Modes Less Traveled -- Bicycling and Walking to Work in the United States: 2008-2012

Many U.S. cities are seeing an increase in bicycle commuters, according to a U.S. Census Bureau report released last week. Nationwide, the number of people who traveled to work by bike increased roughly 60 percent over the last decade, from about 488,000 in 2000 to about 786,000 during the 2008-2012 period. This is the largest percentage increase of all commuting modes tracked by the 2000 Census and the 2008-2012 American Community Survey.
The report.

The Census Bureau also released a new commuting edition of the interactive map Census Explorer, which gives Web visitors easy click-and-zoom access to commuting statistics for every neighborhood in the U.S. It also shows how commuting has changed since 1990 at the neighborhood, county and state level — including how long it takes to get to work, commutes longer than an hour, and number of bikers. This edition of Census Explorer uses statistics from the American Community Survey, the best national source of commuting statistics down to the neighborhood level.

“In recent years, many communities have taken steps to support more transportation options, such as bicycling and walking,” said Brian McKenzie, a Census Bureau sociologist and the report’s author. “For example, many cities have invested in bike share programs, bike lanes and more pedestrian-friendly streets.”

While bicyclists still account for just 0.6 percent of all commuters, some of the nation’s largest cities have more than doubled their rates since 2000. Portland, Ore., had the highest bicycle-commuting rate at 6.1 percent, up from 1.8 percent in 2000. In Minneapolis, the rate increased from 1.9 percent to 4.1 percent.

The report also looks at the number of people who walk to work. After steadily decreasing since 1980, the percent of people who walk to work has stabilized since 2000. In 1980, 5.6 percent of workers walked to work, and that rate declined to 2.9 percent by 2000. However, in the 2008-2012 period, the rate of walkers remained statistically unchanged from 2000. Among larger cities, Boston had the highest rate of walking to work at 15.1 percent.
The report, “Modes Less Traveled — Bicycling and Walking to Work in the United States: 2008-2012,” highlights the trends and socio-economic and geographic differences between motorized and nonmotorized commutes. This report — the Census Bureau’s first focusing only on biking and walking to work — is one of many that examines specific aspects of commuting, including workplace location, working from home, long commutes and specific travel modes.

Biking to Work Highlights
• The West had the highest rate of biking to work at 1.1 percent, and the South had the lowest rate at 0.3 percent.
• Among large cities, Portland, Ore., had the highest bicycle-commuting rate at 6.1 percent.
• The median commute time for those who bike to work was about 19.3 minutes.
• Men were more likely to bike to work than women were. The rate of bicycle commuting for men was more than double that of women, 0.8 percent compared with 0.3 percent.
• Those with a graduate or professional degree or higher and those with less than a high school degree had the highest rates of biking to work, at 0.9 and 0.7 percent, respectively.
• 1.5 percent of those with an income of $10,000 or less commuted to work by bicycle, the highest rate of bicycle commuting by any income category.
• African-Americans had the lowest rate of biking to work at 0.3 percent, compared with some other race or two or more races who had the highest rate at 0.8 percent.

Walking to Work Highlights
• The Northeast showed the highest rate of walking to work at 4.7 percent of workers. Several of the places with high rates were “college towns,” including Ithaca, N.Y., where about 42.4 percent walked to work. The South had the lowest rate at 1.8 percent. Among large cities, Boston was one of the highest walking-to-work cities at 15.1 percent.
• Workers living in core cities walked to work at a rate of 4.3 percent, compared with 2.4 percent for workers in suburbs.
• The median commute time for those who walk to work was 11.5 minutes, and they left their home at later hours than other modes.
• Men walked to work at a rate of 2.9 percent compared with 2.8 percent for women.
• Those with less than a high school degree had the highest rate of walking to work at 3.7 percent, followed by those with graduate or professional degrees at 2.7 percent.
• 8.2 percent of those with an income of $10,000 or less walked to work, the highest rate of walking to work by any income category.
• Asians and workers of some other race or two or more races had the highest rate of walking to work at 4.0 and 4.2, respectively.

