Tyler Madel

Samina Raja

URP 605
Fall 2019

MUP

Picture a typical American city: How do most people undergo their commute or otherwise travel? Most likely, in this typical American city, its residents prefer the automobile. According to the 2017 American Community Survey, a vast majority of people commute by car in the city of Buffalo, New York, with 67.2% of people driving alone and 11.2% of people carpooling. Meanwhile, rates of active transportation for commuting are at 1.1% for commute by bicycle and 5.7% for walking, and 11.5% of people commute by public transportation (U.S. Census Bureau, 2017). After all, the built environment makes driving seemingly the most convenient, with ample free or cheap parking and very little on most roads to suggest that they are built for anything but vehicles.

Despite the prominence of the automobile in American cities, the benefits of active transportation are increasingly recognized. Active transportation – which for the purposes of this paper will focus on bicycling and walking – has been associated with a variety of health benefits by inserting regular physical activity usage into people’s daily routines. Morris & Crawford (1958) found that sedentary jobs, such as driving a London doubledecker bus, are more likely to lead to heart disease for middleaged men than jobs that involve more physical activity

This paper will analyze relationships between inequitable distributions of physical inactivity rates with the presence of bicyclists and the presence of bicycle infrastructure. Are there more cyclists active in areas of the city that are self-reportedly physically more active? Do census tracts with lower rates of physical inactivity have reduced access to bicycle infrastructure? These questions will be answered in the context of the City of Buffalo, New York. 

Three types of variables were used in the analysis: physical activity, frequency of bicyclists, and availability of bicycle infrastructure. These variables were chosen in order to better understand the relationship between bicycling and inequities of physical activity rates across Buffalo. The availability of bicycle infrastructure can be quantified in mileage of infrastructure present for a particular subsection of the city.

Geospatial relationships were analyzed using ArcGIS at the census tract level. The analysis relied on secondary sources of data, as described below. The census tract shapefile was dissolved into four groups based on equal ranges of physical inactivity rates. The bicycle infrastructure shapefile was dissolved into three shapefiles each for the three different types of bicycle infrastructure represented: shared lane markings, bicycle lanes, and off-road paths or multi-use paths. Then these separated bicycle infrastructure shapefiles were clipped, based on each of the four groupings of physical inactivity rates, in order to determine a total measure of the mileage of bicycle infrastructure present for each of the four ranges of physical inactivity rates. 

The City of Buffalo has a high percentage of people with limited physical activity compared to all other cities in the State of New York. Thirty-two percent of people answered “no” when asked if they had participated in physical activity compared to, say, 24% in Albany, and 25% in New Rochelle. This physical activity, or lack thereof, is impacted by residents’ opportunity to engage in bicycling.

As the City of Buffalo begins to take steps towards planning for bicycles, modest improvements have been made to the city’s bicycle infrastructure. The Buffalo Bicycle Master Plan, adopted in 2016, called for the expansion of the city’s bicycle network by 300 miles over the course of the next decade (Olson, Goff, Piper, & Zeftling, 2016). GObike Buffalo, a non-profit bicycle advocacy organization, has made great strides to increase bicycling rates in Buffalo through work with elected officials and planners. Their work also includes increased programming around bicycling (including bicycle group rides and bicycle repair workshops).

Existing bicycle infrastructure is not well-connected as a cohesive system of routes. Many holes in the network exist throughout the city, making it more difficult for an inexperienced rider to navigate the city comfortably on their bicycle. Furthermore, while the Bicycle Master Plan calls for 300 miles of expansion to the city’s bicycle network, the infrastructure that counts as part of this network must be interrogated. As both the Bicycle Master Plan and the previously cited literature explain, more urban bicyclists will feel comfortable riding in a city that has a cohesive network of protected bicycling facilities. In Buffalo, besides multi-use trails that skirt the waterfront and follow the Scajaquada Creek, most cycling infrastructure in Buffalo is not separated from vehicle traffic. One facility that is fully separated from vehicle traffic is the cycle track along William L. Gaiter Parkway from Kensington Avenue to East Delevan. However, this facility is not connected to any other cycling route (a common occurrence in Buffalo’s bicycle network). The remaining on-road bicycling facilities are a mix of dedicated bicycle lanes that lack a physical barrier from vehicle traffic or shared lane markings.

Most sites included in the bicycle count within the City of Buffalo were concentrated west of Main Street and south of Delaware Park. In every location included in the bicycle count, there was a higher percentage of male riders versus female riders. For sites counted in the City of Buffalo, the percentage of female riders of total riders observed during the entire count was 27%. For a fuller listing of all data points included in the bicycle count, see the table in the Appendix.

It is difficult to generalize based on the data. The bicycle count data is rather limited in its small scope. More sites would need to be included in order to make this a more robust dataset. Furthermore, the actual sites chosen do not conform to any set geospatial pattern or similarities/hierarchical ordering in traffic volume of road. Many sites included for the count have bicycle infrastructure or might be in desperate need of it. For example, Main Street and Bailey Avenue are in need. While the number of cyclists observed at each site can be compared, it is difficult to know whether a different selection of sites could alter the shape of any perceived curve. 

