cooker

That's great! I hope your anecdotal observation is capturing a real trend - North Americans being more willing to go outside and engage in physical activity in all weather, than perhaps they have been for a generation or two. It's a lot healthier than staying inside and being somewhat inactive.

If it's true, it could also mean that some non-bike commuters may be open to taking up bike commuting, or some fair weather commuters are extending their seasons. So your observation, and the observations in the census report, might both reflect (one can hope) some subtle shift in attitudes back to a healthier lifestyle than the lazy, car and comfort dependent one that blossomed in the 20th century. Who knows, maybe most of us in the forum, like you and me and Roody and Mobile 155 and of course I-Like-To-Bike, and everybody else, have simply been well ahead of the curve and the others are just beginning to turn.

cooker

I agree, it's still a small portion that cycle, but at the same time, a change at the national level is still a striking finding, when you take scale into account.

If you have 100 people in an office and the number of cyclists goes up from 1 to 2, that doesn't mean there's a trend - it could just be random fluctuation. For all you know, next door they lost a cyclist and it cancels out.

But if you have 100 million people working, and the number of bike commuter goes up from 1% to 2%, that's a million extra cyclists and it's a much stronger indication that a real trend is underway, even though, proportionately it's no different from the first example.

B. Carfree

Yes, but the national increase from 2005-13 is only from 0.5% to 0.6%, likely very close to the margin of error. Also, with PDX, NYC and other adopters of inferior segregated infrastructure pretty much seeing no increase in ridership in recent years (a real source of angst on PDX bike blogs), it's doubtful we're in for much positive change in the near future. I hope to be proven incorrect here.

Mobile 155

Cooker:
Except if you look at the chart I posted the numbers are much lower than that. In my state where we have better weather for 12 month riding the numbers are less than 170,000. That is just over 1 percent. And we are like seventh in the U.S.

Look at the report by the league of American bicyclists the U.S. Has 882,198 cycling commuters at .62 percent. That leaves 99.38 percent that get to work some other way. That is almost the same percentage as when I first got interested in cycling to commute in the 70s.

I guess I am harder to impress having been into cycling that many years.

wolfchild

I wouldn't know if they were car-free because I never asked. I assume they were only trying to experiment with winter riding to see what's it like. Last winter I've seen somebody on a fat bike around my workplace for the first time ever, I assume it was somebody who just discovered winter riding, seen them few more times after that... Winter mountain biking for recreation has gotten very popular in the last few years, but winter bike commuting not so much.

Roody

I agree that if you look only at bicycle commuting numbers in the United States, the study is not encouraging. I don't know if bike commuting will ever be a big part of the commuting mix.

Based on the rapid increase of number in Europe just in the last couple years-- where real improvements were made in bike infrastructure-- I remain somewhat optimistic. I have always thought that 10% of commutes by bike in North America would be a reasonable goal, given the very modest improvements that we see in the infrastructure at the best of times.

You're going to have to spend more bucks if you want a larger share of commutes. Most road networks today just weren't designed to handle bikes safely and conveniently. And in the majority of states, we aren't even spending enough money to keep roads drivable, let alone bike ridable. So, while austerity politicians rule the states, I am pessimistic about a large bike share.

I do not believe that laziness, bad weather, or an allergy to snow, are the reasons for low mode shares in the US. That just doesn't make sense when you see that some of the biggest advances have been made in the northern tier of states--Portland, Minneapolis, Chicago, New York, and so on. Americans are no lazier than Europeans--quite the opposite if you look at productivity numbers and the annual hours worked on both continents.

It's all about infrastructure, which is all about money money money. With a lack of politicians who understand that wise investments today can lead to big savings tomorrow, I doubt if bikes will prevail in most parts of the US.

Dave Cutter

Optimistic indeed! I am afraid we're seeing a corruption in the offices of government number-crunchers more than anything else. When the numbers don't add up.... you look at the accountant... PERIOD.

Cycling has been around for generations it is a very mature technology. Any large swings in it's numbers would be suspect! Bicycling has always followed trends. For whatever various reasons cycling popularity rises and falls. Bicycle sales and general consensus indicate the trend in cycling is currently moving downward.

Local government figures that show numbers in contradiction with known trends cannot be considered reliable. And cast a shadow on the numbers nationally where dollars have been invested in cycling/green infrastructure. Where nationally the green investments have been demonstrated to be corrupt.

tandempower

Arguably, it is a lack of austerity that's causing all the driving to begin with. How many people are able to buy cars and drive who really can't afford it? How much GDP growth is due to big investments in highways, roads, parking garages, etc. etc. that stimulates the same driving culture it serves? Reducing the ratio of road area to the number of trips taken is a form of austerity, in that it reduces public spending, but it is a reduction that liberates economic resources to relieve austerity in other areas. E.g. a person who foregoes automotive expenses gains more prosperity in the form of debt-reduction, financial security, increased disposable income, etc.

Municipalities that reduce road spending by maintaining less pavement per capita gain more credit to spend on other projects, but part of what's going on right now in public finance is growing awareness that municipal debt and spending is not just free money for the people who get funded by the contracts. Debt has consequences at various levels and the challenge is to reduce debt and spending without public outcries to cut the very infrastructure and spending that allow people to save money on transportation, i.e. bike/pedestrian infrastructure and public transit.

This is a good point. And Europeans who bike for transportation are often quick to take up driving in the US because of the distances and/or social-cultural norms and pressures.

