Numbers prove bike riders in NYC are insignificant.

idlewild

Well, adult ridership has certainly increased. Visually, anyone can see this. I don't think it matters whether it's for business or recreation, which seems to be the contention of both the US Census and the City's surveys. Maybe to the politicians who will argue for or against funding of bike lanes. It's not even a pro or anti biking view. It just is, what it is.

As to Catwalkertexasranger-I agree with most of what you state as the problems needing solutions and resolutions. Some of which you seem to provide.

idlewild

Well, adult ridership has certainly increased. Visually, anyone can see this. I don't think it matters whether it's for business or recreation, which seems to be the contention of both the US Census and the City's surveys. Maybe to the politicians who will argue for or against funding of bike lanes. It's not even a pro or anti biking view. It just is, what it is.

As to Catwalkertexasranger-I agree with most of what you state as the problems needing solutions and resolutions. Some of which you seem to provide.

whynot_31

I continue to believe that the results of NYC DOH survey will be more reliable than the one cited by the post.

To me, more resources and expertise are being put into it.

http://www.nyc.gov/html/doh/downloads/pdf/survey/FAQ - Frequently Asked Questions.pdf

....perhaps the results will be similar to the one that the Post cites.

whynot_31

I continue to believe that the results of NYC DOH survey will be more reliable than the one cited by the post.

To me, more resources and expertise are being put into it.

http://www.nyc.gov/html/doh/downloads/pdf/survey/FAQ - Frequently Asked Questions.pdf

....perhaps the results will be similar to the one that the Post cites.

whyfi

Slope1980 said:

Please Jamzer, don't give me that. No you weren't. In an serious conversation, asking someone their point after it has already clearly been stated and has even been counter-pointed by others is the equivalent of saying FU and I don't appreciate it.

Are serious conversations often started with

Interesting! Cue ________ apologists in 3..2..1.....

?

edited to add - several people have already raised significant questions about the validity of the statements presented in the article (including yours truly), and you have yet to respond to them. Your opportunity for honest discourse awaits.

whyfi

Slope1980 said:

Please Jamzer, don't give me that. No you weren't. In an serious conversation, asking someone their point after it has already clearly been stated and has even been counter-pointed by others is the equivalent of saying FU and I don't appreciate it.

Are serious conversations often started with

Interesting! Cue ________ apologists in 3..2..1.....

?

edited to add - several people have already raised significant questions about the validity of the statements presented in the article (including yours truly), and you have yet to respond to them. Your opportunity for honest discourse awaits.

whynot_31

Whyfi-

When someone is not open to other data, that is how they cite their data.

I think it is the equivalent of stating "it is in the bible!"

....as if any survey or body of research does not have flaws.

Knowledge is created through collecting data thru a variety of means, and understanding the limitations of each method used.

I love that DOH used a randomized sample, and then is having its subjects wear a GPS and heat rate monitor device for a week. This way, the subjects reports can be verified and checked for biases.

whynot_31

Whyfi-

When someone is not open to other data, that is how they cite their data.

I think it is the equivalent of stating "it is in the bible!"

....as if any survey or body of research does not have flaws.

Knowledge is created through collecting data thru a variety of means, and understanding the limitations of each method used.

I love that DOH used a randomized sample, and then is having its subjects wear a GPS and heat rate monitor device for a week. This way, the subjects reports can be verified and checked for biases.

whyfi

whynot_31 said:

Whyfi-

When someone is not open to other data, that is how they cite their data.

I think it is the equivalent of stating "it is in the bible!"

....as if any survey or body of research does not have flaws.

Knowledge is created through collecting data thru a variety of means, and understanding the limitations of each method used.

Yeah, I know, but I thought it was worth pointing out, all things considered.

whynot_31 said:I love that DOH used a randomized sample, and then is having its subjects wear a GPS and heat rate monitor device for a week. This way, the subjects reports can be verified and checked for biases.

This sounds interesting, but the questions that I would pose are:

- if your number is called, what happens if you simply decline? The ability to do so seems to remove some of the randomness.

- what about the psychological effect of being selected? No matter how much people are told to go about business as usual, if I were selected, I think that I might be compelled to "put on a good show," as it were.

All that being said, I think that this would be far more helpful (in many ways) than some of the previous studies.

whyfi

whynot_31 said:

Whyfi-

When someone is not open to other data, that is how they cite their data.

I think it is the equivalent of stating "it is in the bible!"

....as if any survey or body of research does not have flaws.

Knowledge is created through collecting data thru a variety of means, and understanding the limitations of each method used.

Yeah, I know, but I thought it was worth pointing out, all things considered.

whynot_31 said:I love that DOH used a randomized sample, and then is having its subjects wear a GPS and heat rate monitor device for a week. This way, the subjects reports can be verified and checked for biases.

This sounds interesting, but the questions that I would pose are:

- if your number is called, what happens if you simply decline? The ability to do so seems to remove some of the randomness.

- what about the psychological effect of being selected? No matter how much people are told to go about business as usual, if I were selected, I think that I might be compelled to "put on a good show," as it were.

