.08%
59
16.33%
40
7.35%
18
9.80%
24
245
Ice/snow/leaves/debris cleared from cycling infrastructure
11.79%
29
13.01%
32
21.54%
53
18.70%
46
34.96%
86
246
2.43%
6
2.43%
6
11.74%
29
24.29%
60
59.11%
146
247
Minimum
Maximum
Mean
Std Deviation
Variance
Count
Road/path is in good condition (absence of potholes, rumble strips, root damage) Field Reduced traffic speeds
1
5
4.07
1.17
1.38
247
More aware drivers
1
5
4.52
0.93
0.87
247
Fewer vehicles
1
5
3.94
1.18
1.39
246
Lighting
1
5
3.6
1.23
1.52
244
Police presence
1
5
2.18
1.32
1.73
245
Ice/snow/leaves/debris cleared from cycling infrastructure
1
5
3.52
1.38
1.92
246
Road/path is in good condition (absence of potholes, rumble strips, root damage)
1
5
4.35
0.95
0.9
247
Total
Data collected via Qualtrics Table done by Team Equity & Cycling
Table 4.1 presents the statistical analysis of transportation safety and road conditions. Respondents were asked in the survey to rate from importance, “1” not important to “5” very important for the following conditions: reduced traffic speeds, more aware drivers, fewer vehicles, lighting, police presence, having ice or other debris cleared from cycling infrastructure and quality of paving on road infrastructure. After the data was collected, results signified that very important factors such as more aware drivers, quality of road infrastructure, and reduced traffic speeds were the top priorities of respondents. Factors such as police presence and debris cleared from road infrastructure were not as important 36
Chart 4.14- Most Preferred Facility Types
Data collected via Qualtrics Table done by Team Equity & Cycling
Chart 4.14 shows the statistical analysis of most preferred facility types when riding a bicycle. Respondents were presented with the following images depicted below and asked to choose which setting they most preferred. After the data was collected, it was evident that a trail, separated bike lane, or a buffered bike lane were the most preferred type of facilities amongst bicycle ridership in San Diego.
37
Chart 4.15- Minimum Acceptable Facility Preferences
Data collected via Qualtrics Chart done by Team Equity & Cycling
Chart 4.15 presents the statistical analysis of minimum acceptable facility type (what type, if any, road infrastructure meets the minimum requirements for a respondent to engage in cycling on the street). Respondents were presented the subsequent images as mentioned in the question prior. After the data was collected, results signified that 29% of respondents would travel on street in a travel lane, 28% required at least a bike lane and 17% would cycle regardless of the existing conditions
38
Table 4.3- Attitudes About Transportation Facilities 1 (Not Important)
Count
2
Count
3 (Neutral)
Count
4
Count
5 (Very Important)
Count
Total
4.38%
11
2.39%
6
8.37%
21
13.55%
34
71.31%
179
251
Better connectivity/more direct routes (better cycling network)
3.60%
9
2.40%
6
4.80%
12
16.40%
41
72.80%
182
250
Elimination of dangerous/unpleasant bottleneck along otherwise suitable route Bicycle route or wayfinding signs Convenient bicycle parking
4.02% 10.00% 13.31%
10 25 33
6.02% 18.40% 11.69%
15 46 29
18.47% 30.00% 28.63%
46 75 71
17.27% 13.60% 19.76%
43 34 49
54.22% 28.00% 26.61%
135 70 66
249 250 248
Bike lanes or bike paths connecting to desired transit stop/station
9.20%
23
14.00%
35
22.40%
56
16.00%
40
38.40%
96
250
Field Safer places to cycle on roads
Data collected via Qualtrics Table done by Team Equity & Cycling
Table 4.3 illustrates the statistical analysis of attitudes regarding transportation facilities and their accompanied amenities. Respondents were asked in the survey to rate from importance, “1” not important to “5” very important for the following conditions: safer places to cycle on roads, better connectivity, elimination of dangerous bottleneck along routes, bicycle route or wayfinding signs, convenient bicycle parking, and bike lanes and paths connecting to desired transit stations and stops. After the data was collected, it was evident that better route connectivity, safer places to cycle on roads, and elimination of dangerous bottlenecks along routes were the most important factors. Factors such as bicycle parking, wayfinding signs, and bike lanes connecting to desired transit stops were not as important.
