state of cycling 2011

SAN FRANCISCO STATE OF CYCLING 2 011


1

City of San Francisco Mayor Edwin M. Lee

San Francisco Board of Supervisors

San Francisco Municipal Transportation Agency (SFMTA) Nathaniel P. Ford Sr., Executive Director/CEO

Board of Directors Tom Nolan Jerry Lee Leona Bridges Cheryl Brinkman Malcolm Heinicke Bruce Oka

Bicycle Advisory Committee Bert Hill, Chair Casey Allen Marc Brandt Rachel Ebora Ariella Hyman Edward Nicolson Richard Tilles

Survey Consultant Corey, Canapary & Galanis

This report is made possible by the San Francisco County Transportation Authority through a grant of Proposition K Local Transportation Sales Tax Funds.

2011 SAN FRANCISCO

STATE OF CYCLING

2


The 2011 State of Cycling Report benchmarks bicycle volumes, bicycle safety and bicyclists’ and non-bicyclists’ opinions about riding compared to the 2008 State of Cycling Report results. Generally, bicycle volumes, bicycle safety data and public opinion demonstrate an overall improvement for bicycling in San Francisco. The SFMTA attributes this partly to continued public outreach, bicycle education and enforcement, and expansion of the bicycle network including bicycle parking and on-street bikeways. Other factors contributing to these changes could be econom-ic, such as employment rate and changes in gas, parking and toll prices. Below is a brief summary of findings in the 2011 State of Cycling Report.

Bicycle Volumes

• The American Community Survey has reported a 55 percent increase in San Francisco bicycle commuters since 2002

• Annual bicycle counts have increased 58 percent since 2006

Bicycle Safety

• Bicycle volumes and bicycle collisions are increasing at a similar rate

• Illegal bicycle riding behaviors (sidewalk bicycle riding and wrong-way bicycle riding) are decreasing

Public Opinions about Bicycling

• The top reasons why San Francisco residents bicycle is for recreation and exercise

• Many non-cyclists do not bicycle because they are not comfortable riding with cars

• People believe that bikeways are well-marked and are easy to access from home

• Residents feel most comfortable bicycling on bikeways physically separated from cars and in standard bicycle lanes

Like the 2008 State of Cycling report, the 2011 report provides valuable guidance to the City of San Francisco on bicycling improvements for both programs and infrastructure. The SFMTA is improving the bicycle network, focusing on bicycle safety and continuing outreach to residents. However, there are areas of improve-ment that the City can continue to address to better accommodate existing bicy-clists and to increase bicycle trips, especially by infrequent users and non-cyclists. The SFMTA is striving to meet this goal through bicycle education and outreach programs and further implementation of bicycle infrastructure projects.

SUMMARY

3


TABLE OF CONTENTS

Summary 2

1. Introduction 4

2. Bicycle Volumes 10

3. Bicycling Safety Trends 18

4. Bicycle Survey 22

5. Improvements for the Future – Recommendations 34

©Melissa Wushnig

4


Over the past several years, the number of people bicycling in San Francisco has increased. The American Community Survey has reported an overall increase in bicycle commuters in San Francisco since 2000. Annual bicycle counts have shown increases since 2006 and one-hour morning Bike to Work Day counts have increased 178 percent since 1998. During 2010’s Bike to Work Day, over 600 bicycles were counted compared to 330 automobiles on Market Street be-tween 8 and 9 a.m.. Bicycle use has increased on roadways where the City has installed bicycle lanes including Valencia Street, Polk Street and Fell Street.1

The San Francisco Municipal Transportation Agency (SFMTA) recognizes and supports the increased popularity of bicycling and the associated environmental, health and transportation benefits. At the same time, the Agency is committed to increasing safety and decreasing road user conflicts as more people begin to bicycle more frequently. This 2011 State of Cycling Report provides a snapshot of bicycling in San Francisco since the first State of Cycling Report in 2008. Some of the results are comparable across the two reports, providing an analysis of progress the SFMTA has made since 2008. The 2011 State of Cycling Report also addresses ways that the SFMTA can increase safe bicycling in the future.

1.1. STATE OF CYCLING PURPOSE

This second State of Cycling Report gives a benchmark for bicycling in San Francisco. The report provides an analysis of bicycling from information gathered via bicycle counts conducted between 2008 and 2010, historical bicycle collision data and surveys conducted in 2008 and 2011. This report responds to the fol-lowing questions and compares changes in data.

• How have bicycle volumes changed between 2008 and 2011?

• What trends in bicycling safety can be identified?

• How much do people bicycle?

• Who is bicycling and who is not?

• What motivates people to bicycle?

• What are the differences between people who bicycle and people who do not?

• What barriers prevent people from bicycling?

• How satisfied are bicyclists with bicycling infrastructure?

• How safe and comfortable do people feel when bicycling?

• How well do bicyclists and motorists share the road?

• How effective are the SFMTA’s bicycling outreach programs?

1.2. HISTORY OF THE STATE OF CYCLING REPORT

On Bike to Work Day in 2009, the SFMTA released the first State of Cycling Report. This report was San Francisco’s first bicycle benchmarking report. It included results from SFMTA’s annual bicycle counts and a citywide surveying effort. The 2008 State of Cycling Report provided recommendations and plans for future San Francisco bicycling reports.

