|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#11
|
|||
|
|||
It's happening! Um... sort of.
On Sun, 11 May 2014 00:44:29 -0400, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 5/10/2014 8:38 PM, Stephen Bauman wrote: On Sat, 10 May 2014 12:32:01 -0400, Frank Krygowski wrote: Even in places with special infrastructure, use is often minimal. I'm regularly a visitor in a small town with prominent bike lanes on its major through streets. So far this year, I've seen exactly one bike being ridden in those bike lanes. Based on prior years, I'll probably see, oh, a couple dozen total by the end of the year. Heck, even though I frequently ride for utility in that town, I'm seldom in those bike lanes. There are better ways to go where I need to go. I cannot comment on what you saw. I know nothing of the circumstances. You should not generalize your personal observations to every corner of the country. Of course, that advice goes both ways. Those who claim bike lanes (or whatever) will lead to mass cycling often generalize their examples to every corner of the country. And it often seems their examples are very carefully chosen, i.e. atypical. The presence of a coordinated bicycle infrastructure is few and far between. Therefore, any examples that show any relation between such facilities and bicycle use must by definition be carefully chosen. Had you witnessed NYC's cordon counters during the morning rush hour in 2012 on the West Side Greenway, you would have discovered that inbound bike traffic was 7% of the motor vehicle traffic of the adjacent West Side Highway. ... The results show a much greater increase than the nationwide statistics show. The cordon count growth rate from 2002 to 2010 shows a compounded annual growth rate of 18%. Up to what current percentage? It depends on the street and time of day. As mentioned above it's around 7% of the motor vehicle count for the West Side Highway and Greenway for the morning rush hour. Columbus/9th Avenue has a protected cycle track on the street. Its inbound bicycle count was 12% the motor vehicle count at 6pm on the 2012 cordon count day. At that same time, the figure for West End/11th Ave was 2% (no bike lanes) and the Greenway (12th Ave) was 7% with class I bike lane and river view. Again, some examples seem to be very carefully chosen. From what I read, overall bike mode share in NYC is still estimated to be 1%. If your "annual growth rate of 18%" had resulted in that 1% mode share, it would have meant starting at 0.27% mode share. So you could phrase it "Almost quadrupling in 8 years" which sounds pretty darn good ... until people realize it's a change from negligible to negligible. As stated, the expansion of bicycle infrastructure has been uneven throughout NYC. Therefore, any statistics that cite bicycle usage for the entire city will understate any relation between the bicycle infrastructure within the area where such infrastructure predominates. The data for the 2010-2011 Metro NYC Household Trip Survey is publicly available. I have looked at the mode percentages for trips that originate within the CBD - the area of the cordon count and the area that has seen the most bicycle infrastructure. There are 6 community boards within the CBD. Here are the some street mode percentages for bicycle unlinked trips: 1%; 2%; 4%; 1%; 0.4%; 0.5% walk unlinked trips: 88%; 87%; 82%; 85%; 90%; 86% drive car unlinked trips: 2%; 3%; 3%; 3%; 1%; 2% If you compare the percentages of unlinked bike trips to unlinked drive car trips, you should conclude that the numbers I chose from the 2012 cordon count comparing bikes vs. all vehicle traffic were not outliers. There have been isolated reports that bicycle traffic exceeded vehicle traffic for some streets. There are more than 70 community boards throughout NYC. This statistic should give one pause in trying to use city-wide statistics to measure a strategy confined to a relatively small section. And I doubt anyone has detected a resulting improvement regarding public health, traffic jams, air pollution, or energy use as a result. Traffic jams are not only caused by vehicles counts. Traffic management has some influence. Besides, nobody has a satisfactory quantitative measurement for "traffic jams." However, cordon count vehicle volumes peaked in 1984. Today's volumes are 33% below their 1984 peak. As to public health, NYC life expectancy is higher than the US as a whole. That gap has increased during the time of 18% annual bicycle growth at the CBD cordon. http://cityroom.blogs.nytimes.com/20...wholesomeness- new-yorkers-live-longer/ I would trust the public health officials who have ascribed this to factors other than bicycle use. If you feel such a link is necessary, NYC's experience shows positive correlation. |
Ads |
#12
|
|||
|
|||
It's happening! Um... sort of.