Table 4.4- Attitudes About Transportation Culture Field
1 (Not Important)
Count
2
Count
3 (Neutral)
Count
4
Count
5 (Very Important)
Count
Community that embraces cycling
4.44%
11
4.44%
11
13.71%
34
26.21%
65
51.21%
127
Total 248
Workplace that embraces cycling
8.91%
22
6.88%
17
23.89%
59
19.03%
47
41.30%
102
247
School or university that embraces cycling
13.88%
34
7.76%
19
25.71%
63
20.41%
50
32.24%
79
245
More people/greater cultural acceptance
7.26%
18
4.84%
12
17.34%
43
26.21%
65
44.35%
110
248
A place to freshen up a little at my work
8.13%
20
9.35%
23
22.36%
55
22.76%
56
37.40%
92
246
A place to change my clothing and shower at work
9.39%
23
7.35%
18
22.04%
54
20.41%
50
40.82%
100
245
Financial incentives
21.14%
52
12.60%
31
20.33%
50
14.23%
35
31.71%
78
246
Minimum
Maximum
Mean
Std Deviation
Variance
Count
Community that embraces cycling
Field
1
5
4.15
1.1
1.2
248
Workplace that embraces cycling
1
5
3.77
1.29
1.68
247
School or university that embraces cycling
1
5
3.49
1.37
1.88
245
More people/greater cultural acceptance
1
5
3.96
1.21
1.46
248
A place to freshen up a little at my work
1
5
3.72
1.27
1.62
246
A place to change my clothing and shower at work
1
5
3.76
1.31
1.71
245
Financial incentives
1
5
3.23
1.53
2.33
246
Data collected via Qualtrics Table done by Team Equity & Cycling
39
Table 4.4 exemplifies the statistical analysis of attitudes regarding transportation culture and encouragement programs. Respondents were asked in the survey to rate from importance, “1” not important to “5” very important for the following conditions: community that embraces cycling, workplace that embraces cycling, school or university that embraces cycling, greater cultural acceptance, amenities to freshen up post cycling commute at work, a place to change clothing and shower at work, and financial incentives. After the data was collected, results signified that very important social factors such as being in a community that embraces cycling, greater cultural acceptance of cycling, and a workplace that embraces cycling shapes the attitudes of bicycle ridership in San Diego.
Table 4.5- Attitudes Towards Negative Factors Field
1 (Not Important)
Count
2
Count
3 (Neutral)
Count
4
Count
5 (Very Important)
Count
Rain
5.18%
13
5.58%
14
19.12%
48
22.71%
57
47.41%
119
251
Snow
9.60%
24
2.40%
6
6.00%
15
9.60%
24
72.40%
181
250
Cold weather
14.80%
37
20.40%
51
30.80%
77
18.40%
46
15.60%
39
250
Hot weather
22.09%
55
22.89%
57
24.10%
60
16.06%
40
14.86%
37
249
Hills
27.09%
68
20.72%
52
26.69%
67
13.15%
33
12.35%
31
251
Personal security/safety
7.97%
20
8.37%
21
19.52%
49
21.51%
54
42.63%
107
251
Environmental (e.g air quality, sun exposure)
13.20%
33
16.40%
41
38.80%
97
16.40%
41
15.20%
38
250
Field
Minimum
Maximum
Mean
Std Deviation
Variance
Count
Rain
1
5
4.02
1.16
1.35
251
Snow
1
5
4.33
1.28
1.64
250
Cold weather
1
5
3
1.27
1.6
250
Hot weather
1
5
2.79
1.35
1.82
249
Hills
1
5
2.63
1.33
1.78
251
Personal security/safety
1
5
3.82
1.28
1.64
251
Environmental (e.g air quality, sun exposure)
1
5
3.04
1.21
1.46
250
Total
Data collected via Qualtrics Table done by Team Equity & Cycling
Table 4.5 shows the statistical analysis of attitudes towards negative factors that may occur and impacts the respondents’ decision to cycle. Respondents were asked in the survey to rate from importance, “1” not important to “5” very important for the following conditions: rain, snow, cold weather, hot weather, hills, personal safety, and environmental (ie: air quality and sun exposure). After the data was collected, it was evident that weather factors such as snow and rain as existing conditions and the perceived level of personal safety were all very important factors. Factors such as hills, hot weather, and other environs were seen as not very important.
