want more bicyclists .... add bike lanes

[Bekologist]

yeah ...... about eight percent strong. for a city of almost 150,000, it's not just cool-aid.

what's honolulu at, nice climate and all, but not so much in the way of effective planning for bike traffic? one and a half percent?

It appears - and the recent study spells it out - 'the proof is in the pudding' that planning for bikes begats ridership.

tasty!

link to the study - new evidence on the role of bike paths and bike lanes

I bet Buehler and Pucher mention honolulu somewhere in the study! yes, they mention it as a metroplex ranking quite respectably on the sprawl index, slightest sprawl of any of the cities studied. and yet a mere one and a half percent....

Our
analysis of newly collected data on cycling facilities in 90 large U.S. cities shows that
cities with a greater supply of bike paths and lanes have higher bike commute levels—even after controlling for other factors that may affect cycling levels......we find that the supply of bikeways per capita is a statistically significant predictor of bike commuting.

[CB HI]

yeah ...... about eight percent strong. for a city of almost 150,000, it's not just cool-aid. I'd say 'the proof is in the pudding' that planning for bikes begats ridership.

tasty!

Small College towns have skewed numbers that the kool-aid drinkers like to use for their false nervanna claims.

[CB HI]

yeah ...... about eight percent strong. for a city of almost 150,000, it's not just cool-aid. I'd say 'the proof is in the pudding' that planning for bikes begats ridership.

tasty!

yeah ...... about eight percent strong. for a city of almost 150,000, it's not just cool-aid.

what's honolulu at, nice climate and all, but not so much in the way of effective planning for bike traffic? one and a half percent?

It appears - and the recent study spells it out - 'the proof is in the pudding' that planning for bikes begats ridership.

tasty!

Too high on Kool-aid to avoid the double posting. Or are you just trying to hide your editing? And the attack on Honolulu again, even though you know the impact the hills have. Please do move our crappy bike lanes to Seattle since you like them so much.

[Bekologist]

quite odd to think that stating figures on bike commuting would be considered an attack in a thread about prevalence of bike commuting. I even posted the authors of the study gave honolulu very respectable marks on low sprawl.

I'd suggest reading the study.

Our
analysis of newly collected data on cycling facilities in 90 large U.S. cities shows that cities with a greater supply of bike paths and lanes have higher bike commute levels—even after controlling for other factors that may affect cycling levels......we find that the supply of bikeways per capita is a statistically significant predictor of bike commuting.

[CB HI]

quite odd to think that stating figures on bike commuting would be considered an attack in a thread about prevalence of bike commuting. I even posted the authors of the study gave honolulu very respectable marks on low sprawl.

I'd suggest reading the study.

You and they seem clueless on the topography.

[hagen2456]

...even though you know the impact the hills have...

Hills don't necessarily have much of an impact on ridership. I'll quote from Michael Colville-Andersen's Copenhagenize:

"TO THE HILLS!
If we're debunking flat
myths, have a look at the list of the
Most Bicycle-Friendly Cities in the world that we compiled here at
Copenhagenize.com, based on trips by bike / modal share. Many flat cities
feature on the list but there are cities that have a hilly topography.
Gothenburg, Aarhus, Tokyo, Stockholm, Bern AND a high modal share for
bicycles.

HORIZONTAL HILLS
As for countries like the
Netherlands and Denmark... people never mention the wind. Try riding to work in
a storm, with hurricane strength gusts, in the middle of a dark January morning.
The North Sea winds do everything they can to blow us off our bikes. In vain,
we'd like to add.

The Dutch pro cyclist Johnny Hoogerland has said what
we all know in the Netherlands and Denmark. Riding in the winds we have here is
about the same as riding in the Pyrenees. A stiff headwind can be the same as a
mountain climb.

But it doesn't stop the bicycles."

[CB HI]

You guys have a different definition of 'hills'.

And most of the cyclist on truly hilly cities only ride the flat areas, San Fran might be the one exception. Cyclist in Portland are often asking what the flat routes are.

[TheHen]

for a city with over 8 percent rider share for commuting trips, I'm sensing a lot of cynical, selective filtering on thehen's part!

"Eugene has 153 miles of paths, bike lanes and bike routes and a well-developed City bicycle education program, including the Eye-to-Eye traffic safety campaign and a well-organized Safe Routes to Schools program."

And, a recently completed bike master plan - claims of its 'irrelevancy' is a bit saccharine.

Eugene is emblematic of a city that plans for bike traffic, and as a result sees more bike traffic. Something the recent research robustly indicates.

