Bloom or Gloom?
Cycling Future of Los Angeles, Hong Kong and Guangzhou
Chu Fun Fun, Kristie
The degree of Bachelor of Science (Environmental Management & Technology)
Hong Kong University of Science and Technology
Undersupervision of Professor Robert Gottlieb, Urban & Environmental Policy
Occidental College
August, 2013
Introduction
The growing popularity of biking is a worldwide phenomenon. You can easily spot cyclists carefully riding next to a nervous driver and the atmosphere becomes even more intense when they know that they co-exist on a narrow road. Why are they so conscious about the existence of each other? What can do done to ease the mutual discomfort? Is it limited to city setting?
This study is then started to have an overview of biking in three megacities: Hong Kong, Guangzhou, China and the city of Los Angeles, CA United States.[1] The ultimate goal is to inform concerning parties thecurrent bike development in the three areas, so as to help formulate a bike future for each specific megacity.
The three cities chosen in this article are all densely populated and are known for their traffic in different aspects, though may not be a sound one. In terms of bike related issues, Los Angeles is actively preparing its bike share program and planning its bicycle future. Hong Kong, regardless of the infamous polluted air due to its highly motorized transportation system,has been neglecting the beneficial effects on air of bikes and puts off the mass bike development. Guangzhou, the only city in this paper with existing bike-share programs, has shown great efforts in integrating the public transportation system with bike lanes. Recent data is analyzed and trends are identified regarding cycling and policies as well as the plausibility of a bicycle revolution in each city will be discussed.
- Demographics and geographical features
Land Area
(km2) / Population / Population Density
(persons/km2) / GDP
(USD billion) / GDP Per Capita / No. of private cars licensed / Vehicle per person
Los Angeles / 1,302 / 3,792,621[2] / 3,125[3] / 732[4] / 56,900 / 1,977,803[5] / 0.52
Hong Kong / 1,104 / 7,173,900[6] / 6,540[7] / 229[8] / 32,636 / 415,000[9] / 0.058
Guangzhou / 7,434 / 11,114,200[10] / 2,892[11] / 173[12] / 13,542[13] / 1,700,000[14] / 0.153
Table 1 – Demographic information of the city of Los Angeles, Hong Kong and Guangzhou (2010-2012)
- Demography
As shown in Table 1, Guangzhou is the largest city among the three megacities, with 11 million residents, almost 4 times of the population of the City of Los Angeles and 4 million more than that of Hong Kong. Despite the highest population, its largest land area (7,434 km2) among the three allows a lowest population density (2,892 persons/km2). Hong Kong, with the smallest land area, doubles the population density of Guangzhou and one of the most densely packed city of the United State, Los Angeles.
What distinguishes Los Angeles is its high car ownership. Only 7.8% of the population lives in a household with no car (The City of Los Angeles Transportation Profile 2009). In contrast, due to its extensive and well-connected public transport system as well as the high cost of owning a vehicle, the vehicle per person ratio remains the lowest in Hong Kong while one out of two persons owns a vehicle in Los Angeles, which is 10 times higher than Hong Kong. With such a high car ownership, the opportunity cost of switching from private motorized transportation to cycling is higher in Los Angeles.
Guangzhou has a moderate car ownership rate which may be reflected by the lowest GDP per capita generated and relatively higher cost of motorized vehicles. Guangzhou citizens have to spend a larger proportion of income for vehicle expenses. Nonetheless, from 2010 to 2011, the car ownership of Guangzhou increased by 23.8%, in which the government foresees the burden vehicles placing on the existing congestion problem, and thus imposed a vehicle limit act in 2012. The policy result is satisfactory regarding the fact that, within eleven months, the rise of number of private cars slowed down by 63%[15]. Although the long term impact of the policy on transport mode is still to be determined, it suggests a greater incentive to switch from motorized vehicles to cycling for the policies effect and high costs of keeping a car.
