Beneath Jeremy's email is Kim the Traffic Reporters' response.
On Fri, Jul 9, 2010 at 4:01 PM, Jeremy Hull <hull.jeremy@gmail.com> wrote:
Hi again Marty,
I got around to reading your blog today and noticed some serious misunderstandings of the information I have tried to provide you with. First, you seem to think I was connecting the Sherbrook-Maryland bridge counts with traffic on the other end of Sherbrook. I am not and never have. This should be clear from my previous comments related to Kim's counts. I haven't actually commented on the Sherbrook issue at all except to say that the bicycle counts at Sherbrook and Cumberland are relatively low, and that I think they might increase if there were better facilities, such as a bike lane.
Second, estimates of 24 hour traffic based on rush hour counts are based on average daily traffic patterns. As you know, more people travel during rush hour than during other times of day. Research in Portland showed that that the two-hour counts during rush hour were 20% of the 24 hour daily total. So if there were 100 cyclists during the 3:30-5:30 PM time period there would be about 500 over the course of 24 hours. The reference for this research is:
Mia Birk and Roger Geller, “Bridging the Gaps: How the Quality and Quantity of a Connected Bikeway Network Correlates with Increasing Bicycle Use,” July 27, 2005, p. 13, presented at the Transportation Research Board Annual Meeting, January 22, 2006.
I have looked at some counts done over the years by the City of Winnipeg, and this 20% ratio seems about right (although the only Winnipeg counts available are only for 11 or 12 hours). The National Bicycle and Pedestrian Survey in the U.S. has also calculated these ratios, but their numbers would result in a much higher estimate for 24 hours. Their numbers are based on recreational paths, so I don't think they are a good reflection for Winnipeg. Certainly you wouldn't want to assume the same number of cyclists each hour around the clock, and no one has suggested this.
Third, as much as possible I have based my analysis on comparisons of apples with apples. The AM/PM comparisons you mentioned were based only on counts done on the same day at the same location. The afternoon counts were almost always higher, by an average of 24%. I also looked at how weather affected the morning vs. afternoon counts. When the weather got worse in the afternoon the afternoon counts were still higher, but only by 8% on average. When the weather was as good or better in the afternoon as in the morning, the afternoon counts were 32% higher on average.
The situation on Sherbrook, by the way, is different because it's a one way street, with traffic patterns favouring morning traffic going north at that location, so afternoon traffic tends to be lower. The counts on Sherbrook would best be combined with the counts on Maryland at the same cross street to get a complete picture. From Kim's numbers I calculate the average two-hour rush hour counts on Sherbrook @ Ellice from Tuesday-Thursday to be 75 in the AM and 35 in the PM. (Mondays and Fridays are not usually used for this kind of research because they are not typical commuting days.)
You should also be aware that whenever I refer to rush hour counts I am referring to two hour counting periods. Sometimes our volunteers have counted for more than two hours, in which case I just use the total for two hours. In other cases they counted for less than two hours, in which case I estimate the two hour total on a proportionate basis. Most of the counts are actually for exactly two hours because this is what I have asked the volunteers to do. When I looked at Kim's numbers I did the same thing - estimating two hour counts based on her totals which were sometimes for more than 2 hrs, sometimes for less.
I will be able to provide you with the full report once it is finalized and this may help you better understand how I arrived at the numbers. In the mean time I'm sending you a study you might be interested in concerning the effect of improved bicycle facilities on numbers of cyclists. There are many other studies of this kind.
Jeremy
KIM SAYS:
The issue has never been about people wanting to cycle. This is about infrastructure being placed where it doesn't make sense, where the residents and businesses will be affected without consultation and in some cases against their wishes.
A small group of people who aren't licensed and who are uninsured against accidents, who don't pay for the roads as motorists do and who oft times don't even bother to follow the rules of the road, but are demanding special privileges.
We keep hearing about all the surveys and polls being done about people wanting to cycle. About how they would cycle more if there were good cycling facilities. The problem with surveys and polls is that they can be skewed to say anything the authors want it to just by the wording of the questions. Let's take as an example the recent survey done by the Osborne Biz and Winnipeg Parking Authority. All the questions are pointed in such a way so as to show that paid parking is really the only option available for that area.
