A Cycling & bikes forum. CycleBanter.com

Go Back   Home » CycleBanter.com forum » rec.bicycles » Techniques
Site Map Home Register Authors List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Web Partners

Build it and they won't come



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #11  
Old September 21st 17, 04:50 PM posted to rec.bicycles.tech
Tim McNamara
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 6,734
Default Build it and they won't come

On Thu, 21 Sep 2017 14:27:18 +1000, James
wrote:

The helmet law supporting researchers (Jake Olivier, Raphael
Grzebieta, Soufiane Boufous, Rebecca Ivers, Royal Australian College
of Surgeons, etc.), are all trying to "move on" from discussing helmet
laws, spouting the need for protected biking infrastructure. They
know the health benefits of cycling, but reject the evidence that the
helmet law stops many people from cycling. They think that by
building infrastructure that somehow cycling will blossom regardless.


Well, that actually has worked here where I live. The numbers of people
using bikes as transportation rather than recreation has doubled or
trebled (although is still only 1-2% of trips at best). A few years
back when gas nearly hit $5 per gallon bumped up the numbers of folks on
bikes and it seems like many of them kept riding.

For the public cost in terms of building out cycling infrastructure, I
think the return on investment has been paltry. We've spent hundreds of
millions of dollars to gain a few thousand cyclists. Perhaps the number
of riders replacing drives with rides will grow more over time; the
millenials in particular seem more likely to ride, but my guess is that
as they get older, have kids, buy houses, etc., the bikes will end up
gathering dust. By comparison, the ridership performnce of the light
rail facilities we've built out have been surpassing expectations
handily, despite the conservative ire about "social engineering" via
transit (I find it interesting that *increasing* the citizen's options
for getting around is "social engineering" to some).

Around here I think one of the real purposes of bike infrastrcture is
really just to get them out of the way of cars- driving is still the
real focus of transportation policy.
Ads
  #12  
Old September 21st 17, 05:33 PM posted to rec.bicycles.tech
[email protected]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 3,346
Default Build it and they won't come

On Thursday, September 21, 2017 at 8:50:31 AM UTC-7, Tim McNamara wrote:
On Thu, 21 Sep 2017 14:27:18 +1000, James
wrote:

The helmet law supporting researchers (Jake Olivier, Raphael
Grzebieta, Soufiane Boufous, Rebecca Ivers, Royal Australian College
of Surgeons, etc.), are all trying to "move on" from discussing helmet
laws, spouting the need for protected biking infrastructure. They
know the health benefits of cycling, but reject the evidence that the
helmet law stops many people from cycling. They think that by
building infrastructure that somehow cycling will blossom regardless.


Well, that actually has worked here where I live. The numbers of people
using bikes as transportation rather than recreation has doubled or
trebled (although is still only 1-2% of trips at best). A few years
back when gas nearly hit $5 per gallon bumped up the numbers of folks on
bikes and it seems like many of them kept riding.

For the public cost in terms of building out cycling infrastructure, I
think the return on investment has been paltry. We've spent hundreds of
millions of dollars to gain a few thousand cyclists. Perhaps the number
of riders replacing drives with rides will grow more over time; the
millenials in particular seem more likely to ride, but my guess is that
as they get older, have kids, buy houses, etc., the bikes will end up
gathering dust. By comparison, the ridership performnce of the light
rail facilities we've built out have been surpassing expectations
handily, despite the conservative ire about "social engineering" via
transit (I find it interesting that *increasing* the citizen's options
for getting around is "social engineering" to some).

Around here I think one of the real purposes of bike infrastrcture is
really just to get them out of the way of cars- driving is still the
real focus of transportation policy.


Looking it up I discovered an interesting statistic: England has something like 10,000 cold related deaths every year. So do you really think that bicycle facilities would increase cycling?
  #13  
Old September 21st 17, 06:05 PM posted to rec.bicycles.tech
JBeattie
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 2,821
Default Build it and they won't come

On Thursday, September 21, 2017 at 7:22:36 AM UTC-7, wrote:
On Wednesday, September 20, 2017 at 6:47:30 PM UTC-7, Frank Krygowski wrote:
Build it and they will come? Sorry, no.

Here's a new article dispelling the myth that segregated facilities
generate tremendous bike mode share.

https://www.theguardian.com/cities/2...ped-stevenage?

Unless motoring is actively dissuaded, almost all people who have cars
will drive cars.