40
Survey Cross Tabulation & Analysis Chart 4.16- Frequency by Gender
Data collected via Qualtrics Chart done by Team Equity & Cycling
Chart 4.16 shows that very few individuals cycled 7 days a week. Most respondents cycled between 1-4 days to 3-4 days. The majority of women at 59% only cycled 1-2 days a week.
Chart 4.17- Frequency by Race/Ethnicity
Data collected via Qualtrics Chart done by Team Equity & Cycling
Most minority groups traveled by bicycle between 1-2 and 3-4 days a week as you can see represented in Chart 4.17 41
Chart 4.18- Comfort Level by Gender
Data collected via Qualtrics Chart done by Team Equity & Cycling
In regard to gender, overall our respondents were enthused and confident riders. Very few individuals said there was no way and no how they would get on a bike. There were only 14% of women that identified themselves as strong and fearless riders, however.
Chart 4.19- Comfort Level by Race/Ethnicity
Data collected via Qualtrics Chart done by Team Equity & Cycling
You can see that again, most individuals across different minority groups felt enthused and confident. A large distribution across minority groups also defined themselves as strong and fearless riders. 42
Chart 4.20- Facility Preference by Gender
Data collected via Qualtrics Chart done by Team Equity & Cycling
The highest facility preference overall was for a trail, buffered bike lanes and separated bike lanes were also preferable. On-street and in the vehicular travel lane was not ideal. Women most preferred a trail at 47%, separated bike line at 50% or buffered bike lane at 40%. Off street side paths were also preferable at 38%
43
Chart 4.21- Minimum Acceptable Facility Type by Gender
Data collected via Qualtrics Chart done by Team Equity & Cycling
The minimum acceptable facility type by gender was overwhelmingly to at least have an on- street (in travel lane), a marked bike lane, or buffered bike lane. Women preferred a marked bike lane at 37% of respondents, but on-street (in travel lane) came in second place for the minimum accepted facility type. We also analyzed the data for race/ethnicity and minimum acceptable facility type. The results fared toward at least having on street (in travel lane) and or a marked bike lane as the minimum facility type
Figure 4.2 - Most Preferred Facility Type Photos
1. Trail
2. Separated bike lane
image courtesy of sandiego.gov
image courtesy of sandiegouniontribune.com
3. Buffered bike lane
image courtesy of sandiego.gov
All of our respondents preferred these types of bicycle facilities over others. Women in particular preferred to have separated bike infrastructure from vehicular traffic.
44
4.2 Bike Count Analysis Figure 4.3 - 2010-2011 Bike Counts (Female)
County boundary and road infrastructure data courtesy of sandag.org
45
Figure 4.4 - 2010-2011 Bike Counts (Male)
County boundary and road infrastructure data courtesy of sandag.org
46
Chart 4.22 - 2010-2011 Bike Count Locations
Data collected via Qualtrics Chart done by Team Equity & Cycling
Chart 4.22 illustrates the bike count data taken from these count site locations in 2010 and 2011. As you can see it is apparent that men biked on average about 50% more than their female counterparts in our 9 neighborhood locations.
