NYT - More Than 200,000 a Day Are Now Cycling - Brooklynian

Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!

NYT - More Than 200,000 a Day Are Now Cycling

Are you commuting by bike?

http://cityroom.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/04/26/more-than-200000-a-day-now-cycling/?hp

The differences from a few years ago are pretty staggering, both in the increase of riders and in the designated lanes, themselves.

Comments

  • Transportation Alternatives, which found roughly 236,000 New Yorkers riding
    The estimate was extrapolated from cyclist counts performed by the city Department of Transportation
    Mr. Komanoff said, “even if it probably overstates the increase in overall cycling,”
    The above quotes are from people who are not disinterested parties, not to mention the wording.

    The numbers on the Manhattan Bridge are absurd, a bridge I cross several times on a bike during the week. A 12 hour period (pdf screenline count) indicated 2,683 bikes crossing. Divide that out and figuring an average time to cross the bridge lets, say 10 minutes, then there has to be 37 bikes on the bridge, on average all the time for 12 hours. No way is that even close.

    Totally worthless news article.
  • Ah, your perception of the number of people going over the bridge is more accurate than the meters that DOT placed on the bridge - got it.
  • WhyFi wrote: Ah, your perception of the number of people going over the bridge is more accurate than the meters that DOT placed on the bridge - got it.
    Show me in the article where they say they used "meters" to count.
    That's why I quoted:

    roughly

    extrapolated

    not to mention,
    overstates the increase

    Look at the pdf. Care to even guess how many of the riders were counted twice, thrice or four times or more over a 12 hour period.
    The estimate was extrapolated from cyclist counts performed by the city Department of Transportation at various downtown entry points
  • The DOT is suspect under Bloomberg:
    Department of Transportation is refusing to release data on whether or not closing Broadway from 42nd-47th streets to vehicular traffic has reduced congestion or speeded up motorists’ rides.
    They obviously have an agenda.

    Read more: http://www.nypost.com/p/news/opinion/opedcolumnists/mayor_bloomberg_free_times_square_AR9j3u5EZbz0O6RgdNoZSP#ixzz0mDgmihm8
  • modsquad wrote: [quote=WhyFi]Ah, your perception of the number of people going over the bridge is more accurate than the meters that DOT placed on the bridge - got it.
    Show me in the article where they say they used "meters" to count.

    Numbers for a population this large are never exact, they're always estimates based on samples. It's silly to expect otherwise, hence terms like 'extrapolated' and 'roughly.'

    Show me where the DOT states that the data was estimated. Transportation Alternatives didn't gather the data - the DOT did, which throws out your notion that this is all from "not disinterested" parties. Also, If you cross the bridge several times a week, I find it surprising that you've never noticed the pressure tubes that show up pretty regularly at the top of the 'ramp' on the Brooklyn side of the bridge.

    While you may argue with the methodology of estimating the overall numbers (I wouldn't recommend it for you - it's painfully obvious that you have no background whatsoever in statistical analysis), there's no arguing with the hard data that it all started with -
    DoT wrote: Commuter bicycling in New York City has increased by 26% in the last year
    http://www.nyc.gov/html/dot/html/bicyclists/bikemain.shtml
  • modsquad wrote: The DOT is suspect under Bloomberg:
    Department of Transportation is refusing to release data on whether or not closing Broadway from 42nd-47th streets to vehicular traffic has reduced congestion or speeded up motorists’ rides.
    They obviously have an agenda.

    Read more: http://www.nypost.com/p/news/opinion/opedcolumnists/mayor_bloomberg_free_times_square_AR9j3u5EZbz0O6RgdNoZSP#ixzz0mDgmihm8
    LOL - get out the tinfoil hats! Pathetic strawman attempt - how does unreleased data on the effect of the Broadway ped plaza have anything to do with COUNTS on the MH Bridge?
  • Transportation Alternatives didn't gather the data - the DOT did, which throws out your notion that this is all from "not disinterested" parties.
    Never thought I would find myself agreeing with Modsquad, but DOT certain has, and is pushing, an agenda with respect to bicycle alternatives in the city. I see far more time and effort on their part creating bike lanes, than dealing with the reality of crumbling surface transportation infrastructure, which ultimately will have a bigger impact on the region as a whole.
  • The estimate was extrapolated from cyclist counts performed by the city Department of Transportation at various downtown entry points — including East River bridge crossings, the Hudson Greenway and the Staten Island Ferry.
    The above is from the NYT article. It seems to me the DOT not only estimated but extrapolated from the estimate. Why is that so hard to understand.
    Your saying the DOT is a disinterested party? Maybe you didn't read my last post above.

