5 ms·

Why do you think cyclists make up <5% of commuters in LA? Hint: it's not because of the weather.

AmericanChopper 9y ago
Why are cyclists <5% of commuters in SF, where the local government has invested many billions of dollars into building a perfectly serviceable cycling infrastructure? A pattern which you can see in a number of different cities around the world who have done the same. It's because no matter what people say, they don't want to cycle to work. I read a headline recently that said cycling in SF was up 10%, celebrating the billions spent on the infrastructure, however nowhere in the article did it mention that the 10% increase amounted to a total of ~3.5% commuters on bikes. You don't have to be a genius to figure out that only devoting 50% of your transport budget to the mode used by 90% of the population is not a recipe for success.
- Doctor_Fegg 9y ago
  Visit London. Cycling is now the majority mode of transport in the City of London rush hour. That’s due to car reduction measures (the Congestion Charge) and new infrastructure both large (Cycle Superhighways) and small (filtered permeability). Your assertion that “people don’t want to cycle to work” is demonstrably false. (Source: https://www.bikebiz.com/news/traffic-in-the-city-2018 https://www.bikebiz.com/news/traffic-in-the-city-2018 )
  - AmericanChopper 9y ago
    In London, cyclists make up less than 5% of commuters. Hardly a vision of success.
    - Doctor_Fegg 9y ago
      Define "London". In inner/central London, where cycling infrastructure is being built and where the Congestion Charge is in place, the cycle commute share is significantly higher than 5%. (Back in 2011, for example, it was 15.4% in Hackney: it will be bigger than that now.) In the outer suburbs, where there's no infrastructure and no Congestion Charge, it isn't above 5%. That should tell you something. Meanwhile, you talk sneeringly about "invest[ing] billions into poorly designed public transport". Public transport is, of course, something London does very well. Car commuting across the whole of London, inner and outer, is around 25%. Public transport commuting is around 50%. (Source: LTDS. This covers London residents only, so is probably an underestimate given the vast numbers of people from outside London who commute into the city by rail.)
      - AmericanChopper 9y ago
        You're right about that. London does public transport much better than most other cities. It's also been measurably more successful than many other cities in driving cycling adoption. But if your argument in support of that (overall relatively minor) success involves statements such as "define London", and cherry picking particular suburbs, then I think that speaks to the strength of it.
        desas 9y ago
        Many suburbs (and inner city London local authorities) have stymied Transport for London efforts to introduce cycle infrastructure. Hardly fair to sneer at cherry picking
    - dasil003 9y ago
      Try comparing the numbers of bicycle commuters versus automobile commuters and doing the same for any American city and prepare for your mind to be blown.
  - cturner 9y ago
    The source is about road use, which is more specific than your claim. The top modes of transport are walking, the underground, long-haul rail infrastructure. I think the source goes against both your claim and its own headline. Diagram 3.11 shows cycling to be a small part of the makeup.
    - Doctor_Fegg 9y ago
      Yes, given the context that AmericanChopper was principally talking about roads (and advocating that cars should be prioritised). If you include non-carriageway provision then the Tube, bus and walking are and have long been dominant in London. 3.11 appears to cover the whole day rather than just the rush hour, and again, the context of AmericanChopper's comments was "commuters". 3.5 in the original report (search for 'Traffic in the City 2018') gives more context as to how modal share varies throughout the day.
  - closeparen 9y ago
    >That’s due to car reduction measures Sounds like people didn't want to cycle to work, but it was the next best thing after the car reduction measures.
- bjacokes 9y ago
  Do you have a citation for 50% of the SFMTA budget going to cycling infrastructure? This sounds demonstrably incorrect given the fact that they run the bus and LRV systems. (Also incorrect is that people "don't want to cycle to work", I see literally hundreds of them every morning in SF, and it's growing every year.) There are many arguments in favor of cycling infrastructure, but unfortunately I'm versed enough in anti-bike comment threads to recognize someone who won't be convinced :) But here goes... * bikes do less damage to road than cars, and therefore the maintenance cost of bike lanes is lower than car lanes, which require frequent paving * bikes are important as a "last mile" transportation option for public transit commuters. densely-placed bike share stations improve the feasibility of public transit for people whose homes or offices are 1-2 miles from a train station. * bikes are far smaller than cars and so you can push more traffic through a given width of road than with cars. this is especially relevant if you ever get to a downtown stretch where one car turning right at a pedestrian crossing causes an entire green light to be wasted on the rest of the cars (basically every light along Market Street in SF). cars are just wide and clumsy when driving in dense downtowns. * the government frequently subsidizes behaviors that are considered virtuous (or conversely, imposes "sin taxes"), and also subsidizes services that benefit lower-income citizens. both of those apply here. car parking in downtowns can run $40+ for a day. bike share and bus commutes are $2-5 and keep people active. I could go on, but again, I don't think your mind will be changed much.
