Before we talk about equity, you should understand that bike parking is a transportation investment. Some may feel that a bike rack is an element of urban design, or an amenity provided by businesses or municipalities.

It must be thought of as part of the transportation network, as millions of people each day ride a bicycle to work, shopping, school, or to visit friends and relatives (see Figure 1). At the end of their trip, 100% of these travelers will need a place to store or secure their bicycle.

Figure 1

Bicyclists riding in the bike lane on Milwaukee Avenue in Chicago, Illinois

The purpose of public transportation investment is to maximize social welfare^[1]. As the CDOT Bicycle Parking Program is funded primarily by the CMAQ program, and installed by the municipality of Chicago, it meets the definition of public transportation investment.

“Social welfare can be defined in terms of travel time savings, increased mobility, improved safety, and reduced negative externalities such as air pollution and release of greenhouse gasses.

“This characterization of welfare maximization nonetheless lacks one major ingredient, namely, political considerations, defined as the distribution of benefits among user groups relative to income, location, political inclination, and other socioeconomic attributes.

“Public decision makers are rather partial to this issue, which tends to dominate most other factors”^[1].

These interpretations support some of the features of the project's design, including its goals, the way it identifies underserved areas, and even how the service area (the City of Chicago) was divided.

Equity is “a concern for the fairness of the distribution of costs and benefits” ^[2]. Equity can be described simply: “Are people paying their fair share to support the urban transportation infrastructure, are they getting their fair share of benefits, and are they assuming their fare share of constraints imposed by new legislation?” ^[2]

Equity is often described as an impact on people, or as a problem experienced by certain groups. There are many ways to describe equity.

I researched descriptions and definitions of equity from many sources.

Equity is a “situation in which people are granted satisfactory living conditions and opportunities in respect to socially accorded services, irrespective of their individual physical, economic, social, religious or ethnic characteristics”^[3]. Note how the author, Vasconcellos, excludes geography - geography is another fundamental of the concept of equity.

Vasconcellos's arguments and positions about equity come from a background of dealing with transportation problems and investments in developing countries. Many parallels can be drawn between transportation in developing countries and bicycling as transportation. Many cities in the United States are in positions to increase the bicycling mode share to improve their communities, air quality, economic viability, and reduce congestion. Research on bicycling as transportation is expanding - now is the time to make changes to bicycling as transportation to ensure its place in cities. Developing countries need better and different transportation and traffic policies that reflect their local principles.

Vasconcellos proposes four principles on which transportation and traffic policies should be based: accountability^[i], social progressiveness, equity, and sustainability. In some ways, this project deals with all four principles, but equity has a more comprehensive discussion.

I've indexed on this page how the project supports each principle.

“Transportation improvements distribute nonuniformly over space, implying that they affect diverse populations disproportionately” ^[1].

“The impact of…transportation and land use changes are not always positive, nor do they accrue to all subareas and social groups equally” ^[2]. Instead, the investment activity creates “distinct sets of winners and losers.”

With transportation regulation, infrastructure, or economic incentives, there are costs. Bae & Mayeres^[4] call these instruments, and the choice to implement one or the other is based on efficiency but also equity impacts.

• Shared costs
• Equal distribution of services
• Equal distribution of costs
• Equal receipt of benefits
• Equal share of detriments
• The adjustment of external costs (like congestion, environment, accident costs)^[4]

Equity is a type of impact related to the provision of transportation services and the creation or management or perpetuation of transportation policies. “Any major pricing or taxation reform will be acceptable only if it is welfare increasing or welfare neutral for a sufficiently large proportion of the voters” ^[4].

Equity must be taken into account [why?] “when designing transportation policies.” We must also distinguish between intra- and inter-generational equity: “Intra-generational equity concerns the distribution of the net benefits between different groups of people within a given generation”^[4]. “Intergenerational equity refers to income distribution consequences across generations.”

The Bike Parking Equity project is based heavily in geographic distinction and location-based investment. Geography has a large role to play in defining equity and ensuring equity. “Geography defines the contours of the equity analysis in two important ways. First, since investment in transportation infrastructure is geographically specific, there is inherent competition and conflict between places”^[2]. Continue reading in Geography issues.