47
Figure 4.5 - 2021 Bike Counts (Female)
County boundary and road infrastructure data courtesy of sandag.org
48
Figure 4.6 - 2021 Bike Counts (Male)
County boundary and road infrastructure data courtesy of sandag.org
49
Chart 4.23 - 2021 Bike Count Locations
Data collected via Qualtrics Chart done by Team Equity & Cycling
Chart 4.23 signifies the most recent data results from the bike count observations we conducted recently. All of these observations were conducted within a two hour time window from 10am-12:00pm on Sundays. Neighborhoods with the highest female ridership were along the Coast Highway & Lomas Santa Fe, in Presidio Drive, in Mission Hills and Harbor Drive in Little Italy ranging from 30-34% percent of overall riders.
50
Chart 4.24 - 2010-2021 Percent Change by Gender
Data collected via Qualtrics Chart done by Team Equity & Cycling
Chart 4.24 shows the steady increase in female ridership from 2010-2021 at Harbor Drive, Uptown and Kearny Mesa experiencing the greatest. Inversely, ridership in the Southeastern San Diego (along Market St between 24th & 25th street) and Mira Mesa Corridor location decreased dramatically. According to the bike count observations chart, both the Southeastern San Diego location and the Mira Mesa location were on roads with no shoulders and no apparent bicycle facilities available. Looking at these disparities, we observed that the numbers in female ridership decreased due to the lack of available bike facilities around both locations and the existing street configuration that places higher priority on automobile circulation to the freeways versus bike and pedestrian circulation.
51
Survey & Bicycle Count Significant Findings Between our survey and bike count observations, here are our significant findings: Women primarily preferred separated bicycle facilities from vehicular traffic Most of our respondents said they were enthused and confident riders (however, only 14% of women said they were strong and fearless) In areas with separated bike lanes, sidewalks or pathways -- the rate of people cycling overall went up, but particularly for women and children
52
Section 5: Recommendations
53
Recommendations Figure 5.1 - Implementation Recommendations
1. Complete Streets
2. Improved safety
3.Enhanced bike infrastructure
images courtesy of NACTO.org
In order to increase cycling equity for all, and in particular for women, San Diego must invest in bicycle infrastructure changes. These recommendations coincide with some of what SANDAG’s Riding into 2050 Regional Bicycle Plan suggests. Ideally, our communities should implement complete streets initiatives to allow access for all levels of user mobility. These tactics will increase comfortability, convenience and safety for cyclists during their trips. They will prioritize people and community over vehicles. Second, we recommend that Class I multi-use paths, Class II buffered bike lanes, and Class IV separated bike lanes be implemented on roads where space can be reallocated. It is important that San Diego invest in a robust Regional Bike Network with bicycle infrastructure that can help to keep riders separate from vehicular traffic. Lastly, we recommend bicycle infrastructure amenities such as clear signage of cycling circulation, high volume bicycle parking, and painted lanes in high traffic conflict areas to reduce circulation confusion.
54
Figure 5.2 - Local Site Implementation Example
Photo courtesy of Kathy Reyes Sections done in Streetmix.net
Map view courtesy of Google Earth Pro
Figure 5.2 is a local site example of one bike count locations that showed decrease in female ridership from 2010-2011. This site is located in Mira Mesa Blvd. at Scranton Road. The width of the road is 130’ wide and consists of 5 lane vehicular circulation going in both directions. The composition of the existing conditions is expressed at the elevation pictured on top. Through the 3 key recommendations made using SANDAG’s regional bicycle plan, this corridor has an ample amount of space to be reconfigured into a complete street. The reimaging of this corridor is featured at the elevation pictures on the bottom half of the slide.
