International Journal of Sustainable Transportation

ISSN: (Print) (Online) Journal homepage: https://www.tandfonline.com/loi/ujst20

Gender disparities in New York City bike share

usage

Kathleen H. Reilly , Shu Meir Wang & Aldo Crossa

To cite this article: Kathleen H. Reilly , Shu Meir Wang & Aldo Crossa (2020): Gender disparities
in New York City bike share usage, International Journal of Sustainable Transportation, DOI:
10.1080/15568318.2020.1861393

To link to this article: https://doi.org/10.1080/15568318.2020.1861393

Published online: 21 Dec 2020.

Submit your article to this journal

Article views: 49

View related articles

View Crossmark data

Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at

https://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journalCode=ujst20
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF SUSTAINABLE TRANSPORTATION
https://doi.org/10.1080/15568318.2020.1861393

Gender disparities in New York City bike share usage

Kathleen H. Reilly, Shu Meir Wang, and Aldo Crossa
Bureau of Epidemiology Services, New York City Department of Health and Mental Hygiene, Long Island City, NY, USA

ABSTRACT ARTICLE HISTORY

By understanding gender disparities in bike share usage in New York City, programs can be better Received 23 December 2019
tailored to increase cycling and bike share usage among female members. Data from bike trips Revised 14 September 2020
and a Citi Bike enrollment survey for the period 2013–2018 were used for this analysis. Accepted 28 November 2020
Associations comparing female to male members on selected study variables were examined
KEYWORDS
through the estimation of odds ratios (OR) and 95% confidence intervals (CI) using bivariate logis- Bicycling; bike share;
tic regression models and Wilcoxon signed-rank tests for continuous non-normal data. Spatial gender; physical activity
autocorrelation of bike share station pick ups and drop offs by percentage of female bike share
members was detected using local Moran’s I. This study included 226,237 Citi Bike members; of
these, over one-third (38.1%) self-identified as female. The optional enrollment survey was com-
pleted by 33,945 members; of these, 37.9% self-identified as female. Compared to male gender,
female gender was associated with younger age, higher levels of education completed, being a
student and not employed, and lower household income, as well as social and health reasons for
membership rather than utilitarian reasons. Overall, female members took fewer bike share trips
(median: 46.0 per year vs. 78.5 for males). There was spatial correlation between station usage and
gender, with female members more likely than male members to use Citi Bikes in less dense
neighborhoods. The results from this study highlight the gender disparity in bike share member-
ship and usage in NYC and provide insight into how this gap could be reduced.

Introduction York City Department of Consumer Affairs, 2015). This

Riding a bike provides individual benefits such as positive
health outcomes and an efficient and low-cost means of
urban transportation (Heinen et al., 2010; Oja et al., 2011;
Wilson, 1973) as well as population benefits by reducing
pollution and traffic congestion (Saelensminde, 2004). With
the exception of countries like the Netherlands, Denmark,
and Germany, the cycling gender disparity persists world-
wide (Pucher & Buehler, 2008). In the US, men are approxi-
mately four times as likely to bike for transportation than
women (Nehme et al., 2016). Population-level surveys of
adults and public high school students in New York City
(NYC) have found that men of both groups were more
likely to cycle once a month or more compared with women
(Crossa et al., 2016). The League of American Bicyclists
claims that the “five Cs” (comfort, convenience, confidence,
consumer products, and community) influence women’s
decision to bike (Szczepanski, 2013). Evidence indicates that
women prefer to ride in protected bike lanes and many
avoid cycling due to fear of traffic. Furthermore, women
have been considered an “indicator species” for strong bike
infrastructure (Aldred et al., 2017; Baker, 2009; Fowler et al.,
2017; Mitra & Nash, 2019).
The phrase “pink tax” has been applied to items for
which a female version of a product costs more than the
male version, including toiletries, clothing, and toys (New
expression has also been applied to transit in NYC, where
women often pay more to use private cars and cars-for-hire
rather than use public transit due to caregiver responsibil-
ities, fear of harassment, and safety concerns (Kaufman
et al., 2018). In much the same way, a “pink tax” could be
thought to apply to cycling since women do not participate
at the same rates as men and are, therefore, excluded from
such advantages as saving money on transportation and
health benefits.
Bike sharing programs have the potential to narrow gen-
der disparities in cycling, as the proportion of female bike
share members has been higher than among general cyclists
in several cities (Aldred et al., 2017; Fishman, 2016).
Reasons for this finding have been speculated, but are not
well studied in the current literature (Goodyear, 2013).
Moreover, little is known about differences in characteristics
between male and female bike share members, including in
NYC. By better understanding gender disparities in bike
share usage, programs can be tailored to increase cycling
and bike share usage among women.
Materials and methods
Launched in 2013, New York City’s “Citi Bike” bike share
system is the largest of its kind in the United States. Trip

