The worst cycling month of the year – now 12.8% better!
An ultra-brief blog post – newest stats (see last page) show that July, the winter month that had the lowest cycle numbers last year, this year had 12.8% more people cycling past Auckland Transport’s automatic counters. Morning peak is up 14.4% – you go, Auckland!
Fullers (CAA Sponsor)
Themocracy
If only! That’s 12.82% more recorded movements across the counters, not a count of unique people cycling. And those stats are still missing any sort of qualification, error, basic analysis, or per-site detail. Even in reporting the state of cycling, Auckland Transport remains negligent.
Meanwhile, it is amusing that when a random month-on-month positive fluctuation occurs, we cheer, but when the annual regional survey shows a drop, we discard the whole thing on the unaccountable basis of a “rainy period”. This is statistical astrology.
In fact, there were approximately two days of very heavy rain in July 2012 (3rd and 22nd) but otherwise many more clear days compared to July 2011. So cycle movements last year were down slightly. Big deal?
Non-motorist, why so negative about things? The cycle counters are the closest proxy to all cyclists movements we have, and it’s the TREND that is important, not the actual cyclist number (which you will notice I didn’t even bother to report).
Your very first complaint “it’s only the counters!” doesn’t feel reasonable to me, because the post clearly STATES that already.
And I have at times seen detailed data from the cycle counters. The fact that you haven’t doesn’t mean they are lies, or that no work has gone into calibration or analysis. And we are working on Auckland Transport to get them to finally put the full data on a website. If you are unhappy with getting only a one-page summary, help us by mailing them.
Statistical astrology? A month-long 24/7 count over 9 sites across Auckland is much more significant than a count once a year covering about 6 hours of the peak on 40-something sites that is then extrapolated.
And the 12.8% increase is not a blip, but is in line with the trend – being significant increase – over the last months and the year.
In short, I feel you are taking a happy little factoid totally out of proportion, as if it was somehow wrong to report this. When I go to work every morning, I see there’s a lot more people cycling than just a year ago. To see this reflected in various other metrics, not just in my own anecdotal percepction, is great.
Max,
My complaint was not “it’s only the counters!” — to quote what I actually said would be a good start to a sensible response. In fact, I said it was only cycle movements, when you said — and I quote correctly — “this year had 12.8% more people cycling”.
How fortunate that you are privy to these details from Auckland Transport! It is still negligent that they are not published. Until they are published, the rest of us cannot be so confident in the numbers. I will happily accept them once they are appropriately qualified. May that day come soon. You will note that I did not claim they are lies!
You may assert that this is a 24/7 count over 9 sites, but until Auckland Transport reveals the estimated fault rate, mechanical downtime and other factors on a per-site and even per-hour basis, we cannot take it at face value. With some experience in technology, I expect you will agree that 24x7x9 is an aspirational target, not a minimum. If machines are being switched on and off variably, we should know and adjust for that. (Unless those numbers are already adjusted — but in what ways? They don’t say!)
The regional survey has some redeeming features in that many of these factors are controlled, accounted and adjusted for. Discarding it as soon as a negative result appears is all too convenient. (I seem to recall advocates claiming a cycle boom based on the same kind of data in previous years.)
Sweet irony, what you see anecdotally every morning is a happy little factoid — if you see this reflected in dodgy metrics as well, who is taking things out of proportion? You are absolutely right to report this fact, however.
I may seem negative, but that’s because being a non-motorist in Auckland is truly an unnecessarily terrible experience, in widely unacknowledged ways. I expect more from our local government, and much more from our self-appointed advocates. Why don’t you like to call them out on their most egregious faults, instead only cheerleading from the margins?
Non-motorist, I am sorry, but you are being rather selective.
You state my post as claiming “this year we had 12.8% more people cycling”
This must be one of the worse examples of taking something out of context, because the whole sentence reads:
“this year had 12.8% more people cycling past Auckland Transport’s automatic counters”
Seriously. Do I have have to feel like my posts are being read as if I was an American presidential candidate whose every comment is being scoured by an opposition that wants to put me down? I obviously MEANT July, because the whole post was about July! And I clearly meant the counters, which I stated. Do you want me to have every word of these posts checked by a lawyer and a PR person too, next time?