The 5 lanes in both directions would be reduced to 2 driving and turning lanes,
sufficient Class IV cycle tracks going in both directions would be featured, and pedestrian pathways with street tree refuge would encourage more active transit along this corridor. 55
Section 6: Conclusion
56
Conclusion
image courtesy of Google Images
Men bike at much higher rates than women in San Diego. This is due to comfortability and safety of bicycle infrastructure. We found that in areas with sidewalks, bike pathways or lanes with barriers, the rate for all groups, but particularly women and children went up. We must continue to reallocate space and rethink our street design to include bike lanes with protected barriers. It is important that we provide a variety of bicycle facility choices to support the needs of everyone who would like to participate in cycling. Through implementing these key changes, it is likely there will be an increase in the rate of women cycling and cycling overall within San Diego.
57
Works Cited Akar, G., Fischer, N., & Namgung, M. (2013). Bicycling choice and gender case study: The
Ohio State University. International Journal of Sustainable Transportation, 7(5), 347-
365.
City of San Diego Bicycle Master Plan [PDF]. (2013, December). San Diego: Alta Planning and Design. Copenhagenize Index. (n.d.). 2019 Copenhagenize Index. Retrieved December, 2020, from
https://copenhagenizeindex.eu/
Emond, C. R., Tang, W., & Handy, S. L. (2009). Explaining gender difference in bicycling
behavior. Transportation Research Record, 2125(1), 16-25.
Fennessy, C. (2021, Aril 10). These Women Are Changing Who Gets to Ride - One Bike
at A Time. Bicycling. https://www.bicycling.com/bikes-gear/a35967341/women-
custom-bike-builders/
Gauvin, L., Tizzoni, M., Piaggesi, S., Young, A., Adler, N., Verhulst, S., Cattuto, C. (
2020). Gender gaps in urban mobility. Humanities and Social Sciences Communications,
7(1). doi:10.1057/s41599-020-0500-x
Gossen, R., & Purvis, C.L. (2005). Activities, time, and travel: changes in women’s travel
time expenditures, 1990–2000. Research of Women’s Issues in Transportation, 2.
HOME:: San Diego’s Regional Planning Agency. (2019, November). Retrieved December
20, 2020, from https://www.sandag.org/index.asp?classid=34
58
LA Metro. (2019). Understanding How Women Travel. Los Angeles Metro. http://
libraryarchives.metro.net/DB_Attachments/2019-0294/
UnderstandingHowWomenTravel_FullReport_FINAL.pdf
Lubitow, A., Tompkins, K., & Feldman, M. (2019). Sustainable Cycling For All? Race
and Gender-Based Bicycling Inequalities in Portland, Oregon. City and
Community, 18(4), 1181–1202. https://doi.org/10.1111/cico.12470
Mora R., Truffelo R., Oyarzun G., (2021). Equity and accessibility
of
cycling infrastructure: An analysis of Santiago de Chile. Journal of Transport
Geography, Volume 91, 2021.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jtrangeo.2021.102964.
Pellicer-Chenoll, M., Pans, M., Seifert, R., López-Cañada, E., García-Massó, X.,
Devís, J., & González, L. (2020).
Gender differences in bicycle sharing system usage in the city of Valencia.
Sustainable Cities and Society, 102556. doi:10.1016/j.scs.2020.102556
PeopleForBikes. (2020, June 09). 2020 City Ratings: Safety. Retrieved December,
2020, from https://peopleforbikes.org/blog/2020-city-ratings-safety/
Perchoux, C., Enaux, C., Oppert, J., Menai, M., Charreire, H., Salze, P., Nazare,J.
(2017). Individual, Social, and Environmental Correlates of Active
Transportation Patterns in French Women. BioMed Research International,
2017, 1-11. doi:10.1155/2017/9069730
Ravensbergen, L., Buliung, R., & Laliberte, N. (2020) Fear of cycling: Social, spatial,
and temporal dimensions. Journal of Transport Geography, Volume 87.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jtrangeo.2020.102813
Where We Ride: Analysis of Bike Commuting in American Cities [PDF]. (2016). League
of American Bicyclists.
