Numbers from New York City should be death knell to vehicular cycling policies
The New York City Department of Transportation recently released its 2009 Sustainable Streets Index report with the most definitive proof yet that good cycling infrastructure is a huge part of getting people to use bicycles as an alternative to cars. The report shows that since 2003, there has been a 126% increase in people using bicycles to commute (transit saw a 12% increase in the same time). This dramatic jump coincides almost exactly with the City’s move to build lots of great bicycle infrastructure including divided or protected bike lanes, bike paths, and the taking back of road space from automotive traffic for public space.
With its high density, mixed use buildings, and great transit system, New York seems like a place where bicycle use should be a no brainer, yet it took carving out space for people at the expense of cars for the increases to occur. The numbers before these changes were flat or of modest, incremental increases.
Along with presta versus schrader and helmets versus bare headed, the debate on the need for bicycle infrastructure has been common in the cycling community. For the second half of the 20th century, vehicular cycling was the dominate theory on accommodating cyclists (if they were thought of at all.) VCers said bike lanes and paths were not only unnecessary but made things more dangerous and would not increase the number of people cycling. This had the added benefit of complimenting the dominant engineering thought of the time which was to make road construction conform to the need of the automobile at the expense of all other modes of transportation or living.
These numbers from New York City should be the death knell for vehicular cycling and a guide for cities that want to get serious about getting people out of cars. Outside of the enthusiasts and early adopters who will put up with a hostile environment, most people need dedicated space to feel comfortable and treated like an equal on the road. Slowing down cars, making public space, and making divided space where cars cannot physically drive are all necessary to make significant in-roads in getting more people on bikes.
Bicycling is UP again in the Big Apple! from Streetfilms on Vimeo.
on Aug 25th, 2010 at 4:00 pm
You know, perhaps hindsight is 20/20 but this now seems very clear to me: if you have dedicated lanes to carve-out space for bikes on busy streets and make people more comfortable, you’ll also have to have increased bike traffic on lanes without special infrastructure. So, then end result would seem to be increased bike presence and thus increased bike awareness from motorists.
on Aug 25th, 2010 at 4:11 pm
Infrastructure is key; infrastructure well built, keyer.
on Aug 25th, 2010 at 4:13 pm
Yes, we definitely need the infrastructure to get new cyclists, then we teach them how to be vehicular cyclists.
Otherwise it will be 2062 before infrastructure covers enough ground to get us around.
on Aug 25th, 2010 at 4:34 pm
Totally agree, Alonso. You can’t slap a tiny bike lane on an otherwise auto dominate road and expect these kinds of results. I was trying to point out that the facilities in NYC are great, but maybe that wasn’t clear.
Cycling for Beginners, it’s a matter of respect in some sense. If you take cycling and walking serious enough to elevate them to equals on the road, people will respond to that. We’re smarter animals then many think. If presented with a clearly automobile dominant, people hostile environment, we won’t hang out. That’s why the new carless Time Square is full of more people than ever and the local big box is full of cars and people darting in and out.
Rob, notice the tell tale hockey stick curve of the graph. Anybody with a marketing or MBA degree will tell you that that is the sign you are moving to early majority portion of the market. Until we start seeing that around Austin, no sitting on our laurels. I’d suggest instead of trying to tackle the whole city (the error in much transit and bike planning), try to emulate this graph neighborhood by neighborhood. That’s how they did it in Copenhagen.
on Aug 26th, 2010 at 9:06 am
OK, I start today with my neighborhood. I’ll let you know how it goes. Seriously!
on Aug 26th, 2010 at 9:32 am
My son decided he didn’t want to go to kindergarten this morning, but as it got almost too late for him to ride the Tag-a-Long with me, he buckled. Kids crave exercise, and Mueller’s design makes biking inviting. Crossing Airport Blvd is both a real, and mental barrier to most, though, and there’s plenty to do to make our environment more livable. Great piece, Elliot.
on Aug 26th, 2010 at 10:13 am
I enjoyed this piece for the most part, but I think that the assumption that the NYC bike boom is taking mode-share away from private auto represents a fundamental misunderstanding of our transportation culture when compared to the rest of the country. Most Americans, advocates included, seem to have difficulty understanding that transit, not private auto, is indeed the default mode here. Similar to how those of us who chose to cycle and use transit in more auto-dominated American cities have to go out of our way and accommodate our lifestyles accordingly, using a private auto for daily transportation in NYC is a similarly out-of-the-ordinary endeavor. The people who are starting to cycle to work aren’t leaving their cars at home. Given the demographics of those who are doing so, they likely don’t own a car, and are instead foregoing the Subway in favor of the bike.