The 2011 State of Cycling Report establishes a benchmark while providing an op-portunity for comparison with results compiled from the 2008 report. It includes updated count information, bicycle collision trends and results from a new opin-ion survey. The State of Cycling Report assembles information from the SFMTA’s

1. INTRODUCTION

1 See evaluation reports for these three streets on the San Francisco Municipal Transportation Agency’s website: http://www.sfmta.com/cms/rbikes/3172.html

5

SAN FRANCISCO STATE OF CYCLING 2 011 Introduiction

annual bicycle count and collision reports. In some instances, the 2011 report combines these data sources to analyze bicycling trends in San Francisco. The 2011 Report also includes the results of an opinion survey. The opinion survey was conducted in 2011 and includes the opinions of bicyclists and non-bicyclists regarding bicycling in San Francisco. The results in the 2011 State of Cycling Report are compared against results from the 2008 survey wherever possible, demonstrating how opinions have changed or stayed consistent.

1.3. NATIONAL LEADER FOR BICYCLING

San Francisco supports bicycling through infrastructure and safety, educa-tion, encouragement, and enforcement programs. San Francisco is one of ten Gold Level Bicycle Friendly Communities in the U.S., as designated by the League of American Bicyclists. The League of American Bicyclists de-fines a Bicycle Friendly Community as a place that welcomes bicyclists by providing safe accommodation for bicycling and encouraging people to use a bicycle for transportation and recreation.

Additionally, the Alliance for Biking & Walking gave high marks to San Francisco in the Bicycling and Walking in the United States 2010 Benchmarking Report.2 San Fran-cisco ranks in the top third among 51 cities in bicycle and pedestrian safety, funding, staffing, policies and advocacy capacity. For the percent categories of bicycling to work and bicycling safety, San Francisco ranks third among the 51 cities. Finally, in comparison to the 51 other cities,3 San Francisco ranked second in combined miles of bicycle lanes, multi-use paths and signed bicycle routes per square mile.

Transit First Policy

The City and County of San Francisco recognizes bicycling as a clean and sus-tainable alternative to the automobile and establishes this in the City Charter Transit First policy (Section 8A.115). The Transit First policy includes a series of principles that relate to bicycling and promote it as a primary mode of transpor-tation. The principles relevant to bicycling are:

• Public transit, including taxis and vanpools, is an economically and environ-mentally sound alternative to transportation by individual automobiles. Within San Francisco, travel by public transit, by bicycle and on foot must be an at-tractive alternative to travel by private automobile.

• Decisions regarding the use of limited public street and sidewalk space shall encourage the use of public rights of way by pedestrians, bicyclists and public transit, and shall strive to reduce traffic and improve public health and safety.

• Bicycling shall be promoted by encouraging safe streets for riding, convenient access to transit, bicycle lanes and secure bicycle parking.

Additionally, the City Charter states that the Department of Parking and Traffic (SFMTA) manages the department so that it:

• Facilitates the design and operation of City streets to enhance alternative forms of transit, such as pedestrian, bicycle and pooled or group transit (in-cluding taxis);

• Proposes and implements street and traffic changes that give the highest priority to impacts on public transit, pedestrians, commercial delivery vehicles and bicycles; and

• Develops a safe, interconnected bicycle circulation network.

2 Available online, http://www.peoplepoweredmovement.org/site/. Viewed on 12/21/2010.3 Ranking based on 2007 American Community Survey and 2005-2007 Fatality Analysis Reporting System data.

6


1.4. BICYCLE MODE SHARE GOAL

In October 2010, the San Francisco Board of Supervisors unanimously adopted a resolution with the goal of achieving a 20 percent bicycle mode share by 2020.

Lifting Of Bicycle Injunction

In November 2006, San Francisco County Superior Court issued a peremptory writ of mandate preventing the City and County of San Francisco from imple-menting portions of the San Francisco Bicycle Plan until environmental review had been completed on the entire plan. Approximately three years later, in June

2009, the final environmental impact report for the 2009 San Francisco Bicycle Plan was approved and the San Fran-cisco Planning Commission and the SFMTA Board adopted the plan. In June 2010, the California Superior Court lifted the injunction and the SFMTA completed the first post-injunction project in August 2010.

Progress Since 2008 State of Cycling – Bicycle Parking and Bikeways

Since the release of the 2008 State of Cycling Report, the SFMTA has implemented numerous bicycle projects from the Bike Plan including bikeways and bicycle parking citywide. Table 1 presents the increase in facilities since

the 2008 State of Cycling Report. In total, the SFMTA has installed approxi-mately 700 additional bicycle parking racks on sidewalks and in bicycle corrals (with more on the way). The citywide bicycle network has also expanded to in-clude over 50 additional miles of bikeways since the release of the 2008 State of Cycling Report, and it continues to grow.

FACILITY TYPE FACILITIES BEFORE 2008 SINCE 2008TOTAL

(% Increase since 2008)

Bicycle Parking

Racks* 1,400 6552,055(47%)

Corrals** 0 1111

(n/a)

Bikeways (miles)

Bicycle Lanes

45 11.3556.35(25%)

Sharrows 23 39.7062.70

(173%)

*Number of bicycle parking racks. Each rack equates to two bicycle parking spaces. **There are 3-8 parking racks in each corral

1.5. IMPLEMENTING INNOVATIVE BIKEWAYS INTO THE FUTURE

In addition to the bicycle parking, bicycle lane and sharrow projects, the SFMTA has implemented numerous innovative pilot bicycle treatments since the 2008 State of Cycling Report. These innovative bikeway treatments are the SFMTA’s effort to pilot installations of bikeway facilities and technologies. There are a number of these types of bikeways in the current bikeway network such as green bicycle boxes, green bicycle lanes and a bicycle “green wave,” with more to come in the near future.4

4 The Green Wave signals are timed so bicyclists and motorists travelling 13 miles per hour encounter green lights while traveling on the street.