Sorry, I won’t sanitise my posts that way – we can’t do right by everyone anyway, as clearly shown by your unhappy comments about “cheerleading from the margins”.
As a last addendum, CAA does clash quite a bit with AT and NZTA choices that we aren’t happy with. Much of that never makes it to the public (by choice), and people like you therefore feel we are cutting them too much slack.
We chose to live with those accusations, because it’s one of the results of having chosen to work within the system.
I suggest we call it a day on this detailed analysis. let’s review the stats at the end of spring and in the meantime keep doing what we advocates choose to do to get more people cycling more often and make cycling a serious transport choice and safe recreation choice in Auckland.
love that your blogs are so well considered by readers and co bloggers Max!
What’s the next topic????
Great to see such passion from two people who I know have a lot of interest in helping make Auckland a better place to be a human and cycle. I’m sure that you want many of the same things, the difference occurs in how you get there and the measurement. I would suggest that lots of small efforts and wins across the board for cycle advocacy is a good start.
By all means challenge the status quo from govt, but please remember as advocates we are on the same team and we need to support eachother… No sense in dividing ourselves so that the existing status quo can conquer.
I am fine with challenge. What I am (personally) unhappy with is the implication that CAA is a mere “cheerleader at the margins”, or that it is somehow wrong to emphasise the positive, just because things could be a lot better yet.
If I didn’t emphasise the positive, I would have never survived 4 years of full-on cycle advocacy, 10-20 hours a week, without becoming cynical, bitter and quitting in disgust. Celebrating successes when you have them and keeping positive attitude despite the many setbacks (3 steps forward, 2 steps back is my mantra) – that is what drives progress.
I say you should carry on with the positive analysis Max. What it will hopefully do is give a positive view of cycling to people who currently do not chose to cycle because they may view it as something that is dangerous or only done by the ‘weekend racers’. Good on you CAA.
@non-motorist
You will find AT do not keep these figures very secret at all.
http://www.aucklandtransport.govt.nz/about-us/publications/Reports/Pages/Public-Transport-Patronage-Reports.aspx
I think non-motorist is aware of the linked documents, he/she just feels that since there is no detailed breakdown (for example by count site), and little other information about the specifics of the counting regime, it’s insufficient. I agree that it would be great to have all that detail publicly available, but disagree with the implication of non-motorist’s starting comment that it’s “weak” data.
Good point. What is noteworthy though is that we only started getting this info very recently so AT are well ahead of where they were 6 months ago. Maybe the detailed numbers could be incorporated next?
Max,
You miss the point. I referred to the quantitative metric of “movements” as per the report, versus “people” as per your interpretation. (If you disagree about English grammar beyond this point, then I suggest you read a book by Lynne Truss.) We both take for granted the means of sampling, so there was no need to mention that — I take no exception here with the fact that the sample is taken by automatic counters.
Likewise, I have raised no concerns here about the fact that this statistic is only about July. As it happens, I even characterised the comparative weather profile for July alone in the two years in question as an explanatory hypothesis (incidentally comparable to your rejection of the latest regional survey).
You are entitled not to sanitise your comments, but of course you may be held to account for anything you publish. I am sure the same goes for anything I and others say, but naturally moreso for someone volunteering as “a voice for cyclists”.
That CAA chooses not to publicise disagreements with NZTA or AT is both alarming and disappointing. A healthy relationship between our “voice for cyclists” and our local government should imply some give and take — including in public fora. Something as fundamental as AT’s reporting of basic cycling statistics should not be as shoddy as it is, and CAA ought not endorse and perpetuate such malpractice.
Julian,
I fully agree that we are on the same team and that small wins are a fine start. That is why I bother to argue this at all — especially on the matter of statistics. Whatever else CAA achieves, we all still need to be on solid ground with regard to measuring and establishing basic facts, and in public. A great deal of successful advocacy depends on it.
Bryce,
There is a difference between acknowledging the positive and selectively excluding the negative. As I said, Max is perfectly right to report the positive aspect of this, if only he could identify what it is: an indication of a potential growth in actual cycling, given that at least some of it can be accounted for by population growth and improving weather.
I share your hope that AT will eventually incorporate these details into their reports. The automatic counters hold plenty of promise. Maybe with some public pressure — especially including CAA — we can achieve this.