    Just in case.

    ex·trap·o·late

    to infer (an unknown) from something that is known; conjecture.
    Where is the known in this case? The estimate by the DOT?

    Strange bedfellows huh homeowner??
  • LOL - get out the tinfoil hats! Pathetic strawman attempt - how does unreleased data on the effect of the Broadway ped plaza have anything to do with COUNTS on the MH Bridge?
    There is no COUNTS, only estimates and extrapolations
    Yes the data is unreleased because they refuse to release it, two different things. One of which is completely dishonest.

    edited to add extrapolations
  • modsquad wrote: [quote=18]from cyclist counts[/size] performed by the city Department of Transportation at various downtown entry points — including East River bridge crossings, the Hudson Greenway and the Staten Island Ferry.
    The above is from the NYT article. It seems to me the DOT not only estimated but extrapolated from the estimate. Why is that so hard to understand.
    Your saying the DOT is a disinterested party? Maybe you didn't read my last post above.
    Comprehension fail.
  • 18 wrote: from cyclist counts[/size] performed by the city Department of Transportation at various downtown entry points — including East River bridge crossings, the Hudson Greenway and the Staten Island Ferry.
    That was my initial question. Cyclist counts on the Manhattan Bridge seem very high to begin with. Figuring an average trip in 10 minutes (admittedly my best guess) that would require on average, approx. 37 riders on the bridge all the time between the hours of 7 am and 7 pm.
    Komanoff makes an estimate based on these numbers and then extrapolates from that estimate to come up with an absurd number of 200,000 in bike riding.
    He is certainly not a disinterested party.
  • If anything the cyclists counts indicated 31,041 bike riders in a 12 hour period. Where does 200,000 come from not to mention, like I said earlier how many of those riders were counted more then once, twice, or more traveling up and down the avenues.

    Talk about Comprehension fail.
  • I sincerely hope that, if/when you have kids, you don't help them with their homework.

    A) He's not estimating and then extrapolating. Extrapolation is how the estimate is achieved; you make it sound as if it's a guess based upon another guess - it's not. It's an educated guess based upon known quantities (the DoT counts, among various factors).

    B) The % increase in ridership can be demonstrated completely independent of any estimates. The methodology for gathering the counts remained the same for year-to-year counts, so I don't know how you can argue the validity of those number and the increases that they show.

    As for your perception that the count seems high - don't rely on your perception. When I cross the bridge, I usually pass about 5-6 people going the same direction. I'm usually passed by 1-2 people going the same direction. I usually cross about 8-10 people going the opposite direction - you know what this all means? Diddly squat. The bridge is about a mile long and your perception of the number of people on the bridge based upon the number of paths you cross and what's in your limited forward vision means nothing. 37 is nothing.
  • 31K to 200K? Wishful thinking at best. If they use the same model every year then all the numbers are suspect.
    fair enough regarding extrapolation from an estimate. Never the less still an absurd increase based on the numbers which I stilli question the validity thereof.
  • :roll:

    1) You're confusing counting with statistical analysis - good statisticians are hard to come by, and there's a reason for it. Do you really think that the 21 survey points will capture 100% of the bicycle commute traffic, or even close to it? No, it provides a sample. From wiki -
    In statistics, a sample is a subset of a population. Typically, the population is very large, making a census or a complete enumeration of all the values in the population impractical or impossible.
    Data from the sample is just the start - you have to consider the overall population, variances, weighting, etc, etc, etc.

