On 5/10/2014 11:08 AM, Stephen Bauman wrote:


Nobody has made "big investments" in bicycle infrastructure. A single
automobile interchange costs more than all the bicycle infrastructure
costs in the entire country. They have made very modest but highly
visible bicycle infrastructure investments.

I think the usual justifications for the comparative investments (i.e.,
for motoring vs. bicycling) may be these:
1) cost per incidence of facility use. A major freeway interchange's
cost gets amortized over millions of uses in a fairly short time.

2) benefit to the economy as a whole. That interchange may be essential
for shipping huge volumes of goods and materials e.g. getting food into
a major city.

3) actual necessity or benefit. One _can_ ride a bike almost anywhere
without any special facility, and in fact, the benefits of many
facilities (e.g. bike lanes) seem to be greatly overstated. Much bike
infra seems to be promotional, not problem solving.

They have not made them uniformly throughout the country. Therefore, one
would not expect to see a nationwide increase that is commensurate with
infrastructure increases in a few selected (mostly urban) areas.

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.

If you wish to establish a relation between infrastructure and bike use,
you need to concentrate on those areas that have seen new infrastructure.
You need to track a couple of years after infrastructure installation.
You also need to track not just commuter trips but all trips. This last
point means you need to take counts for the entire day, not just when you
think peak rider ship takes place.

I agree, better data would be nice. Unfortunately, it's a bit costly
and difficult to get it. One might say it's a chicken-and-egg problem:
How can we justify spending the money to get precise counts of bike use
if the bike use is obviously so small?

NYC has seen dramatic increases in infrastructure. They have been taking
cordon counts for decades. They have also included bicycle counts in this
study for about 20 years.

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 seems obvious that super-dense and super-compact cities have the best
hopes for more practical use of bikes. Cities with large college
populations are also good bets. But still, the number of bikes on the
ground seems to remain small, compared to cars on the ground.

The counts also show that normal rush hour
commuter flow accounts for only 33% of the daily total.

Do you mean for that statement to apply just to bike commutes, or to
transportation in general?

Before I retired, I did a lot of my commuting by bike. After all, it
was just me and my briefcase and books. But even though I'm pretty
dedicated to utility cycling, most other utility trips happened in a
car. The reasons were these: distance, loads, and weather.

Regarding distance: If I needed (say) an oddball tool to complete a home
maintenance job, I could get it by bike if I knew the closest hardware
store carried it. But if I had to go to the obscure tool store across
town, that would make it a two hour project by bike.

Regarding loads: Obviously, if I were getting 75 pounds of mulch, I'd
take the car instead of the bike. (Yes, even though some people
occasionally haul more by bike.) And if my "payload" included my wife
and/or kids, the trip almost always happened by car.

Regarding weather: Like most people, I'm not fond of riding in rain.
Nor on icy streets. Nor heavy winds. Some do ride regardless of
weather, but those will always be few, especially if there's a car
readily available.

So in some ways, commuting can be the utility trip best suited to
bicycling, especially if the weather cooperates.


These counts are not limited to the CBD. The George Washington Bridge is
6 miles removed from the edge of the CBD. Its weekday totals have shown
similar 15% annual growth rate. Its weekend totals have shown a more
modest 5% annual growth rate. However, its weekend totals are more than
double its weekday totals.

IOW, people use bikes on the GWB for pleasure on weekends. That's nice.
But what percentage of the bridge's vehicles are bikes?

Bike Share is the wild card. It's been popular despite its financial
problems and limited scope. It's confined to he CBD for all intensive
purposes. Therefore, it will not have much impact in the cordon counts.
Its trips are monitored. Its daily average on most decent weather days is
80% to 100% of the daily cordon count. That daily count represents about
40% of the maximum motor vehicle accumulation within the CBD.

Practically no Bike Share trips would be characterized as the major
commutation mode. Its impact would not be counted in the census journey
to work survey. Bike Share is popular, because infrastructure to support
it was in place. Its popularity has created a synergy that is expanding
the infrastructure.

Its visibility is generating more bike use in areas beyond its limited
area. Local officials who wanted to rid NYC of "lycra clad" cyclists are
now clamoring for more bicycle infrastructure and especially for Bike
Share in their district.

I do think bike share is a good idea. It's a very practical addition to
the transportation options in a city.


--
- Frank Krygowski