That's hardly an example now is it? It's ALWAYS raining in England and people will always opt for comfort over convenience. I will only on very seldom occasions go to San Francisco by car because it's such a pain in the ass.. But if it's raining there's no way I'm riding a bike.


It was raining this morning (and yesterday, and the day before and the day before that), and it looked like ridership dipped a bit. Nonetheless, I had to dodge a bunch of bicyclists this morning. I got a late start to work and beat traffic by probably ten minutes on my five mile commute. It was also cold, but it's going to warm up again and dry out for a while until fall hits for real. Then its piles of sludge-leaves and then ice and then probably snow this year. We've already got snow on Mt. Hood, which is pretty weird. Time to wax the skis.

-- Jay Beattie.
  #14  
Old September 21st 17, 08:35 PM posted to rec.bicycles.tech
Jeff Liebermann
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 2,600
Default Build it and they won't come

On Thu, 21 Sep 2017 13:59:29 +0700, John B.
wrote:

Singapore tried the "tax it out of existence" scheme years ago and it
did work for a while but as the economy grew so did auto sales. Today
a new Toyota Corolla Altis 1.6 Standard will cost you, including the
first 6 months road tax, US$78,509, and traffic is a major problem.


Comparing cost-o-living prices between Singapore and Smog Angeles:
https://www.numbeo.com/cost-of-living/compare_cities.jsp?country1=United+States&country2 =Singapore&city1=Los+Angeles%2C+CA&city2=Singapore &tracking=getDispatchComparison
A Toyota Corolla costs 294% more in Singapore than in L.A.
Gasoline is 92% more expensive.

Comparing Copenhagen and Smog Angeles:
https://www.numbeo.com/cost-of-living/compare_cities.jsp?country1=United+States&country2 =Denmark&city1=Los+Angeles%2C+CA&city2=Copenhagen& tracking=getDispatchComparison
A Toyota Corolla costs 96% more in Denmark than in L.A.
Gasoline is on 110% more expensive.

Comparing traffic between Singapore and Smog Angeles:
https://www.numbeo.com/traffic/compare_cities.jsp?country1=United+States&country2 =Singapore&city1=Los+Angeles%2C+CA&city2=Singapore
Bicycle as the main means of transportation:
L.A. = 2.90%, Singapore = 2.35%

From the section "Average when primary using Bike" it would seem that
L.A. bicycle riders use cars, trains, and buses on part of their
rides, while Singapore riders use none of these facilities.

To be uncharacteristically fair, this web site partly uses crowd
source input for data, which makes me suspect that the numbers have
been tweaked. Even if wrong, they're still interesting.

I don't know what went wrong in Stevenage. In any other town, such
dedicated bicycle paths would be infested with joggers, baby
carriages, radio controlled racers, skateboarders, push carts,
electric powered assault transports etc, which suggests that nobody is
using the paths using any means of transport. That's too strange to
not have an obvious cause. The paths might be going from nowhere to
nowhere, the weather is chronically uncooperative, there are
undesirables lurking along the paths, or something else that might
discourage its use.

Also, don't judge the quality of an idea by its first attempt. I did
that once when I passed judgment on personal music players. At the
time, the only example was the Diamond Multimedia Rio PMP 300 digital
media player. I bought one and it stunk in every possible way. So, I
declared the idea to be worthless, only to have the iPod appear 2-3
years later, which demonstrated conclusively that it was a good idea
and that my evaluation stunk as badly as the Diamond Rio.
https://maas.museum/event/interface/object/rio-pmp-300-digital-media-player/index.html
The moral is that innovators have to get everything right or the idea
won't work. Like the media player, the bike paths are part of a
system. Something is fundamentally wrong with some part of the system
at Stevenage. However, from here, I can't tell what it might be.

--
Jeff Liebermann
150 Felker St #D
http://www.LearnByDestroying.com
Santa Cruz CA 95060 http://802.11junk.com
Skype: JeffLiebermann AE6KS 831-336-2558
  #15  
Old September 21st 17, 09:52 PM posted to rec.bicycles.tech
JBeattie
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 2,821
Default Build it and they won't come

On Thursday, September 21, 2017 at 12:35:36 PM UTC-7, Jeff Liebermann wrote:
On Thu, 21 Sep 2017 13:59:29 +0700, John B.
wrote:

Singapore tried the "tax it out of existence" scheme years ago and it
did work for a while but as the economy grew so did auto sales. Today
a new Toyota Corolla Altis 1.6 Standard will cost you, including the
first 6 months road tax, US$78,509, and traffic is a major problem.