CONTACT Kathleen H. Reilly kreilly3@health.nyc.gov Bureau of Epidemiology Services, New York City Department of Health and Mental Hygiene, 4209
28th St, CN 07-103, Long Island City, NY 11101.
ß 2020 City of New York
2 K. H. REILLY ET AL.
Figure 1. NYC bike share and social–ecological model for impacts on human behavior.
utilization data are collected electronically when members
unlock and return bikes to docking stations. Citi Bike col-
lects limited demographic information on its members (gen-
der [male, female, other, or refuse to answer], birth year,
and billing ZIP code). Additional data came from an
optional online enrollment survey of people signing up for
an annual Citi Bike subscription for the first time. The sur-
vey, designed by the New York City Department of Health
and Mental Hygiene (NYC DOHMH), includes questions on
race/ethnicity, highest level of education completed, employ-
ment status, household income, private bicycle ownership,
private car ownership, self-reported physical activity status,
self-reported health status, and reasons for membership.
Unique membership ID numbers were used to link survey
data to membership and trip utilization data. This study
considered a socio-ecological framework for how aspects of
bike share at different levels influence behavior (Figure 1).
Data were restricted to those who reported either male or
female gender and further limited to Citi Bike members
with a billing ZIP code in NYC who had a subscription last-
ing at least 365 days in the period from May 20, 2013 (the
date of Citi Bike launch) to December 31, 2018. Yearly sub-
scriptions with breaks greater than 10 days were right cen-
sored in order to ensure that only continuous usage data
were examined. Analyses of trip data included all members
meeting the criteria above; some analyses were further
restricted to members who completed the enrollment survey.
Due to a technical error following migration to a new survey
platform, approximately 20% of surveys could not be linked
to membership IDs.
Measures
Dichotomous variables were created for self-reported phys-
ical activity and overall health. Survey respondents were
asked, “In general, how physically active are you? Would
you say very active, somewhat active, not very active, or not
active at all?” Those who reported that they were “very
active” or “somewhat active” were considered physically
active, whereas those who reported that they were “not very
active” or “not active at all” were considered not physically
active. Survey respondents were also asked, “Would you say
in general your health is excellent, very good, good, fair, or
poor?” Those who reported that their health was “excellent,”
“very good,” or “good” were considered to be in good
health, whereas those who reported that their health was
“fair” or “poor” were considered to not be in good health.
Trip utilization data were aggregated to total trip counts for
each member and created into rate variables for trips per
year. Trips were excluded if they started and ended in the
same station and had trip durations less than two minutes
since these could reflect issues unlocking bikes rather than
actual trips. Peak season was defined as May through
October and rush hour was considered 7–10 a.m. and 4–7
p.m. during weekdays.
Statistical analysis
The frequencies and percentages for each level of categorical
variables were calculated, stratified by male and female
members. Differences in survey response were examined by
gender, residence in a Zip Code Tabulation Area (ZCTA)
with a Citi Bike station (Chi-square tests), and age
(Wilcoxon signed-rank test), since these are the variables
that Citi Bike collects from its members. Associations com-
paring female to male members on selected study variables
were examined through Chi-square tests for categorical vari-
ables and Wilcoxon signed-rank tests for continuous non-
normal data. For categorical variables with more than two
levels, Chi-square post hoc multiple comparison tests were
conducted with Bonferroni adjustment to determine the dif-
ferences between levels that were significant. Multiplicative
interaction between year of Citi Bike service and gender was
examined using Poisson regression to determine if trip
counts varied by gender over time. A multivariable model
was created to determine if the significance of the

interaction between year and gender persisted after control-
ling for potential confounders among those who completed
the enrollment survey. Variables that were significantly asso-
ciated with trip counts while controlling for year were con-
sidered for inclusion in the multivariable model. The final
multivariable model was selected through backward selection
of the full model including the gender and year interaction
term using Bayesian Information Criterion. The percentage
of female members for bike share station pick ups and drop
offs was mapped with Voronoi polygons around each bike
share station. Spatial autocorrelation for the percentage of
female members for bike share station pick ups and drop
offs was tested using Moran’s I and p values were estimated
using Monte Carlo tests with 999 simulations. Additionally,
the relationship between traffic volume (annual million
vehicle miles traveled per km2 per year [2016] from the
New York Metropolitan Transportation Council Best
Practice Model) and percentage of station usage by female
bike share members at the Community District level
(approximations of the U.S. Census Public Use Microdata
Area [PUMA] geographies) was examined. The spatial cor-
relation structure was determined by fitting a variogram of
the null model with percentage of station usage by female
bike share members as the outcome. A likelihood ratio (LR)
test was used to determine improvement of the non-linear
mixed effects model incorporating spatial correlation over
the null model. The association between traffic volume and
percentage of station usage by female bike share members
was measured using Pearson’s correlation coefficient.
Analyses were conducted using SAS Enterprise Guide 7.1
(Cary, NC, USA) and the sp, rgdal, rgeos, nmle, dismo,
dplyr, ggplot2, and spdep packages in R 3.5.2 (Vienna,
Austria). Statistical significance was determined if the two-
sided p value was less than 0.05.
Ethics
This study was reviewed by the New York City Department
of Health and Mental Hygiene’s Institutional Review Board
and was deemed to be a public health program evaluation
that is not research.
Results
Citi Bike data for the study period contained 533,874 sub-
scriptions; of these, 486,481 (91.1%) did not have a break of
more than 10 days in membership. There were 253,313
(52.1%) unique members with 252,473 (99.7%) having a
subscription for at least 365 days; of these, 227,284 (90.0%)
had a billing ZIP code in a NYC ZCTA. Only 41,471 mem-
bers (18.2%) answered the survey and 33,955 (81.9%) could
be linked to other membership data. There was no differ-
ence in survey response by gender (female members: 14.9%
vs. male members: 15.0%, p ¼ 0.45), but survey respondents
were more likely to live in a ZCTA with a Citi Bike station
(15.6% vs. 11.8% for those who did not live in a ZCTA with
a Citi Bike station, p < 0.0001) and were somewhat older
than non-respondents (median: 34 years [IQR: 28, 45] vs.
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF SUSTAINABLE TRANSPORTATION 3
median: 32 years of age [IQR: 27, 41], respectively; Wilcoxon
p < 0.0001). Overall the, age and trip counts varied between
those who reported binary gender and those who reported
other (Wilcoxon p < 0.0001 for both), where those who
reported “other” gender were younger (median 32 (IQR: 25,
41)) vs. those reporting binary gender (median 32 (IQR: 27,
42). Those reporting “other” also made fewer trips (median:
74.5 (IQR: 14, 215) vs. median: 99.0 (IQR: 30, 278).
There were 12,865 female and 21,080 male members who
completed the enrollment survey; none of survey respond-
ents reported “other” gender or refused to answer. Table 1
shows the differences in characteristics between female and
male bike share members at the time of survey completion.
The proportion of female members that were Latina was sig-
nificantly lower than the proportion of men that were
Latino (8.5% vs. 9.8%). A larger proportion of female mem-
bers were in the <30 years and >45 years age groups com-
pared with male members; this difference was significant for
the comparison of all age group categories with the excep-
tion that there was no difference in the proportion of female
members between the 30–35 years of age and >45 years of
age categories. Greater proportions of female members had
completed higher levels of education compared with male
members. The comparison of less than college and some
college was not significantly different between genders; how-
ever, significant differences were found between all other
levels. Proportions of female cyclists who were students
(6.0% vs. 4.9%) or not employed (4.3% vs. 2.8%) were
higher compared with those who were employed (89.7% vs.
92.3%); there was no difference in the proportion of female
members who were students compared with not employed.
Female members had greater proportions with lower house-
hold income, however, differences in gender did not vary
significantly within the lowest household income brackets
(<$25,000 vs. $25,000–$49,000 vs. $50,000–$99,999).
Female members were less likely to own a working
bicycle (46.2% vs. 50.4%) or a car (35.7% vs. 41.2%) and
were more likely to report being physically active (88.3% vs.
88.0%), in good health (95.4% vs. 93.9%), and to request
safety tips from Citi Bike (17.1% vs. 10.1%). There were also
differences by gender for their primary reason for subscrib-
ing to Citi Bike, with a higher proportion of female mem-
bers more likely to cite friends and family as motivation to
join (3.3% vs. 1.5%); enjoy riding a bike (12.6% vs. 8.9%);
personal health and fitness (11.2% vs. 8.5%); to reduce pol-
lution and help the environment (3.7% vs. 3.2%); and as an
alternative to public transportation (15.0% vs. 13.3%).
Female members were less likely to report their primary rea-
son for membership as a faster way to get around town
(19.2% vs. 23.2%) and to save money on transportation
(6.1% vs. 6.8%).
During the study time period, there were 140,059 male
members, 86,178 female members, and 1100 (<1%) mem-
bers who reported “other” gender. Table 2 shows the differ-
ences in trip utilization between female and male bike share
members. Overall, female bike share members used Citi Bike
less than male bike share members, in terms of duration of
membership (median 1.0 years [IQR: 1.0, 2.0] vs. median 1.3
4 K. H. REILLY ET AL.