The presence of inequity (or unfairness) is inevitable in almost all situations involving transportation investment with public dollars.

“As Adler (1987) has noted, the politics of public investment in transportation is first and foremost a debate among places. It is inevitable that certain places will be advantaged by investment in transportation, and others will be disadvantaged. Second, because of the strong correspondence between social class and location in most U.S. cities, the impacts of transportation investments are strongly connected to social class. Those social classes who live (or work) in those places that are advantaged by investment will benefit most from those investments. ^[2]

See also discussion on Equity versus Efficiency.

While developing this project, I briefly struggled with how to identify the distribution issues described in Problem History. Are the underserved areas in Chicago suffering from inequality, or inequity?

An article from the American Library Association made the difference clear.

This section paraphrases the article.

The American Library Association (ALA) published a short article^[5] for its members that tries to simplify the differences between equality (fairness as equal access) and equity (fairness as justice). Explanatory examples are relevant mostly to professional librarians, but still easy for others to understand.

Equal access means that the playing field has been leveled and that information (or, in this case, bike parking) has a uniform distribution.

Equity means “a good society commits resources in order to level the playing field”^[5]. The examples given include offering courses in English as a second language and scholarships targeted to students from poor families.

The article discusses how policies of equality resonate better with Americans because of their basis in providing everyone the same opportunities. Equity policies are seen as affirmative action and many see these programs as unfair.

The Bike Parking Program does not uniformly distribute bike parking because of its request-based operation. The requests themselves are not uniformly distributed. The Underserved Wards project was to include an element that would solicit requests for bike parking from all areas of Chicago. If we received requests for bike parking from uniformly distributed requesters, then the Bike Parking Program could say that the program is one of equality.

In Underserved Wards, I describe the conditions of thirteen Wards and compare their statuses to other Wards. Additionally, this map shows the difference in installation quantities between 2008 and 2009, after the Underserved Wards Project of Summer 2009 was completed. Viewing an earlier map showing locations of installed bike racks gave the CDOT Bicycle Parking Program the first indication that bike parking may not be proportionately or equitably distributed.

The CDOT Bicycle Parking Program created a policy that blends the notions.

Equity is “different from equality, which represents the mere equalization of a right”^[3]. Vasconcellos explains how equity, in regards to neighborhood bus service, involves the social, economic, and demographic characteristics of the neighbors, while equality only considers “spatial and temporal coverage”^[3]. He seems to exclude, at least nominally, geographical characteristics (where one lives or works) in his definition of equity. A bus system's spatial coverage differs from its geographic coverage; spatial coverage describes the breadth and distance the buses extend across an area while geographic coverage describes the characteristics of the places buses travel. Because Vasconcellos does address how the “physical separation between working and living” generates a need for transportation, I believe he understands the difference.

Because of this difference, “inequitable conditions may end up denying access to formally 'equal' rights. An equitable condition is therefore superior to a formally equal one and the search for equity in transport is inevitably a difficult task for planners…”^[3].

The article concludes saying librarians should create for their patrons and libraries policies and programs that blend the two concepts. In a similar vein and based on its own values, the CDOT Bicycle Parking Program, in 2009, adopted a policy that blends the two:

• Equity: The Program will identify and target areas that had a disproportionately lesser quantity of bike parking facilities and potentially exhibit suppressed demand (the Underserved Wards).
• Equality: The new website simplifies and expedites making requests for bike racks, allowing anyone with Internet access to request a bike rack, find the status of their request, and search for other requests and installation records. The website also reveals all historical installation data, empowering users to make similar (or completely different) conclusions about the distribution of bicycle parking in Chicago. (Note: The CDOT Bicycle Program recognizes that not all potential requesters have Internet access and accepts request through any means possible. However, the City of Chicago provides all citizens free Internet access at all of its libraries.)

See also Equitable distribution factor.

How does this concern bike parking?

