Commuting trends: transit vs driving vs ...

[danbrotherston]

It's easy to dismiss cycling when you frame things in particular ways. There's been a roughly 0% increase in the proportion of driving commuters, but by Jeff's own quoted numbers, cycling commuters have gone from 1830 to 2600, a 42% increase. Driving attracted 47,895 new commuters while transit attracted 8,155, driving attracting a bit less than 6 times as many new commuters as transit, despite having well more than 6 times the mode share (meaning transit is attracting proportionally more and driving proportionally less). All commuters under 16 and likely under 18 would fall into any category *except* for driver, but of course we don't survey them. When you take into account the amount of money spent on drivers versus all other mode shares, it's not surprising to see these numbers.

I don't think anyone is dismissing cycling, even Mr Outhit. And yes, it has grown faster, but the base is so small that it's still less than 1.5% of the total commuters.

But my challenge to you is, what can we realistically do to get the cycling share to the 4-5% range in the next 10 years? Specifically I would like to see realistic, achievable proposals or suggestions.

P.S. Regarding your money spent comment, you can argue that everyone drives because we spend the money. But conversely one can argue that we should spend the money because everyone (85% of people surveyed) drives. And transit does need those roads, too, as sometimes do bicyclists.  But anyway, this is not something I personally want to argue about.

Regarding the "PS" we don't spend the money "because everyone drives"...we spend the money because facilitating transportation is a public good that grows our economy by connecting employees with employers and businesses with clients and moving freight. 

However, when we look at our options, facilitating transportation should mean more than roads for cars, especially given that single occupant vehicles (SOVs) are the most wasteful least effective way of enabling transportation.  It costs the most, in direct road construction costs, in environment costs, in social costs, compared with cycling infra and transit.  So we should invest in those because it's a fiscally responsible thing to do.

Roads play a part in the whole thing, as you mention, they're used by freight, transit, cyclists, and SOVs.  SOVs in the city are the thing which we should am to reduce, because they have the highest cost, and the other options are most effective in the city.

Nobody is suggesting the transition can or should happen in one day, and anyone who believes there is a "war on cars" is frankly...delusional.  We spend enormous sums on roads, and that isn't proposed by anyone to stop, all that is being suggested is that we start the transition.


=================

As for a reasonable proposal to get to 4-5% in 10 years.  What do you mean by reasonable?  Reasonable engineering schedule wise and cost wise?  That's easy.

There's literally dozens of missing connections between bike infra in the region that could be fixed in 2-3 years work with a few million dollars investment.  Intersections could have bike accommodation added easily with paint, and some flex posts.  Segregated bike lanes could be formed with flex posts and narrowing lanes.  In many places road diets should be accomplished with paint and flex posts or planters.

They keys are,

a) We have many overbuilt roads with plenty of space for infra through road diets, or in some cases just painting the damn lines, that we aren't even considering doing.
b) We should be tightening turns and narrowing lanes to make roads safer in general.
c) We should be fixing intersections and missing links in the existing network.

Frankly, if the political will was there, these could be accomplished within 5 years, within the current budget with reasonable reallocations, and that would easily get us a network that would put probably half the population within a safe comfortable bike ride of work.  Of course, we're not even close to that right now.  Right now, we have opposition and discussion about putting bike lanes in extra space on roads that's literally used for nothing.  We have discussion about whether speed bumps should be built literally in the bike lanes.  We have "walk your bike signs" appearing at intersections around the region.

So no, I don't think any of this is reasonable in 10 years politically.  I don't know what the answer is.  The region seems plenty willing to spend money on infra, but few in the region or cities seem willing to build proper infrastructure, or to reduce car speeds or make intersections safer.  When vision zero is discussed at council, the main point being made is how inconvenient it would be to motorists to not kill people.

Frankly, it's demoralizing and depressing given that the path forward to a working system seems so easily and straightforward, and the challenges are institutional and political.  On the other hand, the uptown bike lanes are such a gigantic leap forward, it keeps some hope alive.