Home

22 Responses to “What the Hell is Transportation Alternatives Talking About?”

1. 1 | Douglas Willinger | July 28th, 2008, 8:19 pm

   Every time the lamestream media reports on transportation issues, they cite some clown as Gene Russianoff as the “expert”, when in fact he is an expert mainly at hoodwinking NY out of the Westway project because he sold his soul to the elites who believe that their food just appears in supermarkets like magic.

   Please remember that movie “The Day After Tomorrow” about Manhattan flooded and frozen over and no one seems to have any problems with food or toilets that don’t work.

   There’s definitely an urban ilk elite with about zero comprehension of infrastructure.

2. 2 | Lewis Derkins | July 28th, 2008, 8:45 pm

   Douglas -

   I couldn’t agree more. I think an even more disturbing trend lies in the fact that our schools turn out “urban planners” who regurgitate this garbage to policy makers.

   Is this the best academic rigor that we can muster? When I can shoot holes in something by applying barely more than basic math and common sense, I have to ask, what are they teaching these people?

3. 3 | Judd Wiley | July 28th, 2008, 8:54 pm

   Wiley Norvell is the same clown who proclaimed the following a few weeks ago:

   “For the first time we have hundreds of thousands of New Yorkers giving up their cars …”

   Our most generous interpretation of this statement is that 14% of New Yorkers (1 in 7) are “giving up their cars,” whatever that means.

   And of course, this buffoonery went unchallenged.

4. 4 | Eric W. | July 29th, 2008, 10:17 am

   The notion that there will come a time where there will be mass cycling into the Manhattan business districts is absurd. The people who idly sit at their computers advocating for this, never think through the implications of their goal.

   First, many, if not most, commuters arre travelling over 10 mile sround trip, often crossing rivers to get into mid twon or downtown Manhattan. There is no way that ANY substantial percentage of commuters is going to bike from Montclair, Far Rockaway, Riverdale or Fairfield into Manhattan. To state the proposition is to show its absurdity.

   Second, biking is a very lousy way to commute when it rains, is very hot, is very cold, or is nightime. I just described NYC commuting conditions for three quarters of the year.

   Third, biking is not an option for that portion of the working age population that is not very fit and coordinated.

   Fourth, biking is a lousy way to travel if you have anything to carry.

   Fifth, NYC is full of SKYSCRAPERS. Showing us canned video of spry people commuting to work by bike in Copenhagen (where it is apparently always 70 and sunny) into four story buildings is wonderful propaganda. NYC buildings are routinely 40 stories or more. You are talking about putting tens of thousands of bikes on the street for each block of office space. It is nonsensical to think that you can do this without grinding to a halt all other private, mass and freight transport in the districts where this would be occuring.

   In a place like NYC, and speaking as a person who loves to cycle, biking is RECREATION, NOT TRANSPORTATION.

   By the way, if you want to facilitate cyclying, allow adequate NEW routes underground or above ground to allow vehicle traffic to traverse the city off the local streets, and in this way free up space for grade separated bike lanes. Oops, that would acknowledge that cars and buses and trucks “belong” in the city as well, so no dice I guess.

5. 5 | Judd Wiley | July 29th, 2008, 11:36 am

   Eric,

   You’re right on all counts. Derk actually did a very funny post a few months back about the logistical stupidity of mass biking to work, in which he examines the weather issue in detail.

   http://www.commuteroutrage.com/2008/05/07/stupid-commute-week/

   While biking to work might make sense for some NYC commuters, for the vast majority (especially those living outside of midtown/downtown Manhattan), it’s completely impractical.

   It’s also important to remember that groups like Transportation Alternatives, Streetsblog, Critical Mass, and all the rest, are trying to remove cars from the roads. They what they want to do. That’s their end state.

   This is not about convincing people to start biking from here to there. It’s about enacting a series of taxes and regulations that make driving cost prohibitive. These organizations want to impose their lifestyle preferences by fiat.

   That’s the real danger here.

6. 6 | Lewis Derkins | July 29th, 2008, 12:02 pm

   Eric -

   I don’t think I could have said it better myself. In fact, Alvin and I were talking the other day about what it would take to create this bicycle utopia that is free of cars.

