B. Carfree

The US Census sends out annual surveys, the American Community Survey, to a small number of households that delve deeply into transportation, among other things. In over five decades of hanging around the US, I've only ever had one mailed to my address. They don't need to survey a very large percentage of the population to get statistically significant results, so odds are you have never and will never receive one.

The data is all online here: https://www.census.gov/acs/www/#

For this thread, I just clicked on the commuting to work link on the right side of the page, removed the 2012 survey parameter and used the geography toolbox (if you want a city, use the "place" parameter in geography, then pick the state and city. Low population cities will only have three and five year averages.) Then just click on the "commuting characteristics by sex" data set for the year you are interested in.

dynodonn 

I would not say that bike lanes themselves are completely to blame, I've viewed an aerial photo of one section of our city in 1947, and then a satellite photo of the same area take a couple of years ago. In the 1947 photo, I counted a dozen parked cars, in the satellite photo, I counted over 600, with the streets and roads being of the same size. The streets that my parents considered busy in years past, would be considered quiet by today's standards.

genec

Is this where I bring up the correlation argument...

Dave Cutter

You don't know.... what you think you know. Or... you're making an attempt to push this thread into the PO section. Dave Cutter is VERY well studied as to the FAKE history you recited about "the League of American Wheelmen". That property changed hands a few times before becoming a political advocacy/socialist tool. The history they've created for themselves is quite outstanding..... and completely fictional.

To suggest I should brush up on my history..... is absurd. Maybe you should be study up on some of the writings of Edgar Allen Poe. among other things he wrote..... Don't believe anything you read or hear and only half of what you see...


I myself think the most applicable quote I am aware of is by Milton Friedman who said: If you put the Federal government in charge of the Sahara Desert, in 5 years there'd be a shortage of sand.

It won't be easy.... but my years of working in government has convinced me that: If anything can kill the popularity and use of bicycles in America... it most certainly will be government programs. ~ Dave Cutter

buzzman

Seems to be a bunch of Rip Van Winkles in this thread. It's like they all woke up 5 minutes ago and think it's still 1960.

And it's not like the population is decreasing and/or the available road space is increasing. So much of this talk about infrastructure to make room for bikes is not just for the present but for the future.

Making comparisons to how it was 50 years ago with the expectation that all these "pandered by infrastructure" cyclists will just suck it up and ride like we all did "back in the day" is ridiculously unrealistic and will do nothing for cyclists 20 years in the future.

buzzman

Dave, In the early 1970's a group of us resurrected an old chapter of the League of American Wheelmen called the Narragansett Bay Wheelmen. It has since become one of the largest and most active bike clubs in the US. As we pulled old documents from records and libraries in Newport, RI we were able to sift through original material from the League in its early days. We got to see original papers and letters from the "Good Roads" movement. It was unfiltered, non-whitewashed, bias free archival material that definitely shows a group steeped in politics, steeped in advocacy and very much influencing governmental decisions about everything from road use to civil rights.

I'd be happy to see the sources you cite for a more accurate history of the League. Please do share it with me!

FBinNY 

We keep drifting from the original question into being pro or con regarding infrastructure.

The question is a pretty straightforward one, and worthy of discussion if we're discussing spending priorities.

There's a decent correlation between infrastructure and ridership, but that doesn't by itself demonstrate causality. Nor does it give any indication of where we might expect the biggest benefit (for purposes here defined by me as more riding/less driving). It also doesn't show whether the added numbers of bicyclists are ex-drivers, or have traded mass transit for bicycles.

IMO intelligent discussion about infrastructure shouldn't be simply Pro or Con, but about how to get the best improvement (define for yourself) for each dollar spent.

buzzman

Most of the info I've seen regarding who moves to bicycling- drivers or mass transit users- and it tends to be mass transit users make the move first. I don't see this as such a bad thing as bicycling for transportation can and should tie in well with our mass transit system.

Accommodations at train stations, subway and bus terminals as well as means of conveying a bike on mass transit via bike racks, bike hooks on trains, times when bikes are allowed on subways are excellent ways of extending bike use for many people who are not the mileage freaks many "hard core bikers" are. Those are also "infrastructural changes" and they are also a direct cause of people making the shift to adding a bike ride to their commute even if it's picking up a bike share or leaving a bike in a bike locker at the commuter rail station for the short trip to work or home. Add to that a nice separated trail, like the Minuteman Path in Arlington, MA that runs through miles of commuter neighborhoods and ends at the Alewife subway terminal and it is a direct cause of people in those neighborhoods choosing to ride their bike along the path to the subway station as opposed to driving or being dropped off/picked up.

I don't know what the resistance is to what seems obvious to many of us, which is that bicycle infrastructure, in many cases, is a direct cause of people shifting to riding bikes. Maybe its because it's not guaranteed? Which I don't see many of us arguing. Or maybe because it is not the one and only factor at play.