Comparing cost-o-living prices between Singapore and Smog Angeles:
https://www.numbeo.com/cost-of-living/compare_cities.jsp?country1=United+States&country2 =Singapore&city1=Los+Angeles%2C+CA&city2=Singapore &tracking=getDispatchComparison
A Toyota Corolla costs 294% more in Singapore than in L.A.
Gasoline is 92% more expensive.

Comparing Copenhagen and Smog Angeles:
https://www.numbeo.com/cost-of-living/compare_cities.jsp?country1=United+States&country2 =Denmark&city1=Los+Angeles%2C+CA&city2=Copenhagen& tracking=getDispatchComparison
A Toyota Corolla costs 96% more in Denmark than in L.A.
Gasoline is on 110% more expensive.

Comparing traffic between Singapore and Smog Angeles:
https://www.numbeo.com/traffic/compare_cities.jsp?country1=United+States&country2 =Singapore&city1=Los+Angeles%2C+CA&city2=Singapore
Bicycle as the main means of transportation:
L.A. = 2.90%, Singapore = 2.35%

From the section "Average when primary using Bike" it would seem that
L.A. bicycle riders use cars, trains, and buses on part of their
rides, while Singapore riders use none of these facilities.

To be uncharacteristically fair, this web site partly uses crowd
source input for data, which makes me suspect that the numbers have
been tweaked. Even if wrong, they're still interesting.

I don't know what went wrong in Stevenage. In any other town, such
dedicated bicycle paths would be infested with joggers, baby
carriages, radio controlled racers, skateboarders, push carts,
electric powered assault transports etc, which suggests that nobody is
using the paths using any means of transport. That's too strange to
not have an obvious cause. The paths might be going from nowhere to
nowhere, the weather is chronically uncooperative, there are
undesirables lurking along the paths, or something else that might
discourage its use.

Also, don't judge the quality of an idea by its first attempt. I did
that once when I passed judgment on personal music players. At the
time, the only example was the Diamond Multimedia Rio PMP 300 digital
media player. I bought one and it stunk in every possible way. So, I
declared the idea to be worthless, only to have the iPod appear 2-3
years later, which demonstrated conclusively that it was a good idea
and that my evaluation stunk as badly as the Diamond Rio.
https://maas.museum/event/interface/object/rio-pmp-300-digital-media-player/index.html
The moral is that innovators have to get everything right or the idea
won't work. Like the media player, the bike paths are part of a
system. Something is fundamentally wrong with some part of the system
at Stevenage. However, from here, I can't tell what it might be.


The idea has worked in cities in The Netherlands and Denmark -- and probably other flat European cities. It is hard to tell if it has worked in PDX since the influx of cyclists pre-existed the creation of infrastructure, although the later-created close-in infrastructure has gotten a lot of use. We get tracked like park animals in Portland, so with a little effort, one could determine the effect of additional infrastructure. https://www.portlandoregon.gov/trans...article/545858

-- Jay Beattie.
  #16  
Old September 21st 17, 11:16 PM posted to rec.bicycles.tech
James[_8_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 5,664
Default Build it and they won't come

On 22/09/17 01:50, Tim McNamara wrote:
On Thu, 21 Sep 2017 14:27:18 +1000, James
wrote:

The helmet law supporting researchers (Jake Olivier, Raphael
Grzebieta, Soufiane Boufous, Rebecca Ivers, Royal Australian College
of Surgeons, etc.), are all trying to "move on" from discussing helmet
laws, spouting the need for protected biking infrastructure. They
know the health benefits of cycling, but reject the evidence that the
helmet law stops many people from cycling. They think that by
building infrastructure that somehow cycling will blossom regardless.


Well, that actually has worked here where I live. The numbers of people
using bikes as transportation rather than recreation has doubled or
trebled (although is still only 1-2% of trips at best). A few years
back when gas nearly hit $5 per gallon bumped up the numbers of folks on
bikes and it seems like many of them kept riding.

For the public cost in terms of building out cycling infrastructure, I
think the return on investment has been paltry. We've spent hundreds of
millions of dollars to gain a few thousand cyclists. Perhaps the number
of riders replacing drives with rides will grow more over time; the
millenials in particular seem more likely to ride, but my guess is that
as they get older, have kids, buy houses, etc., the bikes will end up
gathering dust. By comparison, the ridership performnce of the light
rail facilities we've built out have been surpassing expectations
handily, despite the conservative ire about "social engineering" via
transit (I find it interesting that *increasing* the citizen's options
for getting around is "social engineering" to some).