    2) You don't seem to have a firm handle on the whole counting thing, either. There is no "model" for the data collection - it's counting, pure and simple. If, at a given survey site, the number of bikes passing by, on an average day, increases by roughly 30%, then it's probably fair to assume that the number of unique commuters passing through that point has increased by roughly 30%, as well (we're not going to get in to variables such as closures of alternate routes, etc). This MEASURABLE, proportionate increase affects the increase of the estimates as a whole, not the other way around.

    IF you actually knew what you were talking about (as far as statistical analysis is concerned) AND you had access to all of the data available, you could argue the validity of the methodology and the overall results... but it would be asinine to argue the proportionate increase.
  • Arches, any chance you can give these folks a counter too?

    http://www.brooklynian.com/forums/viewtopic.php?t=57017
  • Pah! Bike lanes are for sissies. They didn't have bike lanes when I started riding. The worst place to try to just bike and enjoy yourself is in Prospect Park or Central Park where all the Lance Armstrong wanna be's bust balls because some riders don't move fast enough for them. And they ride like they own the park. . . .Stop bustin' my balls . . .
  • Me
    If they use the same model every year then all the numbers are suspect.
    You
    You don't seem to have a firm handle on the whole counting thing, either. There is no "model" for the data collection - it's counting, pure and simple.
    You know what I meant. I was referring to the estimated result based on the "counting", not the actual count.

    You
    IF you actually knew what you were talking about (as far as statistical analysis is concerned) AND you had access to all of the data available, you could argue the validity of the methodology and the overall results...
    Call me stupid but I would like to see the methodology given the absurd results, even if I had to lip read it.

    You fail to address the fact that Mr. Komanoff even admits the increase is off,
    “The screenline number is as good a number as I think we have,” he said, “even if it probably overstates the increase in overall cycling,”
    You again.
    Do you really think that the 21 survey points will capture 100% of the bicycle commute traffic, or even close to it?
    I agree not even close. I'm sure it "captures" way more then the number of actual bike riders commuting.
    Furthermore, I"m not against bike riding, I'm against a slavish adherence to a cause that preempts a discussion of the truth. That's my point. As you goose step to the red flag of fixed gear bicyclisum consider dismounting and questioning an article that's only intended to reinforce a warm fuzzy feeling among a demographic that the Times is trying to get to buy the paper instead of reading it for free on line.
  • modsquad wrote: Call me stupid but I would like to see the methodology given the absurd results, even if I had to lip read it.
    Do you think that, if you read slowly enough, you'd understand this level of work? I know more than you, and I know enough to know that I'm not going to understand it any time soon... but start with "The Basics" and let me know when you're ready to move on.

    image
    modsquad wrote: You fail to address the fact that Mr. Komanoff even admits the increase is off,
    “The screenline number is as good a number as I think we have,” he said, “even if it probably overstates the increase in overall cycling,”
    Yeah... you DO realize that you're out of your depth, right? He says that some of the SAMPLES may overstate the increase because of the bias towards choke points at the East River bridges, he doesn't say that HIS estimate overstates it. If he thinks that some of the screenline numbers overstate, he's probably taken that in to consideration in his sample weighting... dontchathink? No, he wouldn't think of that - he only "graduated with honors from Harvard College with a B.A. in Applied Mathematics."
    modsquad wrote: [quote=WhyFi]Do you really think that the 21 survey points will capture 100% of the bicycle commute traffic, or even close to it?
    I agree not even close. I'm sure it "captures" way more then the number of actual bike riders commuting.
    Yeeeaaaah - please tell me that this is a joke and that you're not really this dense? You're saying that there are far FEWER than 31k bicyclists? Because some pass by more than once? Bwaaa haa haa haa! Okay, this is WAY oversimplification (obviously necessary) but let's look at the absurdity of it - okay, the DoT says that there are 11,871 intersections with signals, this study looks at, essentially... 21. So, you're saying that the people that pass those 21 intersections outweigh those that stick to the other 11,850... because the people that DO ride through at least 1 of the 21 sample sites ride in tiny circles? :shock:
    modsquad wrote: Furthermore, I"m not against bike riding, I'm against a slavish adherence to a cause that preempts a discussion of the truth. That's my point. As you goose step to the red flag of fixed gear bicyclisum consider dismounting and questioning an article that's only intended to reinforce a warm fuzzy feeling among a demographic that the Times is trying to get to buy the paper instead of reading it for free on line.
    A) any bike that relies on the drive-train as the only manner of braking is idiotic
    B) image
  • A statistical inference (the Bayesian you "pictured") is dependent on correctly-calibrated inference, and in general requires those assumptions to be correct, i.e. that the data-generating mechanisms really have been correctly specified.