  - AmericanChopper 9y ago
    Your argument is based on a major logical fallacy. There’s lots of reasons why cycling is far better for society than driving cars. But none of them matter because people do not want to cycle. There are no cases in the world where cycling infrastructure has been successful in having a measurable impact on congestion. You’re also falling for the same fallacy that cycling advocates fall for by obscuring the impact of cycling spending. It doesn’t matter if hundreds of people want to cycle to work, or if cycling adoption is up 10% if all you’ve done is gone from 3% of commuters to 3.4% of commuters (which is where I believe SF is at after all of the billions they’ve invested in it). It’s the same as the startup that says they’re growing faster than google because they managed to go from 50 customers to 100. We all know it’s bullshit, it’s just a popular self-delusion that people enjoy.
- TulliusCicero 9y ago
  Source on SF having spent "many billions" on bike infrastructure please. That number is ludicrous, you made it up.
- markvdb 9y ago
  As far as I can find out, the SF MTA is spending ~1.5% (under $20*10^6 annually) of its budget on cycling infrastructure [0]. According to the SFMTA, bicycle usage is at around 3.9%[1], up from 2.3% in relative numbers. Up almost 200% in absolute numbers from 2006 (~4000 counted versus >11000 counted). Shifting even tiny numbers of people from cars to bicycles shaves off peaks of car traffic. Bicycle throughput is several times higher per unit of infrastructure. That has incredible potential to hugely benefit people driving cars by improving car traffic flow. Crazy high ROI potentially! According to your logic too, one could argue that only devoting 1.5% of the transport budget to the mode used by 3.9% of its population is serious underfunding. [0] https://blog.sfgate.com/bicycle/2014/04/21/new-sfmta-budget-a-qualified-win-for-bicycle-infrastructure/ https://blog.sfgate.com/bicycle/2014/04/21/new-sfmta-budget-... [1] https://www.sfmta.com/bicycle-ridership-data https://www.sfmta.com/bicycle-ridership-data
- pwinnski 9y ago
  $87.9 million. Not billions. Not even one billion. Not even a tenth of a billion. Less than 2%. Not 50%. Not even 5%. Maybe you have more up-to-date information to counter these numbers? If so, let's see them, please, as currently it seems like you're making wildly inaccurate unsubstantiated claims as the foundation for all of your comments on this subject. Thanks. https://blog.sfgate.com/bicycle/2014/04/21/new-sfmta-budget-a-qualified-win-for-bicycle-infrastructure/ https://blog.sfgate.com/bicycle/2014/04/21/new-sfmta-budget-...

Why are cyclists <5% of commuters in SF, where the local government has invested many billions of dollars into building a perfectly serviceable cycling infrastructure? A pattern which you can see in a number of different cities around the world who have done the same. It's because no matter what people say, they don't want to cycle to work. I read a headline recently that said cycling in SF was up 10%, celebrating the billions spent on the infrastructure, however nowhere in the article did it mention that the 10% increase amounted to a total of ~3.5% commuters on bikes. You don't have to be a genius to figure out that only devoting 50% of your transport budget to the mode used by 90% of the population is not a recipe for success.

Doctor_Fegg 9y ago
Visit London. Cycling is now the majority mode of transport in the City of London rush hour. That’s due to car reduction measures (the Congestion Charge) and new infrastructure both large (Cycle Superhighways) and small (filtered permeability). Your assertion that “people don’t want to cycle to work” is demonstrably false. (Source: https://www.bikebiz.com/news/traffic-in-the-city-2018 https://www.bikebiz.com/news/traffic-in-the-city-2018 )
- AmericanChopper 9y ago
  In London, cyclists make up less than 5% of commuters. Hardly a vision of success.
  - Doctor_Fegg 9y ago
    Define "London". In inner/central London, where cycling infrastructure is being built and where the Congestion Charge is in place, the cycle commute share is significantly higher than 5%. (Back in 2011, for example, it was 15.4% in Hackney: it will be bigger than that now.) In the outer suburbs, where there's no infrastructure and no Congestion Charge, it isn't above 5%. That should tell you something. Meanwhile, you talk sneeringly about "invest[ing] billions into poorly designed public transport". Public transport is, of course, something London does very well. Car commuting across the whole of London, inner and outer, is around 25%. Public transport commuting is around 50%. (Source: LTDS. This covers London residents only, so is probably an underestimate given the vast numbers of people from outside London who commute into the city by rail.)
    - AmericanChopper 9y ago
      You're right about that. London does public transport much better than most other cities. It's also been measurably more successful than many other cities in driving cycling adoption. But if your argument in support of that (overall relatively minor) success involves statements such as "define London", and cherry picking particular suburbs, then I think that speaks to the strength of it.
      - desas 9y ago
        Many suburbs (and inner city London local authorities) have stymied Transport for London efforts to introduce cycle infrastructure. Hardly fair to sneer at cherry picking
  - dasil003 9y ago
    Try comparing the numbers of bicycle commuters versus automobile commuters and doing the same for any American city and prepare for your mind to be blown.