Table 1. Characteristics of Citi Bike members in NYC and associations with female gender (2013–2018).
Female Male
n (%) n (%)
Variable n ¼ 12,865 n ¼ 21,080 p Value
Race/Ethnicity (totals) n ¼ 8304 n ¼ 12,021 0.004
White 6078 (73.2%) 8749 (72.8%)
Asian and Pacific Islander 1089 (13.1%) 1489 (12.4%)
Hispanic or Latino 705 (8.5%) 1182 (9.8%)
Black 277 (3.3%) 353 (2.9%)
Other 154 (1.9%) 248 (2.1%)
Age (years) (totals) n ¼ 12,811 n ¼ 21,008 <0.0001
<30 4245 (33.1%) 6100 (29.0%)
30–35 2854 (22.3%) 4829 (23.0%)
36–45 2604 (20.3%) 5084 (24.2%)
>45 3108 (24.3%) 4995 (23.8%)
Highest level of education completed n ¼ 8738 n ¼ 12,701 <0.0001
Less than college 180 (2.1%) 429 (3.4%)
Some college 562 (6.4%) 1134 (8.9%)
College 3733 (42.7%) 5582 (43.9%)
Graduate school 4263 (48.8%) 5556 (43.7%)
Employment status n ¼ 8544 n ¼ 12534 <0.0001
Employed 7664 (89.7%) 11,573 (92.3%)
Student 514 (6.0%) 610 (4.9%)
Not employed 366 (4.3%) 351 (2.8%)
Household income n ¼ 6962 n ¼ 10,343 <0.0001
<$25,000 356 (5.1%) 383 (3.7%)
$25,000–$49,999 546 (7.8%) 662 (6.4%)
$50,000–$99,999 1939 (27.9%) 2148 (20.8%)
$1,00,000–$199,999 2388 (34.3%) 3576 (34.6%)
>$200,000 1733 (24.9%) 3573 (34.5%)
Owns a working bike n ¼ 8784 n ¼ 12,840 <0.0001
4059 (46.2%) 6473 (50.4%)
Did not ride a bike in NYC in 12 months prior to membership n ¼ 9415 n ¼ 13,993 0.01
2593 (27.5%) 3649 (26.1%)
Owns a car n ¼ 8855 n ¼ 12,964 <0.0001
3162 (35.7%) 5342 (41.2%)
Self-reported physically active n ¼ 9571 n ¼ 14,147 0.05
8503 (88.3%) 12,448 (88.0%)
Self-reported good health n ¼ 9596 n ¼ 14,174 <0.0001
9152 (95.4%) 13,308 (93.9%)
Requested safety tips from Citi Bike n ¼ 12,865 n ¼ 21,080 <0.0001
2206 (17.1%) 2130 (10.1%)
Primary reason for membership n ¼ 12,817 n ¼ 20,965
Faster way to get around town 2456 (19.2%) 4857 (23.2%) <0.0001
Alternative to public transportation 1919 (15.0%) 2797 (13.3%) <0.0001
Enjoy riding a bike 1609 (12.6%) 1835 (8.9%) <0.0001
Personal health and fitness 1438 (11.2%) 1772 (8.5%) <0.0001
Save money on transportation 781 (6.1%) 1419 (6.8%) 0.01
Reduce pollution help environment 479 (3.7%) 663 (3.2%) 0.005
Friends and family joining 420 (3.3%) 305 (1.5%) <0.0001
Support the program 291 (2.3%) 513 (2.4%) 0.30
Better than riding own bike 368 (2.9%) 543 (2.6%) 0.12
Do not drive a car 104 (0.8%) 213 (1.0%) 0.06
Lives in a NYC ZCTA with a Citi Bike station n ¼ 12,865 n ¼ 21,080 <0.0001
11,168 (86.8%) 17,744 (84.2%)

