Zillow's Bike Score Problem 🌙
When I heard about Zillow's Bike Score, I thought that it was a really great project. Traffic indexes like bike scores are valuable and alternate means of travel are extremely helpful in finding ways to make the places we live more interconnected and less reliant on cars. But Zillow's methods miss key factors.
You can read more in this article from ZillowGroup, but the basic history of the Bike Score is as follows. During Zillow's Hack Week this integration with walkscore.com was developed. It now appears as part as party of standard Zillow listings. This is very exciting to see such a helpful score associated with a tech forward service.
False Assumptions about biking
A look at the detailed Bike Score Advanced Methodology, that can be found here, suggests there are challenges associated with finding true bike safe areas. This stems from the false assumption that bike lanes are the safest.
This point was and is addressed in the existing score, adding Social Components from the U.S. Census.
Also, a slow residential street with no bike infrastructure can be better for biking than a high-volume fast street with a bike lane.
What I feel Zillow's bike score's problem stems from is a lack of understanding as to why bikes are valuable.
If I as a homeowner want to bike or commute by bike, a bike score could be a determining factor. However, the opposite, a bike unfriendliness score could apply factors in the environment to help people understand how dangerous non-vehicular commuting can be.
Some factors I did not see evidence of:
- The number of accidents along or near bike lanes - is the area safe when cars are driving?
- Driver temperament - road rage, hit and runs, drunk driving arrests, ect, were not included in the score. In addition general crime was not (from what I can tell) factored in at all. Perhaps a phenomenal biking score, but a high level of bike theft - crime should be observed.
- The general number of traffic accidents in and along bike areas but without bike lanes - are there problem areas related to city infrastructure? (Unsafe turns, blind curves, poor visibility on stop signs)
- the nature and interconnectivity of bike trails - Trail riding and commuting are not the same. In addition, the sheer number of trails or lanes can pale in comparison to having to cross major streets or merge dangerously when trails and lanes end.
- Time of day in relation to traffic levels - Sure, we cannot solve for everything with a simple score, however, a commute and a Saturday joy ride be very different. Lighting is another factor, are roads and streets well lit?
Bad for Biking
This index, in my opinion selects for areas that are already developed (shops near by, attractions), with good infrastructure (bike lanes and trails - and probably more attended to by local governments), and high levels of accessibility (biking to work means you can choose to live closer and aren't chasing low housing costs), mean that favorable areas get an additional Gold Star of - Good Bike Score. Alternatively, areas labeled Bad for Biking - are areas with less development, less city interest, and are dinged with a "bad" score, further cementing the idea that areas the city doesn't care about are just "bad".
A high bike score means: higher values for homes, more income for real estate companies, and a selling point if a homebuyer is on the fence.
A low bike score means: a ding at the area in general, lower home values, and a lack of push for local governments to act on poor commuter safety conditions.
A more advanced bike safety score would take in more safety factors associated with the nature of biking on the ground in real time. In my view, the Zillow Bike Score does not factor safety and is simply feature bloat to woo potential buyers. It's marketing plain and simple.