All that being said, I think that this would be far more helpful (in many ways) than some of the previous studies.

whynot_31

This sounds interesting, but the questions that I would pose are:

- if your number is called, what happens if you simply decline? The ability to do so seems to remove some of the randomness.

- what about the psychological effect of being selected? No matter how much people are told to go about business as usual, if I were selected, I think that I might be compelled to "put on a good show," as it were.

Absolutely.

We also have the fact that the survey pays $100, and calls people on their LANDLINE.

So, (in addition to the factors you list) it is likely to be biased in favor of respondents who:

a. trust DOH with their personal info

b. want $100

c. have a landline

d. like wearing GPS devices

...does pointing out the flaws in the survey THAT I PREFER make me a "bike apologist" ?

Or, am I only an apologist when I point out the flaws in other people's favorite surveys?

As someone who thinks that objectivity is largely an unattainable (but worthwhile) goal, I try to keep my mind open.

"inquiring minds want to know"

whynot_31

This sounds interesting, but the questions that I would pose are:

- if your number is called, what happens if you simply decline? The ability to do so seems to remove some of the randomness.

- what about the psychological effect of being selected? No matter how much people are told to go about business as usual, if I were selected, I think that I might be compelled to "put on a good show," as it were.

Absolutely.

We also have the fact that the survey pays $100, and calls people on their LANDLINE.

So, (in addition to the factors you list) it is likely to be biased in favor of respondents who:

a. trust DOH with their personal info

b. want $100

c. have a landline

d. like wearing GPS devices

...does pointing out the flaws in the survey THAT I PREFER make me a "bike apologist" ?

Or, am I only an apologist when I point out the flaws in other people's favorite surveys?

As someone who thinks that objectivity is largely an unattainable (but worthwhile) goal, I try to keep my mind open.

"inquiring minds want to know"

whyfi

WTF is a landline? Oh, wait - I remember having one of those last decade.

whyfi

WTF is a landline? Oh, wait - I remember having one of those last decade.

bohuma

I think that more people would cycle to work if:

1. They have a safe place to cycle away from motor vehicles, especially yellow cabs, buses, delivery vans and police cars.

2. They have a safe place to store their bike at work that would not make it vulnerable to bike thieves.

3. They have the opportunity to shower and change into clean clothes after arriving at work - I don't know about you but after cycling from Crown Heights to Mid-Town I'd stink.

Given the cost of real estate in this city, I doubt whether any of that is likely to happen any time soon.

bohuma

I think that more people would cycle to work if:

1. They have a safe place to cycle away from motor vehicles, especially yellow cabs, buses, delivery vans and police cars.

2. They have a safe place to store their bike at work that would not make it vulnerable to bike thieves.

3. They have the opportunity to shower and change into clean clothes after arriving at work - I don't know about you but after cycling from Crown Heights to Mid-Town I'd stink.

Given the cost of real estate in this city, I doubt whether any of that is likely to happen any time soon.

bohuma

I think that more people would cycle to work if:

1. They have a safe place to cycle away from motor vehicles, especially yellow cabs, buses, delivery vans and police cars.

2. They have a safe place to store their bike at work that would not make it vulnerable to bike thieves.

3. They have the opportunity to shower and change into clean clothes after arriving at work - I don't know about you but after cycling from Crown Heights to Mid-Town I'd stink.

Given the cost of real estate in this city, I doubt whether any of that is likely to happen any time soon.

bohuma

I think that more people would cycle to work if:

1. They have a safe place to cycle away from motor vehicles, especially yellow cabs, buses, delivery vans and police cars.

2. They have a safe place to store their bike at work that would not make it vulnerable to bike thieves.

3. They have the opportunity to shower and change into clean clothes after arriving at work - I don't know about you but after cycling from Crown Heights to Mid-Town I'd stink.

Given the cost of real estate in this city, I doubt whether any of that is likely to happen any time soon.

whynot_31

Yet, somehow, they were able to get the study funded.

...and big wigs with PhDs in Public Health are in charge of it.

....as if "We do the best we can, and clearly explain the limitations".

I hope the survey cited by the The Post fully informed its readers.

I hope The Post didn't hold the survey out to be more evidence that supported the conclusions it had already reached, because -you know- that would be just bad journalism.

whyfi

bohuma said:

I think that more people would cycle to work if:

1. They have a safe place to cycle away from motor vehicles, especially yellow cabs, buses, delivery vans and police cars.

2. They have a safe place to store their bike at work that would not make it vulnerable to bike thieves.

3. They have the opportunity to shower and change into clean clothes after arriving at work - I don't know about you but after cycling from Crown Heights to Mid-Town I'd stink.

Given the cost of real estate in this city, I doubt whether any of that is likely to happen any time soon.

Yes, you might be interested in looking at this survey. It's (supposedly)for a marketing research class for a Columbia MBA student, but it certainly smacks of being the ground work for something more.

homeowner

Everyone seems to be missing the key point here which is that neither study is flawed. Each answered the question posed. The problem is they asked two very different questions.

The study cited by the Post asked "What is your method of transportation to and from work?" Primary method was determined to be the one used the most. As such this study may under-report people who use bikes as transit seasonally or based on weather.