At some point you should consider not placing your full faith in city-generated propaganda. If we actually had 8% of the population riding, it would not be possible for me to find more cars on the bike paths than bikes over most of the year. We don't even have enough bike parking for one-tenth that number of riders. Of that 153 miles, I doubt if even 10 miles of it meets the state law for bike lanes/paths. Several friends checked out Shane MacRhodes SRTS program. It turns out that Shane is making his numbers up. He is claiming to have nearly half of the students coming to school without a motor when the reality is much closer to 10%. He seems to be confused between peaks and averages.

Something else to consider: at any given moment, the population of Eugene, and many other cities, is composed of residents and the commuters who come in from the suburbs for work and entertainment. In Eugene's case our daily population goes up by about a factor of two to three due to suburbanites. However, we have almost no roadways that are safe to commute by bike from these close-in suburbs. Often, the infrastructure defects are within the city limits and actually improve once one gets on county maintained roadways. Thus, we have almost no people commuting by bike from any of the suburbs.

But it's not all doom and gloom. There has been a noticeable increase in the number of people cycling over the past few years. It has nothing to do with any increases in bike-specific infrastructure, because there hasn't been any. Gee, I wonder what could be driving this? Perhaps there is a lesson in recent history, say from 33 to 39 years ago, that could be a factor.

[Bekologist]

egads.

I'm CERTAINLY more inclined to accept data from american community surveys and official reports, rather than posting on the internet that seem hypercritical of a city with ACS numbers of 8 percent ridership....

the data presented in the pucher/buehler study tend to support the prevelance of high ridership in eugene (US Census ACS numbers) as a result of robust infrastructure measures there.

[CB HI]

egads.

I'm CERTAINLY more inclined to accept data from american community surveys and official reports, rather than posting on the internet that seem hypercritical of a city with ACS numbers of 8 percent ridership....

the data presented in the pucher/buehler study tend to support the prevelance of high ridership in eugene (US Census ACS numbers) as a result of robust infrastructure measures there.

Yes Yoda, the kool-aid is strong in this one.

[TheHen]

Yes Yoda, the kool-aid is strong in this one.

Yeah, those bike counts are soooo reliable.

[Bekologist]

american community surveys aren't 'bike counts'

The research from Pucher and Beuhler did a fair bit of corrections for reporting bias in various factors they considered, and were able to unequivocally point to the prevalence of bikelanes and bike paths affecting bicycle commuting.


Eugene - robust network, high percentage of bicycle commuting.

analysis of newly collected data on cycling facilities in 90 large U.S. cities shows that cities with a greater supply of bike paths and lanes have higher bike commute levels—even after controlling for other factors that may affect cycling levels......we find that the supply of bikeways per capita is a statistically significant predictor of bike commuting.

you guys didn't read the study, did you?

[John Forester]

american community surveys aren't 'bike counts'

The research from Pucher and Beuhler did a fair bit of corrections for reporting bias in various factors they considered, and were able to unequivocally point to the prevalence of bikelanes and bike paths affecting bicycle commuting.


Eugene - robust network, high percentage of bicycle commuting.
Originally Posted by study
analysis of newly collected data on cycling facilities in 90 large U.S. cities shows that cities with a greater supply of bike paths and lanes have higher bike commute levels—even after controlling for other factors that may affect cycling levels......we find that the supply of bikeways per capita is a statistically significant predictor of bike commuting.


you guys didn't read the study, did you?

The study's authors very carefully avoided claiming that a large supply of bikeways caused a large bicycle mode share in commuting. That is notable even in the quotation that Bek chose to present. That quotation states that "the supply of bikeways per capita is a statistically significant PREDICTOR of bike commuting. The word PREDICTOR is carefully chosen to avoid the claim of creation. You see, Pucher has learned over the years that he has no evidence for causation and been called down for it. Therefore, he avoids words stating causation while implying, to gullible people such as Bek, that causation exists.

[Bekologist]

right. my bad to consider robust, correlative evidence to be in any way causal.

seeing numbers of bike commuters rise dramatically in cities that have recently built up infrastructure indicates causal effects on ridership.

cities with more bikeways have higher numbers of cycle commuters. cities that build in infrastructure has seen remarkable increases in ridership.

why so obtusely intent to play the doubting thomas, john? you're obviously not happy to see more bicycling in america.

from the study...

