On Sat, 10 May 2014 12:32:01 -0400, Frank Krygowski wrote:

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.


According to a 2010-2011 household travel survey for households within
the metropolitan NYC area, 67% of all unlinked street trips are non-
motorized and 33% involve motor vehicles for unlinked trips that are
within the NYC limits. Rail and ferry trips, which do not involve street
resources are not included.

The amount of money spent on street transportation for 67% of the trips
(non-motorized modes) is a pittance compared that spent for 33% of the
trips (motor vehicles).

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.


Such vehicles represent approximately 10% of the motor vehicle count at
various bridges and tunnels.

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.


One could not ride one's bike almost anywhere, when most river crossings
prohibited bikes and pedestrians. Getting such crossings restored (many
had been dismantled as a security measure during WW II) was the first
priority.

The two week long 1980 subway strike taught us that bikes need separate,
protected, if they are to be moved in large numbers. Small numbers of
bikes can sneak though without facilities. Separate facilities are needed
to move masses of bikes.

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.


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.

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.

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?


There are some relatively inexpensive tools for counting bicycles and
pedestrians in the works. It's based on visual recognition software and
can work on a video feed. Let's hope it's successful. It would make life
a lot easier.

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 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.


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?


I looked at the 2012 cordon counts. They are taken between 7am and
midnight. The 7-10 am inboard counts, the typical am rush hour,
constituted roughly 33% of the daily count for the same street and same
direction.

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.


The vast majority of motor vehicle trips within NYC are under 3 miles (as
the crow flies). Most are outside the CBD. That's where the next market
is. Infrastructure is lacking. The City's strategy has been to place a
bike lane down when they can. They then spend the next few years to
connect the dots to make a viable network.

They are also spreading outward from the CBD. That's where the building
boom is. Industrial districts are becoming residential. The new residents
are young people who have been priced out of Manhattan. They are pushing
the establishment to remake these areas in Manhattan's image - complete
with bike infrastructure.


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?


I don't have hourly information regarding the GWB for bicycle traffic. I
cannot make a same time comparison like I did for the cordon count.

If you want a totally truthful and misleading percentage, take your
percentage next Sunday at 7am. There will be 20,000 cyclists crossing
that bridge.

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.


Stephen Bauman