   You don’t have to look further than a food source to see that a bicycle society wouldn’t be able to function in New York.

   I ride, but mainly for recreation, only occasionally for commuting, and only then when the weather is nice enough.

   Your second point is right on the money in my opinion, and we’ll see how many of these new bike commuters want to stick it out when winter rolls in. My guess is not many, and I made that exact point here:

   http://www.commuteroutrage.com/2008/06/02/streetsblog-streetcritiques/

   It’s worth the extra money not to feel physical pain. And the real social change we’re going to see is that people will start buying less crap they don’t need - like 42 inch plasma TVs - to pay for things they do - like gas.

7. 7 | Ray | July 29th, 2008, 5:59 pm

   Huh, I use my bike for transportation all the time.
   Go figure.

   I rarely use it for recreation.
   But I’m in Boston, not New York.
   I’d probably bike and use the subways there.

   Anyway… you’ve got a new blog reader, I rarely agree with many other cyclists, so it’s good stuff to read. What can you tell me to convince me I use a car more?

8. 8 | Judd Wiley | July 29th, 2008, 6:07 pm

   Ray,

   Thanks for your comment. Our point isn’t to convince you that driving a car is better than biking or taking mass transit. We would be the first to tell you that, for many Americans, driving is not the optimal means of transportation. We’re also not all car commuters. On this blog, I drive a car to work, but ride the subway between meetings. Lewis and Alvin take the subway or bike to work, depending on the weather.

   From our FAQ:

   “We believe in all modes of transportation – cars, buses, subways, light rail, long-distance trains, airplanes, bicycles, walking. We believe that our government should enable all of these modes through infrastructure construction, maintenance, and upgrades, which is why we pay income taxes in the first place. We don’t believe it’s the role of government to socially engineer us through additional taxation and regulation toward attitudes and behaviors it thinks would be best for us (but which we do not prefer). We believe that the government should allow us to decide ourselves how to get from point A to point B. In terms of paying for our infrastructure, we believe the government should shift existing tax dollars from pork-barrel projects, rather than levying new taxes.”

   The problem we have with many radical bicyclists is that they want to get rid of cars. They think the automobile is the root of all evil, and they want to tax, regulate, and plan the automobile out of existence. We strongly disagree.

9. 9 | Judd Wiley | July 29th, 2008, 6:21 pm

   I’ll add that we’re huge proponents of bicycle safety. Right now, many cyclists and motorists share the road without fully understanding how to safely interact with each other. We believe bicyclists should be treated similarly to auto drivers, with licensing, registration, insurance, and safety requirements. Similarly, anyone applying for a driver’s license should be fully trained on how to interact safely with bicyclists, and drivers should be held fully accountable for their actions on the road. Safety is the main concern here.

   http://www.commuteroutrage.com/2008/06/30/toward-a-new-bicycle-safety-in-america/

10. 10 | Eric W. | July 30th, 2008, 9:42 am

    No one can possibly be “convinced” to buy a $20,000 car over a $200 bike, and spend attendant amounts on insurance, fuel, maintenance, etc. If a bike is meeting all your transport needs, you should consider yourself one lucky guy. Biking is a great way to save money and build physical fitness. As for me, I get to work by train, but I use a car extensively to run errands, visit friends and family who live in far flung suburbs, get to recreational activities and take road trips. It’s great that you can accomplish those things by bike, but I couldn’t replace my car for those sorts of trips. I can and do use a bike for very short trips where I don’t need to carry anything larger than what can easily fit in a backpack, and where I’m travelling alone, but even that becomes impractical when it’s raining or very cold. I don’t have children yet, but when I do I imagine that travelling with the family would be impractical by bicycle. I’m also lucky that I’m relatively fit and injury free, which seem prerequisites to being able to do any serious cycling. I also live in a relatively flat area, conducive to biking. I imagine that using a bike would be more difficult ina place like Pittsburgh, where it’s quite hilly. Again, it’s great for you the stuff that you need to do on a bike, more power to you.