Bike parking is a semi-permanent transportation facility that has few barriers to use. Currently, it does not ask for money or personal identification. It does not discriminate. Where bike parking has equity impacts, though, is in its geographic distribution: some people with the same characteristics as those in areas of high bike rack saturation may not have good access to bike parking. But we can look at bike parking's equity impacts through both the inter- and intra-generational views.

Intergenerational impacts occur when investment benefits a future generation more than the current generation. Intragenerational impacts are more likely and occur when a group in the same generation is favored more than another group. Income-based impacts are intragenerational issues - this will not be discussed.

If bike parking is not distributed equitably, or in areas where it is needed (not demanded or requested, but observed or determined to be needed - this refers to suppressed demand), then the potential users in the future will not have the utility of the bike rack in the future time. The area will have to play “catch up” to have an amount of bike racks more proportional to the areas that continued to receive bike racks over the years.

The ”costs and benefits of transportation policies may take place in different time periods” (Bae and Mayeres). For example, “mega projects are often built with excess capacity aimed at satisfying future needs. Such a pattern imposes inequitable intergenerational transfers, favoring the future rather than the present generations” ^[1]. While this example is different than the bike parking situation where disregarded areas must play “catch up,” it further demonstrates how there is a temporal component to transportation investments.

The installation of bike parking, as we know it now, is mainly reactive; installations react to demand. In many cases the reaction can take over a year. It may not be a good use of resources to fulfill scattered requests. Surveys, installation, and the post-installation inspection will have low efficiency because scattered locations increase travel distance. The areas that aren't requesting much will thus receive less service. Eventually, by the time the area gets served the people who made the request have moved to a new area. Bottom line: Bike parking should either react faster to requests (by allocating more resources, i.e. staff time, to surveying) or plan for future population and land use changes (more difficult) to lessen the impact of intergenerational equity.

While intergenerational equity issues affect bicycle parking and the areas and time in which they're installed, the geographic equity issues prevail in this project.

The installation of bike parking facilities presents geographic (locational) equity issues.

This example should demonstrate how geographic equity can arise.

• Assume Region A and B have the same population (Like Congressional districts, Wards have approximately the same population when they're drawn).
• In each of three successive years, Region A receives 100 bike racks in 100 locations and Region B receives 20 bike racks in 20 locations.
• At the end of the third year, Region A will have 300 bike racks, yet Region B will only have 60.
• It seems there is a geographic disparity in bicycle parking investment.

Under the current Bicycle Parking Program model, the decisions to place bike racks at many locations in Regions A and B were not based on a calculated or observed need, but purely based on requests from residents, workers, and business owners of those regions. The equity impact developed from a request prejudice that presents itself in the geography of the Regions.

Since no analysis was done to determine the frequency or mode of trips that end in each region, there is no basis to determine the need for bike parking in either region. The only way to determine the need is to solicit and receive requests for bike parking. This is a major issue I discuss in Bike Parking Demand Model.

In three years, Region A requested and received 240 more bike racks than Region B. We cannot assume that this is because Region A needed more bicycle parking than Region B, or that Region A has more bicyclists (or other characteristics that increase the demand for bicycle parking, like specific land uses that seem to generate more requests).

There are many ways to mitigate this disparity. One way to mitigate equity concerns in the Program is to determine new bicycle parking locations by need. Determining the need for bike parking is difficult, but I attempt to start that dialogue with the Bike Parking Demand Model. Additionally, the Program should have knowledge of suppressed demand. Furthermore, any mitigation effort requires good data - see a list of sections about data and how this project uses data.

Read about the CDOT Bicycle Parking Program's own mitigation effort in the summer of 2009: “Undeserved Wards Project of 2009” in Section One.

In addition to geography, bicycle parking poses at least two other equity issues.

• Money: There's no direct monetary or welfare transfers.
• Political: It most likely hasn't become a political issue for any bicycle parking program or installation scheme.

Bike parking is relatively free to the user (it does require the user have a bike and a lock, but both are inexpensive and easy to maintain). The user does not directly pay a collection agency to use the rack (no meter or box in which to drop coins).

In Chicago, the costs of installing bike racks are largely hidden from the user. The Bike Parking Program is primarily funded by grants from the Congestion Mitigation and Air Quality (CMAQ) program. CMAQ contributes 80% while the remainder is matched by the City of Chicago or the State of Illinois.

