hub and spokes

8/14/2019 Hub and Spokes

1/23

Hub and Spokes:Imageability of the Daily Bicycle Commute in New York City

Matthew IdesSeptember 2008


2/23


3/23

2

Introduction

In a city that is dominated by automobiles (1.6 million people enter Manhattan by car daily andof those 1.2 million of them drive alone), I wanted to find out how its residents who use othermodes of transportation actually view the built environment. Although all forms of transit

modes can be studied, I find this small minority (0.5%) who commute by bicycles the mostmarginalized by the existing infrastructure of New York City. The sole purpose of this study isto record the subjective perspective (mental mapping) that New York City bicycle commutershave of the build environment, good or bad.

While New York City has a vibrant and active bicycle commuter culture, there still exists astigma attached to people who commute by bicycle. While a cultural shift is important tomaking bike commuting more acceptable in New York City and nationally, to achieve an equaland multi-modal approach to our street space New York City must prioritize the creation of acomprehensive bicycling network that supplements pedestrian, open/green space, and publictransit improvements.

Background

In the last twenty years an explosion of scholarship and reporting has been done focusing onbicycling infrastructure. In this regard, my focus was on The New York City Bicycle SurveyMay 2007. This report was thorough and covered all cyclists; it was not specifically focused oncommuters. It has been the base for many of the recommendations and overall cyclist statisticsused in New York City. One point of interest is that while the Department of City Planningconducted the report, the Department of Transportation has jurisdiction over bicycle planning inNew York City and is the author of the citys bike master plan.

Recently, graduate students Wallace Murray and Jason Nu for the transportation department ofcity planning did the New York City Bicycle Parking Survey. While this report did notexclusively focus on commuters, it managed to tackle one of the largest problems that keeppeople from commuting which was safe and secure bike parking.

In this report I will refer to both these surveys since many of my results confirm and conflictwith their findings. This is not to say that either study is flawed or not valid, but perhaps is anindication of the diverse viewpoints with in the bicycle community and over reliance onquantitative data.

Methodology

This study was conducted in two parts. The first part consisted of an online survey. The surveywent live on March 7 and was taken down August 1, 2008.1 It was hosted at questionpro.com,which provides free services to graduate students. Through August 1 it has received 854 views,505 starts, and 396 completed surveys. The survey was advertised on many forums,

1The data period used for this report is March 7 August 1, 2008.


4/23

3

transportation websites, and blogs.2 The survey was done to collect demographic informationand gather opinions about bike commuting in New York City. Although the Department of CityPlanning and other bike surveys had been completed in the past two years, none of thesesurveys specifically focused on this sub-set of bike riders: the commuter. The goal was not toreplicate work that had previously been done, but rather to supplement and provide a new

perspective. I will further discuss the survey in the next section of the report. It is my intentionto focus on this specific group to find out why they choose to commute by bicycle rather thanother more normalized modes of transit.

The second part of this study was conducted in the month of May 2008. I conducted six one-on-one interviews with respondents to the online survey. These individual meetings were done forseveral key reasons. First, I wanted to further investigate why people chose to commute bybicycle in New York City. Second, I wanted to have them visually illustrate on paper theircurrent commute (one-way) in a free form. In addition, a Google pedometer map was done tohave a record of the exact route the cyclist rode. I did an analysis of these two maps tounderstand how the person perceived their route, the drawn map, versus the actual pedometer

route. It was also informative to ask people questions while they drew their illustrations andafter. The drawing was a key departure point for a more in depth conversation.

I undertook this study using two distinct methodologies. The first was to do a grounded theoryapproach to the study. As a daily bicycle commuter myself, I wanted to keep my subjectiveviews out of the study and avoid influencing the respondents. Because of that, I started the studywith no clear hypothesis other than to study bike commuters in New York City. With this inmind I created the online survey to gather some basic demographic information and to get alarger picture of the commuter community in the city. In addition, any perceived negativequestion had a counterpart question phrased in the positive. For example, two questions were:What do you like about bike commuting the most? What do you like about bike commuting theleast? Because of this, I believe that I achieved a fair and balanced survey.