The increase in cycling in NYC is great for the additional human element it brings to the streets, the opportunities it brings for people to live active lifestyles, and all of the other reasons we love cycling. And while it may lead to slightly less crowded trains, I do not believe that, given the demographics that the cycling boom has centered around these past few years, it is taking cars off the streets.
on Aug 26th, 2010 at 11:23 am
Perhaps Jeff, but transit use went up at the same time, albeit to a less dramatic amount. That would indicate a shift from cars to alternatives rather a shift among alternative transportation users. In fact, the linked study reported a 6% decline in new automobile registration during the same time. Traffic volumes actually decreased at the same time transit and cycling increased.
on Aug 26th, 2010 at 11:33 am
The other unspoken thing here which has never been covered by any entity than perhaps the City of Copenhagen is how people are running errands or traveling for social reasons. The focus is always on commuting because that’s what the census focuses on and that is how we determine a lot of funding. Getting people to use transit, bikes, and walking for these activities is of equal import. In fact, Copenhagen reports that while 36% of their residents commute to work by bike over 50% use their bikes for errands. This indicates that social/errand bike use leads commuting use and perhaps our focus on commuter bike routes over bikeable/walkable neighborhoods might be putting the cart before the horse.
In my own family, both my wife and I commute almost daily by bike but when it comes to errands or social destinations, we use our car a lot more than I’d like. Because we live in a typical suburban style neighborhood, there is virtually nothing but single family homes within a mile radius of our home and retail limited to bike hostile strip malls within 3 miles.
Yes, bike infrastructure is not a panacea. If we don’t build neighborhoods that offer destinations with safe walkable and bikeable routes, the impact of the infrastructure will be limited.
on Aug 26th, 2010 at 12:27 pm
I fully believe in infrastructure being the primary driver of cycling mode share, but it should be noted that San Francisco saw a 55% rise in cycling over three or so years (during the bike injunction) with almost zero new/improved infrastructure.
on Aug 26th, 2010 at 12:45 pm
Don’t forget that New York City has grown significantly since 1990. Population ’90: 7.3 million. Population today: 8.4 million – a 15% increase in 20 years. That should account for the increased in transit use, but not the much larger increase in cycling.
on Aug 26th, 2010 at 1:13 pm
Infrastructure probably has some impact on the increase bike modal share, but other factors are at play: dramatically higher gasoline prices in 2008, increased awareness of GHG emissions and the other negative effects of profligate fossil fuel use, and probably more mind share that biking is reasonable for transportation.
Other cities that match NYC’s achievement include Riverside CA (127%), Albuquerque NM (118%), Nashville TN (147%), Wichita KS (214%), Indianapolis IN (204%), and then the crazy outlier of Kansas City MO with their 680% increase. I don’t know that any of these locations are particularly known for any dramatic increase in cycling infrastructure.
Your city of Austin held steady at 0% from 2005 to 2008.
on Aug 26th, 2010 at 4:24 pm
Richard,
I’ve seen CoA numbers that showed a doubling in percentage cycling since the 1990s IF you just look at our center city. Still, you’d wonder why we get all the accolades, eh?
on Aug 26th, 2010 at 4:54 pm
Interpretation of the NYDOT report by Austin of Two Wheels is flawed — nowhere near definitive proof that the key to increasing bicycle use is infrastructure. I could go on about the lack of information on the NYDOT’s data collection and methodology, but any conclusions from this report needed to be viewed with caution. In addition, as several of the comments have pointed out, there are many compounding variables; and, reports from other cities that seem to negate the assumption that infrastructure is key. Inexperienced bicycle riders may feel comfortable riding in a cycle lane, but uncomfortable when the lane ends or when they need to turn left or there are no lanes – how limiting. Experienced cyclists (those who have good vehicular cycling skills) may feel uncomfortable when “forced” to ride in a lane (or on a path) by laws restricting bicycles to bicycle infrastructure – how limiting.
on Aug 26th, 2010 at 5:11 pm
30 years of vehicular cycling policies produced a net loss of people riding bikes to get places. Proof is in the pudding on that one. Gas prices, global warming, etc play a part, but look at two fairly green countries where gas prices were high relative to us: England and Denmark. The Danes took the approach 30 some years ago to build the infrastructure while the English practiced vehicular cycling. Today, 36% of Copenhagen residents commute by bike to work while the English are close to us in percentages.