Stephen Bauman wrote:
:On Sun, 11 May 2014 00:44:29 -0400, Frank Krygowski wrote: : On 5/10/2014 8:38 PM, Stephen Bauman wrote: : On Sat, 10 May 2014 12:32:01 -0400, Frank Krygowski wrote: : : : Even in places with special infrastructure, use is often minimal. I'm : regularly a visitor in a small town with prominent bike lanes on its : major through streets. So far this year, I've seen exactly one bike : being ridden in those bike lanes. Based on prior years, I'll probably : see, oh, a couple dozen total by the end of the year. Heck, even : though I frequently ride for utility in that town, I'm seldom in those : bike lanes. There are better ways to go where I need to go. : : : I cannot comment on what you saw. I know nothing of the circumstances. : You should not generalize your personal observations to every corner of : the country. : : Of course, that advice goes both ways. Those who claim bike lanes (or : whatever) will lead to mass cycling often generalize their examples to : every corner of the country. And it often seems their examples are very : carefully chosen, i.e. atypical. : :The presence of a coordinated bicycle infrastructure is few and far :between. Therefore, any examples that show any relation between such :facilities and bicycle use must by definition be carefully chosen. Give it up. Frank doesn't care about facts. He knows facilities don't work. Anything that suggest that they do is clearly wrong, or a special case. You'll have more luck convincing sms that flashlights make bad bike lights. -- sig 81 |
#13
|
|||
|
|||
It's happening! Um... sort of.
On Friday, May 9, 2014 9:06:42 PM UTC-7, Frank Krygowski wrote:
Some infrastructure fans have bragged about the fact that "It's happening!" - that is, that the big investments in bike lanes, cycle tracks, bike boxes and such have created a surge in bike commuting. I'm all in favor of bike commuting and utility cycling. But I've long been aware that the supposed surge has been comparatively minor. This headline seems to confirm that. "Bicycle Commuting Rates Rocket From 0.5 Percent to 0.6 Percent in Only 32 Years." http://www.slate.com/blogs/the_slate...t_popular.html https://www.newworldlibrary.com/Book.../Default.aspx# It's happening. |
#14
|
|||
|
|||
It's happening! Um... sort of.
On 5/11/2014 2:48 PM, Dan O wrote:
On Friday, May 9, 2014 9:06:42 PM UTC-7, Frank Krygowski wrote: Some infrastructure fans have bragged about the fact that "It's happening!" - that is, that the big investments in bike lanes, cycle tracks, bike boxes and such have created a surge in bike commuting. I'm all in favor of bike commuting and utility cycling. But I've long been aware that the supposed surge has been comparatively minor. This headline seems to confirm that. "Bicycle Commuting Rates Rocket From 0.5 Percent to 0.6 Percent in Only 32 Years." http://www.slate.com/blogs/the_slate...t_popular.html https://www.newworldlibrary.com/Book.../Default.aspx# It's happening. Or more accurately, it's being promoted like crazy. 0.6%! Wow! -- - Frank Krygowski |
#15
|
|||
|
|||
It's happening! Um... sort of.
On 5/11/2014 11:36 AM, David Scheidt wrote:
Stephen Bauman wrote: :On Sun, 11 May 2014 00:44:29 -0400, Frank Krygowski wrote: : On 5/10/2014 8:38 PM, Stephen Bauman wrote: : On Sat, 10 May 2014 12:32:01 -0400, Frank Krygowski wrote: : : : Even in places with special infrastructure, use is often minimal. I'm : regularly a visitor in a small town with prominent bike lanes on its : major through streets. So far this year, I've seen exactly one bike : being ridden in those bike lanes. Based on prior years, I'll probably : see, oh, a couple dozen total by the end of the year. Heck, even : though I frequently ride for utility in that town, I'm seldom in those : bike lanes. There are better ways to go where I need to go. : : : I cannot comment on what you saw. I know nothing of the circumstances. : You should not generalize your personal observations to every corner of : the country. : : Of course, that advice goes both ways. Those who claim bike lanes (or : whatever) will lead to mass cycling often generalize their examples to : every corner of the country. And it often seems their examples are very : carefully chosen, i.e. atypical. : :The presence of a coordinated bicycle infrastructure is few and far :between. Therefore, any examples that show any relation between such :facilities and bicycle use must by definition be carefully chosen. Give it up. Frank doesn't care about facts. ??? I'm giving citations of data, links to tables, etc. Why are those not facts? Because they disagree with your views? He knows facilities don't work. Anything that suggest that they do is clearly wrong, or a special case. Well, David, how can we tell which special cases are valid? There are locations where proponents have data showing special bike infrastructure causing large bike mode share increases - at least percentage-wise, if not large in absolute terms. There are also locations where special bike infrastructure has not caused significant increases in bike mode share. Which of these "special cases" is a better predictor of what will happen elsewhere? To further complicate matters, there's the example of San Francisco, which saw big jumps in bike use during the time when there were no new bike facilities at all, due to a court challenge. If nothing else, this indicates that some of the increases may be due more to other factors, not the presence of infrastructure. And I'm not aware of any defensible correlation between American bike infrastructure and the societal benefits touted by infrastructure promoters, as measured from the outside, so to speak. Again: traffic jams haven't cleared up even in "6%" Portland. (In fact, what I've seen instead is occasional bike traffic jams added to car traffic jams.) I haven't seen data indicating bike-caused reductions in pollution. And contrary to Stephen's implication, nobody is attributing New Yorkers' longevity to bike lanes. These things are influenced by so many factors, that another percent increase in biking is lost in the noise. Personally, I believe that if the U.S. _could_ get (say) 30% bike mode share, we would see easily detectable benefits. But despite the breathless enthusiasm, we'll never beat even 5% nationally, absent a cataclysm of some sort. America can never be Copenhagen. And the change from 0.5% bike commuting mode share in 1980 to 0.6% bike commuting in 2012 isn't going to move any gauges. -- - Frank Krygowski |
#16
|
|||
|
|||
It's happening! Um... sort of.