The second methodology that I used for this study is from urban planner Kevin Lynch. In hisbookThe Image of the City3 Lynch created and defined imageability. Imageability is used tounderstand how people perceive and view their built environment. For example, is the BrooklynBridge crossing a problem (getting over the bridge, barrier between two land masses, findingthe bridge entrance), a positive experience (good view corridor of the city and waterways,separated bike path from traffic), or a symbol/landmark (historic significance of the bridge)?This methodology is utilized to examine the two sets of maps and during the interview process.

Using the quantitative data from the survey and the qualitative data from the interviews, Iwanted to understand the issues that bicycle commuters would have that the non-bikecommuters never really think about as pedestrians, transit users, and car drivers. Not only didthis analysis demonstrate a clear viewpoint based on this mode of transportation, it was alsointeresting to see how different people can see one intersection, bridge, and crossing incompletely different terms. Although bike commuters have much in common as to overall

2This is the full list of internet sites it was advertised on: Streetsblog.org, bikeforums.net, Bikeblogspot.com, NewYork Times City Room, fixed.gr/nyc, and Bikecommuters.com.3 Lynch, Kevin. The Image of the City.


5/23

4

safety problems of riding (e.g. on the street and parking), a consensus about the solution is notso clear.

By deciding to conduct an online survey I realize that I limited my outreach capacity. I haveexcluded those individuals who either do not have access to the internet or who are not actively

online. Although the survey was general in scope I do have to disclose that it did not reach alarger pool of bike commuters in New York City. I realize that because of this some of the datamight not be as generalizable as it could be, but I believe enough data was collected from alarge enough pool of random respondents to make the data statistically significant.

Survey Results

TheHub and Spokes: Imageability of the Daily Bicycle Commuter in New York City surveywent live online in March 2008. The survey included 22 multiple-choice questions and 1 openended question. Although the questions were multiple choice, I decided it was better to only

allow the respondents to choose one answer. Where appropriate I did give another option thatthe respondent could fill in. While I found that many of the results were in line with otherstudies of bicycle commuters, I did have some geographically local and unique results. Here area few highlights of the survey data:

42.09% had indoor parking at their destination

64.66% would not ride because of bad weather

A bike network was the most important desired improvement (39.02%)

Cars and trucks were the least liked aspect of commuting (66.75%)

72.66% were commuting to work

Over half of the respondents preferred the fastest route compared to the safest route

97% of respondents commuted by themselves

This section is a combination of demographic information about the respondents to my survey.They include sex, age, race/ethnicity, and income. The respondents to my survey tend to bemale, young, white, and earning $75,001 plus. Respondents are 80% male and 20% female,80% white, 54.08% are between the age of 25-34, and 27.51% (largest group) made over$75,001. Although this demographic information does not represent the larger New York Cityarea, it is telling nonetheless. While my outreach methods did not go beyond the internet, I stillfind the results relevant and significant. This is a summary of findings when I did crosstabulation with the demographic data:

Older riders commuted for exercise while younger riders commuted for enjoyment Men spend significantly more money on bikes than women

Women ride more for school and errands than for work

Commuters with lower incomes main destination was school

Below is an analysis on a selection of questions. Where appropriate I clustered the questionstogether to demonstrate larger themes and ideas.


6/23

5

The first question I asked: why do you commute by bike?

ANSWER COUNT %

Enjoyment/It is fun 149 36.08

Other 123 29.78

Exercise/Physical Activity 95 23

Environmental Reasons 27 6.54

Financial/Cost 19 4.60

TOTALS 413 100

With the current oil crisis and gas prices I found it interesting that less than 5% of therespondents main reason for commuting by bicycle was for financial reasons4. Also of

significance is that 36.08% of respondents main reason was for enjoyment and fun. I believethis is extremely telling as the perception of bike riders in New York City is not that they arehaving fun, but rather that what they are doing is dangerous. The other category reinforcesthis notion as well. Of the numerous combinations in the other category, 72 respondentsindicated all the above as their answer.