Perhaps it’s not enough to say there is a causal relationship but there is a pretty damn strong correlation. VC maybe great for the people who already ride, but I see absolutely nothing to indicate it getting new people on the road.
on Aug 27th, 2010 at 8:24 am
“30 years of vehicular cycling policies produced a net loss of people riding bikes to get places. Proof is in the pudding on that one.” +1
All you have to do is ask a non-cyclist what it would take to get them on the road. That will give you the answer. They want safe & seperate infrastructure.
I don’t think anyone is trying to figure out what it takes to get the “experienced cyclist” on the road. They’re already out there.
on Aug 27th, 2010 at 9:01 am
Who are these mysterious VCs that everyone keeps talking about?
I think that’s a straw-man. Most cyclists agree that good bike infrastructure is a good thing.
I–and other riders I know–have come out against some bike infrastructure–bad infrastructure. 3 foot wide bike lanes next to bare minimum parking spots, for one, on roads that are already extremely narrow. I’ve often seen any one who speaks out against bad infrastructure relegated to the same line as the “evil” vehicular cyclist, but I’ve yet to actually meet or talk to one. We’ve suggested improving alternate routes, instead of sitting back and simply blogging about how bad such-and-such road is, when it became apparent that the municipality was not going to change that road.
Of course we’ve all read the small handful of bloggers who oppose all infrastructure, but does anyone HONESTLY think they have “driven” public policy or decision-making? That’s a farce. For the most part they are angry, bitter and resentful people who seem to think that cycling is better when less people do it. They aren’t at town hall meetings or working with legislator to write policy because they don’t participate.
The reality is that for the last 30 years people who do not bicycle have driven the public policy and decision-making, not cyclists of any sort.
Why do we have to demonize fellow cyclists in order to celebrate a triumph that belongs to all of us?
While this article is correct and good in it’s main sentiment, I think the little snubs against a fringe element of cycling are without merit and only serve to encourage the pile-on of “me toos” that appear in the comments.
If anyone can show me comprehensive, nation-wide evidence of a VC mafia which prevents safe cycling infrastructure, I’ll apologize and bow my head. Good show in defeating them. However, from my own work with city engineers and traffic planners, my experience has been that the 2 obstacles to cycling infrastructure are non-cyclists and the cycling communities own propensity for in-fighting.
on Aug 27th, 2010 at 9:05 am
My comments apply to American cycling and policy-making, by the way–I’m sure that there are nations where VC may have been the dominant force, but in America, we’ve had non-cyclists trying to remove us from the roads since the 40s to make way for the grand automobile, and automobile associations lobbying against cyclists except on designated off-road side paths. When I look at the notion, for instance, that cyclists do not belong on the road at all, but rather on sidewalks or off-road trails, I don’t see VC at work–I simply see entitled automobile drivers.
on Aug 27th, 2010 at 9:46 am
streever,
While it is on the decline as a policy philosophy, vehicular cycling is not dead. As recently as a year ago, the bicycle coordinator of Dallas was a vehicular cyclist and was quoted saying there would be no bike lanes in Dallas as long as he held the position. Hardly someone outside of the policy making position. VC was the dominate philosophy for 2 decades at the League of American Bicyclists. While there has since been change away from this in the last 10-15 years, I don’t think we can call it totally dead as Dallas proved (the coordinator has since been removed and bike infrastructure is now being built.)
My point really was not so much to single out these individuals but to point out the folly of the argument and point to what really will get people riding bikes. Changing our streets to make space for people instead of cars does have short term political consequences with those who think it will mean the end of their automotive “freedom.” We saw this recently here in Austin with the bicycle boulevard. It happened in Copenhagen 40 years ago. VC theory is still used as a political out in these situations.
I agree not all bike infrastructure is equal, and I have written here and elsewhere that slapping a small bike lane on an otherwise auto centric street will not produce results.
on Aug 27th, 2010 at 1:18 pm
Streever,
I also think that the John Forester’s brotherhood is either in retreat or its members have been run over by some SUVs. Nonetheless, there are still some ardent defenders of the VC mantram; it is just that they have no weight on the debate anymore; luckily, I think.
There are quite a few good things in the assertiveness proposed by the angry Briton indeed; but that does not change the basic need to have infrastructure properly designed to entice the inexperienced cyclist; the always postponed B-C cyclist.
Bloggers are bloggers, and you should read them as they are. You can use a grain of salt —or a labyrinth of salt, if you choose. They are part of the political landscape that helps create informed opinion; what could be wrong with that? It is only with a plurality of voices and opinions that we may approach some resemblance of a democratic process.
