2020

John MacArthur, Portland State University
Nathan McNeil, Portland State University
Austin Cummings, Portland State University
Joseph Broach, Portland State University

Bike share systems are expanding efforts to be more equitable and accessible to everyone by offering adaptive bicycle options to people who might otherwise be unable to ride. These systems tend to range from the inclusion of electric bikes and standard trikes into the existing systems to offering a more full-range of adaptive bicycle options for use at rental location. We seek to document the current state of adaptive bike share as a concept and as a programmatic activity using several diverse primary data sources. Surveys of residents living in several low-income communities of color are used to explore the potential need for adaptive bike share options in urban locations. A national survey of cities and bike share operators is used to document the prevalence and basic models of adaptive bike share programming currently in place. Interviews conducted with bike share representatives in select cities with adaptive bike share programs provide context and details on how specific programs operate. Finally, interviews with adaptive bike share participants in Portland help to illuminate users’ experiences, including the perceived value and potential improvements for adaptive bike share. We found that there is an underserved market of people who do not feel they can use existing bike share systems because of some type of physical limitation but that reaching and serving those people presents substantial hurdles. Current bike share systems are slowly exploring the right way to include accessible options but are challenged by cost, resources, bicycle types, program implementation and infrastructure.

Jennifer Dill, Portland State University
Nathan McNeil, Portland State University
John MacArthur, Portland State University
Joseph Broach, Portland State University

Bike share programs in the U.S. have been criticized because they have been used more by men, younger, white, and higher-income people. At the same time, most large U.S. cities experience a gender gap in bicycling. This paper examines the barriers to and motivations for both bicycling and bike share use among women of color, using survey data from neighborhoods in Philadelphia, PA, Brooklyn, NY, and Chicago, IL. We examine differences between women of color, white women, white men, and men of color. Women of color were significantly less likely to ride a bicycle for transportation in the past week, have ridden a bicycle at all in the past 12 months, know how to ride a bicycle, be interested in bicycling more, have used bikeshare, or be a member of bikeshare compared to most groups. The differences in bicycling and interest in bicycling persisted even after controlling for income, age, education, bicycle ownership, and knowing how to ride a bike. This confirms the need to consider the intersection of race and gender when examining bicycling behavior. We did find that about half of the women of color were interested in bicycling and using bikeshare more and that their interest in using bikeshare more was one of the few items where they did not differ significantly from white women, white men, and men of color. Women of color appear more motivated to use bikeshare to get exercise, have fun, and spend time with family and friends, more than for utilitarian travel.

Alexandra Doran, McGill University
Ahmed El-Geneidy, McGill University
Kevin Manaugh, McGill University

Cycling continues to be prioritized as a mode of transport with multiple environmental and health benefits. However, the benefits associated with cycling are not always equitably distributed throughout society meaning that some people (people with low income, members of minority groups) may not have access to safe and convenient spaces in which to cycle. Furthermore, cycling infrastructure does not always accommodate the varying needs of all members of society across gender and age categories. Based on a systematic review of the literature, we identify four key themes to examine the degree to which Canadian transport plans have (1) considered of equity in projects and priorities, (2) incorporated equity-oriented funding mechanisms, (3) incorporated accessibility, design and safety measures and (4) conducted socio-spatial network analysis to determine where cycling investment is needed. While many Canadian plans do address issues related to equity, there is room for improvement, for example, further work to meaningfully engage with disadvantaged groups throughout the planning process could help to improve cycling for everyone.

Charles Brown, Alan M. Voorhees Transportation Center