[IQR: 1.0, 2.9], Wilcoxon p < 0.0001), number of trips per
year (median: 46.0 [IQR: 15.0, 117.0] vs. median: 78.5 [IQR:
27.8, 187.8], Wilcoxon p < 0.0001), percentage of rush hour
trips (median: 28.8% [IQR: 16.7% vs. 44.6%] vs. median:
30.3% [IQR: 18.9%, 46.2%], Wilcoxon p < 0.0001), and per-
centage of peak season trips (median: 77.3% [IQR: 62.9%,
91.7%] vs. median: 72.4% [IQR: 60.0%, 86.1%], Wilcoxon
p < 0.0001). However, the percentage of weekend and holi-
day trips was higher among female members (median:
30.0% [IQR: 17.3%, 47.4%] vs. median: 25.9% [IQR: 14.6%,
39.3%], Wilcoxon p < 0.0001). Female bike share members
also had longer trips (median: 12.4 minutes [IQR: 9.3, 17.2]
vs. median: 10.0 [IQR: 7.5, 13.8], both Wilcoxon,
p < 0.0001). The proportion of trips stratified by gender for
weekday hour of day, weekend and holiday hour of day,
month, and day of the week are shown in Figure 2(a, b, c,
and d), respectively. The proportions of trips by hour of day
and month followed similar patterns for female and male
members. However, male members had greater proportions
of trips in the late evening and early morning and greater
proportions of trips in the winter. Female members had a
greater proportion of trips on weekends compared with
male members.
Among those who completed the enrollment survey, the
number of trips increased for each year of Citi Bike service
(b ¼ 0.05, S.E. ¼ 0.0002, p < 0.0001); the coefficient compar-
ing female to male members was negative (b ¼ 0.45,
S.E. ¼ 0.0002, p < 0.0001), however the coefficient for the
interaction term for female gender and year of Citi Bike ser-
vice was positive (b ¼ 0.01, S.E. ¼ 0.0004, p < 0.0001).
 INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF SUSTAINABLE TRANSPORTATION 5

Table 2. Characteristics of Citi Bike trips in NYC by gender (2013–2018).

Female Male
Median (IQR) Median (IQR)
Variable n ¼ 86,178 n ¼ 140,059 Wilcoxon p Value
Duration of membership (years) 1.0 (1.0, 2.0) 1.3 (1.0, 2.9) <0.0001
Number of trips per year 46.0 (15.0, 117.0) 78.5 (27.8, 187.8) <0.0001
Percentage of trips during rush hour 28.8% (16.7%, 44.6%) 30.3% (18.9%, 46.2%) <0.0001
Percentage of trips on weekends and holidaysa 30.0% (17.3%, 47.4%) 25.9% (14.6%, 39.3%) <0.0001
Percentage of trips during peak seasonb 77.3% (62.9%, 91.7%) 72.4% (60.0%, 86.1%) <0.0001
Median duration of ride (minutes) 12.4 (9.3, 17.2) 10.0 (7.5, 13.8) <0.0001
a
Holidays include New Year’s Eve, New Year’s Day, Martin Luther King Jr. Day, Memorial Day, Independence Day, Labor Day, Columbus Day,
Veterans Day, Thanksgiving, the day after Thanksgiving, Christmas Eve, and Christmas Day.
b
Peak season: May–October.

Figure 2. (a) Proportion of trips on weekdays by hour of the day and gender; (b) proportion of trips on weekends and holidays by hour of the day and gender; (c)
proportion of trips by month and gender; (d) proportion of trips by day of the week and gender.

Table 3 shows the results of the multivariable analysis. After
controlling for other study variables, the number of trips
increased for each year of service (b ¼ 0.05, S.E. ¼ 0.0003,
p < 0.0001); the coefficient comparing females to males
remained negative (b ¼ 0.51, S.E. ¼ 0.002, p < 0.0001),
however the coefficient for the interaction term for female
gender and year of Citi Bike service was positive (b ¼ 0.01,
S.E. ¼ 0.0006, p < 0.0001).
Figure 3(a and b) shows the percentage of female mem-
bers for bike share station pick ups and drop offs, respect-
ively. The spatial distribution of the percentage of female
users was similar between pick-up and drop off stations,
indicating that origin and destination stations did not vary
by gender. The percentage of pick ups and drop offs by
female members for all stations was below 50%; however,
the neighborhoods with clusters of higher usage by female
members included parts of Brooklyn and the Upper West
Side, Manhattan. Female usage was lowest in the Financial
District and Midtown in Manhattan and parts of Queens.
The percentages of pick ups and drops offs by female mem-
bers were geographically correlated (Moran’s I 0.62
[p ¼ 0.001] and 0.58 [p ¼ 0.001], respectively). In examining
6 K. H. REILLY ET AL.