Table 1 Increase in Facilities since the 2008

State of Cycling

7

SAN FRANCISCO STATE OF CYCLING 2 011 Introduiction

The SFMTA installed green bicycle boxes at Oak and Scott streets and at five locations on Market Street. A bicycle box is a bicycle facility that reduces turning conflicts between bicyclists and motor vehicles at signalized intersections by providing a space for people using bicycles to queue in front of vehicles during the red signal phase.

There are green bicycle lanes on Market Street and Fell Street and the SFMTA is currently seeking additional oppor-tunities for installation at other locations. The green bicycle lanes on Market Street delineate where it is appropriate for bicyclists to ride. In addition to the green paint, flexible delinea-tors divide the roadway, separating the vehicle and bicycle lanes. The SFMTA has also installed a dashed green bicycle lane at the intersection of Fell and Divisadero Streets. This is a conflict point between motorists and bicyclists, and the green bicycle lanes alert all roadway users to use caution while proceeding.

The SFMTA implemented a bicycle “Green Wave” on Valencia Street, al-lowing bicyclists to travel through green signals at 10 timed traffic lights. Along the green wave, signals are timed so bicyclists and motorists traveling at 13 miles per hour encounter green lights as they progress north or south on Valencia Street between 16th and 25th streets.

In addition to the pilot projects now occurring in San Francisco, the SFMTA is planning future innovative projects. These include separated cycle tracks, contra-flow bicycle lanes and implementation of a 50-station bicycle sharing pilot program.

9

Bicycle Volumes

BICYCLE VOLUMES

©Melissa Wushnig

10


2. BICYCLE VOLUMES

2.1. AMERICAN COMMUNITY SURVEY MODE SHARE RESULTS

The American Community Survey (ACS) is an ongoing statistical survey by the U.S. Census Bureau. It regularly gathers information previously contained only in the long form of the decennial census. One of the questions in the ACS asks participants about their transportation mode to work. The State of Cy-cling Report compares this bicycle trips to work (mode share) data provided by the ACS since 2002 with current statistics. Since the ACS is a well-established survey that uses consistent methodology from year to year and there is not a widely accepted bicycle mode share predictor tool that encompasses all bicycle trip types, this is the data used for San Francisco’s annual bicycle mode share comparison.5 Using bicycle mode share for trips to work as an indicator for citywide bicycling is common practice among U.S. and international cities. Cities such as Copenhagen, New York, and Portland compare annual bicycle mode share data using bicycle commute trips to work.6 7 8 9

Results - Bicycling in San Francisco continues to increase.

Based on the results of the ACS, the overall travel to work mode split for bicycling in San Francisco has increased since 2002 from 2.1 percent to 2.9 percent in 2009, or a 55 percent increase, while the state of California and the U.S. percentages of bicycle trips to work have stayed relatively constant. Figure 1 presents the percent change in all modes to work in San Francisco between 2002 and 2009. As it shows, bicycling has the most consistent and largest increase over the eight-year period.10

5 The SFMTA will continue to gather data on mode split for all trips.. 6 The Copenhagen Bicycle Account Report, a similar report, uses bicycle mode share to work for annual com-parisons. 7 The New York Department of Transportation (New York, NY) Com-muter Cycling Indicator uses tri-annual bicycle counts during peak hours for annual comparisons.8 Portland Bureau of Transportation (Portland, OR) performs annual bicycle counts and collects transportation to work information from an annual auditor’s survey.9 Chicago Department of Transporta-tion conducted automated bicycle and vehicle counts at 26 locations in 2009, comparing location specific mode share (vehicle vs. bike)10 The “Other” category includes taxicab, motorcycle and worked at home responses.

FIGURE 2.1: American Community

Survey Travel Mode to Work Percent Change

since 2002

11

SAN FRANCISCO STATE OF CYCLING 2 011 Bicycle Volumes

2.2. MANUAL BICYCLE COUNTS

How Counts Were Conducted

Since 2006, the SFMTA has conducted one-day manual bicycle counts at up to 33 count locations to track changes in bicycle use. All of these counts have been conducted in August due to the dry weather and longer days that generally encourage bicycling. In 2010, 35 counts were conducted at 33 locations, with 31 counts occurring during the evening peak period, from 5 to 6:30 p.m. Three counts took place in the morning peak period, from 8 to 9 a.m., and one during the midday period, from 1 to 2 p.m. Bicyclists at 5th and Market streets were counted during all three periods. These counts are the best historical bicycle count information available to the SFMTA. Figure 2 presents the count locations.

Results - Bicycling in San Francisco continues to increase.

Between 2008 and 2010, 17 locations showed an overall increase in bicycle volumes, and of these, six locations had statistically significant increases in counts during the peak hour. Figure 3 presents the percent changes in bicycle volumes between 2008 and 2010.