So polls and surveys may not be the definitive answer for these issues. At the City Centre Community meeting on June 8th, Anders Swanson admitted that "50% of polls are inaccurate". So I have to question the accuracy of the surveys and polls Jeremy Hull is mentioning. The next question to ask is, exactly who were the ones filling out those surveys and polls? Are they people who are already cycling enthusiasts? Are they the causal rider? Are they people who don't cycle at all? If the question is asked .. do you cycle? And the answer is "no", does the survey or poll then say "thank you for your time" and the survey or poll is then over. I've seen surveys and polls that do just that. So how accurate are those surveys and polls?
We also keep hearing about places like Portland and Minneapolis, about how pleased everyone is with all the new bike facilities and about how everyone thinks it's great. What we are NOT hearing about is any of the resistance those communities may have put up with regards to these facilities. What we don't hear is how often plans had to be changed because the neighbourhoods rose up and fought against any cycling infrastructure in their communities. We hear that cycling increases, but I have to ask, does the cycling increase in such as significant manner as is implied by the bike lobbyists or are the ones who are already cycling just switching over to using those facilities?
It is not legitimate to hold Europe as a standard for cycling against North America. First with the size of some of those Countries, you could sneeze on one border and get a "bless you" from the border on the other side of the Country. Also, most European cities are far older than any in North America. Those cities were designed not for bicycles, but for horse and carriages. Those cities were built long before the car or bicycle ever made an appearance, many of the streets are narrow, many are winding (often this was done for defensive purposes in case of invasion). So those streets are perfect for bikes. The same cannot be said for North America. Distances here can be vast, our streets are usually wider and can accommodate both bikes and vehicles. So again, using Europe as an example is hardly fair given the differences in culture, attitudes and lifestyles.
No one is denying that with new bike facilities that people will cycle. In fact some multi-use paths that have been put in are really really good. For example, the one on Gateway, I know it is heavily used by both pedestrians and cyclists. But then there are others. How many actually use the multi-use paths along Bishop Grandin? I've been up and down that road many times and have seen so few people either walking or cycling that I have to wonder at the expense it took to put in that path.
Jeremy Hull tells us that the counts we performed on Sherbrook at Ellice were higher than the counts BttF did at Sherbrook and Cumberland, so that would mean many cyclists are turning off at Sargent. What Hull isn't telling us is how many of those are commuters and how many are residents. There is a high amount of cyclists in that area because for many it is their only mode of transportation, not because of any enthusiasm for cycling. Jeremy Hull also tells us that their (BttF) bike counts are a way of making comparisons before and after new facilities are put into place. Except if you look at the days the counts are taken, there can be no comparison because there are no corresponding days. For some counts they were done in the morning but none in the afternoon or vice versa. Where is the comparison? How can you compare something to nothing? If there are no AM counts to what do you compare other counts?
Jeremy also indicates that the day of the week such as Fridays the counts are lower than other days of the week. We are also told that weather plays a role in cycling which causes low numbers. Yet this small group of people want to inconvenience or shut down entire neighbourhoods for fair weather cyclists. How many of those cyclists are going to be using those paths when it is -20c or more? For this we should put in year round infrastructure, back up traffic, annoy a community?
Jeremy Hull states that he has no arguments about the need for transparency and accountability, but we have yet to see this happen. The Active Transportation Advisory Committee is stacked with the bike lobby group. No motorists are on this committee, as according to some cyclists with whom I've spoken have repeatedly said that motorists don't need to be represented as they are not involved in active transportation. Also, there are no residential groups on this committee, though if there were, would they also be proponents of the cycling lobby?
Jeremy Hull also lets us know that it is difficult to do extensive counts as they rely on volunteers. Jeremy, I have news for you, I don't get paid either. Yet I manage to find the time to sit and count. There are all kinds of temp services available, it's not hard to count things, just time consuming.
A small group of people who aren't licensed and who are uninsured against accidents, who don't pay for the roads as motorists do and who oft times don't even bother to follow the rules of the road, but are demanding special privileges.