The city study counted "How many bikers are there at certain locations in the city at certain times of the day." As such, it did not differentiate between people using their bikes for recreation vs transportation. Nor did it differentiate between regular and seasonal users.

Neither study is flawed, they just don't provide answers to the questions being debated here which is are more people riding bikes. I do think that the first study does bear out a common school of though among those who are less gung-ho about bikes, mainly that this is not an extremely popular regular transportation alternative for commutation purposes.

As for why this difference matters, some might argue that at a time when resources are constrained we should be using $s to provide the greatest benefit to the greatest number which is probably not done by spending additional money for recreational options.

boygabriel

"How many bikers are there at certain locations in the city at certain times of the day."

Doesn't this answer whether bikers are increasing? If you look at the same location at the same time of day over a period of time?

Anyway, in a shocking development, the NY Post's conclusion was pretty much entirely misguided.

Actually, If You Build It, They Will Bike

by Ben Fried on April 13, 2011

The emphasis of this year’s “State of New York City’s Housing and Neighborhoods” report from NYU’s Furman Center is the housing market and foreclosure rates, but if you dig deep, you’ll find a table of Census data on citywide commute rates broken down by mode of transportation. While the authors make no comment on bike modeshare in their report, that hasn’t stopped several press outlets from distorting the cycling data and drawing erroneous conclusions from it.

The Post, NY1, and DNAinfo all picked up the Census data point on citywide bike commute modeshare — 0.6 percent — and reached the conclusion that the city’s bike lanes aren’t attracting new cyclists. “If you build it, maybe they won’t come,” went the lede in the Post. The problem is, that’s a conclusion the Census data just doesn’t support.

Streetsblog has touched on the implications of Census data on NYC bike commuting a few times. Compared to DOT’s screenline count of cyclists entering the Manhattan central business district, the citywide Census data shows slower growth in cycling. But if you look at the Census data that reflects the same trips that DOT is counting, there’s a lot of overlap.

Broken down by borough, the Census shows that bike commute rates in Brooklyn have increased at about the same rate as the city’s screenline count, according to a 2010 report by Rutgers professor John Pucher [PDF]. The areas of the city with the highest bike commute rates are also the areas that have seen the greatest investment in separated bikeways and safer bridge approaches — northwest Brooklyn and lower Manhattan.

Click through for more.

erratum8mm

I think that more people would cycle to work if:

1. They have a safe place to cycle away from motor vehicles, especially yellow cabs, buses, delivery vans and police cars.

2. They have a safe place to store their bike at work that would not make it vulnerable to bike thieves.

3. They have the opportunity to shower and change into clean clothes after arriving at work - I don't know about you but after cycling from Crown Heights to Mid-Town I'd stink.

I have #2 and #3. There is not much my employer can do about #1.

homeowner

Doesn't this answer whether bikers are increasing? If you look at the same location at the same time of day over a period of time?

Not really. If all riders are using bike lanes its possible that they are shifting from other routes all to the same route. The total number of bikers could be static. You can definitively state that bikers at that location are increasing. You can't definitively state that some other location doesn't have fewer bikers.

whyfi

homeowner said:

Doesn't this answer whether bikers are increasing? If you look at the same location at the same time of day over a period of time?

Not really. If all riders are using bike lanes its possible that they are shifting from other routes all to the same route. The total number of bikers could be static. You can definitively state that bikers at that location are increasing. You can't definitively state that some other location doesn't have fewer bikers.

You're being simplistic and argumentative - people that know what they are doing are working with proven statistical models, much the same as they measure car traffic. If you want to go read the study, go read it and pick apart their methodology, but to shrug your shoulders and say, "eh, could be the same bikes taking a different route," is just plain lazy and insulting.

homeowner

While my analysis may be simplistic it is not arguementative. There are areas in this city where bike traffic isn't increasing, period. Folks who live out on Linden Blvd near Pennsylvania Avenue are not using bikes to commute to jobs in Manhattan or even in other parts of Brooklyn. Folks who live in Starrett City are not riding their bikes to Gateway Plaza to shop at BJ's.

Claiming that bike lanes could create changes in the behavior of bikers is exactly the point, isn't it?

mat

I love when obvious trollers go a trolling and then say 'why am I a troll' when called on it. Keep it up 1980! You make the internet -annoying, yes - but fun too!

whyfi

homeowner said:

While my analysis may be simplistic it is not arguementative. There are areas in this city where bike traffic isn't increasing, period. Folks who live out on Linden Blvd near Pennsylvania Avenue are not using bikes to commute to jobs in Manhattan or even in other parts of Brooklyn. Folks who live in Starrett City are not riding their bikes to Gateway Plaza to shop at BJ's.

Claiming that bike lanes could create changes in the behavior of bikers is exactly the point, isn't it?

Maybe I'm missing some painfully obvious logical connection, but just to be sure, would you care to explain how your above statement -

(paraphrased) "there's been no increase in ridership on street A"

supports your previous contention

(paraphrased) "any increase in ridership on street X can be explained by an equal decrease in ridership on street Y"

?