The last question I asked: If you had to give the New York City cycling environment a lettergrade, it would be?

ANSWER COUNT %

A (highest grade) 5 1.28

B 85 21.74

C 205 52.43

D 76 19.44

F (lowest grade) 20 5.12

TOTAL 391 100

To gather an overall impression of the built environment and cycling infrastructure I posed thisletter grade question. The results demonstrate that while cyclists are willing to commute they

clearly are not satisfied with the current environment. While the city received 5.12% Fs and19.44% Ds, what was surprising is that slightly over half gave it a letter grade of C. Althoughthe city did receive 1.28% As and 21.74% Bs, it is pretty clear that current commuters do notperceive the current environment and infrastructure as supporting daily bike commuters.

4Part of this can be explained by the low cost and availability of public transportation in New York City, but thelow number is very surprising considering the amount of attention bike commuting is receiving with these higherenergy costs.


7/23

6

Given that the city received such a poor letter grade, this next question is vital in what thesecommuters see as the most important changes. The question asked: what is the most importantcycling improvement that you would like to see implemented?

ANSWER COUNT %

Bike Network 159 39.75On Street Safety 146 36.25

Secure Parking 44 11.00

Building Access 36 9.00

Other 16 4.00

TOTAL 400 100

The answer to this question was quite a surprise. NYC DOT and DCP have made installing

more bike racks a major priority, but according to my survey the top two top issues are bikenetwork and on street safety. The 2007 New York City Bike Survey showed that 95% of therespondents wanted on street bike racks. I found it interesting that secure parking and buildingaccess both received fewer responses than expected in the current survey.

The respondents to my survey are clearly more interested in improving safety for cyclists. Abike network (which means designated paths, bike lanes, and greenways that all connect) wasthe first choice answer with almost 40%. Coming in a close second with 36.25% was on streetsafety. When combined, 76% of respondents are concerned with improving the bikeenvironment through the implementation of secure (on and off road) space for cyclists to travelin.

The next question might shed more light on why bike parking was not the top priority of therespondents. Although bike parking is a key component to any successful cycling environment,it might not be so critical to daily commuters who are locking up once for a large time period:Where do you park your bike when you reach your destination?

ANSWER COUNT %

Indoor (building/garage) 173 42.72

Outside (not city rack) 148 36.54

Secure outdoor parking 36 8.89

City bike rack 33 8.15

Other 15 3.70

TOTAL 405 100

Again, the results to this question do not match current data from the city. My resultsdemonstrate that 8.15% of the respondents use city bike racks. The majority of commuters have


8/23

7

indoor parking or park their bikes outside but do not use city provided racks. According to theNew York City Bicycle Survey, only 16.5% park their bikes indoors while 64% use city racks.A recent report on bike parking in New York City,NYC Bicycle Parking Survey, found that thetwo top priorities are secure and indoor parking. My survey results do not support either ofthese conclusions. I believe that this is an area that needs to be further studied, since the current

data and reports conflict with each other about what cyclists want in regards to bike parking.This in no way means more bike parking is not needed, but instead that it may not be the toppriority for many cyclists.

A critical component to the survey was to get an understanding from respondents about themost and least liked aspects of commuting. I posed these questions:

What do you like the most about bike commuting?

ANSWER COUNT %

Being Outside 174 43.72

Simplicity/Ease 63 15.83

Flexibility 58 14.57

No traffic/transit delay 58 14.57

Shorter commute time 45 11.31

TOTAL 398 100

What do you like the least about bike commuting?