We have to keep reminding them that we have been down the road of automotive progress too many times in the past without the option of biking, walking, and taking transit when the congestion gets bad, fuel gets expensive, and/or money gets tight. We need more options. Freedom is fundamental in our public ethic so taking steps to make non-motorized transportation more viable along with transit is critical if we don't want to progress toward a society where driving is practically a necessity for survival, let alone the normal pursuit of life, liberty, and happiness.

tandempower

Green investments are corrupt when they are intentionally aimed at spending for the sake of creating revenues and jobs without maximizing their tangible benefits. A bike path that provides a potential benefit to users is worth the spending, even if cycling has dipped in popularity. If you wait until cycling gets popular to build the infrastructure, its popularity may wain before the projects are online for use.

If you are convinced that the abundant use of unlimited resources is good, it's unclear why you would want to limit the use of energy, land, and other resources for producing bike infrastructure, transit, and other green investments. If you truly believe everything is unlimited, why are you for limiting green?

Dave Cutter

My God man.... have you never seen the news? BILLIONS of green dollars have simply gone missing. They weren't invested or misspent. They are entirely unaccounted for. I think the best word for that is STOLEN. This irrational screaming that all green spending is good... is a diversion. Stealing is a crime and wrong.

This is just ONE reason why there should be a separation between church and state. The environmental religious movement has been welcomed into government offices and money spent on religious beliefs. This is wrong!

tandempower

You mentioned corruption in green investment, which seemed to imply that projects themselves are corrupt. If you are just talking about mismanagement of funds, then I agree that the point should be to achieve tangible goals instead of squandering the money for the sake of redistributing it while minimizing its impact on environmentally-damaging practices.

Ethics can be rooted in religious beliefs but employed in creation of political policies. We can't expect others to support environmental protections and policy because of God's will or personal religious beliefs, but we can base politics on substantive reasoning. Harming the environment and ecologies harms humans. That is not a religious belief. There are tangible effects of actions. You can't argue that driving slow and cautiously is a religion because you deny the dangerous consequences of speeding and reckless driving. It's one thing to question cause and effect in order to study them more carefully. It's something else to deny or obfuscate them for the sake of irresponsible behavior and then accusing those who seek to improve responsibility of personal religion and then abusing separation of church and state as a basis for political censorship.

Roody

I had not heard this from anybody but you. I hope you don't expect me to believe it's true just because you say so.

Lacking comparative evidence of any sort, I would expect green spending to be no more corrupt than spending that's lobbied for by the oil companies and big mining/manufacturing corporations.

cooker

Fair enough. Let's hope my numbers are prescient.

I-Like-To-Bike

I didn't think anybody could possibly know if any car free people are in the vicinity by seeing cycle tracks in the snow, or of the presence of "car free" people by seeing more or less cyclists. Apparently some of our "LCFer" comrades do have the capability to deduce that such sightings are evidence of the presence car free people, more or less.

cooker

Apparently you're able to deduce that (and many other things) about other people here, also based on little or no evidence, so you fit right in!

Dave Cutter

Of course I don't! I don't expect you to believe or accept anything that goes against your preconceived ideas. Paradigms can get concrete-hard in older peoples minds. I really would be shocked and surprised if you ever changed.

But you could challenge yourself. Do a little homework/research... open your mind. You will in all likelihood fail. But the facts are out there. And your potential for growth is as good today.... as it ever will be in the future.

Here let me google that for you!

loky1179

Minneapolis too! In fact it rained a couple days this week, and I was thinking on my commute home, that I usually see more cyclists after a light snow than I do when it is actually raining.

Rain . . probably the best excuse for not bike commuting.

I-Like-To-Bike

Sure an observation or anecdote about more people cycling in adverse condition could mean that, or it could mean anything you would like it to mean. Just like the OP article could mean something about growing popularity of being car free by choice; or maybe not. Take your pick.

loky1179

I'm not aware of anyone who ever said we'd be OUT of oil by 90s. Plenty of predictions that we'd hit PEAK oil by 2000-2010. Peak oil just means that we've extracted half the available oil, which means what is left is equal to all the oil that has ever been pumped. Hardly the definition of being "out of oil". Fracking has allowed us to squeeze more oil out of existing fields. That, combined with reduced demand due to the recession, has likely pushed the "peak" back.

There is no way that oil production can keep rising to keep pace with demands of developing countries.

cooker

No "could"s in this one.(emphasis aded)

Roody

You are priceless, Dave Cutter. But did you just call me old?

loky1179

Roody, you just need a new Paradigm. I think they're made by Trek, or maybe Specialized?

tandempower

Oil is a concern for various reasons, but motor-congestion and pavement-expansion are more immediate issues. Electric cars will largely solve the problem of oil but they will amplify congestion and pavement-demand, as will autonomous cars in some ways. There are many reasons the number of automobiles is going to need to continue decreasing while population continues to grow. We have to use roads and land more efficiently while working harder to ensure trees and plants are growing on that land and over the roads.

We can't just continue sprawling out by clearing, paving, and developing land in any which way. Remaining oil will be conserved for as long as possible, if we're lucky, and congestion and overpaving/overdevelopment will also get reduced in the process of developing smarter land-use practices and transportation/commuting methods.

B. Carfree

As far as I know, the biggest increases in ridership in Europe is in Germany, where they have dumped the segregated cycletrack model in favor of 2 meter-plus bike lanes clear of door zone hazards. Meanwhile, cycling advocacy in the US seems fixated on substandard segregated features that are below the current standards of even the places that prefer that style. Perhaps if our "advocates" changed their approach, which would likely involve admitting that their fear of overtaking traffic is irrational, we might be able to move forward.

cooker

That's cool. However, the only relevant hit I got was this one (reported by a couple of news sites):
$619 billion missed from federal transparency site
It simply reports that data on how money was spent on a raft of federal projects is not included in a website that is supposed to report on that spending, collecting aggregate data from hundreds of agencies and departments. It does NOT mean the money was misspent or is "missing" even though no doubt some of it was misspent or is not accounted for. In this case, it simply means the government's aggregate reporting website has to be improved.