Population Shifts and Implications for Walking in the United States

Article by Peter Tuckel, Hunter College Department of Sociology, and William Milczarski, Hunter College Department of Urban Affairs & Planning, from America Walks

Major population shifts in the United States point to changes in American attitudes and behaviors regarding walking. These shifts are likely to result in a substantial increase in both recreational and utilitarian walking. Three demographic changes, in particular, are likely to promote this “walking revolution:” (1) the aging of the baby boomers, (2) the different transportation priorities of young people, and (3) the decline of the suburbs.

More Walkable Homes Are Worth More

Source: CEOs for Cities

Though housing values are still slow to rebound from the collapse of the real estate market, a new analysis from CEOs for Cities reveals that homes in more walkable neighborhoods are worth more than similar homes in less-walkable neighborhoods, pointing to a bright spot in the residential real estate market.

The report, “Walking the Walk: How Walkability Raises Housing Values in U.S. Cities” by Joseph Cortright, analyzed data from 94,000 real estate transactions in 15 major markets provided by ZipRealty and found that in 13 of the 15 markets, higher levels of walkability, as measured by Walk Score, were directly linked to higher home values...

Walkability is defined by the Walk Score algorithm (http://www.walkscore.com/), which works by calculating the closest amenities – restaurants, coffee shops, schools, parks, stores, libraries, etc. – to any U.S. address. The algorithm then assigns a “Walk Score” from 0-100, with 100 being the most walkable and 0 being totally car-dependent. Walk Scores of 70+ indicate neighborhoods where it’s possible to get by without a car.

By the Walk Score measure, walkability is a direct function of how many destinations are located within a short distance (generally between one-quarter mile and one mile of a home). The study found that in the typical metropolitan area, a one-point increase in Walk Score was associated with an increase in value ranging from $700 to $3,000 depending on the market. The gains were larger in denser, urban areas like Chicago and San Francisco and smaller in less dense markets like Tucson and Fresno.

+ Full Report (PDF)
***
I should note that I find the WALK SCORE measure deeply flawed, as it does not seem to take into account obstacles such as interstate highways. It may only be 1.3 miles from Corporate Woods to the Madison Theater in Albany, but one is not going to walk over I-90 to get there.

Walk This Way

I came across this site called "Walk Score TM". You type in an address, see a walking map. "Walk Score helps people find walkable places to live. Walk Score calculates the walkability of an address by locating nearby stores, restaurants, schools, parks, etc."
The site asks, "Why is walking important?". Some of the reasons: "Walkable neighborhoods offer surprising benefits to our health, the environment, and our communities."
*Better health
*Reduction in greenhouse gas
*More transportation options
*Increased social capital (promotes face-to-face interaction with your neighbors)
*Stronger local businesses

The scoring range:
* 90 - 100 - Walkers' paradise
* 70 - 90 = Very Walkable
* 50 - 70 = Some Walkable Locations
* 25 - 50 = Not Walkable
* 0 - 25 = Driving Only

The test is very upfront about its flaws. It doesn't factor in:
* Street width and block length: Narrow streets slow down traffic. Short blocks make it easier to navigate the grid.
* Safety: How much crime is in the neighborhood? How many traffic accidents are there? Are crosswalks well marked and streets well lit?
* Pedestrian-friendly design: Are there walking paths? Are buildings close to the sidewalk with parking in back? Are sidewalks shaded by trees?
* Topography: Hills can make walking difficult, especially if you're carrying groceries.
* Public transit: Good public transit is important for walkable neighborhoods.
* Freeways and bodies of water: Freeways can divide neighborhoods. Swimming is harder than walking.
* Weather: In some places it's just too hot or cold to walk regularly.

I decided to try it out. My house in the Pine Hills of Albany got a 69, about right. My mother's a 37, which I think is high; she's not going to walk across W.T. Harris Blvd in Charlotte.
Just for fun, I did work places. My old job in downtown Albany, not far from where Bob, Lenny, and Nancy work, got an 86.
My new place in Corporate Woods a 38, which is desperately flawed, since more than half the places within a mile of the location is on the other side of Interstate 90, and, as they say, "You can't get there from here."

Still, an interesting concept.