Bike Share Social Equity and Inclusion Target Neighborhoods Target Neighborhoods West End/Visitation Park/Academy/Hamilton Heights Wellsgoodfellow/Kingsway West The Ville/Greater Ville Kingsway East/Fountain Park/Vandventer Jeff-Vander-Lou/Grand Center Choice Neighborhoods: Carr Square/Columbus Square/Old North/St. Louis Place Hyde Park/St. Louis Place/Old North Dutchtown/Gravois Park/Marine Villa/Mount Pleasant
Bike Share Social Equity and Inclusion Target Neighborhoods Method for selection The methodology for selecting the Bike Share Social Equity and Inclusion Target Neighborhoods started with the equity map created during the Bike Share Feasibility Plan, conducted by Alta Planning + Design for Great Rivers Greenway in 2014. This map utilized layers of census data to map out areas of the city where residents faced disadvantages that may negatively affect things that bike share could help with, like access to transportation and job opportunities, affordability of transportation, and health outcomes. These are areas where bike share could provide an amenity and option for those that are in the most need, and yet are not the population most likely to use bike share without some additional engagement. The largest user demographic for bike share nationwide are relatively well-off, white people, and often under the age of 35 and often male - as such, additional resources and attention are often needed to make bike share understood and beneficial for people that don t fit that profile. To create the equity map, Alta performed a spatial analysis of four variables associated with traditionally underserved populations with transportation challenges using data from the U.S. Census: Percentage of population representing people of color Percentage of households below 200% of poverty level as defined by the U.S. Census Bureau Percentage of households with no automobile available for daily use Percentage of households where the adults are non-english speakers Each of the four variables were mapped and are shown in the following pages along with more explanation of the methodology and reasoning for the analysis, taken from the Bike Share Feasibility Study. The four variables were then amalgamated into a single equity map, found on page 9 with the target neighborhoods overlayed in gold. Using the final equity map as the base of selecting these target neighborhoods, staff identified neighborhoods that had high concentrations of these variables, which includes much of north St. Louis as well as several parcels on the southside of the city. Bike share is usually used for trips between 1 and 3 miles, and thus most likely to be used in areas closer to the urban core where there is a high concentration of destinations within a short bike ride. Bike share is also envisioned as a first mile/last mile connection for transit. As such, staff limited the selected neighborhoods from the equity map to those that were within 3 miles of MetroLink. Since MetroLink runs through the urban core of St. Louis, this method also selected
neighborhoods that were close enough to a concentration of destinations that residents were likely to find bike share useful as a means of transportation. Staff then matched the areas selected from the equity map with borders of the actual neighborhoods, so that these areas would reflect the actual communities in whole. For example, the Dutchtown/Gravois Park/Marine Villa area was expanded from the handful of census tracts shown on the equity map to completely cover the neighborhoods in a way that was more reflective of the community infrastructure and cohesion in this area. A few areas showing high concentrations of the four variables on the equity map were not included as target neighborhoods. The tract directly south of downtown was not included because the area is largely made up of rail lines and industrial uses, rather than residences or high levels of employment. Additionally, the tract in Tower Grove South was not included because more updated census data did not show abnormally high concentrations of those four variables. Lastly, the tract in Central West End just west of Grand Boulevard was not included because this area includes a large student population, which have low income but are not in need of the additional focus and engagement that is needed for adults of low income. Through this selection process, staff consulted civic-minded organizations as to whether these neighborhoods made sense as the bike share social equity and inclusion target neighborhoods. Staff received input from non-profits focused on regional community development, neighborhood community development, neighborhood associations, racial equity, community engagement, bike advocacy, and public transportation, as well as from other City of St. Louis staff and Bi-State Development, which is pursuing a bike share social equity grant using this geography. This geography may be expanded or shifted in the future as needed.
