The equitable distribution of bike paths ensuring safe cycling are inconsistently planned and evaluated. For residents to fully utilize bikes, it is essential that bike networks equitably serve all urban populations. In the absence of impartial evaluation, the construction of biking infrastructure may continue to perpetuate cycles of disadvantage. By measuring the spatial equity of six urban biking networks using GIS (San Francisco, Chicago, Minneapolis, Madison, Boulder and College Station) and interviewing transportation planners, we demonstrate that equity can play a role in planning. We provide spatial and qualitative analyses revealing varying relationships between urban transport planning and the relative equity of bike networks in major cities.

1. Bike Network Equity:
A GIS & Qualitative Analysis of
Several American Cities
Rachel Pierstorff

2. Acknowledgements

3. Introduction
● Nonwhite and low income individuals are more likely to bike to work
than wealthier and white individuals
● Protected bike lanes decrease cyclist injuries and bikers travel out of
their way to reach them
● Cycling = health benefits, cost savings, energy efficient
Research Goal: quantify bike network distribution equity in comparison
to practical planning approaches across cities renowned for high cycling
rates and lengthy trail systems

4. Methods
● Equity as a concept
○ Horizontal: equal
distribution of resources
across a population,
regardless of people’s needs
or preferences
○ Vertical: seeks to
compensate for historical,
social, or economic
differences between groups
● Mapping equity and GIS
○ Sum of bikeway within
block group

5. Methods: Quantifying Equity
● Lorenz curves graph
relationship between
the proportion of bike
network available to
various proportions of
the population
● Gini coefficient
represents gap
between perfect
equitable and actual
data distributions

6. Methods: Planner Interviews
● Equity in the planning process
○ Do cities with more equitable bike networks plan specifically for them?
○ As an expert, could such methods be useful in the planning process?
○ How do you consider equity when planning bike lanes?

7. Big Cities: Bike Network Distributions
Big Cities

8. Results: Horizontal Equity

9. College Towns: Bike Network Distributions
College Towns

10. Results: Horizontal Equity

11. Interview Results
COLLEGE STATION,
TEXAS
● Does not explicitly
plan for equity
● But plans bikeways on
all new roads
● Gini coefficient slightly
behind Boulder &
ahead of Madison

12. Interview Results
MADISON, WISCONSIN
● Least equitable Gini
coefficient
● Focus on low traffic
stress roads
● Consider transport
vulnerable groups

13. Interview Results
MINNEAPOLIS, MINNESOTA
● More equitable than
Chicago and San Francisco
● Prioritizes comfortable bike
rides for broad segment of
population
● Considers equity in
implementation rather than
planning

14. Discussion
THEMES
● New interpretation of city bike
networks
● We mapped areas of unusually high
population with unusually low bike
network access
● Interviews revealed complex
incorporations of equity in planning
● The city that most explicitly planned
for equity received the best Gini score
LIMITATIONS
● Assumption of even
distribution of homes
within block groups
● More refined network
sums could be achieved
at block level, though
demographic statistics
would be lost

15. Questions? Comments?
Want to hire me?
Rachel Pierstorff
rachelpierstorff12@gmail.com