ANSWER COUNT %Cars and trucks 265 66.58

Weather 47 11.81

Mechanical issues 30 7.54

Pedestrians 29 7.29

Other 27 7.01

TOTAL 398 100

Discussing what bike commuters like and dislike in combination sheds light on some of thepriorities. It is clear that the most liked and disliked are in complete agreement to each other.43.72% of respondents liked being outside as they commuted and 66.58% disliked cars andtrucks. Although this has to do with safety to some degree, as I have already discussed, I believethat air, noise, and visual pollution that cars and trucks create on the streets that cyclists have toshare with them affects the enjoyment they have with being outside.


9/23

8

It is interesting that 11.81% of respondents chose weather as a dislike. When I posed thequestion of what keeps you from commuting, weather was the highest response with 64%. Sowhile weather falls lower on the scale of things that are disliked by commuters, it is the mainreason why these commuters do not commute by bike. Although these two questions aredifferent, what do you dislike versus what keeps you from commuting, I still find this an

important difference. My survey results demonstrate that the perception of weather as the worstpart of commuting is true (since it keeps commuters off of their bikes), but yet the most dislikedaspect of commuting was not weather, but rather, cars and trucks.

Although safety is a key issue for all commuters, it is interesting to see the breakdown betweenmale and female respondents: which of the following determines your daily route more?

ANSWER COUNT %

Fastest route 223 54.39

Safest route 187 45.61

TOTAL 410 100

What is your sex?

ANSWER COUNT %

Male 319 80.56

Female 77 19.44

TOTAL 396 100

Although bike network and on street safety were the two top improvements desired, by a smallmargin commuters chose the fastest route instead of the safest route. While the men prefer thefaster route a bit more than the safer route, for women there is a 40% difference for those thatprefer the safest route over the fastest route. Clearly safety is a more important issue for femalecommuters than males. This is an interesting aspect that will be further analyzed in the secondsection of this report.

Summary

This survey data illustrates a larger picture of the bicycle commuter in New York City. Clearpriorities are a safe bike network, taking the fastest route, and less car and truck traffic. In

addition, this data demonstrates that bike commuters are not clear on priorities of bike parking,weather, and by age and sex category. As a community and within the age and sex designation,these priorities do differ greatly. What can be concluded is that overall commuters are notsatisfied with the current bike environment. With over 75% of the respondents giving the city aletter grade of C or less, it is clear that the perception of these commuters of the builtenvironment is not good.


10/23

9

This is not an in-depth statistical analysis; instead, I wanted to paint a picture of the bicyclecommuter in New York City. The survey clearly demonstrates many of the positive andnegative aspects of bicycle commuting. With this foundation established the next section isgoing to provide commuter profiles and analyze the commuters perspective of the buildenvironment.


11/23

10

Commuter Profiles

The second part of this study was one-on-one interviews with commuters. The intervieweesindicated that they would be willing to be interviewed at a later date via the survey. All theinterviewees were contacted via the internet to arrange a time and location. These interviews

took place during the month of May 2008 at a location determined by the interviewee. Theylasted anywhere from 10-30 minutes. They included a set of preliminary questions, theinterviewee illustrating their route, doing a Google pedometer map5, and more in depthquestioning based on their daily routes. In total I interviewed 6 people: 3 women and 3 men.While I tried to get a cross section of respondents, due to the lack of response these candidateswere chosen by convenience.

Logistics of the interview

I first instructed interviewees to draw their route and supplied them with paper and colorpencils. I intended this directive to be as open ended as possible since I did not want to

influence their illustration. As they drew their route I asked basic questions to get theconversation started. Although I already had this information from the survey I felt it necessaryto keep the interview going. When the person was done with their route I had them do theGoogle pedometer map.

Based on the illustrations they had completed, I asked them what they liked and disliked abouttheir commute. After seeing their routes I was also able to ask more detailed questions regardingsafety and pleasure of the ride based on the existing conditions of the route. For example, a fewcommuters all took the Williamsburg Bridge to cross the East River. I used the current cyclinginfrastructure to find out how they perceived the bridge crossing. Following are the 6 commuterprofiles with a brief analysis and summary of each.