11. 11 | Geof G. | July 30th, 2008, 10:28 am

    Interesting. I agree that policy decisions should be based on accurate estimates. Although such perversions are par for the course and — at least in my anecdotal experience — most people expect it such that if one fails to give the sunny picture, one’s argument is dismissed.

    Anyway, just out of curiosity …

    Is 27.8 Mil wildly disproportionate for the FY08 transportation budget? What if you look at this over time; i.e., is some of the spending done to compensate for under-funding the alternative in previous years?

    Is the reference year for the ACS estimates and the Transportations Alternatives different?

12. 12 | Lewis Derkins | July 30th, 2008, 10:39 am

    Geof -

    To be honest, I haven’t looked into the trend over time, but I would be surprised if it was significantly lower.

    In a previous post, I referenced a New York study on bicycle safety that mentioned that New York had doubled its lane miles for cyclists during the study period.

    http://www.commuteroutrage.com/2008/07/02/more-bicycle-safety-studies-needed/

    An interesting thing about that is that it didn’t decrease the number of fatalities.

    Another aspect of the funding piece that’s interesting to consider is that bike infrastructure still requires maintenance. I agree that there is probably a significant up front capital outlay to construct the projects, but then you have to maintain them. The price to maintain one project is undoubtedly less than the initial construction, provided they stay on top of it, but the total for maintenance applies to all of the projects.

    In any given year, you may only have 20 projects to build, but you have to maintain all of the projects from the last 15 years - each of which had its own 20 projects.

    Another thing that was hard to capture in this tally were the costs for public relations and education geared to wards bicycles, which Ney York is doing, and the costs for tracking bicycle information, which New York is also doing. These don’t really roll up under the Adopted Capital Commitment Plan.

    I don’t know what the others estimate, but I would consider city numbers more authoritative than Transportation Alternatives.

13. 13 | Ray | July 30th, 2008, 2:52 pm

    Eric, I’d avoid any $200 bike but the simplest designs (if new).
    That’s like buying a Yugo. Why put yourself through such misery?
    As for a car, I’d aim at about $8-9 grand for used.
    Alas almost all cars are far too heavy and large and inefficient to be of interest.
    as I get older and weaker I hope a light and aero three-wheel design comes to market.

    Anyway… I look forward to reading this blog more often.
    You discuss subjects I should know more about since I’m pretty much inexperienced with automobile commuting.

    Safety training and skills testing would be very welcome.
    For both auto drivers and cyclists. The sharing of roads is give-and-take on both sides, and neither user group performs especially well or know what the rules and safest practices are. Wouldn’t insurance companies care?

    And increased traffic law enforcement seems to be distateful to all involved, both enforcers and enforcees.
    Not even sure if it works long-term.

    I don’t agree with the restrictions to the roadways, Judd.
    In my experience the current rules of operation work well when followed.

    However, I am interested in the reasoning behin the suggestions and I’ve been known to change my mind if presented with good reasoning

    On even mild short downhills, 30mph is easily attained, btw.
    On flat ground my cruising speed tends to 18mph, but sprinting to 25 is within my range and I’m not by any means a racer and my bike is loaded with gear/bags and heavy compared to and racing bikes.

    Carry on… this is good discussion to have.
    Changes (improvements, I hope) will probably be in our near future.

14. 14 | Austin Brumskill | July 31st, 2008, 9:19 am

    I have worked on much of the statistical data mentioned in this blog and can tell you that the 131,000 is lower than those of us who know the numbers would like for it to be, but it’s a very safe number to publish. The census numbers referred to in Derkins article above ar better than two years old and would not take into consideration the extreme spike in commuter biking activity we have seen in just the past 8 months.

    At the pace that this data is changing, Mr. Derkins would have been better served pulling the commuter data from 1975. It would have been just a useful.

    This is simply a case of Mr. Derkins trying to interpret data that is simply over his head and my suggestion would be to rename the title of this article, “What the Hell is Lewis Derkins Talking About?”