Citywide Manual Bicycle Count Locations Downtown Non-Downtown Automated Bicycle Loop Count Locations

Figure 2: Citywide Manual Bicycle Count and Automated Bicycle Count Locations

12


Figure 3: Percent Change in manual bicycle volumes,

2008-2010

Four of the count locations account for 38 percent of the total volumes count-ed during the evening commute between 2008 and 2010. As Figure 4 illus-trates, the highest bicyclist volumes were recorded at the following four locations:

• 11th & Market streets (2,352 bicyclists)

• 5th & Market streets (2,156 bicyclists)

• 17th & Valencia streets (2,067 bicyclists)

• Page & Scott streets (1,880 bicyclists

Between 2008 and 2010, the percentage of male bicyclists remained constant, fluctuating between 71 percent and 73 percent. With an increase in bicycle fa-cilities and bikeway facility types, the SFMTA strives to increase female bicycle ridership in the future. Research has found that women are more likely to travel out of their way to use “bike boulevards,” quiet residential streets with special traffic-calming features for bicycles and off-street bicycle paths.12

Figure 4: Highest total cyclist volume intersections

during 90-minute evening count period, 2008-201011

11 These locations may include some double counting. For example, a large percentage of the bicyclists travelling on Market Street during these counts were counted both at 5th Street and at 11th Street.12 Baker, Linda. Scientific American, How to Get More Bicycles on the Road, 10/19/2009.

13

SAN FRANCISCO STATE OF CYCLING 2 011 Bicycle Volumes

In downtown San Francisco, there was an 8 percent increase in bicycle volumes from 2008 to 2010. At non-downtown San Francisco locations, bicycle volumes between 2008 and 2010 increased 13 percent. The average count in 2010 at downtown locations was 303 bicyclists, and at non-downtown locations 242 bicyclists. This demonstrates an increase in bicyclists citywide and that the urban core of San Francisco has more bicyclists than other areas of the city. The bicycle count locations split into downtown locations (12), non-downtown locations (21) are in Figure 2, and the results from 2008 to 2010 are in Figure 6. Of the 12 downtown locations, four locations decreased in volumes between 2008 and 2010 and of the 21 non-downtown locations, 11 locations decreased in volumes between 2008 and 2010.

Figure 5: Gender Percentages, Manual Counts 2008-2010

Figure 6: Average Bicycle Counts at Downtown and Non-Downtown Locations during 90-minute evening commute period, 2008-2010


14


2.3. AUTOMATED BICYCLE COUNTERS

The SFMTA installed automated bicycle counters at 11 intersections throughout the city. Automated bicycle counters provide continuous streams of ridership data in a fast and cost-effective manner. In 2011, the SFMTA completed installation of 22 counters at the 11 locations through-out San Francisco as shown in Figure 2. These counting locations are in existing bicycle lanes. The SFMTA is using automated bicycle counters to track bicycle ridership at these specific locations and relate those find-ings to trends in bicycle ridership citywide.

Results - Bicycling in San Francisco Continues to Increase

San Francisco’s first automated counter, on Fell Street between Scott Street and Divisadero Street, began collecting data in March 2009. Original-ly a pilot project, the counts collected at this location have been validated by manual counts and proven to be accurate, leading the SFMTA to expand the program. As opposed to the annual manual bicycle counts that collect data for one day out of the year during an assumed peak period, these counters continually count data in 15-minute intervals, providing the ability to analyze hourly, daily, seasonal and annual trends.

Figure 7 presents the daily count from Fell Street between Scott Street and Divisadero Street on June 26, 2010. The peak hour of bicycle travel was between 3 and 4 p.m. indicating that the manual counts taken between 5 and 6 p.m. did not capture the peak volume of bicycle travel at this location.

The automated count numbers on Fell Street reflect an average 22 percent increase in bicycling between 2009 and 2010 as well as a peak season for bicycling between August and October. Figure 8 presents the variation in bicycling by month and the increases in bicycling between 2009 and 2010 as collected by the Fell Street automated bicycle counter.

The Automated Bicycle Counter is located in a box below the sidewalk and connects to an

inductive loop in the bike lane

Figure 7: Daily Bicycle Count from Automated

Bicycle Counter13

13The Fell Street counter is on a one-way street with one bike lane in the outbound direction.

SAN FRANCISCO STATE OF CYCLING 2 011SAN FRANCISCO STATE OF CYCLING 2 011

15

Bicycle Volumes

Figure 8: Fell Street Bicycle Counts and Percent Increase by Month, March 2009- January 201014

Between November 2009 and April 2010, bicycle counts dipped below 40,000 bicycles per month. As Figure 8 demonstrates, there is a seasonal fluctuation for bicycling on Fell Street. In San Francisco, these months are wetter, colder and have less daylight hours due to seasonal variation and daylight savings time.

Temperature and rain may affect bicyclists’ decision to ride or not on a given day. Based on the seasonal fluctuation in the counts, Figure 9 and Figure 10 present the seasonal changes that may influence the number of people bicycling: tem-perature, daylight hours and rainfall.

©Melissa Wushnig

14Data Source: www.wunderground.com/history, www.timeanddate.com.


16


Figure 9: A Comparison of Fell Street Bicycle

Counts to Average Monthly Temperature and Daylight

Hours, 2009-201015

Figure 10: A Comparison of Fell Street Bicycle Counts to

Average Monthly Rainfall, 2009-201016

15Automated bicycle counters began collecting data in March 2009 so data is not available for January and February 2009.16Data Source: National Weather Service Monthly Precipitation Summary, www.cnrfc.noaa.gov/rainfall_data.php


17

Bicycle Volumes

BICYCLING SAFETY TRENDS

©Melissa Wushnig


18


3.1. HISTORICAL BICYCLE COLLISIONS

An analysis of bicycle collisions provides a strong indication of roadway be-haviors that negatively affect bicyclists’ safety.17 The City and County of San Francisco uses this information to plan bicycle facility improvements as well as to help identify violations that should be prioritized for increased education and enforcement. The SFMTA also works closely with the San Francisco Police Department to recommend traffic enforcement targeted at specific locations and for behaviors that are the leading causes of injury.