But there is plenty of evidence that the building of infrastructure is more than just a correlation to an increase in the number of riders. We've presented some of it in this thread. Much of that evidence seems to be dismissed by some as propaganda or even part of some vast government conspiracy to sideline bicyclists to inadequate side paths. As if federal, state and local governments and bike advocates have that much time on their hands and are so organized that they are able to devote energy and resources to such a propaganda campaign or so intricate a conspiracy.

FBinNY 

I don't see things as so clearly black and white. Nor do I consider all infrastructure as equal in nature.

The question isn't whether there's sometimes a direct causative relationship, but what are those examples that have the most effect for the effort, and those with marginal effects. There's also a question defining the objective, ie. less cars, more bicycles, lower accident/injury rate, , more "livable cities" (whatever that means), saving energy, healthier population, or whatever.

So many people begin with a simple assumption, ie. bike infrastructure is good, or bad, and debate based on these absolutes. IMO, regardless of ones general bias, the devil is in the details. Back when I was active in advocacy we weren't focused on the type if infrastructure people speak of today, but on ensuring access, especially at critical choke points, like NYC's bridges, and/or things like bike trap sewer grates. (yes, that's an infrastructure issue).

So the question isn't whether infrastructure is good or bad, but one of identifying goals, and how best to achieve them within reasonable budget restraints.

Dave Cutter

No Problem! You up load yours first! You should be able to provide great sources for the early days of "Bicycle Racing". Unless you are referring the decades later references during Americas "progressive era".... then of course you're correct. RI did have a great socialist movement way back then.... didn't it?

spare_wheel

That's actually a good effort....but it does not really get to the question being addressed here since you are showing induced demand from a new route, not an "improved" facility.

spare_wheel

i'd like to see ~15% of 18-60 year olds riding for transport before we start spending tons of money on infrastructure designed for 8 year olds. denmark and the netherlands first achieved 8/80 cycling in the victorian era (and never really lost it) so i don't think their current policy is always the best example of how we should get from 2% to 20%.

buzzman

I hope by my post you're not thinking I see this in black and white terms either- as I said, "its not guaranteed" and there are "many factors at play".

With regards the correlation/causation argument. In true logical terms it would not be accurate to say that "separated bike infrastructure causes increases to bike ridership". It would be true to say, "that there is a correlation between added infrastructure and increased ridership". The reason being that in the causation example it is not 100% true. Simply adding bike infrastructure does not lead to increases in ridership 100% of the time. I can't dispute that.

The pertinent question then is are there times and circumstances under which adding infrastructure doescause an increase in ridership? The answer is, "yes." Those factors are:

Economics- everything from the changing distribution of wealth in this country leading to large numbers of younger, educated Americans being jobless, underemployed, in debt for education and/or underpaid to the cost of gasoline and owning and maintaining a private automobile.

Cultural Trends- fitness crazes, environmental concerns, hipness, peer pressure, media influences can shift people to ride or at least want to ride.

Convenience- traffic congestion, parking issues, fines, penalties, tolls, insurance and other car ownership issues make auto commuting unpalatable for many. As do subway and public transit crowding, breakdowns, and poor scheduling or lack of point to point availability.

If any or all of the above factors are at play in an area and there are no infrastructural accommodations specifically for bikes then the adding of infrastructure will give an outlet for potential ridership that is greater than the number of riders, who might otherwise begin bicycling for transpiration.

In that case, we are satisfying a demand not creating a demand. Deliberately creating legislation to make it even more unpalatable to drive or forcing public opinion as an objective is not something I think is a good strategy.


For @Dave Cutter- the history of the League is well documented in several places on line. Here is just one link of many outlining it's history, especially with regards political advocacy for better roads, government funding and pushing for infrastructural improvements.

I look forward to your links that dispute this historical record of the League and early cyclists with regards political activism and their impact on government spending for infrastructure.

buzzman

Huh?

"induced demand from a new route"? How does that differ from the OP's question of "Will they really come if you build it?" Seems to pretty directly address it to me. Doesn't the concept of "induced demand" usually relate to issues around building transportation infrastructure that causes an increase in traffic? Sometimes in highways this is detrimental because the more roadways you build and the wider you build them the more traffic will fill them. Aren't we looking to flip that in favor of bikes.

If the 'induced demand" theory is valid in terms of automobiles and roadways why shouldn't it also be true for cyclists and bike ways?

In this case you've just given more proof to the concept of "If you build it they will come."

How does bringing in "induced demand" help your arguments against the impact of added infrastructure?

You keep reframing the discussion- suddenly we're only talking urban regions, so we satisfy that, then its only "improved facilities". Hard to keep up with the shifting landscape of the conversation.