5Google pedometer map gave me their exact route as opposed to the subjective route they drew. I felt this wasnecessary as a basis for comparison with the route they drew for me.


12/23

11

Commuter 1

Age: 37 Residence: Brooklyn Car: No Years commuting: 2 Sex: Male

Commuter 1 moved to Brooklyn about 2 years ago with his wife and three children. Althoughhe used to commute in his previous city of Austin, TX, he said it was quite dangerouscommuting there by bike. When he arrived in New York City he said that he and his wiferealized that they would no longer need their cars. So they sold their cars and now use zip carinstead. He originally started commuting to get more exercise while in Austin.

Commuter 1 has been commuting from the Kensington neighborhood in Brooklyn to GreenwichVillage in Manhattan for the past two years. His commute generally takes him about 40-45minutes. When he arrives at work he takes his bike into the office and keeps it in his cubicle.

From the interview, Commuter 1 clearly demonstrated frustration with his current route. Heespecially was not happy about the process it has become just to get out of Brooklyn. Wediscussed that it was difficult to find a safe and direct route because of the street grid inBrooklyn. People who live south of Prospect Park have a different grid pattern than those thatlive north of the park. This can make for a difficult route planning. Also, although Prospect Parkshould be a safe haven for cyclists, cars are allowed during rush hour so it is multi-functionaldepending on the time of day that you use it. Commuter 1 made it clear that is was much easier,and felt safer, for him once he got into Manhattan.

Based on Commuter 1s illustration he clearly is more prone to existing landmarks rather thanstreet names. Although he first started to draw the route, he then stopped and listed the streets.The list he provided seems to be some of the higher traffic streets and less traveled bike routes.For instance, he takes Union Street coming out of Prospect Park. While Union Street is the mostdirect of routes, it is not used by cyclists often because of lack of riding space between movingtraffic and parked cars. Also, speeds on Union Street tend to be higher than the speed limitbecause it approaches Grand Army Plaza. While some parallel streets (3rd Street and 9th Street)


13/23

12

with bike lanes exist near Union, either Commuter 1 is not aware of them or they may put himout of his way.


14/23

13

Commuter 2

Age: 25 Residence: Brooklyn Car: No Years commuting: 3 Sex: Female

Commuter 2 came to New York City to get a bachelors degree from New York University. Sheis not married and has no children. She stated that she started commuting 3 years ago because ofcrowding on the subway and she finds biking the best mode of transportation. She does not havea car.

While Commuter 2 had just started a new commute, it was just a bit farther from her previouscommute. Her illustration was very revealing. In her mapping she made the things that she likedand disliked the larger in comparison to the rest of her route. For instance, she stated that the

Williamsburg Bridge was the favorite part of her route (as you can see illustrated above) andthat the intersection approaching the bridge was one of the worst parts of her commute. She alsofelt that getting off the bridge on the Manhattan side onto Delancey Street (which is one of themost dangerous merging points for cyclists in the city) was rather safe because it waspredictable to her. Commuter 2 had not changed her route at all in the past three years becauseshe felt that the more predictable the route was the safer she felt.

She also made a point of marking where on her route existing bike lanes exist. I again believethis has to do with the importance of safety in her route. In her old commute she parked her bikeoutside, but now at her new job she has indoor parking available to her.

She said that the worst part of her route was on 6th Avenue from 14-26th Street, the last leg ofher route going to work. Although 6th Avenue does have a bike lane on the west side of thestreet, lax enforcement of the traffic laws make it a dangerous street to ride on because you haveto merge in and out of traffic to get around double parked trucks, cars, and pedestrians in thebike lane. Also worth noting is that in addition to labeling the street names she also providedlandmarks. In her illustration she clearly designates the statue at the plaza and the bakery.


15/23

14

Commuter 3

Age: 51 Residence: Manhattan Car: Yes Years commuting: 7 Sex: Male

Commuter 3 has lived in New York City since 1980. He is married and has a car, but explainsthat the car is primarily because he is a musician and uses it to haul equipment. He got startedcommuting in New York City after he took a bike on a tour with him. This gave him theopportunity to ride in many different cities and he felt it was only right to keep commutingwhen he returned to New York City. He told me that he thinks NYC is the best place tocommute on bike.