Results – Bicycle Collisions in 2009 decrease.

Reported bicycle collisions increased between 2002 and 2009 and bicycle counts also increased since they began in 2006 through 2010. Figure 11 presents the annually reported bicycle injury collisions and bicycle count volumes as presented in the previous section. As the figure shows, reported bicycle collisions and bicycle riding have increased concurrently in San Francisco.

The percent of bicycle collisions and bicycle volumes changed at a similar rate between 2002 and 2009. Figure 12 presents the percent change in bicycle in-jury collisions and bicycle commute mode share from the ACS between 2002 and 2009. As the figure demonstrates, these two percentages grew similarly between 2006 and 2009, or as the bicycle injury collisions increased, so did bicycle mode share.

3. BICYCLING SAFETY TRENDS

Figure 11: Bicycle Injury Collisions, 1998-2009 and Annual Bicycle Volumes,

2006-2010

17Collision data available to the SFMTA is from the Statewide Integrated Traffic Records System (SWITRS), maintained by the Califor-nia Highway Patrol (CHP). Collision information in this report excludes those occurring on San Francisco freeways or private property, but includes collisions on city streets that are classified as state highways (such as 19th Avenue and Van Ness Avenue).


19

Bicycle Safety Trends

Since 2000, the bicycle injury collision rate for San Francisco has remained relatively stable and has decreased since 2005. Despite an increase in bicycle collision totals, Figure 13 reflects an increase in ridership as well, thus decreasing the overall collision rate.

The increases in bicycle ridership between 2007 and 2009 occurred with no infrastructure improvements (due to the injunction), therefore continued bike-way project implementation with concurrent public outreach could continue the increase in bicycling, improve safety and decrease the number bicycle related collisions. Implementation of additional bicycle facilities, public outreach, fo-cused safety improvements at high-crash locations and an increased presence

Figure 12: Percent Change in Bicycle Injury Collisions and Bicycle Mode Share Since 2002

Figure 13: Bicycle Injury Collision Rate, 2006-2010


20


of bicyclists on the roads will likely continue the trend of reduced bicycle colli-sion rates. It is common for an increase in the number of bicyclists on the road to result in a decrease of bicycle collision rates; this relationship is known as the “safety in numbers” effect.18

Of the total bicycle injury collisions between 1998 and 2009 where fault was assigned, 44 percent of the time fault was assigned to a motorist, and 50 percent of the time fault was assigned to the bicyclist.19 In collisions where motorists were assigned fault, the top three reasons were for turning without signaling, opening a car door when it was unsafe to do so, and failing to yield to oncoming traffic when making a left turn. In collisions where bicyclists were as-signed fault, the top three reasons were for traveling at an unsafe speed, failure to stop at a red light, and riding on the wrong side of the roadway.

3.2. MANUAL BICYCLE COUNTS – UNSAFE BEHAVIORS

More detailed safety information is available from the SFMTA’s manual bicycle counts. During these counts, the SFMTA records the number of bicyclists riding on sidewalks and in the wrong direction where there are existing on-street bi-cycle facilities. These behaviors are counted because they may lead to collisions between bicyclists and motorists or pedestrians. Additionally, it helps identify where on-street improvements may be needed or additional education efforts could affect bicycling behaviors.

Results – Illegal Bicycle Behavior Decreases

Between 2008 and 2010, the manual bicycle counts found a statistically sig-nificant decrease in sidewalk bicycle riding at nine locations, an insignificant decrease at seven locations and an insignificant increase at three locations. This indicates an overall improvement of safe bicycling behavior. This change could be related to education and outreach or an overall increase of on-street bikeway facilities on these or parallel streets.

Results from the manual bicycle counts found a statistically significant de-crease in bicyclists riding on the wrong side of the street at three locations and an increase at two locations (out of 15 locations) between 2008 and 2010. Educating bicyclists as to the proper side of the road on which to ride is a potential area of improvement.

18Jacobsen, PL. Safety in numbers: more walkers and bicyclists, safer walking and bicycling, Injury Preven-tion 2003;9:205–20919The remaining 6 percent of fault was assigned to parked vehicles and pedestrians.


21

Bicycle Safety Trends

BICYCLE SURVEY

©Melissa Wushnig


22


4. BICYCLE SURVEY In 2010-2011, the SFMTA undertook a survey of San Francisco residents with the primary goals of:

• Providing a picture of bicycling in San Francisco, including what percentage of residents bicycle, how often they bicycle and who they are;

• Gaining more in-depth information on bicyclists’ assessment of San Francisco’s biking infrastructure and resources; and

• Assessing what motivates San Francisco residents who use a bicycle, as well as what inhibits San Francisco residents from bicycling more often.

This survey was similar to the 2008 State of Cycling survey. This section of the report provides a summary of the 2011 survey results. The study was carried out in two parts – a telephone study and an intercept study that totaled 1,063 interviews combined.

4.1. PHONE SURVEY

The telephone study was conducted among 424 San Francisco residents, ran-domized from a geographically representative sample, including landlines and cell phones. This portion of the study was primarily intended to:

• Provide overarching data, such as bicycling frequency among residents

• Understand the proportion of non-cyclists, infrequent riders and frequent riders

• Gauge general public attitudes towards bicycling

Results were balanced geographically based on a respondent’s home ZIP Code. The telephone survey was conducted in December 2010 and January 2011, in English, Spanish and Chinese.