    I stand by my statement that the bike traffic on the Manhattan Bridge is overstated thus skewing any final "estimate" made and the DOT, not a disinterested party (they have put a lot of money behind the bike lanes) puts out suspect numbers.
    I further suggest when you're done blustering and puffing your self up you might want to eat the peanuts out of my shit.
  • :lol: You could have at least made an effort to mask your copy/paste!

    BUT WAIT! You just said -
    modsquad wrote: You know what I meant. I was referring to the estimated result based on the "counting", not the actual count.
    So, a couple posts ago, you were fine with the actual count, but not with the estimated results based on those counts...but now that you've found the most tenuous of finger holds, you're back to taking issue with the actual count (and the estimated results because of it)?!

    Fine, fine, fine - let's take a different tack, since this one doesn't seem to be workin' too well for ya. You're familiar with Occam's Razor? A precise definition can be argued, but for the sake of the discussion, I think that we can settle on a paraphrased, "given two explanations, the more simple explanation is more likely." So, what's a more simple explanation -

    A) Ridership in NYC has increased, although it still lags behind several large US cities, by percentage of total commuters.

    OR

    B) The DoT, in conjunction with Transportation Alternatives and Mayor Bloomberg, have published falsified data, resulting in erroneous studies, all in an effort to justify past and future bike-lane-related expenditures.
  • I'm still thinking ...
    IN the mean time read this.
    http://www.streetsblog.org/
    John Pucher, Ph.D.
    Professor, Urban Planning and Policy Development Program and Research Associate, Alan M. Voorhees Transportation Center
    B.A., University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, 1972; Ph.D., Massachusetts Institute of Technology, 1978

    Some quotes in case you're to busy.
    Pucher is highy skeptical of the 236,000 figure calculated for TA by transportation analyst (and Streetsblog contributor) Charles Komanoff. Because the screenline captures cyclists in downtown Manhattan and northwest Brooklyn -- where, according to census data, bike commute rates are the highest -- extrapolating citywide bicycling rates from it involves a lot of uncertainty.
    "The percentage of work trips by bike is maybe a third or a half of the total," he said, referring to a rule of thumb among bike planners. So using the census number -- 25,000 daily commuters -- there are at least 50,000 bike commute trips and thus 100,000 to 150,000 total bike trips each day, Pucher said. After factoring in all the ways the census undercounts cycling, he was willing to venture that the number of trips is somewhat higher than that. (Note that we're talking about trips, not individual cyclists.)
    Ben Fried says:
    When I spoke to Komanoff this afternoon, he said some components of his formula, which hasn't changed much since 1992, should be re-examined and updated.


    Pucher's underlying point -- and, I suspect, the reason he was reluctant to give me an estimate -- is that New York City lacks the data to really understand how many cyclists are using its streets.
    Instead of slavishly defending a poorly written puff piece because you were getting all woozy over the big numbers a little research would of turned up some legitimate doubts about the collection of the data by a disinterested party.

    I quote myself from my first post:
    Totally worthless news article.
    not to mention deceptive.

    OH, I'll choose B
    B) The DoT, in conjunction with Transportation Alternatives and Mayor Bloomberg, have published falsified data, resulting in erroneous studies, all in an effort to justify past and future bike-lane-related expenditures.
    Very typical of people with superficial knowledge about something to throw up a smoke screen of technical voodoo to intimidate anybody questioning the very basis of the conclusion. That's the problem with your statistical "science" these days. A failure to take all variables into consideration especially the political because there's no model for that.
This discussion has been closed.