I agree with most of your post, as you can see. Genau? But there is one small opinion you dropped in there that made me worry: “However, from my own work with city engineers and traffic planners, my experience has been that the 2 obstacles to cycling infrastructure are non-cyclists and the cycling communities own propensity for in-fighting.”
I completely embrace your impression on the first obstacle. Yes, it is absolutely true, in my opinion.
The second obstacle you define as “the cycling communities own propensity for in-fighting”. This, I HONESTLY believe it is an inaccurate depiction of reality. In my eyes, there is an immense variation of opinion on how to proceed with different bike projects coming from that shapeless segment. I think, the variegated opinions from the “community” have been channeled by the bureaucratic powers to be up to this day. Due to their own restrictions coming from “above” and the pressures from those who have the strings to pull, they are forced to navigate rough waters. Confronted with such scenario, some members of the “community” will agree that that is the only possible course, others will cry foul and complain that, again, the B-C cyclists are being left behind.
Your affiliation to either perspective has a lot to do on how you perceive the world; take the word “compromise”, for instance. For some is a lofty goal, while for others it is an abjuration of profound convictions.
I think.
on Aug 28th, 2010 at 1:12 pm
One thing I have never understood is how the world got divided into grade A cyclists who fearlessly travel the roadways and the grade B and C cyclists who are too timid and/or ignorant to get out of their own cul-de-sacs.
I’ve been cycling since I was 5, and some of that time was spent in The Netherlands. I know how to do all the vehicular cyclist stuff, but I have to admit that I am pretty scared on some of our roads. Maybe I’m just a wuss.
Sometimes I wonder about the homeless people I see mumbling to themselves at the street corners. Maybe some of these people are former Fosterites who finally snapped while changing lanes on Burnet between 183 and Braker during the height of rush hour. If I knew this to be true, I would rent a Hummer and drive by them throwing beer cans telling them to get on the effing sidewalk were they belong. I think it would help them feel young again! Maybe give them a warm fuzzy feeling for the old days.
on Aug 30th, 2010 at 8:30 pm
I mean, the beer cans would be Fosters lager…you know, so as not to be mean or anything.
on Sep 7th, 2010 at 4:39 pm
“30 years of vehicular cycling policies produced a net loss of people riding bikes to get places.”
That’s asserting a strange causal relationship. First, what 30 years do you have in mind? Vehicular cycling is the alternative vision, not the dominant vision. We have not had 30 years of VC to evaluate. The dominant vision, today, as 30 years ago and in between, is that cycling is a minor mode of transportation to be accomodated by special facilities. Left to the dollar value of that mode to the economy, cycling facilities aren’t really worth the money. Valued by their supposed and absulutely unproven increase in safety, and they aren’t really worth the money. Rather, advocating that regular roadways be built with in mind the cyclists who know what they are doing is the better bang for the buck/effort for the cycling advocate. Advocate for wider curb lanes and less paint.
Secondly, what is more likely the cause of declining cycling (other than gas getting cheaper in real dollars for most of those 30 years) is the increased and unrealistic focus on the supposed hazards of cycling–again, the dominant thinking is that cycling is dangerous and needs to be specially accomodated. That paints the pretty picture that only the foolhardy cycle to begin with and that the dangers just aren’t worth it. Try as though you might, it’s hard to see how the advocates push for safer infrastructure by means of segregated paths and paint isn’t sending the secondary message that danger herein lies–and who wants their kids to do what is recognized as dangerous?
I recommend this article for those thinking about how to increase cycling
participation and enjoyment. 5 parts.
http://www.copenhagenize.com/2009/09/fear-of-cycling-01-essay-in-five-parts.html
on Sep 7th, 2010 at 4:54 pm
Jeff,
It is strange that you cite Copenhagenize, a site that routinely calls for segregated facilities as is the norm in Copenhagen. People interacting with cars make them feel less safe. Yes, there are other insidious things like many of the “bike safety” campaigns and helmet sales pitches. Yes, cheap gas and sprawl development making driving a car more desirable. There are lots of factors here. But outside of a street where cars are forced to sub 20 MPH speeds by physical traffic calming, segregated facilities make people feel safer. That is why in cities with majority culture adoption of cycling as legit transportation have segregated facilities.
on Sep 7th, 2010 at 5:43 pm
Well, elliott, I can only suppose you didin’t read what I cited, or you wouldn’t find it so strange. Copenhagenize was open-minded enough to do so, and it really won’t take you very long.
But, again, can you find me one place in the U.S. where “vehicular cycling” policies dominate? Note also the difference between what makes one “feel safer” vs. what cycling practices and infrastructure really are safer. The non-cyclist migrates to the sidewalk and rides the wrong way in the bike lane we paint for him because it “feels safer.”