While generalizations and sweeping conclusions are difficult to make based on the data, looking at certain points in isolation provides great insight into how this data may be related to inequities of physical inactivity. The bicycle count on Jefferson Avenue just north of East Ferry observed very low numbers of cyclists (five cyclists on Wednesday and seven on Saturday). This location is on the border of two census tracts that have among the highest rates of obesity and physical inactivity in the city. There is also no bicycle infrastructure anywhere near this site. Another point to highlight is the bicycle count along Buffalo’s Outer Harbor at Fuhrman Boulevard near Ohio Street. Despite this site being along a long multi-use trail system fully separated from vehicle traffic that connects directly to downtown and via bicycle lane to South Buffalo along Tift Street, only three bicyclists were observed during the Friday count. Meanwhile, the Saturday count observed 39 bicyclists at this location. The off-road trail system that connects downtown with the Outer Harbor does not directly serve population centers in the city besides from downtown Buffalo and is thus more of a recreational trail.

Grave inequities exist among rates of physical inactivity across the City of Buffalo. The highest rates of physical inactivity are found in census tracts east of Main Street. While not quite as high, census tracts on Buffalo’s extreme West Side closer to the Niagara River, Riverside census tracts and census tracts in Buffalo’s Lower West Side also had higher rates of physical inactivity. Census tracts in South Buffalo (especially between South Park and Cazenovia Park) had lower physical inactivity while Elmwood Village and North Buffalo generally had the lowest rates of physical inactivity.

There are many connectivity gaps in bicycle infrastructure, and much of the existing bicycle infrastructure is the ineffective shared lane markings. Some roads that are included on this map as a route with a shared lane marking are rather treacherous to ride on. For example, Main Street is considered New York State bicycle route 517. However, there are no bicycle lanes on Main Street outside of downtown. The section of Main Street that does have shared lane markings was not included in the bicycle count. Bicycle infrastructure is somewhat distributed across the different groupings of physical inactivity. The second-lowest range of physical inactivity has the highest mileage of bicycle infrastructure and also the highest mileage of bicycle lanes. This includes many of the South Buffalo bicycle lanes.

Mileage of bicycle infrastructure did not appear to show a clear pattern of variation moving from census tracts with low levels of physical inactivity to those with high levels.

When examining some of the bicycle infrastructure located in census tracts with high rates of physical inactivity, it is important to consider how user-friendly these facilities are to nearby residents. For example, the off-road path located in census tract 171 along Buffalo’s upper west side (a census tract among the highest physical inactivity rates) is rather separated from the surrounding community since it runs along Squaw Island rather than straight through a residential neighborhood like the North Buffalo Rails to Trails in University Heights. Another example is the bicycle lanes along Humboldt Parkway (also in census tracts with high rates of physical inactivity), which are not the most user friendly to bicyclists since they exist next to a highway and alongside highway entrance and exit ramps. So, while there is bicycle infrastructure present in the grouping of highest physical inactivity census tracts, these are not always the most accessible or the most user friendly for bicyclists in the surrounding neighborhoods. 

Overall, the mileage of bicycle infrastructure in the city is very low. With about 76 total miles of bicycle infrastructure, the city is well short of the 300-mile goal laid out in the bicycle master plan. With a fully expanded bicycle network, Buffalo may see higher rates of bicycling, as was found in other cities (Dill & Carr, 2003; Nelson & Allen, 1997) with expanded bicycle networks.

The percentage of sidewalk riders in the City of Buffalo does not appear to be associated with the average annual traffic count for the road where the bicycle count data point occurred. What is interesting here is that there is no difference between the rates of sidewalk riding on streets with or without bicycle lanes. Parker et al. (2011) had found that more people rode their bicycles on the street after the bicycle lane was installed on St. Claude Avenue in New Orleans. The bicycle count data suggests that at least for the locations and times of observation, bicyclists may not have felt significantly safer using roadways that had bicycle lanes versus roadways without bicycle lanes. 

The city’s bicycle network should be expanded both geographically and in the quality of facilities. Not only should Allentown, Downtown, and the Elmwood Village have bicycle infrastructure, but these networks should extend to every neighborhood in the city, and they should include separated facilities for cyclists. As discussed in the Buffalo Bicycle Master Plan, protected bicycle facilities should be expanded. At the time of compiling this report, none of the recommended 34 miles of protected bicycle lanes and new paths have been built. Particular attention should be made to ensuring that new bicycle infrastructure is made available in areas of the city with high levels of physical inactivity.

Bicycle lane facilities that are protected and physically separated from vehicle travel lanes are needed in Buffalo. As shown by the lack of variation in the rates of sidewalk riders between roads with or without bicycle lanes, observed bicyclists did not appear to feel any safer while riding on a road with an unprotected bicycle lane versus roads without any bicycle lane. While increasing rates of bicycling will not solve inequities in physical inactivity, it should be viewed as a piece of the solution. Planning for healthier and more equitable communities involves planning for all types of road users, not just those who use cars.

Transportation planning in Buffalo should focus more heavily on expanding the viability of active means of transport. The physical activity benefits of bicycling as a means of transport should be considered strongly in such planning. While more study is needed to determine the link of physical inactivity rates as it relates to bicycling in the Buffalo context, numerous examples from other cities demonstrate the link (Chapman et al., 2018; Pucher et al., 2010). 

Further and more robust study of bicycling rates in the city should be compiled to more thoroughly understand how bicycling and active transportation, in general, may play a role in reducing rates of physical inactivity in Buffalo.

(Excerpts taken from paper, Bicycle infrastructure and prevalence of physical inactivity in Buffalo, NY)