Kim the Traffic Reporters' groundbreaking 21 hour Sherbrook Avenue bike count shattered any basis to take away 25% of the parking used by inner city residents and businesses to accommodate an average of 17 cyclists per hour.
After our June report, we received a very polite email from the man responsible for the counts conducted by Bike to the Future. Jeremy Hull claimed that our data actually confirms theirs, and somehow justifies their anti-car goals being imposed through social engineering. Even on streets where their bike counts are low, by their logic it's the just like when the counts are high -- it proves they are right and need more bike lanes.
We thanked him for his email and explained that due to the Canada Day holiday our review of his email was delayed.
During this time, the city tried to slide past our request for the bike counts provided by the lobbyists that is being used to justify eliminate handicapped parking on Roslyn Road (a necessity) for a bike lane (a convenience) that was never presented to the public (an in-convenience).
Our experts have provided enough insight into the details revealed in the BttF email about Sherbrook, that combined with the way city bureaucrats have been stalling answering our questions about Roslyn Road (ie. did the city audit or review those bike counts,) we can now ask:
Which city councillor will finally call for a value audit of the Active Transportation program?
The notion of true consultation has been exposed as a sham.
- Meetings were loaded with bike activists;
- plans affecting neighbourhoods never presented in plain English to the seniors, businesses or families affected;
- and the 'use it or lose it' justification has lost any semblance of legitimacy when compared to other pressing infrastructure needs in our community.
We present the email from Bike to the Future - but first I want to specifically address one question posed directly to me in the email.
Jeremy Hull asked me: "Apart from facilities, public attitudes and education play a big role in how people view the use of bicycles. My question for you is, given the proven benefits of cycling and walking, how would you suggest that we encourage more people to use their feet and their bicycles to get from A to B?"
Here is my answer:
Jeremy, I would suggest you do what I do, and listen to the people for once instead of to the sounds of 'BttF and friends' voices in those secret meetings with city officials.
Marty Green will tell you, go to the "spoke and hub" format for routing buses so people don't have to wait longer than 10 minutes. THEN they will walk to and from the bus.
Ask the people of Berry Street, they will tell you to just fix the damn sidewalks, they'd like to walk on them.
Ask the people of Sherbrook, Jeremy. They will tell you, fix the sidewalk AND the road (and that your justification changing their neighborhood for increased HSC commuters is an unproveable hypothesis)
Ask the people of Omands Creek -oh they already told you, we already use our bikes and feet to go to the creekbed, don't ruin it for us. Listen to the people Jeremy.
***************
The following is the email from Bike to the Future with Kim's responses inserted as
* courier font *, followed by comments from 3 knowledgeable listeners:
a statistician, a city hall insider, and a well-connected bus rider.
From: Jeremy Hull
Date: Tue, Jun 22, 2010 at 1:28 PM
Subject: Sherbrook bike counts
To: talk@kick.fm
Hi,
I have been coordinating Bike to the Future's volunteer bike counting effort for the past 4 years. Someone told me that the issue of bike counts on Sherbrook St had come up on The Great Canadian Talk Show, and directed me to your blog. It looks like you have incomplete information about the counts, and that you may have misunderstood some of the information you received, so I thought I would try to provide a clearer picture for you.
Although I know controversy is always popular, there may not be any actual disagreement between the numbers we have come up with in our traffic counts and the numbers that Kim, your traffic reporter, counted.
* I'm afraid I'm going to have to disagree with Mr. Hull over this statement. There is a significant difference between my counts and BttF's counts. Here's how: - The location of the counts were in two completely different places with entirely different dynamics. Bttf was at the Sherbrook/Maryland bridges. My count was at Sherbrook and Ellice. The dynamics of the areas are completely different in that the bridges are not extensively dealing with a residential component as is the location at which I was counting.
- Can Mr. Hull guarantee that all the cyclists coming off the bridge actually headed up Sherbrook, north of Ellice? How many cyclists turned off at Wolsely or Westminster or Portage? How many cyclists turned onto Sherbrook from any of the above mentioned streets? For that matter how many of those cyclists turned onto Ellice off Sherbrook thus never making my count?
