Tag Archives: Bronx

Bicycling by my lights is an affirmative choice

Posted on by jqr

Bicycling by my lights is an affirmative choice. I choose to bicycle when I could take the subway or bus. In New York City, there aren’t that many of us. Many bicycle advocates work for making bicycling a default choice, which I have heard referred to as a “vacuum cleaner” approach, where bicycles are appliances like vacuum cleaners. Everyone has one, and nobody thinks very much about them.

As I get older, I find myself more drawn to my own peculiarities, shading in the twists and turns of my personality, and reveling more in what makes me different from other people. Clearly, bicycling to and from work has the potential to be one of these differences. I love it; it keeps my energy up and my heart strong. I get to and from work faster than I would otherwise, with the help of the Q44 bus to traverse the Bronx-Whitestone Bridge.

So my inclination as an advocate, who wants to make it easy and natural for anyone to leap on a bicycle, is leavened by my sheer delight in choosing to bicycle. The delight is largely in the choice and in the self-identification, however, because often the actual act of bicycling is fraught with difficulty and physical feats, which must be repeated regularly. I come home several times a week amped up on adrenaline from the last 15 minutes of my ride, from Boston Road west to St Nicholas Avenue, and it takes me a couple minutes to calm down. Even with that caveat, the riding is still worth it.

When I read Elly Blue’s articles, I always cheer, because she seems to nail the excitement of bicycling without needing to weigh it down with sanctimonious talk about how bicycling must be for everyone. She clearly lays out the fun of bicycling as an affirmative choice, as something special to do, as something that has its own special rewards.

Am I an outlier? I see the attraction in being in the vanguard of a large crowd, but as I get older, that attraction gets less important. The important thing is that I am true to myself and true to the people I hold dear. So when I read Elly Blue on how much she likes hills, I count myself as one of her true believers. Sure, we can revise our cities to create bike elevators on all hills, tunnels to avoid bad weather, gentle slopes for junior tykes on bikes, and protected lanes that are safely insulated from highway travel by grassy verges. And I guess in the fuzzy future, I am all for that. But in the interim, someone has to bike, here, and I volunteer. I want to be out there on the streets.

Cargo bicycling follow-up

Posted on by jqr

Thinking more on the subject of human-powered logistics, I will share this observation. I passed by the 99-cent Grant Discount Mart the other day, on East 167th Street and Grant Ave. The store had just received a delivery. On the sidewalk were 16 six-pack boxes of bleach, in three different sizes between 64 fluid ounces and 128 fluid ounces. That amount of bleach (assuming an average of 96 fl oz per bottle) weighs about 40 lbs per box. Sixteen 40-lb boxes weigh in total about 612 lbs.

There were about the same number of boxes of ammonia (but harder to count because they didn’t say “BLEACH” in big black letters on the boxes). Assume the same number and that’s more than 1,200 lbs of cleaning supplies on the sidewalk.

Assuming each bottle costs $1.50 at retail, the total shipment of 192 bottles of bleach and ammonia costs $288. Assume the distributor takes about 1/4 of that, or $72 (half to the manufacturer, and another quarter to the retailer).

Now, my cargo bike setup maxed out at about 500 lbs capacity. So that amount of bleach and ammonia would be three trips. To one 99-cent store. For a total of $72, which divided three ways is $24. That’s about what I would pay one rider for two hours of work. Delivery of cleaning supplies is not a financially sustainable line of business for a cargo bicycle company.

Another issue: bicycles or tricycles can’t stack their loads as high as trucks can. The lower the stack, the more surface area the delivery has to take up. Financial considerations aside, it will take up more street space or sidewalk space to deliver by cargo bike than by truck. One caveat to this calculation is that the truck is often half-empty, however.

Bike Counters and Social Justice

Posted on by jqr

Here are several comments to the Echo in the City blog and to Streetsblog, on the subject of bike counters and research methods. Bicycle infrastructure should support bicyclists who are bicycling now. More infrastructure can of course inspire people to bicycle, but we ought to respect people who are using the bicycle to travel already. Changing the population of bicyclists through provision of infrastructure and police crackdowns on helmets or riders is not necessarily a positive act.

The advantage of the bicycle is that it offers mobility to people without requiring a large investment. People who have already figured this out should not be marginalized and penalized for not meeting bicycling standards set by authorities without democratic consent.

Thinking through the Strava data My response:

Can you point me to the part of your argument where you disproved the null hypothesis? The null hypothesis being that for planning purposes, the Strava-user database does not differ from other tools used to assemble data on cyclist behavior?

I agree strongly with the sentiments expressed in the “research-0013.jpg” cartoon, but I can envision a number of different methods that share the same problems. In New York City, the authorities do “screenline” counts, where counters are positioned along certain high-traffic bike routes leading to midtown Manhattan. This is great for finding out how many people are traveling to midtown, but in my opinion it is unlikely to lead to improvements to bicycle infrastructure along routes that do not lead to midtown Manhattan. My point being, the city authorities didn’t need to buy a Strava data pack to get data that would have similar biases. If the goal of cycling promotion is to get people onto bikes, the overall problem with all types of collection of cyclist data trips is that they only measure trips taken by people who are actually cycling during the study period.

My understanding of bicycling promotion market research is that transportation planners devote a great deal of attention to encouraging the “interested but concerned” folks who are not currently riding bikes because they feel it’s not safe. These people’s biking experiences are not going to be reflected in any kind of data collection project because they are not currently biking.

Do We Need Automated Bike Counts My response:

Great post. I like your Venn diagram. Looks to me though that the biggest problem with automated counters is that the level of detail of the information they provide is not likely to be required to prove the hypotheses that are being proposed.

