Originally Posted by
FanaticMN
But I do think I answered the OP with a solid example, so my work is done here
.
Not so fast. Stick around and answer some questions about this seemingly anomalous place. I note from the information provided that the bulk of the infrastructure build occurred after 2007. Let's split the data given into 2005-2007 and 2007-2012 as pre-infra and post-infra. (Please show me why that would not be a legitimate approach if you object; I'm completely ignorant of the situation in Minneapolis/St. Paul other than what I get from a couple of friends who went to vet. school there.) From that, we see a decrease in the rate of increase of cycling that corresponds to the infrastructure build out. At least it didn't lead to a total flattening like Portland or a decrease like Davis.
I'm also not sold on the assumption that the only meaningful difference between Minneapolis and St. Paul is the bicycling infrastructure builds. Local to me, we have two conjoined cities along a river also, although they are smaller than yours. Both Eugene and Springfield are adding bike-specific infrastructure, although Eugene is much more committed to the Portland partial-segregation goals than Springfield is. The demographics appear to be quite similar, but there is a huge cultural difference caused by the presence of the University of Oregon. As a result, Eugene has traditionally had much higher bicycle use than Springfield. Eugene has historically been around 7% while Springfield has been at the 1-2% level.
Interestingly, as the Lesser Depression/Great Recession started, Eugene put in its first bike-specific signal lights and built its first cycletrack segregated infrastructure. After the bump up in riding numbers due to the LD/GR, it saw an immediate drop off in cycling. Here's the three-year numbers for the two cities from the ACS:
Year __ Eugene _ Springfield
2007: ___ 7.3___ 1.3
2008: ___ 7.1___ 1.6
2009: ___ 8.7 ___ 2.0
2010: ___ 8.6___ 2.4
2011: ___ 8.5___ 2.0
2012: ___ 8.1___ 1.6