- I sat through both morning and afternoon rush hours for the entire week, each day, yet as we take a look further down in this email BttF has no morning rush hours listed for June of this year, nor for that matter June of 2009. Thus there can be no accurate total without taking into account the morning. There are also no counts from the previous year in the morning to make a comparison. We on the other hand, were not trying to make a comparison, but instead took a count of what was actually happening in that area for cyclists.
- The BttF counts are incomplete without vehicle counts. If bikes share the road, they share with vehicles, we have to know how many of each are using the roadways. *
I believe the numbers you had received from Kevin Nixon for Sherbrook Street were actually the counts for the Sherbrook & Maryland bridges. These counts include cyclists traveling on both of the twin bridges in either direction, including those on the sidewalks. The counts have been done for a two hour period during rush hour, either in the morning or afternoon, on various mid-week days in April, May and June, starting in 2007. Here is a list of the counts we have done.
*Again, I sat through both morning and afternoon rush hours for the entire week to get an idea as to what the cycling counts look like. You cannot get an somewhat accurate picture if you don't take into account both peak times. *
Sherbrook-Maryland Bridges - Bicycle Traffic Counts - Rush Hour (Two Hours)
May 1, 2007 - AM = 214
May 1, 2007 - PM = 268
June 6, 2007 - PM = 189 * yet there is no corresponding morning count*
March 6, 2008 - PM = 22 * no AM counts and the only time the month of March appears in the counts provided.*
May 6, 2008 - PM = 285 * no AM counts *
June 13, 2008 - AM = 121 * no PM counts *
April 2, 2009 - PM = 19 * no AM counts and the only time this month appears in the counts provided. *
May 7, 2009 - PM = 113 * no AM counts *
June 3, 2009 - PM = 393 * no AM counts *
May 13, 2010 - PM = 298 * no AM counts *
June 2, 2010 - PM = 410 * no AM counts, yet our count for the same month only two weeks apart showed only 67 bikes for the afternoon peak time. That is a significant difference. The weather conditions by the way was warm and sunny with a light breeze.
- May of 2007 is the only time a count was done for both morning and afternoon peak times. For 2009 and 2010 there are NO AM counts at all. How then can a comparison be made without a corresponding morning count?
- Note also that March and April only appear once each in the 3 years of counts provided. Again I have to question how can the numbers be justified when both peak times are not taken into account and then for only a single day.
- Keep in mind that this BttF count covered both bridges whereas I was dealing with one street. Thus all counts must be halved. So instead of 410 for June 2/10, the actual count if measured against ours is 205 as we did not include Maryland in our counts.
- In the Spring count of 2009 Jeremy Hull said "Comparisons of morning and afternoon counts at the same locations suggest that afternoon counts are about 28% higher on average than morning counts." Yet as we can see, there are no comparison numbers with which to match for morning or afternoon counts in most cases listed here. So I have to once again ask, how can a comparison be made without corresponding counts? To my mind that would make the numbers and percentages quoted suspect when you only have a partial total for the counts. *
You can see from this that the numbers are variable. They are very dependent on the weather - some of the low counts happened when it was raining. You can also see that they are getting higher as time goes by. This is a general trend that I have found in Winnipeg over the past 4 years. In 2008 the numbers increased by an average of 16%, in 2009 the numbers decreased by 10%, and in 2010 the numbers increased by 22%. Overall there has been a 27% increase over three years (controlling for location and time of day).
* Ok now this doesn't make sense. Again, there are no morning counts on the same days in the same months, so how can there be an accurate total indicating increases or decreases in the amount of cyclists riding for those days? If I were a mathematician I could make these numbers say anything I wanted them to because they are averaged. These numbers are samples only and should be looked at as such instead of being taken as fact. I have to ask, is having an average number which may or may not be truly accurate be the basis upon which we wish to spend not only the millions of dollars for active transportation? But also how much money for snow clearing and road repairs, for which we as taxpayers must all pay. *
These rush hour numbers represent only a portion of the whole day, an estimated 20% of the total 24 hour traffic volume. This means that the peak traffic on the Sherbrook-Maryland bridges, over 24 hours, would be in the area of 1500-2000. This is one of the highest bicycle traffic locations in Winnipeg, with the Norwood Bridge and the Osborne Bridge having similar volumes of bicycle traffic.