If I tell you that 1531 people are bicycling through the intersection of West 86th St & Columbus Avenue in a southerly direction on an average summer Tuesday, what are you going to do with that information? Would you do something else if I told you the count was 3531? I presume any number greater than 0 could be used to justify some kind of bicycle infrastructure.

And in Streetsblog

Collecting data only on the number of people crossing between from borough to borough, but not counting “local” bicyclists, privileges people who are traveling longer distances, and the bike infrastructure necessary to encourage them, viz. better bridge crossings, greenways, and protected bike lanes along direct, arterial roadways.

Bicycles, however, are used for more than just traveling between areas. It is a canard that many car trips are just a mile or so and can be replaced by bicycle trips without having to confront issues of fatigue or fitness, thus reducing motor vehicle traffic in busy neighborhoods. This is the philosophy behind DOT-supported bike share, and the DOT neighborhood slow zone program, and it is therefore a little surprising that DOT researchers are still using screenline methods to collect data that does not inform the policy initiatives of the organization.

Counting the Uncountable Bicyclist

Posted on by jqr

I agree strongly with the sentiments expressed in this cartoon, but I can envision a number of different counting methods that share the same problems. In New York City, the authorities do “screenline” counts, where counters are positioned along certain high-traffic bike routes leading to midtown Manhattan. This is great for finding out how many people are traveling to midtown, but in my opinion it is unlikely to lead to improvements to bicycle infrastructure along routes that do not lead to midtown Manhattan. My point being, the city authorities didn’t need to buy a Strava data pack to get data that would have similar biases.

If the goal of cycling promotion is to get people onto bikes, the overall problem with all types of collection of cyclist data trips is that they only measure trips taken by people who are actually cycling during the study period.

My understanding of bicycling promotion market research is that transportation planners devote a great deal of attention to encouraging the “interested but concerned” folks who are not currently riding bikes because they feel it’s not safe. These people’s biking experiences are not going to be reflected in any kind of data collection project because they are not currently biking.

It is very hard to measure trips that would be taken “if only.” If only there was a protected lane. If only there was a dedicated bicycle turn signal. If only there was adequate bike parking. In the meantime, we are left with folks standing on corners with clipboards, or Strava, or self-reported trip logs, or folks counting parked bikes. Rich people will always be better documented because they have the time or the inclination or the technology to log their trips in machine-readable ways, and because other rich people will prefer to do their counting in places they are familiar with and that boast a high density of cyclists. I have never seen anyone standing on the corner of Morris Ave and East 167th St counting bikes.

Bearing this bias in mind, let’s consider the contributions made by the (unfairly maligned) strong and youthful cyclist. I am no longer, I’m afraid, one of them. This usually male population is perhaps overlooked by us advocates, who constantly remind each other that what is important is to get women to ride.

But the argument that these riders are not bellwethers for the wave of family bicyclists is an argument for half measures. Lacking fear, they take the most direct route to their destination. If those direct routes were outfitted with bicycle infrastructure, then families on bikes would be using them as well. The platitude usually offered in place of a solution, however, is that families on bikes want scenic, quiet routes, or “true 8-80 facilities (greenways, protected lanes, and neighborhood greenways)”. Leaving aside the question of just how quiet a route you can get between two busy places in the big city, I feel that this stated preference directs family bicyclists along long, meandering routes that do not provide direct trips between point A and point B.

For instance, if I ride to Upper Manhattan from Brush Avenue and the Bruckner Expressway service road along the Hutchinson and Pelham Parkways, I get a five- or six-mile ride without cross traffic, but with unpleasant highway noises and smells, with poor pavement, and with a long detour out to the east to link up with Pelham Parkway. Then there’s the loop north around the Zoo and Botanic Garden (both of which are located in parks). It takes more than 65 minutes to get home, which is about 30 minutes more than it takes along Westchester Avenue, Home Street, and East 167th Street. I don’t have the time to waste on such an out-of-the-way routing.

Similarly, improving greenways and byways with the intent to make them even more attractive to family bicyclists is a project that is doomed to half-successes. Going out of the way will always take more time than traveling directly. The local bike-train leaves at 7:50 am and arrives at 9 downtown; hard cheese for parents who have to drop off their kid at a day care that opens at 8. Fixing the giant sinkhole on the Greenway and adding lights along the way will not make it decently quicker to get downtown.

It seems to me that better, more functional onstreet routes would improve bicycling in New York City. Such a plan would build on the city’s existing grid, which is an excellent design for bicycling access, as it means that bicycle traffic can sift through onto less well-traveled streets instead of being confined to several busy arterials. Small improvements would make grid travel better for bicycles, such as: daylighting at busy corners; bicycle traffic signals and “green waves,” which time traffic lights for a speed that bicycles can handle; creating plazas instead of wyes where streets go diagonally; left-turn restrictions along one-way avenues to keep turning traffic from crossing bicycle lanes; and chicanes and neckdowns to slow through motor traffic.

Slums and pedestrian casualties

Posted on by jqr

Two points here, this one, from the pages of Governing magazine, and this one, my comment on an Invisible Cyclist blog post.

It’s obvious in NYC that noxious environmental conditions stemming from highways and excess traffic conditions degrade residential neighborhoods in the vicinity, however the point you make, that the systematic process of slum development has also affected the ability of locals to get around without automobiles, is not often made.

Funny, because it seems even more obvious. If you build a large highway through original neighborhoods, spillover traffic from that highway will make it tough for anyone to get around without driving.

You see this in the Bronx. The highway development there divides neighborhoods, creates unappealing choke points along crossings, generates excess noise and pollution, breaks up the grid to make it harder for traffic to flow smoothly around obstacles, streams extra cars onto city streets from off the highways, blocks access to waterfront areas, and alters mental geography to make relatively close-by places seem very distant.