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.

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

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.

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

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

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)

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

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.

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

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.