Around here I think one of the real purposes of bike infrastrcture is
really just to get them out of the way of cars- driving is still the
real focus of transportation policy.


Yes, some people will begin to ride if subjective safety concerns are
addressed, but if they continue to build more and bigger roads in a bid
to reduce congestion, that only breeds more car use and the congestion
returns - if it was ever diminished.

The problem is that many advocates are focused on fixing one cause for
lack lustre bicycling mode share. Usually the argument is that
infrastructure is the key. Where in reality there is a whole raft of
changes that need to be made, and one without the rest really doesn't
help significantly.

It's like having advanced stopping lines for cyclists (bike box at a
road junction) without a separate green light phase for cyclists.

The intent of the bike box is to get cyclists ahead of traffic so they
can clear the intersection safely. Without the separate green phase
they just **** the drivers off more as they all race from the lights at
the same time.

--
JS
  #17  
Old September 22nd 17, 12:09 AM posted to rec.bicycles.tech
Jeff Liebermann
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 2,600
Default Build it and they won't come

On Thu, 21 Sep 2017 13:52:55 -0700 (PDT), jbeattie
wrote:

On Thursday, September 21, 2017 at 12:35:36 PM UTC-7, Jeff Liebermann wrote:

(Rant, rave, mumble, speculate, etc...)

The idea has worked in cities in The Netherlands and Denmark -- and probably other
flat European cities. It is hard to tell if it has worked in PDX since the
influx of cyclists pre-existed the creation of infrastructure, although the
later-created close-in infrastructure has gotten a lot of use. We get tracked
like park animals in Portland, so with a little effort, one could determine
the effect of additional infrastructure.
https://www.portlandoregon.gov/trans...article/545858
-- Jay Beattie.


Nice tangled mess of statistics. In order to preserve my sanity, I'll
refrain from tying to correlate that report with whatever might he
happening in Stevenage UK.

Maybe a back of the envelope sanity check might help.

Stevenage seems to have 13 bicycle shops:
http://www.stevenage.org.uk/bike-shops/
of which only 4 offer repairs:
http://www.stevenage.org.uk/bicycle-repairs/
For a town of 84,000 population, that's one shop for every 6,500
residents.

For a population of 84,000, how many bicycles per year could these
bicycle shops expect to sell? For all of England:
http://www.cyclinguk.org/resources/cycling-uk-cycling-statistics
http://www.cyclinguk.org/resources/cycling-uk-cycling-statistics#How%20many%20cycles%20are%20sold%20in%2 0Great%20Britain?
Not counting e-bikes, that is 3.5 million bicycles sold per year for a
population of 53 million. So, everyone gets a new bicycle every 15
years. Either UK bicycles have a very short half life, a few people
buy hundreds of bicycles, or everyone owns more than one bicycle.
Assuming the same rate of replacement for Stevenage, 1/15th of the
population will be buying a new bicycle every year or:
84,000 / 15 = 5,600 bicycles
sold each year in Stevenage. However, there are 13 bicycle shops,
each of which will sell:
5,600 / 13 = 430 bicycles/year
or
430 / 12 = 36 bicycles/month
Not very good but possibly survivable for a small shop, especially if
they are expensive machines.

So, with 430 new bicycles being added to the Stevenage ridership every
year, where do these bicycles go? I find it difficult to believe that
the trails are empty when there 1.2 new bicycles added to the
ridership every day. Do they only ride at night when nobody will
notice? Or are the bicycles stolen immediately after they're sold?
Or, perhaps something is wrong with the original story?



--
Jeff Liebermann
150 Felker St #D
http://www.LearnByDestroying.com
Santa Cruz CA 95060 http://802.11junk.com
Skype: JeffLiebermann AE6KS 831-336-2558
  #18  
Old September 22nd 17, 12:19 AM posted to rec.bicycles.tech
Duane[_4_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,303
Default Build it and they won't come

jbeattie wrote:
On Thursday, September 21, 2017 at 12:35:36 PM UTC-7, Jeff Liebermann wrote:
On Thu, 21 Sep 2017 13:59:29 +0700, John B.
wrote:

Singapore tried the "tax it out of existence" scheme years ago and it
did work for a while but as the economy grew so did auto sales. Today
a new Toyota Corolla Altis 1.6 Standard will cost you, including the
first 6 months road tax, US$78,509, and traffic is a major problem.