15. 15 | Eric W. | July 31st, 2008, 9:37 am

    Do they bike under cover of darkness? I walk through midtown Manhattan every day and rarely see more than a handful of bicyclists. When I cross the West Street bike lanes I rarely see more than a couple people biking by every few minutes. I’m serious here, where would I see a portion of the 131,000? I’m just not sensing a number that is a shadow of that figure in NYC. I know what a full bike lane looks like because that West Street lane is indeed jam packed — on nice weekend days. Is this happening in the outer boros? I just don’t see it — not even close.

16. 16 | Judd Wiley | July 31st, 2008, 9:45 am

    Austin,

    We’re very interested in where this 131,000 figure came from, and why you think it’s “a very safe number to publish.”

    Are you saying that NYC has seen ~100,000 new cyclists over the past 2 years? If so, where’s the evidence to prove this?

17. 17 | Lewis Derkins | July 31st, 2008, 10:35 am

    Austin -

    I’m sorry, but I have seen absolutely nothing that would indicate that the number is this high.

    Census data, NYC Screenline counts, NYC bicycle safety studies - nothing. Are you using bicycle sales receipts to compute this number? If so, I’d remind you that this doesn’t indicate that any of those people are actually riding their bicycles. That’s correlation, not causation.

    The census data is two years old, but it’s also the source data used for this article. I also used the entire metropolitan statistical area to skew the number in your favor. I guarantee my number is on the high side since it includes “bicycle commuters who live at the other end of Long Island and almost certainly not biking into the city - unless they have time to bicycle a 100+ mile commute every day.

    Bicycling would have had to grow 500% in relation to the census data in order for Transportation Alternatives’ number to be true.

    The growth in Screenline counts is how New York measures the trend increase, they put the growth at a 77% since 2000 - Transportation Alternatives growth exceeds that by a factor of 6. Even if you want to adjust census data to account for that and add the entire 77% as if it happened last year, which it didn’t - that’s still only 60,872 cyclists - half of Transportation Alternatives’ number.

    But let me put this another way - the entire Metropolitan Statistical area of New York only has 8,597,844 commuters. Not even one percent of commuters use bicycles, but even assuming they did, that would still only be 85,978 commuters.

    Transportation Alternatives estimate still wildly exceeds that - it’s 50% bigger than it should be.

    I’m sorry, but any way you add it, and I have been trying, there is no way to get those numbers to add up to match Transportation Alternatives claims.

18. 18 | Austin Brumskill | July 31st, 2008, 2:11 pm

    All good points my friends, but one of the biggest numbers that factor into our calculations are ANY commuters who use their bike to commute during any portion of their travel into or out of the city. This includes those who ride to an MTA station or who simply ride 10 blocks to the office or place of business in the borroughs. The problem with your thinking is that you automatically eliminate anyone who rides MTA when, in fact, many of those riders bike as well. Our calculations also take into consideration those who say they bike at least once during the week for excercise or to save money. That is why we feel that the 131,000 number is lower than the actual number of people who fall into the applicable pool.

    Eric’s observation was fascinating and I believe he’s taking the “if you stand in one place long enough, the world will pass you by” a little too literally.

    Seriously guys, the numbers of people who now bike either all the way to work, or a portion of the way, not to mention all of those who keep their bikes at work for errands during the day of a ride through the park is expanding exponentially. More in the past 8 months than in the past eight years!

    But let me just do some simple math for you. This is an elementary example based on our NYC calcualtions. New York City’s five burroughs are comprised of 319 square miles of land mass, packed with people. When you reduce it to acres, it’s 204,160 acres of land to be exact. Since an average NY city block is about 5.45 acres, you are left with 37,460 blocks. So what you’re saying is that within each one of these entire blocks there is just one lone bike rider? C’mon, my daughter is six and even she knows that this can’t be true. So let’s just say that you are naive enough to say that only 4 people packed in these massive blocks in NY ride. Then your ridership figure is already up to almost 150,000. Now throw in those who commute to an MTA station but ride the MTA the rest of the way and your number increases by at least another third, conservatively.

    Believe me 131,000 is no stretch.

19. 19 | Eric W. | July 31st, 2008, 3:29 pm

    Got it. Given that most commuter rail users get to their train stations by car, we can also tag those Metro North, NJ Transit and LIRR riders as automobile commuetrs. Lame.