4.2. INTERCEPT SURVEY

The intercept study was conducted among 639 bicyclists in San Francisco. By focusing solely on bicyclists, this aspect of the study allowed for analysis of opinions within the San Francisco bicycling community. Both frequent and occasional bicyclists were included in the intercept study. Eighteen locations were chosen that represented likely areas for different types of bicyclists. These included six high-volume bicycle locations; six locations described as ”destination” locations (e.g.,City College of San Francisco); and six as ”neigh-borhood” locations (primarily local shopping and dining areas). Surveying was conducted during January and February 2011 in English, Spanish and Chinese.

4.3. WHO ARE THESE BICYCLISTS?

Based on survey data and in an effort to remain consistent with the 2008 State of Cycling Report, respondents were divided into one of two groups:

• Infrequent bicyclists: bicyclists reporting that they bicycle, on average, one or fewer times a week;

• Frequent bicyclists: bicyclists reporting that they bicycle, on average, two or more times a week.

Based on the phone and intercept surveys, there are two “typical bicyclists” depending on their residence location.

The typical bicyclist who lives on the western side (Zones 2 and 3 in Figure 14) of San Francisco is most likely to be an infrequent bicyclist who rides primarily for leisure/social purposes.


23

Bicycle Survey

• He/She is more likely than other San Francisco bicyclists to earn more than $70,000 per year

• He/She is more likely to be older than other bicyclists

• If he/she does not own a bicycle, he/she is more likely to use a privately owned car

The typical bicyclist who lives on the eastern side (Zones 1, 4, and 5 in Figure 14) of San Francisco is more likely to be a frequent bicyclist who rides regularly to work or school.

• He/She is more likely to earn less than $70,000 per year

• He/She is also more likely to be younger than infrequent bicyclists

• He/She probably does not have a car and if this person does not have a bicycle either, he/she is likely to take transit or use a carshare service

Compared to 2008, there were slightly more reported frequent female bicy-clists and slightly fewer reported infrequent female bicyclists in 2011. Figure 15 presents these results where there was only a modest difference in gender of bicyclists. The percentages of frequent female and male (28 percent versus 66 percent respectively) are consistent with the manual bicycle count numbers previously reported in Figure 5 (28 percent versus 72 percent respectively). The manual counts occur during the peak bicycling periods when frequent bicyclists tend to ride most often.

ZONE 1ZONE 2

ZONE 4

ZONE 3 ZONE 5

Figure 14: San Francisco Survey Zones


24


Figure 15: Gender of Frequent and Infrequent

bicyclists

201120

20 66 percent of infrequent cyclists in 2011 never use a bicycle. This infor-mation is not available from 2008.

Results – Survey Responses

Frequency

San Francisco has a relatively high share of residents who bicycle at least occasionally – 34 percent take at least one trip per year on their bicycle, and 17 percent take at least one trip per week by bicycle. However, accord-ing to the telephone survey, two-thirds of San Franciscans (66 percent) never use a bicycle.

In addition, approximately 5 percent of all residents say that bicycling is their primary way of getting around.

Approximately 40 percent of San Francisco residents say they own or have access to a bicycle, including 14 percent of non-cyclists. This presents a large potential for new bicyclists, or with some encouragement, these 40 percent of bicycle owners may use their bicycle more often. Based on the number of respondents who have access to bicycles, the City could increase bicycle trips with continued education, outreach and infrastructure investments.


25

Bicycle Survey

Trip Purpose by Type of Bicyclist

In 2011, more bicyclists were identified as taking exercise or recreational bicycling trips than in 2008. A greater percent of recreational bicycle trips than other bicycle trip types is common across bicycle surveys. As Figure 16 pres-ents, the percent of commute trips (work/business) are similar between the 2008 and 2011 State of Cycling results.

Infrequent bicyclists are more likely to ride for exercise or recreation trips, whereas frequent bicyclists ride more often for work/business trips. As described in the “Who are these bicyclists” section, there are two types of bicyclists that ride for these different purposes.

Trip Length by Type of Bicyclist

Frequent bicyclists take shorter trips than infrequent bicyclists. Frequent bicyclists’ trips average 37 minutes and infrequent bicyclists’ trips average 51 minutes. The 2011 survey asked participants the length of their most recent bicycle trip and as Figure 17 presents, infrequent and frequent bicyclists take different lengths of trips. This is likely related to the trip purpose–since frequent bicyclists are riding more often for commuting and errand running, their trips are shorter, whereas infrequent bicyclists are riding more for recreational purposes. Recreational trips are more commonly longer treks for exercise or leisure.

Figure 16: Trip Purpose, 2008 and 2011


26


Origin and Destination

Based on information collected from the bicyclist intercept survey, a large number of bicycle trips start and end in downtown San Francisco, the Mission District, Haight Ashbury and areas south of Market Street. These areas also have a high number of bicyclists, as well as a high percentage of frequent bicyclists, concentrating bicycle traffic in the center of the City.

The following maps present the starting and ending points (by ZIP Code) of the surveyed trip for all bicyclists including those from the intercept and phone surveys. Darker colors on the map show the location of higher starting/ending points, while lighter colors show fewer starting/ending points. Note that every major residential ZIP Code in San Francisco (save for Treasure Island) had at least one starting/ending point.23

Figure 17: Trip Lengths by Type of bicyclist22

22 Data Unavailable from 200823 Approximately 5 percent of bicycle trips begin outside of San Francisco, while about 6 percent of bicycle trips end outside of San Francisco.24 Data Unavailable from 2008

Figure 18: Respondents’ Starting Point and Ending

Points of Most Recent Trip (by ZIP Code)24


27

Bicycle Survey

Motivation to Ride

In 2008 and 2011, respondents stated that they ride to exercise, to improve the environment and to enjoy the outdoors. However, in the latter survey, there was a large increase in the number of respondents stating exercise and enjoying the outdoors were motivators, and a large decrease in the percent of bicyclists riding because it is faster than alternative modes. Responses from the surveys are in Figure 19.