Comparing cost-o-living prices between Singapore and Smog Angeles:
https://www.numbeo.com/cost-of-living/compare_cities.jsp?country1=United+States&country2 =Singapore&city1=Los+Angeles%2C+CA&city2=Singapore &tracking=getDispatchComparison
A Toyota Corolla costs 294% more in Singapore than in L.A.
Gasoline is 92% more expensive.

Comparing Copenhagen and Smog Angeles:
https://www.numbeo.com/cost-of-living/compare_cities.jsp?country1=United+States&country2 =Denmark&city1=Los+Angeles%2C+CA&city2=Copenhagen& tracking=getDispatchComparison
A Toyota Corolla costs 96% more in Denmark than in L.A.
Gasoline is on 110% more expensive.

Comparing traffic between Singapore and Smog Angeles:
https://www.numbeo.com/traffic/compare_cities.jsp?country1=United+States&country2 =Singapore&city1=Los+Angeles%2C+CA&city2=Singapore
Bicycle as the main means of transportation:
L.A. = 2.90%, Singapore = 2.35%

From the section "Average when primary using Bike" it would seem that
L.A. bicycle riders use cars, trains, and buses on part of their
rides, while Singapore riders use none of these facilities.

To be uncharacteristically fair, this web site partly uses crowd
source input for data, which makes me suspect that the numbers have
been tweaked. Even if wrong, they're still interesting.

I don't know what went wrong in Stevenage. In any other town, such
dedicated bicycle paths would be infested with joggers, baby
carriages, radio controlled racers, skateboarders, push carts,
electric powered assault transports etc, which suggests that nobody is
using the paths using any means of transport. That's too strange to
not have an obvious cause. The paths might be going from nowhere to
nowhere, the weather is chronically uncooperative, there are
undesirables lurking along the paths, or something else that might
discourage its use.

Also, don't judge the quality of an idea by its first attempt. I did
that once when I passed judgment on personal music players. At the
time, the only example was the Diamond Multimedia Rio PMP 300 digital
media player. I bought one and it stunk in every possible way. So, I
declared the idea to be worthless, only to have the iPod appear 2-3
years later, which demonstrated conclusively that it was a good idea
and that my evaluation stunk as badly as the Diamond Rio.
https://maas.museum/event/interface/object/rio-pmp-300-digital-media-player/index.html
The moral is that innovators have to get everything right or the idea
won't work. Like the media player, the bike paths are part of a
system. Something is fundamentally wrong with some part of the system
at Stevenage. However, from here, I can't tell what it might be.


The idea has worked in cities in The Netherlands and Denmark -- and
probably other flat European cities. It is hard to tell if it has worked
in PDX since the influx of cyclists pre-existed the creation of
infrastructure, although the later-created close-in infrastructure has
gotten a lot of use. We get tracked like park animals in Portland, so
with a little effort, one could determine the effect of additional
infrastructure. https://www.portlandoregon.gov/trans...article/545858

-- Jay Beattie.


Bike paths in Montreal are pretty busy. Hard to say if those people would
not be riding on the roads if the paths didn't exist but cycling numbers
are increasing here so the implication is there.

For club rides we head out of town toward eastern Ontario where the roads
are better and there's not much auto traffic.

--
duane
  #19  
Old September 22nd 17, 12:57 AM posted to rec.bicycles.tech
AMuzi
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 9,080
Default Build it and they won't come

On 9/21/2017 6:09 PM, Jeff Liebermann wrote:
On Thu, 21 Sep 2017 13:52:55 -0700 (PDT), jbeattie
wrote:

On Thursday, September 21, 2017 at 12:35:36 PM UTC-7, Jeff Liebermann wrote:

(Rant, rave, mumble, speculate, etc...)

The idea has worked in cities in The Netherlands and Denmark -- and probably other
flat European cities. It is hard to tell if it has worked in PDX since the
influx of cyclists pre-existed the creation of infrastructure, although the
later-created close-in infrastructure has gotten a lot of use. We get tracked
like park animals in Portland, so with a little effort, one could determine
the effect of additional infrastructure.
https://www.portlandoregon.gov/trans...article/545858
-- Jay Beattie.


Nice tangled mess of statistics. In order to preserve my sanity, I'll
refrain from tying to correlate that report with whatever might he
happening in Stevenage UK.

Maybe a back of the envelope sanity check might help.

Stevenage seems to have 13 bicycle shops:
http://www.stevenage.org.uk/bike-shops/
of which only 4 offer repairs:
http://www.stevenage.org.uk/bicycle-repairs/
For a town of 84,000 population, that's one shop for every 6,500
residents.