* I have to ask how do you arrive at the number of 1500-2000 bikes over a 24 hour period? Really are there going to be hundreds of cyclists travelling over these bridges at 3:00 in the morning? I have to ask not only Jeremy Hull, but also the likes of Anders Swanson and Mark Cohoe if they are regularly out cycling at that time of the night? You know when most people are well ... sleeping.
- These numbers are completely unrealistic. And again, has nothing to do with the counts we performed on Sherbrook at Ellice.
- Can Jeremy Hull tell us that all those supposed bikes will travel straight up Sherbrook and onto the HSC? In Winter as well? Because if he really believes that then have I got a bridge with his name on it and I'll sell it a reasonable price.
But I gather the area that people have been concerned about is Sherbrook St near Ellice. On May 5 of this year we did a couple of counts on Sherbrook St at Cumberland, much closer to the section you are talking about, and the numbers there were much lower - 25 in the morning and 21 in the afternoon (including sidewalks). Of course this is a one way street and traffic going south would be on Maryland. Still, these are low numbers. To my mind they point to the need for a bike lane to accommodate cyclists.
*Again I would have to disagree, to my mind it shows that a dedicated bike lane is not necessary when one combines the amount of vehicles versus the amount of cyclists. - Not only the cyclists, but also the residents of the neighbourhood. It seems as if it's a case of the needs of the few outweigh the needs of the many. *
There are a lot of people who would like to use a bicycle more often to get to and from work (like the Health Sciences Centre) or school and other activities. It is relatively cheap to accommodate cyclists and encourage them, and in the long run there are lots of potential savings to the taxpayer in terms of reduced health costs because people are more fit, and reduced road congestion and need for road construction. It has been shown in many places that when there are good bicycle lanes or paths more people use bicycles. So the low number of cyclists currently using Sherbrook St. is a statement about our failure to provide adequate facilities and education in support of cycling.
* Exactly how many are headed to HSC? At 3 in the morning? Or for that matter during normal daytime hours? Can we get some counts on that? Well at least Hull's not saying these people are going to be stopping in at the businesses along Ellice or Sherbrook to shop.
- It is foolish to think that we won't need road construction for a reduced amount of cars because of a bike lane that will encourage people to ride a bike. Just because and yes let's bring up Europe here, even though that continent isn't named, we've all heard it before. The fact we can take many European nations, put them into one of our lakes such as oh Lake Winnipeg and still have room left over isn't mentioned.
- People have known about cycling for many years. What about the gentleman who has the mint condition 1955 Studebaker who stops in at the Ellice Cafe every morning? Should we tell him he can't enjoy that unique vehicle anymore because he has to get on a bike? Every summer part of St. Mary Ave. is shut down on Wednesday I believe for the car enthusiasts. Should we now tell them to get rid of those cars for a bike? I have a strong feeling that thought would not go over well. *
Apart from facilities, public attitudes and education play a big role in how people view the use of bicycles. My question for you is, given the proven benefits of cycling and walking, how would you suggest that we encourage more people to use their feet and their bicycles to get from A to B?
* Mr. Hull what you fail to understand is that cycling is a choice. Public attitudes and education would not change that fact. If someone is dictating to me that I should do this or that is a sure fire way to ensure I will do the exact opposite. Now for some, cycling is the only method of travel perhaps in part due to an economic situation. However, this does not give anyone the right to tell others they HAVE to do anything.
- If anyone wants to travel outside this city they MUST use some form of vehicular travel (perhaps a case could be made that an airplane is a vehicle). If I decide I want to head to Falcon Lake for a cup of coffee, I would have to leave days or a week in advance, now that just isn't practical. The automobile is here to stay. Get used to that idea. - I keep hearing about "public attitudes", yet in all the conversations I've had with people regarding bikes, the vast majority all say the same thing. If you want to cycle go ahead. Just don't force it on anyone else.
- Perhaps it's not the motoring public who needs the education. The most common theme I've heard from people is ... educate the cyclist. Educate the cyclist on the rules of the road and then ticket them when they fail to obey the same traffic rules as others, hold them accountable for their actions. Make the cyclists pay insurance for when they cause an accident and they do. Can't even begin to count the amount of times I've seen accidents averted due to the swift reflexes of a driver because a cyclist decided the rules didn't apply to them. Sadly all I hear are cyclists whining because they have to stop and start along the roadway. Well here's news for you, as a pedestrian, I stop and start all the time and it's not a problem. Or the cyclists cry out that they get a ticket. Believe me when I say I've spoken with many people and again, educating the cyclists is a very common theme.