Now, I haven’t examined the numbers in NYC yet, but the tendency when one does examine the numbers is that cycilng infrastructure follows, does not cause, increased ridership. Note Davis, CA, and Germany in the ’80s. ( Another look at Germany’s bicycle boom: implications for local transportation policy & planning strategy in the USA, H. Maddox, World Transport Policy and Practice, Vol. 7, No.3, 2001 ) Without reading the articles that supposedly back up the statements, I’ll cautiously post this from another’s article:
“In the UK, a ten-year study of the effect of cycle facilities in eight towns and cities found no evidence that they had resulted in any diversion from other transport modes.[89] A similar finding had been reported for Denmark in 1989, where it was found that there was no correlation between cycle facilities and increased cycling unless active traffic restraint measures were also present. In Denmark as a whole, the establishment of a huge cycling infrastructure has been accompanied by cycling levels that have stayed roughly stable (with minor fluctuations) since 1975. The construction of 320 kilometres (200 mi) of “Strategic cycle network” in Dublin has been accompanied by a 15% fall in commuter cycling and 40% falls in cycling by second and third level students. In contrast, in the late 1970s and early 1980s cycling underwent robust growth in Germany, the UK and Ireland while there was little or no investment in cycling infrastructure.”
Happy reading.
jeff
on Sep 17th, 2010 at 11:01 am
Again, using Copenhagen as a model for cycling specific infrastructure to make a better modal split for cycling, please refer to a good before-and-after study of Copenhagen’s own efforts. Safety? Not so much.
http://www.trafitec.dk/pub/Road%20safety%20and%20percieved%20risk%20of%20cycle%20tracks%20and%20lanes%20in%20Copenhagen.pdf
The study found (1) that cycle tracks in Copenhagen reduced certain types of injuries which were more than offset by other types of injuries (2) that people felt safer in the cycle tracks as safety actually went down.
It’s worth reading and not all negative.
on Sep 17th, 2010 at 2:36 pm
Yes, well there are lies, damn lies, and then statistics. I have seen reports that find riding on the sidewalk to actually be the statistically most dangerous place to ride (that same report said bike lanes were the safest spot.) At the same time, there is pretty overwhelming statistical evidence that the more people you have riding bikes on the street, the statistically safer the street. For example, if you go from 1000 to 2000 riders on the road, the per capita accident rate does not double. It goes down. So, if you have bikepaths and bike lanes at the same time you are increasing the number of people biking, what does that do to the accident rate? I don’t know.
I did not say all things being equal, bike paths are statistically safer than vehicular cycling. I said building good bike infrastructure will cause more people to ride bikes. It can be argued whether those folks are safer on bike paths or as vehicles, but it seems pretty clear to me that most people feel more comfortable riding if they have facilities for them (as the study you linked indicated.) We can have the safest way of approaching cycling in the world, but if it’s not actually getting butts in saddles, what’s the point.
on Sep 20th, 2010 at 1:58 am
I believe it is truly noble cause to encourage amateur cyclist by providing bike specific infrastructure. That said, the only way to have effective mobility on a bicycle is vehicular cycling. This takes some training and practice to do well – just like operating a motor vehicle does.
To see the true source of the bike path motivation, one must simply follow the money. It’s primarily driven by bicycle manufacturers and the infrastructure builders. These are the folks who can profit the most. I expect they aren’t getting advice on what cycling needs from the experience of people who log thousands of miles per year on their road bikes.
More effective cycling mobility and utilization could be gained by proper training emphasis (for both vehicular cyclist and motorist) than by pouring billions into 4 foot wide bike lanes.
on Sep 20th, 2010 at 4:54 pm
Don’t forget the other sources of money–the strange bedfellows of the “anti-car” activists (who want more people on bikes no matter what the costs) and those who don’t want bikes on the roadways to begin with (they’re glad to back segregated facilities.
And forcing you off the roadways is the slipperly slope of bikeway activism.
I’ve ridden European bicycling facilities in places where “if you have a bicycle facility you may not ride in the roadway.” They sucked. I’d rather have been riding in the roadways, but couldn’t. While I haven’t ridden in Copenhagen or the Netherlands, those I’ve ridden with who have ridden in the Netherlands report the same impression–and the Denmark and the Netherlands do have such laws. The bike paths are inconvenient, compared to the roadway, and riders are forced to a slower speed than the roadways allow safely and conveniently. It’s possilble, I’ll admit, that with the very high volume of cyclists in Copenhagen, their special facilities work well and conveniently. I’ll believe it when I’ve ridden it that way.