In 2011, based on an open-ended question, the survey found that the more a respondent is already bicycling, the more likely they are to say that infrastructure-related improvements will encourage them to bicycle more frequently. Respondents not currently bicycling are more likely to point to education/policy and legal/enforcement issues as motivating them to bi-cycle. The frequencies of education/policy and legal/enforcement suggestions indicate a number of non-cyclists could be encouraged to bicycle with the help of greater enforcement of unsafe driving and greater access to bicycle education and outreach resources.

Figure 19: Motivation to Bicycle 25

25 In the 2011 survey, this question required a yes/no response for all motivators. The 2008 survey asked respondents to “check all that ap-ply.” This could have influenced the greater number of responses in 2011.


28


Bicycling Barriers

Almost half of non-cyclists said they do not bicycle because they are not comfortable biking with cars. As Figure 20 presents, infrequent bicyclists cited the other barriers: destinations are too far away; they are traveling with children or heavy items; and they find it too difficult to cross major streets where there are not enough bicycle lanes. Frequent bicyclists rated traveling with children or heavy items, lack of secure bicycle parking and not enough bicycle lanes as their top barriers. Based on an open-ended question, 20 percent of non-cyclists indicated the barriers they have to bicycling may be overcome with social, educational and resource-based efforts (e.g., finding people to bicycle with, finding affordable/discounted bicycles, learning the rules of the road, etc.).

Figure 20: Barriers to Infrequent and Frequent

bicyclists, 2008 and 201126

26 2008 and 2011 figures are separated into two charts because the question was asked differently between surveys.


29

Bicycle Survey

Satisfaction with Bicycling Infrastructure

Survey respondents agreed that bikeways are well marked and are easy to access from home and scored their satisfaction of bicycling infrastruc-ture higher in 2011 than in 2008. As described in this report, the SFMTA has been expanding and improving the citywide bicycle network since the lifting of the Bicycle Plan injunction. As Figure 21 presents, comparing responses from the 2008 to the 2011 State of Cycling survey shows that bicyclists are noticing these improvements.

Areas of improvements bicyclists would like, as realized in 2008 and continu-ing in 2011, are making room for bicycles on most streets, improving pavement conditions and helping respondents feel safer from traffic.

Bikeway Preferences

Regardless of bicycling frequency, 94 percent of survey respondents stated that they feel comfortable riding on bikeways that are physically separated from cars and 89 percent stated they feel comfortable riding in standard bicycle lanes. Generally, bicyclists prefer a designated space that does not con-flict with motorized vehicle traffic. Figure 22 presents these results.

Results from this survey question reflect results from other industry research and follow recent SFMTA efforts to install bikeways separated from traffic, including buffered bicycle lanes and striped bicycle lanes where feasible.

Figure 21: Bicyclists’ Average Assessment of Conditions


30


Awareness of SFMTA Projects and Programs

Between 2008 and 2011, there was an increase in the awareness of SFMTA projects and programs. As Figure 23 presents, survey responses were similar across the two surveys but with more awareness of the outreach campaigns in the subsequent survey. The 2011 survey found a greater awareness by frequent bicyclists of all materials and outreach other than public campaigns, such as the “walk your bike on the sidewalk” poster campaign. More important, in 2011, infrequent bicyclists were more aware of the SFMTA’s outreach, maps and web-site efforts than in the 2008 survey.

The SFMTA performs considerable outreach in an effort to encourage more people to bicycle and to raise awareness of safe bicycling techniques. These efforts occur through various means including public campaigns, distribution of the bicycle network bicycle map, the SFMTA website, the Livable Streets Facebook page and other encouragement and safety training efforts such as bicycle safety classes.

Figure 22: Bicyclists’ Comfort Riding on Different

Bikeway Types27

27 Question not asked in the 2008 State of Cycling


31

Bicycle Survey

Figure 23: Respondents’ Awareness of SFMTA Bicycling Materials and Outreach

33

Bicycle Survey

IMPROVEMENTS FOR THE FUTURE – RECOMMENDATIONS


34


5. IMPROVEMENTS FOR THE FUTURE –

RECOMMENDATIONS

Like the 2008 State of Cycling Report, the 2011 State of Cycling Report provides valuable guidance to the City of San Francisco on bicycling improvements for both programs and infrastructure. The SFMTA is increasing the size of the bi-cycle network, working to improve safety and continuing outreach to residents. As a result, more bicyclists are on San Francisco streets. However, there are areas of improvement that the City can address to better accommodate existing bicyclists and continuing work to increase bicycle trips, especially by infrequent users and non-cyclists.

5.1. BICYCLE PROGRAMS

To increase bicycle ridership and meet the Board of Supervisors’ bicycle mode share goal, the SFMTA needs to continue its effort to educate and encourage bicyclists on safe riding practices, encourage motorists to share San Francisco streets and enforce potentially harmful behavior on the roadways. Specific program enhancements are described below.