Commuter 3 likes commuting by bike because he stated that you see the city differently. One

issue that came up were the entrance/exit of the Manhattan side of the Williamsburg Bridge.Commuter 3 said this was the worst part of his commute and that the traffic, traffic lights, andtraffic cops do not making getting off and onto the bridge any better.

Another main concern of his was other cyclists riding in the wrong direction. He found thiscompletely unacceptable as it put the cyclist who is obeying the traffic laws in a situation ofeither stopping or swerving out into traffic. This was not one of the things that was evident inthe survey but for this commuter this was a clear issue.

Like Commuter 1, instead of drawing or including some visual representation, Commuter 3instead listed the street names that he rides on. Its interesting that both of these commuters,

who happen to be men, just listed the street names from memory. What I can gather from this isa certain mindset and approach to commuting that is very systematic. Instead of seeing theirroute and city laid out in a 2D visual representation, they instead decided to create a list of thestreets they take. What this lacks is any indication of landmarks and over or under emphasis ofany issues represented visually. I also find it interesting that Commuter 3 clearly knows thisroute so well it has been committed to some form of memory where he doesnt even have tothink about it. While he was listing the streets it was obvious that he was trying to remember thenames of the streets. Not because he had forgotten them, but rather because he is so used to hiscommute that it is more about muscle and visual memory.


16/23

15

Commuter 4

Age: 22 Residence: Brooklyn Car: No Years commuting: 6 Sex: Female

Commuter 4 is a life long resident of New York City. She is not married, has no children, anddoes not have a car. Commuter 4 indicated to me she started commuting by bike because it wasfast, cheap, and she wanted to quit smoking.

Like Many of the survey respondents, Commuter 4 stated that she liked being outside as thebest aspect of commuting by bike. She also enjoys the stretch of 1st Avenue from Houston to14

thStreet. What she likes the least about commuting is aggressive drivers and getting on/off the

Manhattan side of the Williamsburg Bridge.

What is interesting about Commuter 4s drawn route, as compared to the Google pedometermap, is that the stretch of Bedford Avenue is extremely exaggerated. While it is a pretty goodstretch of the route it seems out of place as it is drawn on the map. My sense is that this area isexaggerated because it is not the best part of her commute. As others have demonstrated thoseareas that need the most attention tend to be larger or exaggerated on the commutersillustration.

Although I didnt ask this in the interview, I wonder if she also feels the same as Commuter 1 inregards to getting out of Brooklyn. When comparing the two maps she has clearly illustrated

Bedford Avenue as a bigger part of her commute than it really is.

In addition, I find that while the actual route is more or less on angles, the illustration hasnothing but right angles. This might indicate the need to have some control over onesenvironment. With that in mind it makes sense that aggressive drivers and leaving the bridge arethe two major points of contention for this commuter; those are things she has the least amountof control over and that are the most threatening to her safety.


17/23

16

Commuter 5

Age: 36 Residence: Brooklyn Car: Yes Years Commuting: 1 Sex: Male

Commuter 5 has been a resident of the New York City area since birth. As an adult he has livedin the city for the most part. While he does own a car, again this is for the main purpose ofmoving musical equipment. He started commuting about 4-5 years ago because it was fasterthan the subway and he wanted to get some exercise.

Commuter 5 stated that the best part about commuting was that it is relaxing. Given commuter5's route it seems quite plausible that it is very relaxing. Out of all the commuters I interviewed,

his route is the closest to a bike network. He uses bike lanes, the Brooklyn Bridge, and the WestSide bike path (which is separated from vehicle traffic). Overall I would say about half of hisroute is off street, so he has to deal with less car and truck traffic. Although it is relaxing,Commuter 5 also made it clear that it is the convenience and freedom that he likes about bikecommuting. He is not bogged down by a bus or subway schedule.