....the significant associations we measured are consistent with the hypothesis that bike paths and bike lanes encourage more cycling

[John Forester]

right. my bad to consider robust, correlative evidence to be in any way causal.

seeing numbers of bike commuters rise dramatically in cities that have recently built up infrastructure indicates causal effects on ridership.

cities with more bikeways have higher numbers of cycle commuters. cities that build in infrastructure has seen remarkable increases in ridership.

why so obtusely intent to play the doubting thomas, john? you're obviously not happy to see more bicycling in america.

from the study..
....the significant associations we measured are consistent with the hypothesis that bike paths and bike lanes encourage more cycling
.

I repeat: that phrasing is just one more item of evidence that Pucher knows that he does not have the evidence to support a causal claim. He uses phrases like that to imply, to those gullible, a causal relationship without himself being criticized for academic dishonesty.

I object, not to increasing cycling use, but to dishonest statements about it that provide more power to those who are both ignorant of the matter and are in power over us.

[hagen2456]

You guys have a different definition of 'hills'.

And most of the cyclist on truly hilly cities only ride the flat areas, San Fran might be the one exception. Cyclist in Portland are often asking what the flat routes are.

http://www.kimharding.net/blog/?p=1719

Also: http://isocrates.us/bike/2012/03/whats-best/

One of the comments:

"Kevin Love wrote:Like Robert, I too will plump for cycle mode share, with a side order of non-hostile infrastructure.
Flat terrain is nice, but Switzerland is not a particularly flat country. Yet the Swiss have some of the highest cycle mode shares with Basel and Berne having 25% and 20% cycle mode shares. Having been in both cities, I can attest that they are definitely not flat!
A grid road system is nice, yet Osaka in Japan has a road system that falls into the category of “random” or perhaps “chaotic” and yet has a 25% cycle mode share.
All cycling cities have two basic items in common. The first is proper infrastructure that makes cycling the fastest, easiest and most convenient way of reliably getting from A to B for most trips. The second is a police force and court system that promptly arrests and jails dangerous car drivers for lengthy prison terms.
Since Springfield falls somewhat short in both areas, it is not surprising that it is not on the list."

Oh, and apparently you didn't read the part in my last post about the wind. Let me add to that other climatic issues like heavy rain or snow which don't keep (most) Copenhageners from biking.

[hagen2456]

I repeat: that phrasing is just one more item of evidence that Pucher knows that he does not have the evidence to support a causal claim. He uses phrases like that to imply, to those gullible, a causal relationship without himself being criticized for academic dishonesty.

I object, not to increasing cycling use, but to dishonest statements about it that provide more power to those who are both ignorant of the matter and are in power over us.

I think that you over-emphasize the correlation/causation problem here.

True, finding the reasons for a correletion is absolutely necessary if you have only one study. However, in this case they are numerous, and they all show the same trend. That Pucher still hesitates to speak of a regular causation has to do with the fact that finding the causes is a very complex matter which would take a very thorough (and costly) investigation. What we DO have are several papers telling us what most cyclists (potential as well as actual) want, from both America and Europe, and as these seem to correlelate with the other correlation, so to speak, the case IS quite strong.

[Bekologist]

speaking to cyclist safety, from a city of cambridge meta-analysis of bike lanes.....

In 1996, over 2000 League of American Bicyclist members were surveyed about the crashes (accidents) they were involved in over the course of the previous year. From the information, a relative danger index was calculated which shows that streets with bike lanes were the safest places to ride, having a significantly lower crash rate then either major or minor streets without any bicycle facilities; moreover, they are safer than trails and sidewalks as well.6

The addition of bicycle lanes in Davis, California reduced crashes by 31 percent.7

Bicycle lanes on a major avenue in Eugene, Oregon resulted in an increase in bicycle use and a substantial reduction in the bicycle crash rate. The crash rate per 100,000 bike miles fell by almost half and the motor vehicle crash rate also fell significantly.8

When the city of Corvallis, OR installed 13 miles of bicycle lanes in one year, the number of bicycle crashes fell from 40 in the year prior to the installation to just 16 in the year afterwards, and of the 5 crashes that occurred on streets with bike lanes, all involved bicyclists riding at night with no lights.9

In Chicago, Illinois, crash severity was reduced in one study of marking bike lanes in a narrow cross section where 5 foot bike lanes were marked next to 7 foot parking lanes.10

In Denmark, bicycle lanes reduced the number of bicycle crashes by 35 percent.11 Some of the bike lanes reached risk reductions of 70 to 80 percent.12

http://www2.cambridgema.gov/cdd/et/b...ke_safety.html

there's very slim to non-existenant evidence supporting john's opinion, or that which supports disputing the efficacy of bikelanes as safety countermeasures and ridership incubators.

[CB HI]

I think that you over-emphasize the correlation/causation problem here.