- There is ample room on the roadways for cyclists to travel. Putting in bike lanes isn't the issue, it's putting them in places that make sense. Sherbrook, not making as much sense.
By the way, I would be interested in the details of the counts that Kim did on Sherbrook St. Would you be able to share them with me?
* I'll get them together for him *
Jeremy Hull
Bike to the Future
**********************
Analysis:
1) from a Statistician:
He is a researcher, owning ProLogica research? but he's 'coordinating' a volunteer effort... I'd like to see the full write up of their methodology, selection criteria, sampling methods, etc. Unfortunately it looks like he has a dog in this fight as he signs off with "Bike to the Future", kind of a conflict of interest I'd say. You should NEVER have an interested party (volunteer bike activists) doing the research.
I've only looked at the Sherbrook/Maryland bridge numbers. His use of the bridge as a sample point was good - roadway and sidewalk - ensures that he's captured all the traffic funnelling across that bridge(s). But I see problems as well. Rush hour only - 2 hours morning or afternoon, which two hours? Why only 2 morning samples and 9 pm samples? Morning average is 168, afternoon avg is 222. Variability - low of 19, high of 410, but no attempt to explain the variation other than "raining".
Why not actually stop some riders and do a quick survey? Where are you going? Do you ride every day? Was there a bike rally downtown that day? Why only May and June as main months of survey? What is bike use like in July, November, and January?
Extrapolation - to get to his 1,500 and 2,000 numbers, he's assuming that the rush hour traffic rate occurs all day long, even at 3 a.m.
(300 / 20% of day - 1,500 bikes per day, 400/ 20% = 2,000). Completely unsubstantiated, and he's using his max. numbers, not averages, so it's inflated.
Rush hours (2 hrs morning, 2 hrs, evening) represent 16.7% of the day.
Average of all is 212, divide by 0.167 gives 1,269 bikes per day. But again that assumes that rush-hour rate goes on all day long, even at 3 am.
Let's see some counts at non-rush hours before making that claim.
I don't like his terminology here; "This means that the peak traffic on the Sherbrook-Maryland bridges, over 24 hours, would be in the area of 1500-2000. "
Peak traffic is not over 24 hours, but the PEAK traffic rate over a small period of time. And the numbers 1500-2000 actually means estimated total bikes per day. Imprecise / sloppy description.
That's a quick read on it anyway. T
PS: Keep up the good work on these bike lobby clowns. I take the bus to work going towards the Bay downtown, every day. I can count on one hand the number of cyclists using the diamond lane that my bus encounters in a WEEK. I know because the bus has to slow down and then change lanes whenever they encounter a cyclist.
Meanwhile all the remaining traffic on Portage has to fit into three crowded lanes, while the diamond lane is essentially empty. This was an absurd policy to enact. Money wasted, nobody consulted, just one single interest group who was favoured. And you know what's worse? The buses don't even get downtown any faster than they did before.
2) from a City Hall insider:
Marty
The City of Winnipeg has failed miserably by not accurately quantifying bike counts resulting in the 'smoke and mirrors' attitude on behalf of the bike lobby. The City has the ability to accurately count vehicular traffic and transit counts but for some unknown reason they fail at counting bike traffic. Maybe because if they did the data would not warrant the expenditure of millions of dollars in taxpayer money. Just saying....
***********************
3) from a Well-connected bus rider:
Marty,
Of course the bike counts are higher at the Maryland/Sherbrook street bridges: You have St. Mary's Academy and Balmoral Hall school (as well as another Westgate Mennonite Collegiate on East Gate) with students going back and forth by bike. So yes, a bike path there actually makes sense - though not necessarily at the cost of losing one lane of traffic on either bridge or road.
Kill off one sidewalk or some grassy boulevard space so that the kids don't get hit by traffic. As to a bike count at Maryland/Sherbrook being comparable to a bike count at Sherbrook and Ellice: Horse hockey. That's like comparing bike traffic on the Chief Peguis Bridge (fairly low) to bike traffic at Main and the entrance to Kildonan Park. (very high).
