News   GLOBAL  |  Apr 02, 2020
 8.9K     0 
News   GLOBAL  |  Apr 01, 2020
 40K     0 
News   GLOBAL  |  Apr 01, 2020
 5.1K     0 

Build it and they will come.

Additional information on How Many New Yorkers Bike Each Day from streetsblog.com.

pucher_graphic_credit.jpg


There were two developments today spotlighting the evolution of cycling in New York City. Transportation Alternatives came out with their updated figure for the number of people who bike in the city each day, an estimate that has climbed to 236,000. And a team of researchers led by Rutgers University professor John Pucher released their long-awaited study, "Cycling in New York City: Innovation at the Urban Frontier" [PDF]. While both point to a significant rise in cycling, the Pucher paper makes much more sober assessments about cycling growth than TA's claim that the number of daily cyclists now exceeds 200,000.

The Pucher paper is a broad survey of cycling trends in New York, focusing heavily on what's happened since 2000. It covers a lot of ground about who bikes, how much cycling has increased, what's behind the rising popularity of cycling and what's holding New Yorkers back from biking more. (We'll have more on the report later -- you should really read the whole thing.) The daily cyclist count from TA is a calculation that's updated every year, based mainly on data from NYCDOT's screenline counts, which record the number of cyclists who cross the East River bridges and 50th Street on the Hudson River Greenway, as well as bike commuters who take the Staten Island Ferry.

Both sources show a city where cycling is on the rise, but the Rutgers authors refrain from extrapolating citywide bike ridership. In fact, one of the Pucher team's major points is that the screenline count is an imperfect basis for approximating total cycling volume, and that New York City needs a better way to gather information on bicycle travel.

Pucher is highy skeptical of the 236,000 figure calculated for TA by transportation analyst (and Streetsblog contributor) Charles Komanoff. Because the screenline captures cyclists in downtown Manhattan and northwest Brooklyn -- where, according to census data, bike commute rates are the highest -- extrapolating citywide bicycling rates from it involves a lot of uncertainty. "All of us agree that there's been big increases in cycling," said Pucher. But, he added, "there's so many assumptions that you can question" in the TA estimate.

When I spoke to Komanoff this afternoon, he said some components of his formula, which hasn't changed much since 1992, should be re-examined and updated.

So is there a better way to calculate how many people ride a bike in New York City each day?

Well, there are big flaws with the other data that's out there too -- which mainly consists of travel surveys conducted by the U.S. Census Bureau. The problem with travel surveys, said TA's Wiley Norvell, is that bike trips get undercounted. "Secondary modes get discounted," he said. "There's a lot of auxiliary and incidental travel that isn't included."

In other words, because the census survey only counts your "primary mode" of getting to work, if you bike to the train or the bus, that won't get counted as a bike trip. If you bike to work once or twice a week, you won't show up in the census data as a bike commuter at all. Trips to the store or to visit family or friends don't get counted, and neither do recreational rides.

Pucher said the shortcomings of census data are as exasperating as the screenline count's deficiencies. His team looked at the three-year average from census surveys in 2006, 2007, and 2008. That yielded an estimate of 25,000 New Yorkers who primarily commute by bike. "There's just no question that the data understates total cycling," Pucher said. In addition to undercounting non-commute bike trips, he said, the census undercounts cycling by the city's enormous immigrant population.

Data from a different survey -- the National Household Travel Survey -- should provide a clearer picture of bicycling rates in New York, because it counts a wider variety of bike trips than the census. The detailed New York State NHTS data for 2009 hasn't been released yet, however, and prior to last year the survey hadn't been conducted since 2001. Pucher is itching to get his hands on the new numbers.

When I asked Pucher to hazard an estimate of the total daily cycling figure for New York City, he hesitated to name a number. Eventually he sketched out a range. "The percentage of work trips by bike is maybe a third or a half of the total," he said, referring to a rule of thumb among bike planners. So using the census number -- 25,000 daily commuters -- there are at least 50,000 bike commute trips and thus 100,000 to 150,000 total bike trips each day, Pucher said. After factoring in all the ways the census undercounts cycling, he was willing to venture that the number of trips is somewhat higher than that. (Note that we're talking about trips, not individual cyclists.)