On Sun, 11 May 2014 11:48:40 -0700 (PDT), Dan O
wrote: On Friday, May 9, 2014 9:06:42 PM UTC-7, Frank Krygowski wrote: Some infrastructure fans have bragged about the fact that "It's happening!" - that is, that the big investments in bike lanes, cycle tracks, bike boxes and such have created a surge in bike commuting. I'm all in favor of bike commuting and utility cycling. But I've long been aware that the supposed surge has been comparatively minor. This headline seems to confirm that. "Bicycle Commuting Rates Rocket From 0.5 Percent to 0.6 Percent in Only 32 Years." http://www.slate.com/blogs/the_slate...t_popular.html https://www.newworldlibrary.com/Book.../Default.aspx# It's happening. Exciting facts! But on the other hand bicycle commuters amount to some .25% of the total population and even more important about .38% of the registered voters. -- Cheers, John B. (invalid to gmail) |
#17
|
|||
|
|||
It's happening! Um... sort of.
On Sunday, May 11, 2014 3:58:14 PM UTC-7, Frank Krygowski wrote:
snip Personally, I believe that if the U.S. _could_ get (say) 30% bike mode share, we would see easily detectable benefits. Personally, I believe that if one person discovers the joy of bicycle commuting, benefits are easily detectable; and I believe the benefits are more than multiplied by each new addition. snip |
#18
|
|||
|
|||
It's happening! Um... sort of.
On 5/12/2014 12:25 AM, Dan O wrote:
On Sunday, May 11, 2014 3:58:14 PM UTC-7, Frank Krygowski wrote: snip Personally, I believe that if the U.S. _could_ get (say) 30% bike mode share, we would see easily detectable benefits. Personally, I believe that if one person discovers the joy of bicycle commuting, benefits are easily detectable; and I believe the benefits are more than multiplied by each new addition. snip Why just commuting? Riding a bike in general has a lot of benefits. Butts on bikes. Best way to improve safety of cyclists is to increase exposure. Once they're riding they're more likely to ride to work. |
#19
|
|||
|
|||
It's happening! Um... sort of.
On 5/12/2014 12:25 AM, Dan O wrote:
On Sunday, May 11, 2014 3:58:14 PM UTC-7, Frank Krygowski wrote: snip Personally, I believe that if the U.S. _could_ get (say) 30% bike mode share, we would see easily detectable benefits. Personally, I believe that if one person discovers the joy of bicycle commuting, benefits are easily detectable... True, assuming you mean it's easy to detect that person's joy. That also applies to other activities - for example, the joy of fishing. But there are no landscape architects lobbying to transform America by constructing trout streams everywhere. And if we did construct thousands of urban trout streams, yet fishing increased only a fraction of a percent in 30 years, I think people would certainly say "Hmm. We're wasting money." -- - Frank Krygowski |
#20
|
|||
|
|||
It's happening! Um... sort of.
On Monday, May 12, 2014 5:11:43 AM UTC-7, Duane wrote:
On 5/12/2014 12:25 AM, Dan O wrote: On Sunday, May 11, 2014 3:58:14 PM UTC-7, Frank Krygowski wrote: Personally, I believe that if the U.S. _could_ get (say) 30% bike mode share, we would see easily detectable benefits. Personally, I believe that if one person discovers the joy of bicycle commuting, benefits are easily detectable; and I believe the benefits are more than multiplied by each new addition. Why just commuting? Okay, how about fishing, then? (Have I left anything else out?) Riding a bike in general has a lot of benefits. Butts on bikes. Best way to improve safety of cyclists is to increase exposure. Once they're riding they're more likely to ride to work. |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Sort-of an into, sort of a question.. | The Transporter | Unicycling | 16 | August 31st 06 04:51 PM |
Is this really happening???? | Calogero Carlucci | Racing | 1 | June 26th 06 10:24 AM |
What's Happening With Creed? | Tom Kunich | Racing | 0 | June 5th 06 03:01 PM |
What's happening to RBT | Tom Nakashima | Techniques | 43 | January 7th 06 03:42 AM |
gee... what's happening to me? | [email protected] | General | 61 | June 9th 05 05:20 PM |