Equity Analysis While bike share systems have typically launched in high demand and higher revenue areas such as downtowns and higher income areas, geographic and social equity have become important considerations for new and existing bike share systems. Cities such as Boston, Minneapolis, and Washington D.C. have recently expanded their systems into lower demand areas, with a particular emphasis on making the system available to more residents and ensuring this low cost transportation option is accessible to under served communities. Details of the efforts being undertaken in several cities, along with recommended programs for the St. Louis region, are outlined in Section 13. The planning team also conducted two focus group discussions with residents specifically low income, people of color and transit dependent that are disproportionately underrepresented in transportation planning studies and bicycling. While barriers to usage for these groups differ from other potential users, the twenty two participants are, according to the bike share usage survey, just as likely to use bike share as other St. Louis residents. The likelihood of using bike share was 3.8 on a 5 point scale for focus group participants and 3.6 on a 5 point scale for all survey respondents. The data and comments from the discussion sessions partly informed the recommended bike share equity strategies. Specifically, the barriers mentioned by the participants are divided into three categories: outreach and marketing, financial, and bicycling behavior. Outreach and Marketing Promoting bicycling as another means of transportation is critical to this audience because cycling is viewed as a recreational activity only. Participants in both sessions mentioned including people like them in promotional materials to ensure inclusivity and promote usage to all St. Louis residents. Additionally, they mentioned promoting usage at transit centers and/or MetroLink, so that riders would see the value of using bike share for last mile commuting. Financial While the annual and daily pass fee estimates were not mentioned as barriers, the credit card requirement for securing the bicycle s value if not returned was considered a barrier. Most focus group participants mentioned using a debit card, a gift card, or an integrated transit/bike share card to pay for their pass. Additionally, some members suggested having a monthly pass, in addition to the annual or daily pass options because this would allow them to budget more effectively. Cycling Behavior Most participants, about 80%, haven t ridden a bicycle since their teens, and at that time, they were riding on the sidewalk. Therefore, providing education about the rules of the road and suggesting travel along bike friendly streets should be key components of an education campaign. Additionally, it is possible that some potential users may benefit from bike riding instruction. With regards to Service Area Recommendations, a spatial analysis of four variables associated with traditionally underserved populations was undertaken as part of this study. For purposes of analysis, the following socio economic indicators that define underserved populations include: 1. Percentage of population representing people of color December 2014 / Page 54
2. Percentage of households below 200% of poverty level as defined by the U.S. Census Bureau 3. Percentage of households with no automobile available for daily use 4. Percentage of households where the adults are non English speakers Each of the four indicators above were mapped graphically and shown in Figure 28 through Figure 29 on the following pages. The census based data from each of the four was amalgamated into a single composite map in order to summarize system equity graphically8. As shown in Figure 29, areas that scored highest on the composite equity scale include many neighborhoods throughout North City, areas to the west and south of downtown St. Louis, and a few census tracts in South City. In aggregate, the equity mapping exercise was used to shape the recommended service area and phasing. For example, the Phase I service area described on pages 65 67 includes an area that could host up to five bike share stations in the Carr Square, Vandeventer, Academy, and West End neighborhoods. The equity analysis also helped to shape the size and placement of the Phase III expansion areas to ensure that communities of color or immigrant groups within low income areas that have far lower than average rates of automobile ownership or English speaking residents have considerable access to a future bike share system. Bike share station placement in such areas will expand the available options for access by bicycle and promote connectivity to MetroBus lines. 8 The methodology used to develop the composite equity map includes a mathematically based model. The model uses the top 25th percentile as the threshold for each of the four socio economic indicators. If a census tract s percentage for a particular variable fell in the top 25th percentile when compared to all the census tracts in the study area i.e., 3/4 of data was below this score, the tract was assigned a score of one 1. The scores for the variables were then summed so that a higher composite equity score was assigned to those tracts that had more scores per variable in the top 25th percentile. The high composite equity score has a maximum possible score of four 4 and a low equity score has a minimum possible score of zero. For example, a tract that scores within the top 25th percentile for low income, non white, non English and limited vehicle access would receive a composite score of 4, and is shown in the darkest shade of purple. This scoring method highlights those census tracts that scored in the top 25th percentile of the four variables the most, and can be used to identify areas that have the greatest concentrations of traditionally underserved populations. December 2014 / Page 55
Figure 25: Equity map layer 1: Percentage of population representing people of color December 2014 / Page 56
Figure 26: Equity map layer 2: Percentage of households below 200% of poverty level December 2014 / Page 57
Figure 27: Equity map layer 3: Percentage of households with no automobile available for daily use December 2014 / Page 58
Figure 28: Equity map layer 4: Percentage of non-english speaking population December 2014 / Page 59
Figure 29: Composite equity map showing a combination of all four layers December 2014 / Page 60