Pucher's underlying point -- and, I suspect, the reason he was reluctant to give me an estimate -- is that New York City lacks the data to really understand how many cyclists are using its streets. "The bottom line is, we need a better survey," he said. "In Portland, every single year, they have travel surveys, broken down by mode, gender and age. Why don't we have that in New York City? It's something that NYMTC [the New York Metropolitan Transportation Council, the agency that plans how to spend federal transportation funding] should be doing. It's really the fault of the metropolitan planning organization for not having conducted the right kind of survey, that does include work trips and non-work trips, and covers all different parts of the city. Above all it will help determine where we build facilities and what types we build."

A more rigorous approach to measuring bicycling would help guide decisions about bike infrastructure, Norvell agreed. "The complexity and depth of knowledge we have of driving behavior is part of the reason driving is so heavily subsidized," he said. "If we knew more about the way cyclists behave, we'd know more about where to invest in cycling infrastructure."

One thing the screenline counts definitely tell us, said Pucher, is that recent investments in bike infrastructure in the Manhattan core and near Brooklyn's East River bridges have paid off. "It does confirm that the state-of-the-art facilities in lower Manhattan and northwest Brooklyn, that they're certainly well used," he said. "That's a vindication of DOT's policies."
 
Growing resistance to bicycle helmet laws

See this link for the article in copenhagenzie.com.

Reflected by Mexico City repealing its bike helmet law, from this link:

Mexico City repealed their bike helmet law back in February 2010.

Let's face it, it wasn't much of a law since there was little enforcement and it was, essentially, unenforceable. Back in 2008 there was a bicycle count including over 26,000 cyclists and 93% of them didn't feel the need to wear a helmet.

The main reason for the push to repeal the helmet law was the upcoming implementation of the city's bike share system, Ecobici.

The Institute for Transportation and Development Policy [ITDP] were instrumental in getting the law repealed but there was also support from within the city government.

Back in December I blogged about how the helmet law in Israel was up for repeal, as well. From what I've heard the lobbying was successful and adults are no longer forced to wear helmets. Any more info on this is appreciated.

Basically, the helmet law in both places stood in the way of bike sharing programmes that would serve to encourage more people to cycle. Programmes which have been successful in achieving this goal in Paris and Lyon and 24 other French cities, as well as Barcelona and Seville and other Catalonian/Spanish cities and many places around the world.

The Australian Helmet Hurdle regarding bike share programmes is well-known. Nevertheless, there are still crazy ideas floating around in that country like making cheap helmets available at corner shops so that if you spontaneously want to grab a public bike for a short trip somewhere, you'll have to first piss all over that spontaneity and go into a shop to buy a cheap helmet.

In short... Got a helmet law? Don't bother with bike share programmes until you repeal it.
 
Saw a story on CITY TV news (during BT) today about how underused the bike racks are on TTC buses.....here is a link to a Sun story about the same topic.

http://www.torontosun.com/news/torontoandgta/2010/05/02/13798976.html

What is interesting (and something I was not aware of) was that after the pilot project the recommendation of staff was not to proceed with these bike racks as useage was so low (highest use during the pilot was 20 out of 43,300 passengers which is 0.046%) there was no business case for spending the money.....but the results of the pilot were ignored and the racks were installed across the fleet.

As everyone is aware, the bike lanes on University Avenue are being touted as a pilot project....in fact in another thread when I expressed I was not in favour of those particular lanes someone suggested to me to, basicall, relax it was just a pilot and if I was right then they would disappear.....stories like this make you wonder about the value of "pilot" projects if the results mean nothing.
 
Saw a story on CITY TV news (during BT) today about how underused the bike racks are on TTC buses.....here is a link to a Sun story about the same topic.

http://www.torontosun.com/news/torontoandgta/2010/05/02/13798976.html

What is interesting (and something I was not aware of) was that after the pilot project the recommendation of staff was not to proceed with these bike racks as useage was so low (highest use during the pilot was 20 out of 43,300 passengers which is 0.046%) there was no business case for spending the money.....but the results of the pilot were ignored and the racks were installed across the fleet.

As everyone is aware, the bike lanes on University Avenue are being touted as a pilot project....in fact in another thread when I expressed I was not in favour of those particular lanes someone suggested to me to, basicall, relax it was just a pilot and if I was right then they would disappear.....stories like this make you wonder about the value of "pilot" projects if the results mean nothing.

Bicyclists would use the racks when they're tired, flat tires, broken parts, or time. How often would that happen? Same reason why you carry a spare tire in a car, just in case. That is what the racks are for, just in case.
 
Bicyclists would use the racks when they're tired, flat tires, broken parts, or time. How often would that happen? Same reason why you carry a spare tire in a car, just in case. That is what the racks are for, just in case.