Dave Cutter

I accept your posting of old, fabricated, pretend history as a confession that you understand my statement to be true. Everyone knows that Pope's(?) work with highway development predated any association with "the league"... or the Socialist party.

I would guess by "resurrected" you mean..... pretended to adapt... as I refuse to believe ANY original members had survived from the original club. I would guess what you actually did... was just grab an old, unwanted, non-copyrighted name, and re-registered it. Now you make claims that members long dead held your beliefs.... yet you offer NO writing or publications from the time as evidence.

FBinNY 

No, I wasn't thinking of you, but some of the stronger advocates or believers who seem to think bicycles = good, cars = bad.

You and I probably agree on more than we disagree on relating infrastructure, though we may have larger differences in the specifics.

BTW- While pure logic definitions are different, I accept that we can discuss real world causal relationships that don't correlate 100%.

I doubt many would dispute that the claim that cigarette smoking causes lung cancer, even though we know that large numbers of smokers will never get cancer.

In terms o bike infrastructure, I believe that if there are numbers of people on the fence about cycling, infrastructure can be the difference between whether they ride or not. However, I'm not sure that the pent up interest of these fence sitters is a big number, except where there's a serious impassable obstacle, such as a bridge link.

But the issue is still muddy as to the goals and metrics to justify public spending. Are we trying to make cyclists safer? Or are we trying to encourage more cyclists, if so why. Also, as a long time cyclist, not dependent on on street segregation, I see downsides to factor, such as establishing segregation as the norm, which could later become justification for road use restrictions.

I think the original causality question is a valid one that warrants discussion, along with others such as the downside questions, intersection vs. passing safety tradeoff, and possibly discussion about the actual safety of bicycling, and the best bang for the buck ways to improve it. Safety is a major issue for me, because increased participation will lead to increased accidents (rate stays the same), creating more of a spotlight on the issue, and leading scrutiny by government.

buzzman

Not so. You don't get off that easy.

I definitely do not understand your statement to be true. Without some substantial proof that said history is indeed "fabricated" (I'll accept that it is old- most history is) I'll simply have to take your statements as just so much conspiracy theory mumbo jumbo.

John Forester

To write about "so intricate a conspiracy" is nonsense. Conspiracies are things arranged and largely done in secret. There's no secret about the American anti-cyclist campaign; it has operated in full public view for decades, largely through the actions of government. Motordom's propaganda campaign to reserve the streets for motor traffic started in the 1920s. The laws that deny cyclists the rights of drivers, being the far-to-the-right (FTR) and mandatory-bike-path (MBP) laws, started appearing in the 1930s, and in 1944 got into the Uniform Vehicle Code. These were largely enforced by two psychological campaigns: creation of fear of same-direction motor traffic and belief that cyclists were incapable of obeying the rules for drivers. When cycling, particularly by young adults, started increasing despite that fear, California's motordom got the state government (1971) to more strongly protect the convenience of motorists through bikeways and more stringent laws, creating the system that exists almost nationwide today. By government fiat we now have an army of bike planners to administer this system and funds with which to do it.

To refer to this as a conspiracy contradicts the definition of a conspiracy. To refer to this as something that governments can't spare the time to do is contradicted by the very facts that they have taken the time to do them.

CB HI

Here we go again, claims of evidence and calling those that note your attempts at correlation as seeing conspiracy. We do know for a fact that there are governments that do force cyclists into the bike lanes and side paths and even more that have tried to do so. But that is not even the biggest issue. It is the myopic view that if you paint it, they will come.

If the paint proponents would actually work to remove mandatory use laws first, would only accept safe paint and paths and would give as much effort to public school cycling education, then you would not get so much resistance. When someone dies, because of the paint, the paint folks just brush it aside with false claims that more would die without the paint.

Many cyclist get tired of the harassment when they choose to ride on streets without the paint. Most give up and switch to the street with the paint, even if it is not their preferred route. That adds even more of a false correlation for your paint.

Dave Cutter

What conspiracy? You said yourself.... your [club] history dates to the 1970's...... yet you make claim to events nearly a century earlier. Is that something people in RI accept as truth? Post the PDF's you say you have!!!!!

Dave Cutter

I hate it when the PO crowd kills a perfectly intelligent and interesting thread.... its a shame!

FBinNY 

What's the PO crowd? specifically what's PO?

spare_wheel

Redacted because I misread.


Nope...I keep trying to draw back the discussion to the original OP. You might want to take a look at it again...

mr_bill

Here's the entirety of the question about bicycles on the ACS.

https://www.census.gov/prod/2011pubs/acs-15.pdf

Any questions?

-mr. bill

buzzman

What brand new route across a bridge? Have I got it wrong or is the post you responded to in reference to Hudson
Greenway in NYC?