Table 3. Coefficient and standard errors (SE) for the relationship between trip
counts and the interaction between gender and year for those who completed
the NYC Citi Bike enrollment survey (2013–2018) after controlling for other
study variables in a multivariable Poisson regression model.
Variable Coefficient (SE)
Female gender 0.51 (0.002)a
Year 0.05 (0.0003)a
Female gendera Year 0.01 (0.0006)a
Race/ethnicity
White 1.0
Asian and Pacific Islander 0.16 (0.001)a
Hispanic or Latino 0.15 (0.002)a
Black 0.15 (0.003)a
Other 0.06 (0.003)a
Age (years)
<30 0.31 (0.001)a
30–35 0.32 (0.001)a
36–45 0.19 (0.001)a
>45 1.0
Highest level of education completed
Less than college 0.15 (0.003)a
Some college 0.12 (0.002)a
College 1.0
Graduate school 0.02 (0.001)a
Employment status
Employed 1.0
Student 0.06 (0.003)a
Not employed 0.18 (0.003)a
Household income
<$25,000 0.69 (0.002)a
$25,000–$49,999 0.46 (0.002)a
$50,000–$99,999 0.39 (0.001)a
$100,000–$199,999 0.22 (0.001)a
>$200,000 1.0
Owns a working bike 0.02 (0.001)a
Did not ride a bike in NYC in 12 months prior to membership 0.03 (0.001)a
Owns a car 0.16 (0.001)a
Self-reported physically active 0.35 (0.002)a
Self-reported good health 0.16 (0.003)a
Requested safety tips from Citi Bike 0.03 (0.001)a
Primary reason for membership
Faster way to get around town 0.07 (0.002)a
Alternative to public transportation 0.02 (0.002)a
Enjoy riding a bike 0.01 (0.002)a
Personal health and fitness 0.14 (0.002)a
Save money on transportation 0.32 (0.002)
Reduce pollution help environment N/A
Friends and family joining 0.19 (0.004)a
Support the program 0.04 (0.003)a
Better than riding own bike N/A
Do not drive a car 0.11 (0.004)a
Lives in a NYC ZCTA with a Citi Bike station 0.52 (0.002)a
a
p < 0.0001.

the relationship between traffic volume and percentage of sta-

tion usage by female bike share members at the Community
District level, the Gaussian spatial correlation structure best fit
the data. A log LR test determined that the non-linear mixed
effects model accounting for spatial correlation did not
improve the fit of the data over the model that did not
account for spatial correlation (LR: 7.5  1011, df ¼ 1,
p > 0.99), so spatial correlation was not considered in this
analysis. The correlation was Pearson r ¼ 0.35, indicating a
modest inverse relationship between traffic volume and use of
bike share stations by female bike share members.

Figure 3. (a) Percentage of bike share station pick ups by female members. (b)
Discussion Percentage of bike share station drop offs by female members.

