Order Rev Nat's Cider Today

Biking matters most to lowest-income local households, new data shows

Posted by on January 30th, 2014 at 3:47 pm

34% of Portland-area bike commuters come from the poorest 25% of local working households.
Source: Census Transportation Planning Projects. Chart by BikePortland.

Last week, we shared some new Census data showing that people who bike to work in Portland have quicker commutes than you might expect. This week, let’s look at a different question: who bikes?

“We have to prioritize investments in communities that have not been prioritized for investments in the past.”
— Gerik Kransky, BTA

It turns out that in the Portland metro area, people of every household income level bike for transportation. But the lower your household’s income, the more likely you are to use a bike to get to work.

That fact — which national data has shown for years but had never been available at the local level — is part of the thinking behind a rising focus in the bicycle advocacy community on the ways that biking can help underprivileged groups.

“People living with multiple resource constraints are in the best position to benefit from increased access to healthy, active transportation options,” Mychal Tetteh, CEO of Portland’s Community Cycling Center, said Thursday. “If we want to see bike mode share increase, a focus on historically underesourced populations will result in the greatest return on investment.”

According to the new estimates, which are based on Census surveys that include margins of error, the poorest 25 percent of Portland-area households are home to about 34 percent of the metro area’s bike commuters. The other three quartiles are quite evenly split, suggesting that bike commuting is both a useful necessity for some and a desirable choice for most.

A bill introduced yesterday in the U.S. House of Representatives reinforces this concept. The bipartisan measure championed by the League of American Bicyclists would create a low-interest long-term loan program for communities to build biking and walking networks, with one quarter of the cash set aside to be used in low-income communities.

U.S. Rep. Albio Sires (D-NJ),
lead sponsor of H.R. 3978.

H.R. 3978 is worth just $11 million for the whole country — about enough for each state to get either one new stoplight, several blocks of sidewalk, a few bike share kiosks or a few miles of bikeways.

On the other hand, it’s showing (yet again) that the appeal of active transportation can cross party lines in a deeply divided Congress.

“It’s a good idea, it’s a good bill and we should certainly support it,” Bicycle Transportation Alliance Advocacy Director Gerik Kransky said in an interview Thursday. “It takes a small but important step toward acknowledging that we have to prioritize investments in communities that have not been prioritized for investments in the past. … These are the kinds of policy decisions we’re going to have to make to let low-income communities make their own decisions.”

Kransky said the risk that a bill like this becomes an excuse for politicians to avoid bigger changes is “always out there.” But he hopes the small amount of money could prove that there’s public support for further shifts, including increased “self-deterimination” by poorer communities of the transportation investments in their neighborhoods.

“A bill like this passes, the process is set forth, money is spent, the outcome is fantastic and the community support is there, then all of a sudden we have a working model for engagement and communication,” Kransky said. “If this works, we can use it as a model at the state or local level.”

NOTE: We love your comments and work hard to ensure they are productive, considerate, and welcoming of all perspectives. Disagreements are encouraged, but only if done with tact and respect. If you see a mean or inappropriate comment, please contact us and we'll take a look at it right away. Also, if you comment frequently, please consider holding your thoughts so that others can step forward. Thank you — Jonathan

38
Leave a Reply

avatar
13 Comment threads
25 Thread replies
0 Followers
 
Most reacted comment
Hottest comment thread
20 Comment authors
Michael Andersen (News Editor)Paul MansonKrisDavid LewisMichael Andersen Recent comment authors
  Subscribe  
newest oldest most voted
Notify of
Robert M.
Guest
Robert M.

Well, of course. People with less income can’t spend as much on cars so they bike or take mass transit. Yet, infrastructure like good mass transit and safe bike routes are often not in poorer areas. Hmmmm….

davemess
Guest
davemess

I’m amazed how it’s relatively evenly split (with an advantage to lower quartile).
Michael, since I’m lazy, can you list the cut offs for each quartile?

Jeff M
Guest
Jeff M

The old saying, ‘correlation does not imply causation,’ comes to mind; the data presented here does not prove the statement, “the lower your household’s income, the more likely you are to use a bike to get to work.”

For example, let’s suppose most of the people that ride to work are under 25. People under 25 don’t, on average, make as much money as someone over 50. Therefore the statement could be, “the lower your household’s AGE, the more likely you are to use a bike to get to work.” But that doesn’t mean if you are 55 years old and make under $46k, you are more likely to bike than another 55 year old that makes $60k.

I am not claiming that the above example is correct, either. I’m just trying to illustrate that more statistical analysis is needed to prove causation… and maybe that has been done but simply not presented in this article.

Jeff M
Guest
Jeff M

Perhaps a better example: Statistics may show that 76% of cyclists in Portland are white. However, since 76% of Portland is white, clearly that would not support the statement, “If you are white, you are more likely to use a bike to get to work.”

Whatever
Guest
Whatever

“For example, let’s suppose most of the people that ride to work are under 25. People under 25 don’t, on average, make as much money as someone over 50. Therefore the statement could be, “the lower your household’s AGE, the more likely you are to use a bike to get to work.”

Also, it would be interesting to see a breakdown of bicycle riding using years of education. I suspect that high-education, low-income folks are disproportionately represented among bike riders.

9watts
Guest
9watts

An excellent piece, Michael. Thanks!

Paul
Guest
Paul

How would that chart compare to a household income-only chart, regardless of transportation mode?

Joe
Guest
Joe

I’m Rich because I ride 🙂

Charley
Guest
Charley

Every time some one tries to blame gentrification on cyclists or vice-versa, THROW THESE STATISTICS IN THEIR FACE! The drumbeat of well-meaning but ill-informed citizens against bike transportation can be fought with the truth that low income people benefit from bike safety improvements just as much (or more) than rich people.

davemess
Guest
davemess

As Michael added above, this data is based on household income. I don’t think a single person making $46K/year would be considered low income at all, but that’s how they are categorized on this chart.

But I completely agree with your underlying meaning.

Spiffy
Guest
Spiffy

so can we stop hearing the term “gentrification” now when we want to improve bike facilities?

erin g.
Guest
erin g.

In New Orleans, a city marked by high rates of low income families, the bike transit movement underway is meaningful and inspiring. Thank you for shedding light on the important topic of income and how transit barriers can be somewhat improved with good access to biking.

Lisa
Guest
Lisa

You’re analysis is really flawed. From this data we don’t know which poor people are commuting by bikes. It could be mostly young college kids living off of loans… not a bad theory considering the extent and impact of gentrification in the inner neighborhoods.

That does nothing to help advocates for bike commuting get insight into the plights of the working poor – including people with young families, eldercare issues, disability issues, and job insecurity. As we know, there are fewer and fewer options for affordable places to live around easily commutable routes for people who fit into the above categories. The outer metro areas are the most difficult to get around in by bike, and the places where Portland’s poor have been pushed to concentrate into.

mh
Guest
mh

If we’d only had this when the Williams/Vancouver conflict was at its peak.

David Lewis
Guest
David Lewis

Poor people already know this, Bikeportland.org. It’s not news.

The news is the criminal abuse of transportation development funds dedicated to providing landing strips in far-flung rural counties, providing tax incentives for Walmart to pave over hectares of land for parking lots and the pièce de résistance: six-lane highways through cities.

All kinds of people ride bikes, despite the conspiracy against them.