For a population of 84,000, how many bicycles per year could these
bicycle shops expect to sell? For all of England:
http://www.cyclinguk.org/resources/cycling-uk-cycling-statistics
http://www.cyclinguk.org/resources/cycling-uk-cycling-statistics#How%20many%20cycles%20are%20sold%20in%2 0Great%20Britain?
Not counting e-bikes, that is 3.5 million bicycles sold per year for a
population of 53 million. So, everyone gets a new bicycle every 15
years. Either UK bicycles have a very short half life, a few people
buy hundreds of bicycles, or everyone owns more than one bicycle.
Assuming the same rate of replacement for Stevenage, 1/15th of the
population will be buying a new bicycle every year or:
84,000 / 15 = 5,600 bicycles
sold each year in Stevenage. However, there are 13 bicycle shops,
each of which will sell:
5,600 / 13 = 430 bicycles/year
or
430 / 12 = 36 bicycles/month
Not very good but possibly survivable for a small shop, especially if
they are expensive machines.

So, with 430 new bicycles being added to the Stevenage ridership every
year, where do these bicycles go? I find it difficult to believe that
the trails are empty when there 1.2 new bicycles added to the
ridership every day. Do they only ride at night when nobody will
notice? Or are the bicycles stolen immediately after they're sold?
Or, perhaps something is wrong with the original story?




First off, I don't know.
But another factor is that even within a city there are
neighborhoods with virtually zero new bike sales and others
with very heavy purchases year after year.

--
Andrew Muzi
www.yellowjersey.org/
Open every day since 1 April, 1971


  #20  
Old September 22nd 17, 01:26 AM posted to rec.bicycles.tech
John B.[_3_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 3,666
Default Build it and they won't come

On Thu, 21 Sep 2017 12:35:36 -0700, Jeff Liebermann
wrote:

On Thu, 21 Sep 2017 13:59:29 +0700, John B.
wrote:

Singapore tried the "tax it out of existence" scheme years ago and it
did work for a while but as the economy grew so did auto sales. Today
a new Toyota Corolla Altis 1.6 Standard will cost you, including the
first 6 months road tax, US$78,509, and traffic is a major problem.


Comparing cost-o-living prices between Singapore and Smog Angeles:
https://www.numbeo.com/cost-of-living/compare_cities.jsp?country1=United+States&country2 =Singapore&city1=Los+Angeles%2C+CA&city2=Singapore &tracking=getDispatchComparison
A Toyota Corolla costs 294% more in Singapore than in L.A.
Gasoline is 92% more expensive.

Comparing Copenhagen and Smog Angeles:
https://www.numbeo.com/cost-of-living/compare_cities.jsp?country1=United+States&country2 =Denmark&city1=Los+Angeles%2C+CA&city2=Copenhagen& tracking=getDispatchComparison
A Toyota Corolla costs 96% more in Denmark than in L.A.
Gasoline is on 110% more expensive.

Comparing traffic between Singapore and Smog Angeles:
https://www.numbeo.com/traffic/compare_cities.jsp?country1=United+States&country2 =Singapore&city1=Los+Angeles%2C+CA&city2=Singapore
Bicycle as the main means of transportation:
L.A. = 2.90%, Singapore = 2.35%

From the section "Average when primary using Bike" it would seem that
L.A. bicycle riders use cars, trains, and buses on part of their
rides, while Singapore riders use none of these facilities.

You apparently missed the part where it said that:
Bus/Trolleybus (LA) 2.90% (SNG)29.41%
and:
Train/Metro (LA)1.45% (SNG)28.24%

Or to put it another way, 57.65% of Singapore commuters use public
transportation.
--
Cheers,

John B.

 




Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Can Women Build Big Muscles? Why Women Cant Build Big Muscles Easily [email protected] UK 0 February 16th 08 10:41 PM
Anyone looking to build a bc? Free hazard hub with a Stockton build! Evan Byrne Unicycling 5 September 14th 06 09:59 AM
Anyone looking to build a bc? Free hazard hub with a Stockton build! Evan Byrne Unicycling 0 August 25th 06 11:05 PM
Disc Wheel Build Build Suggestions osobailo Techniques 2 October 5th 04 01:55 PM
? - To build or not to build -- a bike - ? Andrew Short Techniques 16 August 4th 03 04:12 AM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 07:41 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright 2004-2017 CycleBanter.com.
The comments are property of their posters.