59
School of Public Affairs
equitycyclingstudysdsu@gmail.com
Appendix
National and International Cycling Best Practices Location
Document
Policies, Programs, & Practices Zoning Ordinance: Sidewalks, bicycle lanes, other pedestrian facilities, and bicycle racks need to be required with all new development. Subdivision Rules & Regulations: Cul-de-sacs shall have pedestrian and bicycle access cut throughs at the ends to connect to adjacent streets.
Arlington, Texas
City of Arlington Hike and Bike System Master Plan
Design Manual Criteria: Regardless of classification, the design and construction of streets and intersections in the City of Arlington should aim to serve all types of users, including pedestrians, bicyclists and motorists, and should be inclusive of all levels of ability, such as those in wheelchairs, the elderly and the young. Education Programs: Bicycle Ambassador Program; Bicycle Map Education; Bicycle Helmets Program; School Crossing Guard Training Program Encouragement Programs: Bicycle & Pedestrian Activities/Promotion within Local Organizations; Cycling Clubs/Bicycle-Commuting Groups; Awareness Days/Events Policy 1.2: Increase pedestrian and bicycle connectivity between existing residential neighborhoods and nearby commercial areas, parks, and schools. Policy 1.4: Improve connections to transit for pedestrians and bicyclists. Policy 1.5: Construct high-quality pedestrian and bicycle infrastructure to provide safer, more appealing and well-connected facilities.
Eugene, Oregon
City of Eugene Pedestrian and Bicycle Master Plan
Policy 2.1: Continually improve bicycling and walking comfort and safety through design, operations and maintenance including development of “low stress” bikeways to attract new cyclists. Policy 2.2: Ensure that the transportation system is accessible to people with disabilities, and that an ADA Transition Plan is completed to identify obstacles to access, develop a work plan to remove those obstacles, and identify responsible parties. Policy 2.3: Ensure that bicycling and walking facilities are provided for all demographics, including people of different ages, races, ethnicities, incomes, and different neighborhoods. Policy 3.4: Provide incentives for existing businesses and other entities to add bicycle parking facilities and pedestrian amenities. Policy 3.5: Provide wayfinding tools for pedestrians and bicyclists.
Appendix
Green Bicycle Routes: Bicycle connections along the water and through green areas separated from car traffic offer an increased sense of security. Intersection Redesign: Include cycle tracks running right up to the intersection as standard and pulled back stop lines for cars.
Copenhagen, Denmark
City of Copenhagen Bicycle Strategy
Increased & Improved Cycle Tracks: One of the most effective ways to increase the sense of security of cyclists is implementing cycle tracks or bicycle lanes; Wider cycle tracks where there are bottlenecks; New cycle tracks and lanes (30-40 km); Wider cycle tracks in general (10-30 km); Painting lanes on wide and busy cycle tracks; Bicycle and bus streets. Sense of Security: Campaigns related to consideration and behavior; Safer routes to schools; Traffic policy at various schools in Copenhagen. Article 28.b: Optimization of the cycle route network: It aims to develop an image of comfort and safety, demarcated and signposted, appropriate to the urban landscape and the user, with other road users, especially with pedestrians and people with reduced mobility, and consist of: 1. Promote the proper and responsible use of bike paths that have infrastructure in good condition in terms of specifications, maintenance and connectivity. 2. Carry out road safety audits, the recommendations of which must be heeded by the district entities.
Bogota, Colombia
Bogota Mobility Master Plan
3. Provide them with complementary elements of urban furniture, which guarantee access to them for those with reduced mobility. 4. Provide facilities or furniture for bicycle parking, not only to facilitate modal exchange, but for those areas that, far from other means of transport, require it. 5. Provide plant elements, in green areas, front gardens, gardens, soft dividers, slopes, landscaping, not only for environmental or aesthetic purposes, but to isolate, mitigate impacts, characterize, give hierarchies, and facilitate the free use of spaces. 6. Provide means of assistance for cycle users and their vehicles. 7. Ensure that all parking lots have enough space for parking bicycles.