Because the Program receives all of its funding from taxpayers there are some monetary equity issues like the amount of taxes each user paid relative to the benefit they receive (the benefit being bicycle parking). There's also the amount and type of tax each user and non-user paid to the Federal, State, and Local governments. Were there income, property, gas (a type of sales tax, with a dedicated destination fund) or sales taxes involved? Were the taxes regressive, neutral or progressive?

These questions present an opportunity for further research, but I did not attempt to answer these in this project.

See Background for a description on how Chicago is politically organized.

Bicycle parking, like any transportation investment, is a political issue. As I discussed in Introduction, bicycle parking is part of the debate among places. “Equity impacts are an important determinant of the political acceptability of transportation reforms”^[4]. Bicycle parking is no exception. The CDOT Bicycle Parking Program stays aware of this; their data management policy includes information on political divisions.

All bike parking records are geocoded^[a] for their respective Wards^[A]. We can assume that politicians are concerned about the benefits their constituents receive, especially in comparison to the constituents of same-level political divisions (in the City of Chicago, Wards are an administrative division and the most relevant political division).

“The need to involve multiple jurisdictions drives the issue of equity to the political forefront, because each participating jurisdiction becomes intent on getting its fair share. This intraregional competition may undermine productive regional cooperation. The issue of equity is inevitable; the challenge is to use it as a constructive element in the transportation planning process”^[2].

Bike parking is not a hot political issue like elections or budgets, and currently enjoys a fairly low profile. This was not always the caseBike racks were first installed in Chicago in 1993 and met substantial resistance - now they are viewed as “entitlements”^[ii] and the Program cannot install them fast enough.

By taking political and geographical equity into consideration in the development and management of a bike parking program (including the CDOT Bicycle Parking Program), it is better prepared to support itself against opposing claims.

The equity analysis I performed was purely about geographic distribution and did not involve factoring in demographic characteristics like race or household income. This approach has some limitations which I examine.

As an intern expected to fulfill mostly physical labor duties riding my bicycle around Chicago to survey locations where someone wanted a bike rack, I didn't have the resources (time, mostly, but also the relevant skills) to develop a further-reaching project, one that would take into account such demographic characteristics like income.

Also, the program was not designed to respond to equity impacts - it was designed to respond directly to residents' requests. I write this paper with many of my project's shortcomings in mind in the hope that bike parking programs the world over can begin with a higher end in mind: A program that makes equitable distribution and service a key principle in its operation.

It's almost as if this project is attempting to find the problem at the same time it tries to find a fix.

“Indirect benefits…represent real impacts that probably benefit some people more than others. It is exceedingly difficult, however, to trace through the benefit stream of these broad impacts”^[2].

“Transportation is an unusual public service in that it is not consumed for its own sake but, rather, as a means to another end. Thus, the value of the service depends primarily on how well it provides access to other places”^[2]. The end is a “right to participate in activities”^[3].

Bike parking doesn't provide access to other places. Even though this is the case, making sure bike parking is accessible at every trip's end is hard to “operationalize to everyone's satisfaction”^[2].

Transportation investments, like bike parking, should achieve equity. The rationale to support attaining an equitable service or investment is mostly defined by the local social, cultural, and political atmosphere. Occasionally, laws and regulations demand equity.

The rationale for equity is heavily based on the local atmosphere and political and market approach. “Society has deemed it important to insure that all urban residents have at least some minimal mobility”^[2]. But transport being a right is dependent on the “characteristics of each society and its understanding of equity and welfare”^[3]. Vasconcellos writes from the point of view of transportation in developing countries.

To be politically acceptable, a transportation project, or other project funded by public dollars, must have equity to ensure the constituents of one region's politician are as well-served as the constituents of a similar region's politician. Politicians often define their service in office by ensuring their constituents receive their “fair share.”

”…[B]etter service yields more riders [or users], who in turn create the demand for better service. In this case the apparent inequity of service levels is mostly a reflection of variation in the character of urban space and not any sort of systematic discrimination”^[2].