Really? That is what the money was spent for? I thought it was to encourage cycling by creating an integration between public transit and cycling. So if someone wanted to cycle but where a long way from their ultimate desitnation they could cycle to a bus, hop on the bus which would take them part/most of the way and then complete their trip by cycling again.

Had no idea that we spent that much money for the eqivalent of bubble gum on the leaky canoe!
 
The GO bus bike racks are often full these days, and I find them very useful on GO. Rarely would I take a bike on a TTC bus because biking is usually faster than the bus itself.
 
Last edited:
The GO bus bike racks are often full these days, and I find them very useful on GO. Rarely would I take a bike on a TTC bus because biking is usually faster than the bus itself.

Your probably right....it just makes you wonder why, against the advice of staff, they were installed? Surely others could see what you see? Surely that is why there was a pilot program? I know that $2 million is not a huge amount of cash....but it does seem to be money needlessly spent?
 
Hardly the first example of pigheadedness coming from the ttc.

If you read the article it mentions how the Staff were against this idea from the start. It was not our idea but a pilot project by one of the Commissioners and we all know who he is. From day one most of us at work said it was a bad idea and a waste of money. When politicians start making decisions for us it is always a disaster in the end.
 
Interesting video on bicycle rush hour in Utrecht, Netherlands:

[video]http://www.youtube.com/watch#!v=n-AbPav5E5M[/video]

Notice the absence of sign pollution that Toronto has. Toronto would double up on the traffic lights and add English word signage that says something like "BIKE TRAFFIC SIGNAL". The YIELD SIGN is in case the electrical power is off and the bicycle traffic signal actually uses bicycle symbols in the lights, no wordage.

Another video on bicycle rush hour in the SNOW:

[video]http://www.youtube.com/watch#!v=ZMv3OB6XHvQ[/video]

Note the high quantity of bicycle racks. Helmets? We don't need no f(blink)ing helmets!
 
]Local cyclists back law for more space from cars

Waterloo Record said:
Local cyclists back law for more space from cars

May 16, 2010
By Terry Pender, Record staff

WATERLOO REGION — When Roger Baer rides his bicycle he watches the traffic coming up behind him as much as he watches the road ahead.

The veteran Waterloo cyclist believes the vehicles behind him are more of a threat as drivers steer around his moving bicycle.

That’s why Baer supports a proposed law to keep vehicles away from cyclists.

“I think in the future we are going to see more and more bikes,” Baer, who rides all year long, said. “I would be in favour of anything that would increase the distance between cyclists and cars.”

Baer was reacting to proposed legislation that New Democratic MPP Cheri DiNovo plans to introduce at Queen’s Park on Tuesday.

The legislation would amend the Highway Traffic Act and require vehicles to keep at least three feet away when overtaking cyclists at speeds of less than 50 kilometres-and-hour. The minimum distance increases to four feet when the vehicle is travelling at 50 to 80 kilometres-an-hour. It increases to five feet when vehicles are going faster than 80 kilometres-an-hour.

The proposed legislation was made more timely after a pickup truck plowed into a group of cyclists in Quebec, on Friday killing three riders. But the amendments to the Highway Traffic Act have been months in the making and are not a reaction to the Quebec accident.

Tim Kenyon, who chairs Kitchener’s cycling advisory committee, called the legislation an excellent proposal.

“Not least because it puts the issue of bicycle safety on the province’s radar and on every driver’s radar,” Kenyon said.

“I think it is a great first step, but it shouldn’t be the last step,” Kenyon said.

Don Pavey of Cambridge, who chairs that city’s cycling advisory committee, is happy to hear about the proposed law.

“I think from my experience it is probably a great idea,” Pavey said.

About 15 States and several American cities require drivers to keep at least three feet away from cyclists. France, Spain and Germany also have similar laws in place.

In Ontario, the Highway Traffic Act currently says drivers should “turn out to the left so far as may be necessary to avoid a collision” when passing a cyclist.

Pavey said drivers do not appreciate the winds created by their vehicles and how dangerous side mirrors, particularly on trucks, can be for cyclists.

“I think this law would tell motorists: ‘If you can’t drift out to the centre of the road to safely get past a cyclist, then you will have to slow down until it’s safe to do so,’” Pavey said.

Bob McMullen, a veteran cyclist and trail advocate, wonders how practical such a law would be. On two lane streets with lots of traffic a cyclist could hold up a long line of cars, McMullen said.