- Climate and Landscape
Annual precipitation(cm) / Days with precipitation / Cold days / Hot days / Hilly relief percentage
Los Angeles / 32.6[16] / 36 / 5[17] / 21[18] / N/A
Hong Kong / 192.47[19] / 137.8[20] / 21[21] / 21[22] / 70%[23]
Guangzhou / 180.15[24] / 170.2[25] / 27[26] / 24.4[27] / 48%[28]
Table 2 – Climate and landscape information of the three cities. They all have different definitions of cold days and hot days. L.A. has the highest and lowest temperature definition for hot and cold days respectively.Data of HK & L.A. are average number while 2012 data of GZ is used
Climateis definitely one of the decisive factors influencing the cycling levels. Rainy or cold or hot weather is not optimal to the majority of cyclists. Among the three cities, Los Angeles has the least averageannual precipitation (32.6%) and only 36 days with precipitationdue to its Mediterraneanclimate. Hong Kong and Guangzhou both have almost 6 times higher annual precipitation and 4-5 times more days with precipitation, which shows that LA has more days that are suitable for cycling in a year than the other two. All three cities do not snow throughout the year.Los Angeles has the fewest cold days. Guangzhou has a more extreme climate pattern than Hong Kong and Los Angeles with the most hot and cold days.In short, Los Angeles has the least rainy, hot and cold days and in this aspect, it owns a most cycling-friendly climate condition. The two other cities are not unbearable though.
Topography can also impact cycling levels. Hong Kong is the hilliest city among its peers with 70% of its land regarded hilly or mountainous. If steep slopes and inland bodies of water are omitted then only about 30% of the land area of the HKSAR is suitable for cycling and this still includes major areas of reclaimed land such as Chek Lap Kok airport and the container ports where the opportunities for cycling are very limited.[29]Los Angeles and Guangzhouare flatter, which provides topography more favorable to cycling.
- Bike mode shares
Figure 1 – Mode shares in Hong Kong, data source from Hong Kong In Figures 2011, Travel Characteristics Survey 2002, Transport Department, Hong Kong.This is based on the number of boardings by mode of transport.It includes only motorized modes for all purposes.
Figure 2- Mode shares in Guangzhou, data Source: Guangzhou Yearbook 2010, Guangzhou Urban Transport Report 2010. This is based on the number of journeys by main mode of transport. It includes only motorized modes for all purposes.
Figure 3 – Commuting Mode Shares in Los Angeles, data source: The City of Los Angeles Transportation Profile 2009
The transportation mix of the three cities varies to a large extent. In Hong Kong, mass transit which mainly refers to rail and bus constitutes 80% of all boardings. The extensive coverage of public transport network, competitive fare prices and high reliability contribute to the intensive usage of mass transit. Cycling accounts for about 0.5%[30] of the daily weekday mechanized trips in Hong Kong (2004). Almost 10 years passed, statistics of bike mode share have been updated.
Guangzhou lies in the middle ground between Hong Kong and Los Angeles. Mass transit constitutes 49% of motorized journeys. Guangzhou has a considerable capacity to expand the shares of public transit and biking. The most current data in 2010 shows that there is a significant bike shares, 15.4%[31], at least this is the most outstanding one among the three cities. There are concurrently government policies limiting the number of new private vehicles and infrastructure development for both public transit, mainly the Guangzhou Bus Rapid Transit (BRT) and biking.
The mode shares in Los Angeles is totally reverse to Hong Kong, despite the fact that data compared is commuting mode shares. Almost 80 percent of employed City residents drive to work in private vehicles, while 10 percent use public transportation[32]. The remaining commuters travel to work by: walking (3.2%), taking a taxi or motorcycle (1.7%) or bicycling (0.6%). This shows the heavy reliance of private vehicles there. L.A. is a more spread-out city where people live and work in a wide variety of neighborhoods and public transportation is inconvenient, car ownership is seen as a necessity in getting around. According to a study by the University of Michigan’s Transportation Research Institute[33], there is a decrease in teens with driver’s licenses which might suggest that they are adopting alternatives of driving. We can see a great potential of promoting bike use.