This study highlights the disparities in bike share usage

between female and male members in NYC and elucidates

characteristics associated with them. Among NYC bike share
users, female gender was associated with demographic and
socioeconomic variables, as well as social and health reasons
for membership rather than utilitarian reasons.
Almost twice the proportion of females requested safety
tips from Citi Bike compared with male members. Research
has found that safety is a major factor in determining
whether female members will ride a bicycle and female
members have a greater preference for routes that are sepa-
rated from motor vehicle traffic (Aldred et al., 2017; Emond
et al., 2009; Heesch et al., 2012). The spatial correlation of
station usage by gender demonstrates a significant difference
in travel patterns between male and female members. As
demonstrated in the current study’s correlation analysis, the
areas in NYC where bike share station usage was lower
among female compared with male members (such as
Midtown Manhattan) correspond with high traffic neighbor-
hoods, which women may not perceive as safe. The NYC
Department of Transportation (DOT) considers improving
bicycle infrastructure in Midtown Manhattan a “gender
imperative” (Kuntzman, 2019). NYC has actively expanded
bike infrastructure throughout the city with an added 308
miles of conventional (Class II and Class III) bike lanes and
74 miles of protected (Class I) bike lanes from 2006 to 2017
(Getman et al., 2017). Despite these improvements to the
cycling infrastructure, lack of traffic enforcement can dimin-
ish the effectiveness of these lanes (Basch et al., 2019;
Conway et al., 2013). Improving cycling infrastructure with
protected bike paths may reduce disparities in usage by gen-
der and promote bicycling in NYC to levels similar to the
Netherlands, Denmark, and Germany (Pucher &
Buehler, 2008).
The lower proportion of female to male Hispanic or
Latino members might represent a cultural difference in
cycling by gender among particular racial/ethnic groups,
such as a greater preference to bike socially with family and
friends (Lusk et al., 2017). Bike share programs may inhibit
social riding if there are not enough bikes or docking spaces
available from desired stations, if friends or family do not
also have memberships, or if bikes are not compatible with
transporting young children; therefore, if Latinas are more
likely to ride bikes for social reasons, this could be why bike
share usage is lower among this group (People for Bikes,
2017). Additional research is needed to better understand
why bike share usage is lower among Latinas in NYC.
Similar to the findings from a study of gender differences
in cycling in Queensland, Australia (Heesch et al., 2012), the
current study found a greater proportion of younger mem-
bers among females. This age difference may be reflective of
a generational shift; an analysis of U.S. national data from
2015 found there was no gender gap in cycling for millenni-
als (Dill, 2017). Another potential explanation for this gener-
ational gap in bike share usage may be based on changes in
life events, such as having children, which may explain why
the proportion of female members in the current study was
lower in the 36–45 age group compared with those older
than 45 (Bonham & Wilson, 2012).
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF SUSTAINABLE TRANSPORTATION 7
Socioeconomic factors were also associated with gender
among bike share members. Previous studies show that
women had greater representation in bike share programs
with increasing levels of education completed. For example,
a qualitative study in London found that cycling among
women represented a “bourgeois sensibility” in parallel with
other middle class lifestyle attributes (Steinbach et al., 2011).
However, the current study found that female members had
lower incomes compared with men, which could reflect the
underlying gender gap in salaries between men and women
(Bureau of Labor Statistics, 2019). It follows that female
members were more likely to be students or unemployed
than male members, whereas the proportion of men who
were employed full-time was higher, which may also reflect
underlying population demographics, as there are more men
in the labor force compared to women (U.S. Census
Bureau). Similarly, female members were less likely to own a
bike or car, which may also reflect differences in gender in
ownership of these forms of transportation. The authors
were not able to find any data on gender differences in car
ownership in NYC, however, according to the results of the
2016 NYC Community Health Survey, 52.7% of men in
NYC drove a car in the past 30 days compared with 30.1%
of women (New York City Department of Health and
Mental Hygiene). Self-perceived health and fitness may also
influence women’s decision to become bike share members
more than for men; women who do not perceive themselves
to be physically active or in good physical health may not
sign up for a bike share program if they perceive that they
are not fit enough to ride a bike (Steinbach et al., 2011).
Female members were also more likely to live in a ZCTA
with a Citi Bike station, which may reflect that convenience
is a more influential motivator for membership
among women.
Although the top reasons for getting a Citi Bike member-
ship were the same for female and male members, women
were more likely to get a membership because of social and
personal improvement reasons such as friends and family
joining, because they enjoy riding a bike, for health and fit-
ness, and for environmental concerns. Men were more likely
to cite their primary reason for membership as more utili-
tarian, such as a faster way to get around the city and to
save money on transportation. Heesch et al. found similar
gender differences in cycling with women, citing more per-
sonal, social, and environmental reasons; however, unlike
the current study, women were more likely to cite cycling as
an inexpensive transportation option as a primary motiv-
ator (2012).
Male members had a longer duration of membership,
greater number of trips per year, and greater percentage of
rush hour trips. These disparities in usage have been found
in other countries, including the UK, Australia, and China
(Guo et al., 2017; Heesch et al., 2012; Ogilvie & Goodman,
2012). However, female bike share members had greater per-