His least favorite part of the commute was going down 3rd Avenue near 17th Street and underthe Prospect Expressway in Brooklyn. He complained about all the debris and glass that is onthe road. My understanding from our conversation is that this creates two potential problems forhim. The first is that he must maneuver to go around the debris, which is then putting thecommuter in traffic. The second is because of this debris in the road, the chance of getting more

flats increases.

Unlike the other two male respondents, Commuter 5 actually drew his map and did not just listthe street names. However, he has clearly labeled every street on the illustration he provided.Unlike the other commuters, his illustrated map is extremely accurate in size when compared tothe Google map.


18/23

17

Commuter 6

Age: 32 Residence: Brooklyn Car: No Years Commuting: 1 Sex: Females

Commuter 6 has been a resident of New York City for about 6 years. She is married and has nocar. When she moved to New York City she sold her car within 6 months. Commuter 6 startedcommuting over a year ago because she was encouraged to try it by her husband. Since shemoved a few years ago she has had a long and crowded subway commute. Because of this shewould commute a few days per week in fair weather by bike.

While Commuter 6 is not a daily commuter she stated that the best part of her commute wasgoing over the Manhattan bridge and arriving at home. Out of all the commuters interviewed,she has the longest commute: from Central Brooklyn to Times Square. The thing she liked the

least about her commute was drivers, cabs, and car service vehicles. It was clear that high trafficareas were her biggest concern.

The illustration of her daily route was interesting in that she used three pages and identifiedlandmarks, rather than labeling the street names. For instance, in Times Square she labeled it"Herald Square Chaos." It seems the last leg of her route would be the busiest with traffic as shetakes 6th Avenue to 41st Street between 7th and 8th Avenues.


19/23


20/23

19

Conclusion

I undertook this study with the notion that I would try and get a better understanding of howdaily bike commuters view the built environment in New York City. While this study has givenme a clearer understanding of what this small minority of commuters face, what I can conclude

is that there is no clear issue or concern that all these commuters see as the most important.

Although New York City and colleges and universities have done numerous studies, wherethese studies fall short is that they are based on quantitative data. My survey results demonstrateto me that there are sub-groups within the cycling community that have different priorities.While the New York City Department of Transportation has been pursuing the installation ofmore bike racks and stripped bike lanes, I am not confident that this is the best use of funds,time, and talent. I believe that the city needs to take a more active approach to getting feedbackand data from cyclists by using a more qualitative approach. The current surveys are issuedriven and don't really give cyclists the opportunities to discuss at length the main issues.

I recommend that New York City take a different approach to gathering data the next time theydo a bike study. Instead of a survey, they should pursue focus groups, telephone, and in personinterviews with cyclists. This can easily be organized around bike month when cycling in thecity is on the minds of more than your daily commuters. The city needs to understand why people choose to ride their bikes. Even more important, the city needs to investigate whypeople do not ride their bikes as a viable form of transit. As my survey has shown, by collectingdata from current cyclists we are gaining valuable information on existing conditions. The city,while it should continue focusing on improving the built environment for existing commuters,should also explore how to get people to try bike commuting for the first time.

I have a few immediate recommendations to improve the current environment based on mysurvey and interviews. They are:

Pursue the creation of a bike network with logical connections that provides for saferoutes

Focus on location and quality of bike parking facilities, rather than quantity

Provide more outreach for driver awareness and enforcement of the 30 MPH law anddouble parking

Complete an in-depth study and apply best practices to the Manhattan side of theWilliamsburg Bridge

Create a buddy system so new cyclists can ride with more experienced commuters

In regards to planning for the long term changes that need to take place New York City needs toestablish a clear tier system to label all streets in regards to bicycle use. These should includefour distinct categories: greenway/off road, shared roadways, bike boulevards, and bike lanes.Within these four there should be sub-categories, but these four provide a general way to labelall the paths for cyclists in New York City.

