|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#1
|
|||
|
|||
It's happening! Um... sort of.
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 - Frank Krygowski |
Ads |
#2
|
|||
|
|||
It's happening! Um... sort of.
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. -- sig 63 |
#3
|
|||
|
|||
It's happening! Um... sort of.
On Fri, 09 May 2014 21:06:42 -0700, 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_slatest/2014/05/08/ bicycle_commuting_still_not_that_popular.html - Frank Krygowski 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. 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. 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. 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%. The counts also show that normal rush hour commuter flow accounts for only 33% of the daily total. 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. 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. Stephen Bauman |
#4
|
|||
|
|||
It's happening! Um... sort of.
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%. That apparent difference might be generated as much by the vagaries of random sampling as by any real increase. And although it would be 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. When examining data on such problems and solutions, the complete picture requires not just relative numbers, but absolute numbers in context. Again, I'm solidly in favor of more bike use. But I'm also in favor of realism. -- - Frank Krygowski |
#5
|
|||
|
|||
It's happening! Um... sort of.
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 |
#6
|
|||
|
|||
It's happening! Um... sort of.
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 |
#7
|
|||
|
|||
It's happening! Um... sort of.
On 5/10/2014 1:26 PM, David Scheidt wrote:
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%. Right, although as I've previously discussed, the presentation of data is a bit misleading. Portland has been listed as having a 6% bike commuting mode share. But it turns out that the 6% applies only to residents of the city of Portland. It ignores the vast number of commuters entering from outside the city limits. Again, nobody in Portland during rush hour could pretend that 6% of the vehicles on the roads are bicycles. Also: doesn't it indicate a problem when "more than 1%" is used for bragging? In most fields, 1% is synonymous with "negligible." : 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. I understand the ACS. I got the questionnaire once, and I'm one of those people who was counted as a bike commuter. But note what the League of American Bicyclists says about the results: "Note: ACS numbers are based on surveys of a sample of the population, so they are just estimates -- sometimes with large margins of error. Some changes may not be statistically significant." And the LAB is at the forefront of trumpeting any little gain. They're probably the main organization bragging that "Bike commuting rose by 30%!!!" [from 0.5% to 0.6% or whatever] If you have some real objection to their methodology, state them. Don't make unsupported handwaving arguements about 'vagaries of random sampling'. It's not an objection to their methods. They do what they can with the funds available. They could reduce the uncertainty in results by polling more subjects, and they could also ask about bicycling in more detail. But both changes cost money - IOW, tax dollars. The statistical fact is, when an event is uncommon, any statistical measurement of that event will have greater uncertainty, and be more subject to random variation. _Reliably_ detecting the difference between 0.5% and 0.6% bike mode share is very difficult. :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. Well, we could talk about these: "NYC NYC Bike Commute Mode-Share Hits 1 Percent!" http://www.streetsblog.org/2013/09/2...nly-commuters/ (What does it mean when you brag about 1%?) Or these: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Modal_share (only six U.S. cities above 1%.) Or these: http://bikeportland.org/2013/09/19/c...es-climb-94248 (years of more and more bike infra, no increase in bike mode share.) All I'm saying is that the bike lanes, cycle tracks, bike paths, bike boxes etc. are not going to transform America. They're not going to produce noticeable reductions in traffic congestion, greenhouse gases and similar problems. Unless there's some society-wide cataclysm, people's transportation habits are going to remain much the same as they are now. The U.S. is never going to look like Amsterdam. It doesn't bother me, though. I love riding. I'll continue riding for utility and pleasure, proving that it's possible, enjoyable and beneficial. -- - Frank Krygowski |
#8
|
|||
|
|||
It's happening! Um... sort of.
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 |
#9
|
|||
|
|||
It's happening! Um... sort of.
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. 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. And I doubt anyone has detected a resulting improvement regarding public health, traffic jams, air pollution, or energy use as a result. -- - Frank Krygowski |
#10
|
|||
|
|||
It's happening! Um... sort of.
I don't have hourly information regarding the GWB for bicycle traffic.
Chris Christie might know. |
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 04:42 AM |
gee... what's happening to me? | [email protected] | General | 61 | June 9th 05 05:20 PM |