centages of weekend and holiday trips and peak season trips,
which parallels the gendered usage of bike share usage in
London (Beecham & Wood, 2014). In addition, female
members had longer ride durations. This difference in ride
8 K. H. REILLY ET AL.
duration might reflect women preferring leisurely rides or
riding at a perceived safer speed (Wheeler et al., 2010).
Childcare responsibilities during rush hour might be a rea-
son that female members are less likely to ride during
these times.
The total number of Citi Bike trips increased over time
for both male and female members, and although female
members consistently made fewer trips than male members
each year, the interaction between female gender and year
was positive indicating that women are increasingly taking
more trips each year compared with men. As the Citi Bike
coverage area continues to expand, it is expected that mem-
bership will increase and that the proportion of trips made
by female members will also increase over time. However, a
study in the UK found that overall increases in cycling did
not correlate with a decrease in the gender gap, indicating a
need for a targeted approach to increase cycling among
women (Aldred et al., 2016).
This is the first study to examine gender differences in
bike share members in North America’s largest bike share
system, however, this study was subject to several limita-
tions. The optional member survey at enrollment had a low
response rate (<20%) and those who responded to the sur-
vey might have differed in study characteristics compared
with those who did not complete the survey. Although Citi
Bike enrollment information contains an option to report a
gender outside the binary, all survey respondents reported
male or female gender, so we were unable to conduct
detailed analyses about utilization for members who self-
identified as “other” gender. Better collection of sex and
gender identity data would help to elucidate utilization
among all members. Furthermore, Citi Bike members do
not necessarily represent all cyclists or the general popula-
tion (Crossa et al., 2019); the gender differences found in
the current study may not be generalizable to other popula-
tions. The analyses conducted were descriptive and, aside
from the analysis examining factors associated with trip
counts, did not adjust for potential confounders.
Furthermore, correlated variables do not imply a causal rela-
tionship. Survey questions were based on self-report and,
therefore, may be subject to social desirability bias, which
might vary by gender (Hebert et al., 1997). Billing ZIP code
was used as a proxy for residential ZIP code, but this may
not have been accurate for all members. In addition, ZIP
code was only available for the time of enrollment and did
not account for changes in residence. Geographic analyses
were limited to station locations; if route data had been
available, these data would have provided a more nuanced
insight into road usage differences between men and
women. Also, the analysis examining the relationship
between traffic volume and percentage of station usage by
female bike share members were based on 21 Community
Districts; the availability of traffic data at a smaller geo-
graphical level would have produced a more precise result.
The current study was a secondary analysis of data collected
for a general public health survey and not specifically to
examine gender disparities. Other gender-related factors that
were not captured in this study, including maintaining
standards of dress and hygiene, experiencing street harass-
ment, and having caregiver and other household responsibil-
ities, may also contribute to gender disparities in bike share
usage (Garrard et al., 2006; Steinbach et al., 2011; Stop
Street Harassment, 2014).
The results from this study highlight gender disparities in
bike share membership in NYC and provide insight into
how these gaps could be reduced. In November 2019, the
NYC Department of Transportation and Lyft (operator of
Citi Bike) formed an Equity Advisory Board for Citi Bike
consisting of 20 members from community organizations
and city government. This board explores Citi Bike’s equity
strategy as the program expands throughout the city (“NYC
DOT and Lyft Announce New Citi Bike Equity Advisory
Board to Ensure Inclusive and Equitable Bike Share
Expansion to Additional NYC Neighborhoods,” 2019).
Future research should examine if other factors such as care-
giver responsibilities, household errands, standards of dress
and hygiene, and street harassment differentially impact bike
share usage by gender, and if so, how these factors could be
better accommodated through bike share programs. Safety
concerns related to infrastructure may also play a part in
determining where women decide to bike in NYC.
Considering infrastructure improvements in areas with low
rates of station usage by female members may also be
instrumental in closing the cycling gender gap in NYC.
Acknowledgements
The authors acknowledge Sungwoo Lim, Hannah Gould, Charon
Gwynn, James Hadler, and Hannah Helmy for reviewing previous
drafts of this article.
Declaration of interest statement
No potential conflict of interest was reported by the authors. The
authors did not receive any specific funding for this work.
References
Aldred, R., Elliott, B., Woodcock, J., & Goodman, A. (2017). Cycling
provision separated from motor traffic: A systematic review
exploring whether stated preferences vary by gender and age.
Transport Reviews, 37(1), 29–55. https://doi.org/10.1080/01441647.
2016.1200156
Aldred, R., Woodcock, J., & Goodman, A. (2016). Does more cycling
mean more diversity in cycling? Transport Reviews, 36(1), 28–44.
https://doi.org/10.1080/01441647.2015.1014451
Baker, L. (2009). How to get more bicyclists on the road. Scientific
American, 301(4), 28–29. https://doi.org/10.1038/scientificameri-
can1009-28
Basch, C. H., Ethan, D., & Basch, C. E. (2019). Bike lane obstructions
in Manhattan, New York City: Implications for bicyclist safety.
Journal of Community Health, 44(2), 396–399. https://doi.org/10.
1007/s10900-018-00596-4
Beecham, R., & Wood, J. (2014). Exploring gendered cycling behav-
iours within a large-scale behavioural data-set. Transportation
Planning and Technology, 37(1), 83–97. https://doi.org/10.1080/
03081060.2013.844903
Bonham, J., & Wilson, A. (2012). Bicycling and the life course: The
start-stop-start experiences of women cycling. International Journal

