Frank Krygowski wrote:
:On 5/10/2014 8:40 AM, David Scheidt wrote:
: 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.
:
: Yeah, the rate of commuting nearly tripled in Chicago from 2000 to 20012.
: Totally trivial change. It more than trippled in Portland. It almost
: doubled in LA, more than doubled in Philly. It doubled (to over 4
: percent) in Minneapolis.
:
: I sugest reading the study (or better, the numbers) and not relying on
: bad websites for summaries.
:

:I've read quite a lot about this issue. Sometimes a headline provides a
:useful summary even if the bulk of the information is elsewhere.

:Yes, I'm aware of cities that have tripled their bike commuting, and yet
:experienced change that was trivial. This happens when the initial bike
:mode share was something like 0.1%, and it rises to something like 0.3%.

All the cities I quoted have rates of well more than 1%.


: That apparent difference might be generated as much by the vagaries of
:random sampling as by any real increase. And although it would be

The ACS is
pretty solid statisitical work, their methods and questions are
readily available. If you have some real objection to their
methodology, state them. Don't make unsupported handwaving arguements
about 'vagaries of random sampling'.

:certainly trumpeted by agencies promoting cycling, even if it were a
:real increase, it would generate negligible benefits regarding things
:like pollution output, traffic congestion, energy use and the like.

Again, talk about the real numbers, not the ones you made up.

--
sig 12