    Look, I am not asserting that my anecdotal evidence is dispositive, not at all. What I am saying is that the WTC PATH station is packed to the gills every day — to the point of bursting, and it handles less than 1/2 of the 131,000 people figure that is cited for bike commuting. I therefore have a very strong idea of what 131,000 people looks like and I’m not seeing anything like that under any possible scenario on the main commuting routes into lower Manhattan and midtown that I traverse each week. Therefore I’m wondering in all sincerity what you are talking about.

    If you are telling us that the increase is accounted for by mass bike commuting in the suburbs, ok. I can’t verify that, because I don’t spend commuting time at suburban mass transit hubs, but perhaps that could be happening. In which case, all that has occured is that there are a few fewer cars on arterial streets in Port Washington, Montclair, Westport and Mamaroneck. I doubt this is the case to any large degree, but even if it’s partly true it’s hardly even interesting.

20. 20 | Eric W. | July 31st, 2008, 3:35 pm

    By the way, the math in your last paragraph is nonsensical. Manhattan jobs are not evenly distributed on blocks throughout the island. The central and lower manhattan business districts are very concentrated areas consisting of only a couple scores of blocks each. It’s this density that causes stuff like traffic and facilitates mass transit. It’s also one of the factors that makes bike commuting to any substantial degree a practical impossibility. Having 10% of Canon USA’s workforce bike to its Lake Success campus: doable, at least from a traffic perspective. Having 10% of the workforce in the Empire State Building bike to work: chaos.

21. 21 | Lewis Derkins | July 31st, 2008, 3:42 pm

    Austin -

    Ahh, at last I see what TA is trying to do. I still don’t think you have your numbers right though. And I will remain unconvinced until I see the counting methodology.

    I’ll explain why -

    From my two Census estimates above, let’s assume a generous scenario for these “hybrid commuters”. Bicyclists aren’t allowed on the buses, so when we’re talking bicyclists who also use mass transit, you’re talking about people using trains. There are 27 lines on NY transit, another 11 on the LIRR, and another 6 on the MNR.

    That’s a total of 44 lines available to cyclists. Those lines all have different schedules, but let’s assume the most generous scenario possible - a train every three minutes in both directions on each line. That would give you 20 trains per hour in each direction or 40 trains per hour on each line.

    Let’s say that “rush hour” lasts for three hours. That means that during rush hour, 5,280 trains will run on the lines.

    In order to make up the difference between my low number of 60,872 and your “conservative estimate” of 131,000, 70,128 cyclists would have to use this hybrid method - that’s about 13 riders per train.

    In order to make up the difference between my high number of 85,978 and your estimate, 45,022 cyclists would have to ride - or about 9 riders per train.

    So are you telling us that there are between 9 and 13 riders on every single train on every single line in both directions during rush hour?

    And please remember that I was very generous with my schedule - there aren’t nearly that many trains running, so you can extend that time much longer if you like and you still wouldn’t have that many bicyclists. I’m also being very generous with my initial counts since I’m basing it on the entire metropolitan statistical area - if you confine it to New York Proper, the actual number is smaller.

    What counting methodology did you use to estimate this? A random sample of riders or something?

    Until I see a count from MTA that confirms something close to this, I continue to say that this count is grossly overstated.

    Your example about blocks is unconvincing because a lot of that land isn’t comprised of residential blocks - much of it is commercial, industrial, park land, infrastructure like roads and bike paths, and some of it is even relatively low density - as far as New York goes.

    Only about 40.5% of the land in New York is residential on average, and the vast majority of it is dedicated to one or two family homes in the outer bouroughs. The only exception is Manhattan, but the boroughs comprise the majority of the land area.

    http://www.nyc.gov/html/dcp/pdf/landusefacts/landuse_tables.pdf

    I’m willing to bet that there are plenty of blocks in New York proper where no one bikes.

22. 22 | Lewis Derkins | July 31st, 2008, 11:50 pm

    My apologies, I realized I had a math error. I have corrected my numbers in the above comment.

Leave a Reply