of Sustainable Transportation, 6(4), 195–213. https://doi.org/10.1080/
15568318.2011.585219
Bureau of Labor Statistics. (2019, December 16). Women’s earnings in
New York – 2018. Retrieved from https://www.bls.gov/regions/new-
york-new-jersey/news-release/womensearnings_newyork.htm#chart2
Conway, A., Cheng, J., Peters, D., & Lownes, N. (2013). Characteristics
of multimodal conflicts in urban on-street bicycle lanes.
Transportation Research Record: Journal of the Transportation
Research Board, 2387(1), 93–101. https://doi.org/10.3141/2387-11
Crossa, A., Noyes, P., Parton, H., Lim, S. (2016, October). Cycling in
New York City, 2007 to 2014. New York City Department of Health
and Mental Hygiene: Epi Data Brief (78). Retrieved from https://
www1.nyc.gov/assets/doh/downloads/pdf/epi/databrief78.pdf
Crossa, A., Reilly, K. H., Wang, S. M., Liu, S. Y., Krassner, A., & Lim,
S. (2019). A comparison of first-time Citi Bike members to New
York City cyclists, 2013–2018. Reimagining Health in Cities:
Challenges and New Directions, Philadelphia, PA, USA.
Dill, J. (2017). Millenials and Bicycling: Do they go together like fixies
and messenger bags?. Paper presented at the 96th Annual Meeting
of the Transportation Research Board, Washington, DC, USA.
January 8-12, 2017).
Emond, C. R., Tang, W., & Handy, S. L. (2009). Explaining gender dif-
ference in bicycling behavior. Transportation Research Record:
Journal of the Transportation Research Board, 2125(1), 16–25.
https://doi.org/10.3141/2125-03
Fishman, E. (2016). Bikeshare: A review of recent literature. Transport
Reviews, 36(1), 92–113. https://doi.org/10.1080/01441647.2015.
1033036
Fowler, S. L., Berrigan, D., & Pollack, K. M. (2017). Perceived barriers
to bicycling in an urban US environment. Journal of Transport &
Health, 6, 474–480.
Garrard, J., Crawford, S., & Hakman, N. (2006). Revolutions for women:
Increasing women’s participation in cycling for recreation and trans-
port: Summary of key findings. School of Health and Social
Development, Deakin University.
Getman, A., Gordon-Koven, L., Hostetter, S., & Viola, R. (2017, July).
Safer cycling: Bicycle ridership and safety in New York City. New
York City Department of Transportation. http://www.nyc.gov/html/
dot/downloads/pdf/bike-safety-study-fullreport2017.pdf
Goodyear, S. (2013, August 13). Bike-share is key to closing the cycling
gender gap. https://www.citylab.com/solutions/2013/08/bike-share-
may-be-one-key-closing-cycling-gender-gap/6580/
Guo, Y., Zhou, J., Wu, Y., & Li, Z. (2017). Identifying the factors
affecting bike-sharing usage and degree of satisfaction in Ningbo,
China. PLoS One, 12(9), e0185100. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.
pone.0185100
Hebert, J. R., Ma, Y., Clemow, L., Ockene, I. S., Saperia, G., Stanek,
E. J., Merriam, P. A., & Ockene, J. K. (1997). Gender differences in
social desirability and social approval bias in dietary self-report.
American Journal of Epidemiology, 146(12), 1046–1055. https://doi.
org/10.1093/oxfordjournals.aje.a009233
Heesch, K. C., Sahlqvist, S., & Garrard, J. (2012). Gender differences in
recreational and transport cycling: A cross-sectional mixed-methods
comparison of cycling patterns, motivators, and constraints. The
International Journal of Behavioral Nutrition and Physical Activity,
9(1), 106. https://doi.org/10.1186/1479-5868-9-106
Heinen, E., Van Wee, B., & Maat, K. (2010). Commuting by bicycle:
An overview of the literature. Transport Reviews, 30(1), 59–96.
https://doi.org/10.1080/01441640903187001
Kaufman, S. M., Polack, C. F., & Campbell, G. A. (2018, November).
The pink tax on transportation: Women’s challenges in mobility.
https://wagner.nyu.edu/files/faculty/publications/Pink%20Tax%20Rep
ort%2011_13_18.pdf
Kuntzman, G. (2019, March 26). Community board panel OK’s
more protected bike lanes in midtown. https://nyc.streetsblog.org/
2019/03/26/community-board-panel-oks-more-protected-bike-lanes-
in-midtown/
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF SUSTAINABLE TRANSPORTATION 9
Lusk, A. C., Anastasio, A., Shaffer, N., Wu, J., & Li, Y. (2017). Biking
practices and preferences in a lower income, primarily minority
neighborhood: Learning what residents want. Preventive Medicine
Reports, 7, 232–238. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pmedr.2017.01.006
Mitra, R., & Nash, S. (2019). Can the built environment explain gender
gap in cycling? An exploration of university students’ travel behavior
in Toronto, Canada. International Journal of Sustainable
Transportation, 13(2), 138–147. https://doi.org/10.1080/15568318.
2018.1449919
Nehme, E. K., Perez, A., Ranjit, N., Amick, B. C., & Kohl, H. W.
(2016). Sociodemographic factors, population density, and bicycling
for transportation in the United States. Journal of Physical Activity
and Health, 13(1), 36–43. https://doi.org/10.1123/jpah.2014-0469
New York City Department of Consumer Affairs. (2015, December).
From cradle to cane: The cost of being a female consumer. A study of
gender pricing in New York City. The New York Department of
Consumer Affairs. https://www1.nyc.gov/assets/dca/downloads/pdf/
partners/Study-of-Gender-Pricing-in-NYC.pdf
New York City Department of Health and Mental Hygiene. (2016).
Community health survey.
NYC DOT and Lyft Announce New Citi Bike Equity Advisory Board
to Ensure Inclusive and Equitable Bike Share Expansion to
Additional NYC Neighborhoods. (2019). https://www1.nyc.gov/html/
dot/html/pr2019/pr19-071.shtml
Ogilvie, F., & Goodman, A. (2012). Inequalities in usage of a public
bicycle sharing scheme: Socio-demographic predictors of uptake and
usage of the London (UK) cycle hire scheme. Preventive Medicine,
55(1), 40–45. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ypmed.2012.05.002
Oja, P., Titze, S., Bauman, A., de Geus, B., Krenn, P., Reger-Nash, B.,
& Kohlberger, T. (2011). Health benefits of cycling: A systematic
review. Scandinavian Journal of Medicine & Science in Sports, 21(4),
496–509. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1600-0838.2011.01299.x
People for Bikes. (2017, July 14). Latinos and family biking: Study after
study finds a link. https://peopleforbikes.org/blog/latinos-and-family-
biking-study-after-study-finds-a-link/
Pucher, J., & Buehler, R. (2008). Making cycling irresistible: Lessons
from the Netherlands, Denmark and Germany. Transport Reviews,
28(4), 495–528. https://doi.org/10.1080/01441640701806612
Saelensminde, K. (2004). Cost–benefit analyses of walking and cycling
track networks taking into account insecurity, health effects and
external costs of motorized traffic. Transportation Research Part A:
Policy and Practice, 38(8), 593–606. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tra.
2004.04.003
Steinbach, R., Green, J., Datta, J., & Edwards, P. (2011). Cycling and
the city: A case study of how gendered, ethnic and class identities
can shape healthy transport choices. Social Science & Medicine
(1982), 72(7), 1123–1130. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.socscimed.2011.
01.033
Stop Street Harassment. (2014, Spring). Unsafe and harassed in public
spaces: A national street harassment report. http://www.stopstreethar-
assment.org/wp-content/uploads/2012/08/National-Street-Harassmen
t-Report-November-29-20151.pdf
Szczepanski, C. (2013, August 6). Women on a roll: Benchmarking
women’s bicycling in the United States—And five keys to get more
women on wheels. https://www.bikeleague.org/sites/default/files/
WomenBikeReport(web)_0.pdf
U.S. Census Bureau. American Community Survey, 2017 American
Community Survey 5-Year Estimates. Table S2301. https://factfinder.cen-
sus.gov/bkmk/table/1.0/en/ACS/17_5YR/S2301/1600000US3651000
Wheeler, N., Conrad, R., & Figliozzi, M. A. (2010). A statistical analysis
of bicycle rider performance: The impact of gender on riders’ per-
formance at signalized intersections. Paper Presented at the
Proceedings 89th Annual Meeting Transportation Research Board,
January.
Wilson, S. (1973). Bicycle technology. Scientific American, 228(3),
81–91. https://doi.org/10.1038/scientificamerican0373-81