Appendix
Block 1
Q1. Hello! Welcome to the “Bicycling and Equity in San Diego" survey. We are SDSU City Planning graduate students. Our survey is about equity in bicycle usage and patterns in the San Diego region. We hope this survey will provide beneficial information that explores barriers that inhibit bicycle ridership among San Diegans. The survey is anonymous – we are not collecting any information that can be traced back to you. We value your input, but you can skip any question or stop participating at any time. If you’d like to hear about the results of the study, please contact our team at equitycyclingstudysdsu@gmail.com. This survey should take approximately 8-10 minutes. Thank you for your time!
Q2. Do you ride your bicycle for any of the following reasons or purposes? (Check all that apply)
Recreation Sport Transportation Exercise Work Don't cycle currently
Q3. How many minutes per week do you typically ride your bicycle?
10-15 Minutes 16-30 Minutes 31-60 Minutes 61-120 Minutes >120 Minutes
Q4. How many days a week do you usually cycle?
1-2 3-4 5-6 7
Appendix
Q5. Does your home or work life impact your ability to cycle? (I.e. Caretaking for others, restrictive schedule)
Yes No
Q6. Do you ever use a bicycle for transportation to/from any of the following destinations? (Check all that apply)
Workplace Stores/services Schools Community facilities Recreational facilities Transit stops and stations Social destinations Other neighborhood destinations
Q7. Why do you use your bicycle for these trips? (Check all that apply)
It's practical It's healthy It's joyful It's sustainable It's affordable It's my only option Other
Q8. What category of bicyclist would you identify with? (I.e. comfort level using available facilities)
Strong and Fearless (cycle regardless of road condition) Enthused and Confident (comfortable sharing road but prefer own facilities) Interested but Concerned (curious about cycling, would ride if felt safer on road) No Way, No How (not interested in cycling at all)
Q10. Mobility education offers information and hands-on experience so that children can learn about and safely use a variety of transportation options. If you have school-age children (K-12) have they or will they receive mobility education as part of their schooling? (Check all that apply)
Cycling Driving Transit Use
Appendix
Walking They don't receive mobility education and I would like them to I don't have school-aged children
Q9. Have you received any mobility education? (Check all that apply)
Cycling Driving Transit Use Walking Didn't receive mobility education
Q11. Transportation safety and road conditions: On a scale from 1 (Not at all Important) to 5 (Very Important) please indicate how each of the following might encourage you to increase the amount of cycling you participate in.
1
2
3
4
5
Reduced traffic speeds More aware drivers Fewer vehicles Lighting Police presence Ice/snow/leaves/debris cleared from cycling infrastructure Road/path is in good condition (absence of potholes, rumble strips, root damage)
Q12. Which type of facilities do you most prefer when riding your bicycle? (Check one)
Appendix
On street (in travel lane)
Bike lane
Buffered bike lane
Appendix
Separated bike lane
Bike boulevard
Off-street side path
Appendix
Sidewalk
Trail
Q13. Of all these options, what is the minimum acceptable bicycle facility you would choose when making trips by bike? (Check one)
Appendix
On street (in travel lane)
Bike lane
Buffered bike lane
Appendix
Separated bike lane
Bike boulevard
Off-street side path
Appendix
Sidewalk
Trail
I would cycle regardless
Q14. Transportation facilities: On a scale from 1 (Not at all Important) to 5 (Very Important) please indicate how each of the following would cause you to start or increase your level of cycling.
1
2
3
4
5
Safer places to cycle on roads Better connectivity/more direct routes (better cycling network) Elimination of dangerous/unpleasant bottleneck along otherwise suitable route Bicycle route or wayfinding signs Convenient bicycle parking
Appendix
1
2
3
4
5
Bike lanes or bike paths connecting to desired transit stop/station
Q15. Transportation culture and encouragement programs: On a scale from 1 (Not at all Important) to 5 (Very Important), please indicate how each of the following would cause you to start or increase your level of cycling.