Figure 3 - Bike mode share in LA HK and GZ over the years
Figure 3 summarizes bike mode shares derived from travel surveys in each of the three cities over the recent two decades.Over the period of 1992 to 2003, the bike mode share in Guangzhou actually drops by 24% due to a regional strategy aimed at gradually reducing and restricting the number of bicycle as the city government regarded bicycles as the culprit of the disordered and congested traffic at that time.[34]From 2003 to 2011, we see a rise from 10 to 15.4 percent bicycle shares of all trips in Guangzhou. The sharp change was also due to government policy. The bureau reconsidered the role of cycling in the transportation mix and finally recognized its benefits on the regional air quality and city image and thus, re-promoting the long-neglected mode of transport – cycling.
The bike mode shares of Guangzhou arealmost 20 and 30 times higher thanthat of Los Angeles and Hong Kong respectively. Although the bike mode shares of Los Angeles has remained at a low level when compared with Guangzhou, there is a 48% growth of bike shares in Los Angeles in 2 years from 2009 to 2011, which is a positive sign for more extensive bike usage. The lowest bike share happens in Hong Kong (0.5%), and the previous data which would be essential in predicting the trend is lacking, which shows the little attention from the government and poor record of cycling.
Figure 4 –cycling trip purpose in LA, HK and GZ, Data from Cycling study 2004, HKTD, The City of Los Angeles Bicycle Plan 2010 and Bike Guangzhou – Constraints and Suggestions on bike as a transport mode(Only in Chinese; 拜客廣州- 自行車出行制約因素及改善建議). For L.A. statistics, some bicyclists ride for multiple reasons and therefore the numbers add up to more than 100%. Designs of the surveys vary among the cities.
Trip purposes of cycling vary considerably among the three cities. For commuting,which includes trips to work or to school and work-related cycling trips, it accounted for 30% in Guangzhou, which is the highest among all. Commuting trips in Hong Kong (14%) is just half of Guangzhou’s number. And it isalso worth noting that, in Hong Kong, of those people aged 15 and over, who knew how tocycle (but had not necessarily cycled in the past 3 months), only 3.5% had cycled towork or school in the past 3 months.This directly shows that cycling for commuting is not a common choice.[35] For Los Angeles, what explains the low commuting rate would be the long distance between workplace and home as well as the limited public transit system.
It can be seen that over 70% of the trips were for recreation or fitness purposes in Hong Kong. Recreational as well as the fitness purpose are also the largest share in Los Angeles, which outcompetes commuting by a large margin. The result actually aligns with the words from the L.A. city government that, so far, cycling is still for recreation.
Shopping purpose of Hong Kong and Guangzhou cycling trips accounts for 11% and 32% under the category of ‘Others’. This kind of utilitarian usage of cycling are not unpopular but often bypassed when looking at the bike trip purposes. Shopping has a tendency to be a daily trip travelling from home to market for adult women, or to be exact, housewives in the two cities. Shopping is not included in the survey result of LA although national U.S. figures do suggest it could be a significant opportunity since most shopping trips are <.5 miles or 0.8 km.
- Cycling safety
Figure 5 – Number of cyclists involved in accidents in HK in 10 years. Data obtained from Transport Department,HKSAR[36]
In Hong Kong, during the past decade, accidents involving bicycles increased from 782 in 1997 to 1,559 in 2006.[37]Just in the first eight months of 2013, 1,540 cyclists injured in traffic accidents and there was a 10% increase than last year. Number of casualtiesrelated to cycling rise from 1,408 in 2003 to 2,442 in 2012. The escalating cases of cycling casualties and accidents drew huge public concerns. According to the Police representative, many of the cyclists do not own sufficient traffic rules regarding cycling. They even did not sense that they also have to watch the traffic lights when cycling with other vehicles and pedestrians on the road. This can be explained by poor education and training of road safety in Hong Kong.
The city government has promised to advance cycling facilities and road design and be diligentin checking cyclists riding on pedestrian roads and careless driving behavior. In the first eight months 2013, the police have issued more than 7,900 summonses, which is 57% more than the statistics from the same period in last year. Other than legal charges, education like promoting helmet use is almost unheard of in Hong Kong, which undoubtedly helps explained the worsening safety issue. 91.1% of the biking population reported that they did not wear helmets when riding bicycle.[38]The most serious injuries among a majority of those killed are to the head and helmet use has been estimated to reduce head injury risk by 85 percent. There is no excuse for the government not arousing public awareness on the use of helmet and of course, other safety precautions.