True, finding the reasons for a correletion is absolutely necessary if you have only one study. However, in this case they are numerous, and they all show the same trend. That Pucher still hesitates to speak of a regular causation has to do with the fact that finding the causes is a very complex matter which would take a very thorough (and costly) investigation. What we DO have are several papers telling us what most cyclists (potential as well as actual) want, from both America and Europe, and as these seem to correlelate with the other correlation, so to speak, the case IS quite strong.

So having three studies that find that most people who died, ate their vegetables within the prior week; gives us a very strong case that eating vegetables will kill you.

[hagen2456]

So having three studies that find that most people who died, ate their vegetables within the prior week; gives us a very strong case that eating vegetables will kill you.

Not if you can find reasons other than the vegetables. Reasons that explain the deaths. And that is exactly what is the case with the bike infrastructure. But worse: you chose to overlook that a vegetable/deaths equivalent would be that people who eat many vegetables die younger AND that we have strong indications of the mechanisms (or some similar example).

So, the joke is on you, really. The reason for it? That you didn't read the second part of my reasoning.

[John Forester]

I think that you over-emphasize the correlation/causation problem here.

True, finding the reasons for a correletion is absolutely necessary if you have only one study. However, in this case they are numerous, and they all show the same trend. That Pucher still hesitates to speak of a regular causation has to do with the fact that finding the causes is a very complex matter which would take a very thorough (and costly) investigation. What we DO have are several papers telling us what most cyclists (potential as well as actual) want, from both America and Europe, and as these seem to correlelate with the other correlation, so to speak, the case IS quite strong.

As you write, tracing down the real causes would be complex, difficult, and expensive. However, I don't disagree that government doing what people want in an activity is likely to increase the number of people in the affected activity. However, I think it is an unwarranted assumption to ascribe the increase to particular items produced, as distinct from the publicity of the program itself and the conditions that created to program.

[hagen2456]

As you write, tracing down the real causes would be complex, difficult, and expensive. However, I don't disagree that government doing what people want in an activity is likely to increase the number of people in the affected activity. However, I think it is an unwarranted assumption to ascribe the increase to particular items produced, as distinct from the publicity of the program itself and the conditions that created to program.

I believe that you're right that the process can be seen as, er, dialectical. Yet, all the publicity in the world did not make the "green bike route" in Copenhagen as succes 10-12 years ago untill it was well connected a with the rest of the bike network few years ago. I predict the same for the newly implemented so-called bicycle highway, the first of a number of planned routes leading from the suburbs to the center. Yes, a lot of people have tried it out, but the feed back is already mostly negative, as it really is so far mostly a publicity stunt, with all its poorly planned crossings of high speed roads etc.

So, I feel that you over-estimate the impact of publicity, too

[phoebeisis]

Are there pre improvement numbers? Numbers from before these latest improvements in Eugene?
If you have unlimited funding for a study maybe you could retrospectively look at commuters-maybe at student vs non student- but why fund studies when you can be funding actual infrastructure?
Yes small college towns( but 150,000 isn't a small town??) are different.

Of course-the nay-sayers will just say the old numbers were bad-causation/association etc.

More importantly-Bicycles are relatively unimportant-to voters.
You Need to change perception of the Goodness of bikes.Wrap yourselves in the Flag.
You-(we) bike people-are powerless right now-you seem to be unaware of that??
Hectoring traffic engineers-technocrats-won't change that powerlessness.

[John Forester]

I believe that you're right that the process can be seen as, er, dialectical. Yet, all the publicity in the world did not make the "green bike route" in Copenhagen as succes 10-12 years ago untill it was well connected a with the rest of the bike network few years ago. I predict the same for the newly implemented so-called bicycle highway, the first of a number of planned routes leading from the suburbs to the center. Yes, a lot of people have tried it out, but the feed back is already mostly negative, as it really is so far mostly a publicity stunt, with all its poorly planned crossings of high speed roads etc.

So, I feel that you over-estimate the impact of publicity, too

The fact that publicity did not persuade people to use a useless product does not demonstrate that publicity is powerless. Any publicity theorist will say that publicity has to have some sense of providing a benefit to the potential user; without such a hook, it doesn't work.

[hagen2456]

The fact that publicity did not persuade people to use a useless product does not demonstrate that publicity is powerless. Any publicity theorist will say that publicity has to have some sense of providing a benefit to the potential user; without such a hook, it doesn't work.

Either you didn't get what I said: that there was lots of publicity, promising people what they want, but that the Copenhagen cyclists after all "voted with their pedals".

...or you mean to say that publicity isn't that important after all, and then we agree: it's the actual improvement of conditions thaat will make (more) people bike.