Continuing Bicycle Education

The large percentages of non-cyclists reporting that they are not com-fortable bicycling with cars (50 percent) and those that report that it is difficult crossing major streets (31 percent), in combination with the response from 20 percent of non-cyclists indicating that these barriers may be overcome with social, educational and resource-based efforts, suggest a need for continued bicycle education programs. The SFMTA funds bicycle safety classes for youth and adults. However, based on the low awareness of these classes as found in the survey (11 percent of bicyclists), the SFMTA should seek additional methods of advertis-ing these classes and hold them in locations so new populations of non-cyclists and infrequent bicyclists are present. For example bicycle education classes could be part of language classes at community and neighborhood centers.

SFMTA Website

Of the survey respondents, 23 percent are aware of the City’s website for bicycling resources. As previously stated, SFMTA Livable Streets started a Facebook page in 2010 that may draw more attention to the bicycle program and Livable Streets website and materials. The SFMTA should continue updat-ing the website and provide links via the agency Facebook page.

Annual Bicycle Light Giveaway

Since 2009, the SFMTA has successfully provided free bicycle lights to bicyclists in the fall when daylight hours get shorter and daylight savings time changes to standard time. In 2010, 1,200 lights were installed on San Francisco bicycles. Due to a disproportionate number of collisions occurring during winter months compared to other months, the free bicycle light installation program should continue into the future.

Target Populations

As the 2011 State of Cycling Report points out, there are many San Francisco residents with bicycles that are not used, or are not used often. The City and County should provide programs and facilities aimed at making these residents comfortable using a bicycle. Based on the survey responses, these education and

In fall 2010, the SFMTA installed 1,200 bicycle lights


35

Improvements for the Future – Recommendations

encouragement programs should be directed to specific groups in San Francisco. Generally, these are the populations underrepresented in the frequent and infre-quent user groups compared to the City’s general population. The survey found the following underrepresented populations:

• Women: 74 percent of women do not ride a bicycle compared to 60 per-cent of men.

• Ages 45 and older: 45 percent of those over 45 years of age say they never bicycle.

• Race/Ethnicity: 75 percent of Hispanic, 71 percent of Asian, and 83 percent of African-American populations do not bicycle compared to 61 percent of white.

The City should continue identifying safety and outreach programs targeted at these populations.

Enforcement Coordination

The SFMTA is working with the San Francisco Police Department (SFPD) on bicycle enforcement, since 17 percent of survey respondents stated that greater enforcement of vehicles violating traffic regulations could motivate them to bicycle more frequently. For example, the two agencies are working together on targeted enforcement of specific violations at specific locations. These are determined based on historical collision trends. Addition-ally, the SFPD is actively enforcing motorists parking in bicycle lanes. These enforcement efforts should continue into the future. Enforcement efforts should be publicized so both motorists and would-be bicyclists know they are occurring. These efforts could also help to decrease bicycle collisions.

Continue Bicycle Counts and Surveys

In comparison to other jurisdictions, the SFMTA is a leader in bicycle data collection. The annual bicycle counts, collision analysis, Bike to Work Day counts and the implementation of citywide automated bicycle counters demonstrate the Agency’s dedication to this effort. These data sources are useful for State of Cycling reports, citywide project development and targeted outreach and enforcement. The SFMTA should continue these efforts, especially as additional bikeway facilities are installed including be-fore and after counts at specific project locations. These efforts demonstrate the benefits of bikeway projects including bicycle volumes, air quality and transportation mode shift.

5.2. BICYCLE INFRASTRUCTURE

In addition to programmatic improvements, the SFMTA needs to continue implementing bikeway projects in the Bicycle Plan and innovative strategies to improve the comfort of riding. While many frequent cyclists ride for mostly utilitarian purposes, casual cyclists ride for exercise or recreation, pointing to the need to improve the overall quality of the bicycle experience as a way to attract more people to ride more often. This could continue to increase bicycle ridership and in combination with programmatic efforts, improve bicycling safety.

The SFMTA has led enforce-ment outreach campaigns, including posters informing bicyclist to walk their bike on the sidewalk.


36

Stripe Bicycle Lanes

Half of all survey respondents stated that they would bicycle more if there were more bicycle lanes while 54 percent of infrequent bicyclists and 60 percent of frequent bicyclists stated that there are not enough bicycle lanes. Additionally, 81 percent of survey respondents said they feel comfortable riding in bicycle lanes. Therefore, the SFMTA should continue installing bicycle lanes on the city-wide bicycle network. Where feasible, the lanes should be buffered from motor-ized vehicle lanes, providing separation of uses.

Provide Separated Bikeways

Regarding the striping of bicycle lanes, the SFMTA, where feasible, should install additional separated bikeways. Over 90 percent of survey respondents stated that they feel comfortable in bikeways separated from cars. The SFMTA should continue seeking opportunities to develop separated bikeways, buff-ered from moving motorized traffic by a curb, painted buffer, or in some cases, a parking lane.

Implementation of Bicycle Parking

Since 2008, the SFMTA has installed approximately 700 bicycle racks. This effort should continue into the future and should include the installation of additional bicycle corrals. Of survey respondents, 17 percent of infrequent bicyclists and 24 percent of frequent bicyclists stated that not having available secure bicycle parking was a barrier to bicycling more frequently. Currently, the SFMTA has a list of requests for corrals and sidewalk bicycle parking and the SFMTA should continue filling these requests citywide. The SFMTA should also seek additional opportunities for more secure bicycle parking, including bicycle lockers and bicycle stations where bicyclists can safely leave a bicycle overnight or longer.

state of cycling 2011

Documents

bicycle safety bicycle

bicycle parking

bicycle education

bicycle network

bicycle survey

bicycle collisions

bicycle trips

bicycle safety data