1
2
3
4
5
Community that embraces cycling Workplace that embraces cycling School or university that embraces cycling More people/greater cultural acceptance A place to freshen up a little at my work A place to change my clothing and shower at work Financial incentives
Q16. Negative Factors: On a scale from 1 (Not at all likely) to 5 (Very likely), please indicate how each of these conditions would impact your likelihood to cycle.
1
2
3
4
5
Rain Snow Cold weather Hot weather Hills Personal security/safety Environmental (e.g air quality, sun exposure)
Q17. What is your gender?
Male Female
Appendix
Non-binary Prefer not to say
Q18. What is your age?
19 and younger 20-29 30-39 40-49 50-59 60-69 70 and over
Q19. What is your racial and ethnic identity? (Check all that apply)
Black or African American Afro-Caribbean Asian, South Asian or Pacific Islander Native American or Alaska Native Hispanic or Latinx Middle Eastern or Arab American European White Mixed Race Other
Q20. What is the highest level of education you attained?
Elementary Middle school/junior high High School College Graduate degree or higher
Q21. Please provide your zip code.
Powered by Qualtrics
Appendix
Observer’s Name(s): __________________________ Date: _________ Location: ________________ Setting:
_
Facility Type:
_
Surrounding Land Uses:
_ Weather:
_
Directions Please fill in your name, the date, and count location as well as type of setting, type of facility, surrounding land uses, and weather conditions (see last page). -
Count all bicyclists under the appropriate age and gender categories. If you are unable to determine the bicyclist’s gender, mark them under “Unidentified Adult.” Count for two hours in the 15 minute increments listed below. Include bicyclists who ride on the sidewalk. Count the number of people on the bicycle, not the number of bicycles.
Timeframe
Age/Gender
Bicycle Count
Total
Adult Female
Adult Male 10:00am 10:15am
Unidentified Adult
Child
Adult Female
Adult Male 10:15am 10:30am
Unidentified Adult
Child
TOTAL
Appendix
Observer’s Name(s): __________________________ Date: _________ Location: ________________ Setting:
Timeframe
_
Facility Type:
Age/Gender
_
Surrounding Land Uses:
_ Weather:
Bicycle Count
_
Total
Adult Female
Adult Male 10:30am 10:45am
Unidentified Adult
Child
Adult Female
Adult Male 10:45am 11:00am
Unidentified Adult
Child
TOTAL
Appendix
Observer’s Name(s): __________________________ Date: _________ Location: ________________ Setting:
Timeframe
_
Facility Type:
Age/Gender
_
Surrounding Land Uses:
_ Weather:
Bicycle Count
_
Total
Adult Female
Adult Male 11:00am 11:15am
Unidentified Adult
Child
Adult Female
Adult Male 11:15am 11:30am
Unidentified Adult
Child
TOTAL
Appendix
Observer’s Name(s): __________________________ Date: _________ Location: ________________ Setting:
Timeframe
_
Facility Type:
Age/Gender
_
Surrounding Land Uses:
_ Weather:
Bicycle Count
_
Total
Adult Female
Adult Male 11:30am 11:45am
Unidentified Adult
Child
Adult Female
Adult Male 11:45am 12:00pm
Unidentified Adult
Child
TOTAL
Appendix
Key: Count Location Facilities To be completed for each count and survey location. Type of Setting: 1 = urban 2 = suburban 3 = rural Type of Facility: 1 = paved multi use path at least 8 feet wide 2 = unpaved trail 3 = bike lane with standard signing and striping 4 = signed bike route 5 = street or road with marked shoulders (min. 2 feet wide) 6 = street or road with no shoulders or less than 2 feet wide 7 = sidewalk (at least 4 feet wide) 8 = unimproved (dirt, gravel) shoulder Surrounding Land Uses (Within 1-2 Miles): 1 = residential 2 = parks or open space 3 = retail 4 = office 5 = industrial 6 = mixed use Weather Conditions: 1 = fair 2 = rainy 3 = very hot 4 = very cold
Appendix