For the physical planning I believe that New York City needs to accomplish a few key designand infrastructure issues. They should:


21/23

20

Connect the greenway around Manhattan Island so there are no interruptions and shouldbe off street which gives cyclists and pedestrians the right-of-way and safe lead ways,entrances, and exists to all bridges

Create counter-flow bus and bike lanes on all major north-south Avenues in Manhattan.

This will create a designated area for buses and cyclists free from traffic congestion Implement changes in the other four boroughs in areas of high numbers of bike

commuters and continue to expand from that area (i.e. Williamsburg in Brooklyn)

Approach bike infrastructure and network planning from a holistic multi-modalapproach where all current and future users are given equal weight (dont design bikeinfrastructure to the exclusion of pedestrians and vice versa)

In conclusion, New York City has to decide if it wants to build an infrastructure that will enticecurrent residents to hop on their bikes and commute to work, run errands, and go to the localrestaurants. Although a cultural shift needs to take place, it would behoove the city to take the

lead and build the infrastructure that will then create, and reinforce, an environment that iswelcoming to cyclists of all kinds. The cycling environment should be so welcoming that whena new commuter rides their bike for the first time, they realize what a great thing bikecommuting is.


22/23

21

Acknowledgements

This study would have not been possible without the commuters who took the time fill out thesurvey and talked to me for the interviews. I would also like to thank Professor John Chin at

Hunter College for all his guidance, advice, and questions. The meetings with him were criticalto formalizing and preparing the survey and interview materials. I would also like to thank theUrban Affairs and Planning department at Hunter College.

Resources

Barnes, Gary and Kevin Krizek and Kristin Thompson. A Longitudinal Analysis of the Effectof Bicycle Facilities on Commute Mode Share. University of Minnesota, July 2005.

Buehler, Ralph and John Pucher. Cycling Irresistible: Lessons from the Netherlands, Denmark,and Germany. Transport Reviews, Vol. 28, 2008

Carlsson, Chris. Outlaw Bicycling. Affinities: A Journal of Radical Theory, Cultureand Action, Vol. 1 No. 1, Winter 2007 pp. 86-106.

City of New York Department of City Planning Transportation Division. The New York CityBicycle Survey. May 2007.

Dill, Jennifer and Theresa Carr. Bicycle Commuting and Facilities in Major U.S. Cities:If You Build Them, Commuters Will Use Them Another Look. Portland StateUniversity, 2003.

Krizek, Kevin J. and Pamela Jo Johnson. Proximity to Trails and Retail: Effects on UrbanCycling and Walking. University of Minnesota, 2006.

L. C. de Cerreo, Allison and My Linh H. Nguyen-Novotny. Pedestrian and BicyclistStandards and Innovations in Large Central Cities. Rudin Center New York University,January 2006.

Lynch, Kevin. The Image of The City. Cambridge: MIT Press, 1960.

Moritz, William E. Survey of North American Bicycle Commuters Design and AggregateResults. Transportation Research Record, pp. 91-101

Murray, Wallace and Jason Nu. "NYC Bicycle Parking Survey." Hunter College at the CityUniversity of New York, 2008

New York Bicycling Coalition. Improving Bicycling and Pedestrian Safety. 2002.

Peterson, Jen. Pedaling Power. New York University.

Shafizadeh, Kevin and Debbie Bieneimeier. Bicycle Journey-to-Work Travel Behavior


23/23

Characteristics and Spatial Attributes. Transportation Research Record, pp 84-90.

Shankwiler, Kevin Douglas. Developing a Framework for Behavior Assessment of BicycleCommuters: A Cyclist-Centric Approach. Georgia Institute of Technology, August 2006

Stinson, Monique A. and Chandra R. Bhat. An Analysis of Commuter Bicyclist Route ChoiceUsing a Stated Preference Survey. University of Texas, July 2002.

Wachs, Martin. The Gender Gap. University of California, February 1997.

hub and spokes

Documents