Recently, the company behind Strava, an app designed to track running and cycling activity for individual athletes and bike commuters, released “Strava Metro”. The idea behind Strava Metro is to aggregate individual runs and bike rides into a product that transportation planners and advocates can use in active transportation planning. On the surface, the heat maps Strava produces are impressive, if not mesmerizing. The chief complaint I have with Strava, however, is that it requires active intervention by the user to collect data. This skews the data Strava collects toward bike “roadies”, “mountain bikers”, and long distance commuters rather than utility/cargo/last miler cyclists. My personal experience with Strava reflects this as I’ve long used Strava to track my bike commutes but often don’t bother to track my short ride to the Park & Ride or the two mile ride I make to the grocery store. Strava also makes no attempt to include walking data which is a huge omission, especially when the goal is to remove impediments to active transportation choices. All this means that Strava’s heat maps are, at best, a flawed and impartial view into how people choose to get around their city.
A better alternative would be an app that tracks all activities throughout the day without intervention by the user. The tracked data would be anonymized, aggregated, and published in maps useful for active transportation planners and advocates. While I have yet to find a source as well presented as Strava’s Heat Maps, a close second can be found in Human Co’s city ranking site. This site presents aggregated movement data for users of Human, a simple app designed to encourage users to move at least 30 minutes a day. The data gathered by Human is still skewed toward a demographic that includes smart phone users and would need to be used with caution, but at least it makes an attempt to gather data on ALL of the ways we move around our cities, including motorized transport. The biggest surprise I found: Washington DC ranks higher than New York in “Active Transportiation” (Non-motorized trips) as well as walking trips.
Let’s hope that Human Co enhances this data and encourages more data collection, beyond their current targeted demographic of people trying to move at least 30 minutes a day.
I have been contemplating ditching our 2nd car for several years but have been reluctant for various reasons. While we have decent bus service near our home, many routes aren’t in service when I need to be at work. Additionally, while the base is only a 25 minute bike ride away, there are hills, a high school with inexperienced teenage drivers, and misty eye-glass obscuring conditions between here and there from time to time. Most days I’m fine riding into work but there are times where a “cumulative disincentive” builds up to the point where I just drive. Lastly, there are the memories of several heavy snow days where only our trusty Subaru could get me into work. Well, maybe a Salsa Mukluk could too. Or I could walk. And then there are those snowshoes gathering dust in the garage.
All that worrying aside, we’ve only driven our Subaru 2,000-3,000 miles per year since we bought our Prius. Additionally, many of those miles were for what I call “pity” drives – Times where I could have used another mode of transportation, or our Prius, but decided to take the Subaru to keep the fluids moving and the battery charged. But all in all, I really don’t need a car to get to work. My wife, on the other hand, does. Thankfully she is able to work from home many days which means I’ll still have access to a car at home from time to time. Additionally, I have 8 Zipcars within a 15 minute bus or bike ride as well. I’ve also been meaning to try out the many taxis I see in Bellevue as well.
I’m sure this decision will require some sacrifices such as getting up a little earlier to ride in every day or figuring out how to ride in sub-freezing temperatures – something I’ve been reluctant to do because of a combination of hills, ice, and knowing a fellow bus driver who broke his hip riding into work in icy conditions. But I’m excited to give it a shot and will keep you all up to date on the highs and lows of being car-lite in the suburbs.
The Portland Oregonian has a video that anecdotally confirms what I’ve long suspected: There is frequently no obvious benefit to running red lights. Obviously, one data point doesn’t prove that there is never any benefit to it. That said, the behavior shown is pretty reckless and the benefit of getting to the next light before everybody else is not really worth risking one’s life for. Also a note to angry Seattle Times bike commenters: The vast majority of cyclists in the video are following the rules, unlike that Bizarro world you inhabit where every cyclist is a deranged monster out to run down granny, little children, and cute little puppies – Just sayin’
Posted on GM’s blog in response to their ad mocking cycling. Let’s see if they actually approve the comment:
Strike 1: My family owned an Oldsmobile Diesel. Remember those? Even if you do, I’m sure you wish you didn’t. NOT GM’s finest hour.
Strike 2: Saturn – “A different kind of car company”. Lots of hype but ultimately a lackluster car – I wish I had purchased a Honda or a Subaru.
Strike 3: Showing that you still don’t get it.
Nothing short of a sustained and genuine “share the road” campaign poking fun at your clueless and insensitive ads could possibly salvage your company’s reputation in my mind. I’ll own cars for 2 or 3 more decades but not one of yours.
Time and time again, cyclists’ needs are simply not considered in our transportation system. From drain grates and uneven manhole covers in the bike lane to bike lanes that just disappear without giving direction to cyclists on how to continue safely, cycling facilities are mostly an afterthought.
The latest example of ignoring cyclists’ needs comes from a location where a well used bike rack has been compromised by the clueless placement of a recycling can. As you can see in the picture, the location of the recycling can makes it difficult to access half of the positions on this bike rack. In addition, at least two positions are now effectively unusable as they are blocked by the can. I would understand a bit if space were constrained and there were no other places where that can could go. However, the south side of the shelter in this picture has a large area that is wide open and could easily accommodate the garbage can as well as the recycling can.
I know what some folks are thinking: “But the bike rack is empty and I bet nobody ever uses it”. A couple of years ago, that may have been the case. It seemed like I was the only person using this particular bike rack. These days, however, things have changed. There is a steady flow of bikes that are locked up at this rack and during the nicer weekdays, it is frequently close to capacity.
Using Metro’s “Bus Shelter Feedback” form, I’ve requested that these cans be moved. I’ll update this entry when/if anything changes. Until then, I guess I’ll just hope not many people bike to the park & ride. That is something I am unaccustomed to hoping for…
Quoting from King County Metro’s “The Book: Transit Operator’s Rules and Procedures” – September 2011 edition:
2.13 Nauseous or unsightly messes on a coach
If a sick customer or animal creates a mess on the coach, follow these procedures:
- Cover the mess with newspapers or paper towels.
- Advise customers to stay clear of the area.
- Call the coordinator
In almost five years of driving for Metro, I have yet to deal with a “nauseous or unsightly” mess on my coach. From what I’ve heard though, it’s just a matter of time. One full-time driver I know always keeps a copy of The Stranger on hand for this very purpose. Somebody urinates on your bus? No problem, whip out your trusty Stranger, unfold, cover the mess, and top with a wheel block to keep the whole mess in place. Afterwards call the coordinator and hope they’re able to send a new coach or someone to clean yours as soon as possible.
My only gripe with this procedure is the choice of newspaper. Since the Seattle Weekly appears unable to do real reporting and is more interested in defending it’s ability to profit from child prostitution, that “news”paper seems a more logical choice to keep on hand for those messy little emergencies.
I’m not going to rehash the tired old “it’s us vs. them” argument for you here. In short, budding bike hater Mike Seely seems more interested in driving web hits from rabid Seattle Times commenter types than looking into what “road diets” are really about and whether they work. Seattle mayoral administrations spanning several decades have approved 26 rechannelization projects to increase the safety of ALL road users – not just cyclists. SDOT has lots of stats that show they do indeed work, and don’t unduly inconvenience motorists. I won’t go further here since Tom Fucoloro has an excellent response over at Seattle Bike Blog. (Great job Tom!)