- cturner 9y ago
  The source is about road use, which is more specific than your claim. The top modes of transport are walking, the underground, long-haul rail infrastructure. I think the source goes against both your claim and its own headline. Diagram 3.11 shows cycling to be a small part of the makeup.
  - Doctor_Fegg 9y ago
    Yes, given the context that AmericanChopper was principally talking about roads (and advocating that cars should be prioritised). If you include non-carriageway provision then the Tube, bus and walking are and have long been dominant in London. 3.11 appears to cover the whole day rather than just the rush hour, and again, the context of AmericanChopper's comments was "commuters". 3.5 in the original report (search for 'Traffic in the City 2018') gives more context as to how modal share varies throughout the day.
- closeparen 9y ago
  >That’s due to car reduction measures Sounds like people didn't want to cycle to work, but it was the next best thing after the car reduction measures.
bjacokes 9y ago
Do you have a citation for 50% of the SFMTA budget going to cycling infrastructure? This sounds demonstrably incorrect given the fact that they run the bus and LRV systems. (Also incorrect is that people "don't want to cycle to work", I see literally hundreds of them every morning in SF, and it's growing every year.) There are many arguments in favor of cycling infrastructure, but unfortunately I'm versed enough in anti-bike comment threads to recognize someone who won't be convinced :) But here goes... * bikes do less damage to road than cars, and therefore the maintenance cost of bike lanes is lower than car lanes, which require frequent paving * bikes are important as a "last mile" transportation option for public transit commuters. densely-placed bike share stations improve the feasibility of public transit for people whose homes or offices are 1-2 miles from a train station. * bikes are far smaller than cars and so you can push more traffic through a given width of road than with cars. this is especially relevant if you ever get to a downtown stretch where one car turning right at a pedestrian crossing causes an entire green light to be wasted on the rest of the cars (basically every light along Market Street in SF). cars are just wide and clumsy when driving in dense downtowns. * the government frequently subsidizes behaviors that are considered virtuous (or conversely, imposes "sin taxes"), and also subsidizes services that benefit lower-income citizens. both of those apply here. car parking in downtowns can run $40+ for a day. bike share and bus commutes are $2-5 and keep people active. I could go on, but again, I don't think your mind will be changed much.
- AmericanChopper 9y ago
  Your argument is based on a major logical fallacy. There’s lots of reasons why cycling is far better for society than driving cars. But none of them matter because people do not want to cycle. There are no cases in the world where cycling infrastructure has been successful in having a measurable impact on congestion. You’re also falling for the same fallacy that cycling advocates fall for by obscuring the impact of cycling spending. It doesn’t matter if hundreds of people want to cycle to work, or if cycling adoption is up 10% if all you’ve done is gone from 3% of commuters to 3.4% of commuters (which is where I believe SF is at after all of the billions they’ve invested in it). It’s the same as the startup that says they’re growing faster than google because they managed to go from 50 customers to 100. We all know it’s bullshit, it’s just a popular self-delusion that people enjoy.
TulliusCicero 9y ago
Source on SF having spent "many billions" on bike infrastructure please. That number is ludicrous, you made it up.
markvdb 9y ago
As far as I can find out, the SF MTA is spending ~1.5% (under $20*10^6 annually) of its budget on cycling infrastructure [0]. According to the SFMTA, bicycle usage is at around 3.9%[1], up from 2.3% in relative numbers. Up almost 200% in absolute numbers from 2006 (~4000 counted versus >11000 counted). Shifting even tiny numbers of people from cars to bicycles shaves off peaks of car traffic. Bicycle throughput is several times higher per unit of infrastructure. That has incredible potential to hugely benefit people driving cars by improving car traffic flow. Crazy high ROI potentially! According to your logic too, one could argue that only devoting 1.5% of the transport budget to the mode used by 3.9% of its population is serious underfunding. [0] https://blog.sfgate.com/bicycle/2014/04/21/new-sfmta-budget-a-qualified-win-for-bicycle-infrastructure/ https://blog.sfgate.com/bicycle/2014/04/21/new-sfmta-budget-... [1] https://www.sfmta.com/bicycle-ridership-data https://www.sfmta.com/bicycle-ridership-data
pwinnski 9y ago
$87.9 million. Not billions. Not even one billion. Not even a tenth of a billion. Less than 2%. Not 50%. Not even 5%. Maybe you have more up-to-date information to counter these numbers? If so, let's see them, please, as currently it seems like you're making wildly inaccurate unsubstantiated claims as the foundation for all of your comments on this subject. Thanks. https://blog.sfgate.com/bicycle/2014/04/21/new-sfmta-budget-a-qualified-win-for-bicycle-infrastructure/ https://blog.sfgate.com/bicycle/2014/04/21/new-sfmta-budget-...