In Los Angeles, which is neither known as a city for walking nor biking, about 2.8% of traffic fatalities are bicyclists[39]. Drivers in the city kill pedestrians and bicyclists at a significantly higher rate than drivers nationally.[40] County-wise, despite the fact that about 20% of all trips in Los Angeles County are on foot or by bike, but less than 1% of transportation funding in the county goes to improvements for pedestrians and bicyclists.[41]
Regarding Guangzhou, concrete data about cycling accidents and fatalities have not been found. Nonetheless, the discussion of cycling safety was particularly intense right after the ban of motorcycles in the city in 2007. Out of the 0.79 million of motorcyclists, 19% of them shifted to biking.[42] The media claimed that the sharp increase of biking accidents is attributed to the increase of cyclists in the city[43]. However, in a study of the University of New South Wales in Sydney, Australia, which reviewed safety studies from 17 countries and 68 cities in California, there is evidence showing that the more people bike in a community, the less they collide with motorists. The explanation is that motorists adjust their behavior in the presence of increasing numbers of people bicycling because they expect or experience more people cycling.
If we assume that the media in Guangzhou was not just making random guess, then the relationship between number of cyclists and traffic accident rate of Guangzhouwould be different from other cities in the world.
- Cycling infrastructure
City / Los Angeles / Hong Kong / Guangzhou
Length of bike lane (miles) / 344 / 128.5[44] / 1,032[45]
Bike lane/land area (mile/square mile) / 0.26 / 0.12 / 0.18
Table 3 – Miles of bike lanes in the three cities.
When assessing cycling infrastructure, length of bike lanes must be under consideration as it directly reflects how extensive a biking network is. Regarding the aggregate length of bike lane, Guangzhou has way longer bike lanes than Los Angeles and Hong Kong. Nonetheless, we must be noted that Guangzhou owns a larger land area and thus its relatively longer bike lane does not necessarily mean that the bike lane is the most comprehensive. To have a fair discussion, ‘bike lane density’ of the three cities was calculated by taking account the city land area.
It is found that there is more bike lane in one square mile in Los Angeles than Hong Kong and Guangzhou. Hong Kong has the least bike lane in terms of land area. The hilly relief of the city has played a major role in hindering the spread of bike lanes. Only about 30% of the land area of Hong Kong is suitable for cycling and this includes major area of reclaimed land such asChek Lap Kok airport where the opportunities of cycling is deemed limited. Even the government in Hong Kong has been actively developing bike lanes in the new towns (suburban or rural area), named New Territories, where we can find about 87 km of bike lane[46], the capacity of elongating the total bike lane in Hong Kong is smaller than the other two regions.
What makes Los Angeles stand out among its peers is that, there is a clear hierarchy of the bike lane system. Out of the 344miles[47]of bikeways, 49 miles are bicycle paths, 167 miles are bicycle lanes and 119 miles are bicycle routes. There are separate definitions for each kind of bikeway in the Los Angeles Bike Plan. On the other hand, bike lanes in Guangzhou are called greenway which emphasizes the environmentally friendly characteristic of biking.
- Bike parking and integration with public transport
Bike Parking
Although Hong Kong does not have or even plan for a bike share program, its supply of bike parking spaces are surprisingly plenty when compared to the other two cities, which is 8 times more than Los Angeles (Over 5,000, AUG 2012[48]) and almost 2 times of Guangzhou (25,971[49])
There are more than 40000 bike parking spaces[50] in such a little city, Hong Kong. The majority of Hong Kong’s vast bike parking is located mostly at the railway stations, in the N.T[51], an area with mainly suburban land use. This serves as an indication of cycling’s role as an access mode for public transportation. This is aligned with the government promotion of cycling only in New Territories for safety reasons as the region is relatively loosely populated compared to Kowloon and Hong Kong Island. [52]The Transport Department of Hong Kong will carry out a pilot scheme to introduce Double-deck Bicycle Parking System (DBPS) near the Fanling and SheungShui MTR stations. The DBPS will be used in Hong Kong with a view to improve the shortage of bicycle parking spaces in some districts, though still limited to New Territories. Stage completion of the trial scheme is scheduled to start from mid-2012 onwards.[53]