“I like the intent of it. Do I think the NDP have a hope in hell of getting it through? No,” McMullen said.

Under current laws bicycles have as much right to the road as a vehicle. Along some streets, such as King Street through downtown Kitchener, cyclists are encouraged by the city to take the whole lane. Drivers do not always appreciate that.

“It says a lot when you have to legislate common sense,” McMullen said. “I guess I like the intent. I would like the safety but there are implications.”

Nirala Sonder rides her bicycle a lot in Kitchener and would like to see more cycling paths built away from roads. But until that happens the proposed law is a good idea, she said.

“I think it is a step in the right direction,” Sonder said.

Dennis Hilker, a member of Kitchener’s cycling advisory committee, said he gets shocked by vehicles speeding just a few centimetres away from her elbows.

“I think, basically, it is just fantastic,” Hilker said of the proposed legislation. “I think it’s great.”

Nikola Mehes, another member of Kitchener’s cycling advisory committee, said the proposed law is a good idea but only if it is enforced.

“I don’t know what it will do until people are out there getting tickets,” Mehes said. “It would be great if it was part of the drivers’ exams.”

tpender@therecord.com
 
Spacing Toronto reports about a cyclists rally at Queens Park for three-foot passing legislation.

It’s no secret that there are drivers who simply refuse to share the road, and in turn endanger the life of cyclists’ everyday.

This is why Cheri DiNovo, NDP MPP for Parkdale-High Park, and Eleanor McMahon of the Share the Road Cycling Coalition held a rally and press conference at Queens Park this morning to promote Canada’s first three-foot passing legislation. DiNovo, side-by-side with McMahon and Yvonne Bambrick of the Toronto Cyclists Union told a group of about 40 cyclists that this is a step in the right direction for cyclists in Toronto.

“You are a testament to a new world, a world with better air, a world safer for people, both health-wise and environment-wise, and a world where we share the roads, we don’t hog the roads,” DiNovo said.

The proposed bill requires that drivers respectfully share the road with cyclists and give them three feet of clearance when passing or overtaking a cyclist. “This is asking of drivers what good drivers already do, and… it’s a chance to educate bad drivers,” DiNovo said in front of the Ontario Legislature.

The Share the Road Coalition completed a survey of 1,100 Ontarians. When asked why they don’t cycle more often the response of about 60% was that they are too worried about their safety on the road.

The three-foot passing bill will enforce what good drivers already practice, said both DiNovo and McMahon, but will force bad drivers to undergo a training course in which they are taught to share the road and be respectful of all those on it. She said with the passing of this legislation, drivers would be taught in initial drivers’ education, as well as rehabilitation driving classes, their responsibility to share the road.

This comes on the heels of the deaths of three cyclists who where killed on a highway in Quebec, as well as two separate instances where a 57-year-old Quebec man, and a 17-year-old were killed by motorists. This is also a personal fight for McMahon, whose police officer husband was killed by a motorist while on his bike in 2006.

“We’ve got a level of complacency in our society now in regards to motorists and cyclists,” said McMahon. “It reminds us that as cyclists we’re vulnerable, and again just reinforces the need for this kind of legislation to enforce the importance of sharing the road,” she added.

Const. Hugh Smith of the Toronto Police Services Traffic Division gave a little clarity to the rules of the road. “With a cyclist they only occupy part of the lane… because they do occupy part of the lane they do have the right to the whole lane.”

“This is the confusion that we’re finding, that it’s not clear to other road users to treat a cycle as a slow moving vehicle.”

The bill will go before legislation today and all involved are confident that it will be passed and that the beginning stages can begin to create the law.

“We hope the government is listening to what we have to say today and moving forward in terms of creating the kinds of safer ways that are going to encourage cyclists in this province,” said McMahon.

Legislation of the same type is in place in France, Spain, Germany and 16 states in the States. A website created by a Miami cyclist Joe Wascura, 3feetplease, sells some great t-shirts, backpacks, jerseys and bumper (or more accurately, bike frame) stickers sporting the “3 feet please” request that cyclists can don when they take to the roads.

Bambrick asks that everyone write to their MPP in support of this bill.

“We all know why we’re here. Until they hear from us across the city we’re not going to see changes.”
 
Sharrows were installed today in little italy. Outside of rush hour, they are useless because they direct you right into parking spots.
 
Sharrows are "useful" to the City government because they deflect attention away from the need for real bike lanes. Even the Bike Union has bought into them for some reason.
 

Back
Top