We keep hearing about all the surveys and polls being done about people wanting to cycle. About how they would cycle more if there were good cycling facilities. The problem with surveys and polls is that they can be skewed to say anything the authors want it to just by the wording of the questions. Let's take as an example the recent survey done by the Osborne Biz and Winnipeg Parking Authority. All the questions are pointed in such a way so as to show that paid parking is really the only option available for that area.
So polls and surveys may not be the definitive answer for these issues. At the City Centre Community meeting on June 8th, Anders Swanson admitted that "50% of polls are inaccurate". So I have to question the accuracy of the surveys and polls Jeremy Hull is mentioning. The next question to ask is, exactly who were the ones filling out those surveys and polls? Are they people who are already cycling enthusiasts? Are they the causal rider? Are they people who don't cycle at all? If the question is asked .. do you cycle? And the answer is "no", does the survey or poll then say "thank you for your time" and the survey or poll is then over. I've seen surveys and polls that do just that. So how accurate are those surveys and polls?
We also keep hearing about places like Portland and Minneapolis, about how pleased everyone is with all the new bike facilities and about how everyone thinks it's great. What we are NOT hearing about is any of the resistance those communities may have put up with regards to these facilities. What we don't hear is how often plans had to be changed because the neighbourhoods rose up and fought against any cycling infrastructure in their communities. We hear that cycling increases, but I have to ask, does the cycling increase in such as significant manner as is implied by the bike lobbyists or are the ones who are already cycling just switching over to using those facilities?
It is not legitimate to hold Europe as a standard for cycling against North America. First with the size of some of those Countries, you could sneeze on one border and get a "bless you" from the border on the other side of the Country. Also, most European cities are far older than any in North America. Those cities were designed not for bicycles, but for horse and carriages. Those cities were built long before the car or bicycle ever made an appearance, many of the streets are narrow, many are winding (often this was done for defensive purposes in case of invasion). So those streets are perfect for bikes. The same cannot be said for North America. Distances here can be vast, our streets are usually wider and can accommodate both bikes and vehicles. So again, using Europe as an example is hardly fair given the differences in culture, attitudes and lifestyles.
No one is denying that with new bike facilities that people will cycle. In fact some multi-use paths that have been put in are really really good. For example, the one on Gateway, I know it is heavily used by both pedestrians and cyclists. But then there are others. How many actually use the multi-use paths along Bishop Grandin? I've been up and down that road many times and have seen so few people either walking or cycling that I have to wonder at the expense it took to put in that path.
Jeremy Hull tells us that the counts we performed on Sherbrook at Ellice were higher than the counts BttF did at Sherbrook and Cumberland, so that would mean many cyclists are turning off at Sargent. What Hull isn't telling us is how many of those are commuters and how many are residents. There is a high amount of cyclists in that area because for many it is their only mode of transportation, not because of any enthusiasm for cycling. Jeremy Hull also tells us that their (BttF) bike counts are a way of making comparisons before and after new facilities are put into place. Except if you look at the days the counts are taken, there can be no comparison because there are no corresponding days. For some counts they were done in the morning but none in the afternoon or vice versa. Where is the comparison? How can you compare something to nothing? If there are no AM counts to what do you compare other counts?
Jeremy also indicates that the day of the week such as Fridays the counts are lower than other days of the week. We are also told that weather plays a role in cycling which causes low numbers. Yet this small group of people want to inconvenience or shut down entire neighbourhoods for fair weather cyclists. How many of those cyclists are going to be using those paths when it is -20c or more? For this we should put in year round infrastructure, back up traffic, annoy a community?
Jeremy Hull states that he has no arguments about the need for transparency and accountability, but we have yet to see this happen. The Active Transportation Advisory Committee is stacked with the bike lobby group. No motorists are on this committee, as according to some cyclists with whom I've spoken have repeatedly said that motorists don't need to be represented as they are not involved in active transportation. Also, there are no residential groups on this committee, though if there were, would they also be proponents of the cycling lobby?
Jeremy Hull also lets us know that it is difficult to do extensive counts as they rely on volunteers. Jeremy, I have news for you, I don't get paid either. Yet I manage to find the time to sit and count. There are all kinds of temp services available, it's not hard to count things, just time consuming.
Kim
