Trends for the City Centre follows the region
Like all other Auckland cycle counts – be they the once-yearly regional survey, or the continous counters of various cycle routes, cycling into the City Centre is showing a very heartening trend.
The rock bottom has been reached and overcome years ago – now we need to make sure the gains keep on happening.
Like the regional cycle count, the “Screenline” surveys for the city centre (Page 92-93) are one-off surveys, and so, as individual counts, are not so significant for a mode which is somewhat fluctuating and weather-dependent like cycling. However, the screenline counts have been going on for a long while now, and thus we get more and more data points – showing that in the last 5 years, we have a clear rise of cyclists entering the CBD in the morning. In 2008, it was 676 cyclists entering the CBD between 7am and 9am. In 2012, this rose to 1,058 – a 57% gain.
Some interesting factoids are that Symonds Street and Quay Street had the highest cycle flows (326 and 243 during the 2h-period). Interestingly, Upper Queen Street dropped massively from 2011 to 2012 – whether that is one of the fluctuations due to the once-off nature of the count, or a more permanent change in how people on bikes enter the CBD, we don’t know (yet). I’d expect it was likely just a fluke result or error…?
Oh, and there is now also a count showing the number of ferry passengers arriving with bicycles brought along (Page 91-92). A total of 167 passengers brought their bikes along, roughly half a percent of all ferry passengers. Not too much yet, but then the bike racks in places like Devonport are pretty full, so this is just a part of the combined cycle-ferry trips.
City Centre, Ferries, Statistics
| 
City Centre, cycle counts, cycle routes, Ferries, regional cycle count, Statistics
Fullers (CAA Sponsor)
Themocracy
How dare you suggest cycle numbers have increased over the last 5 years? Don’t you know these counts are completely unreliable and we are doomed, DOOMED utterly. There will never be a happy cyclist in Auckland ever again, due to the monolithic car culture to which, unfortunately, the imperialistic running pig-dogs of CAA completely subscribe, acting as apologists for the flawed and autocratic governance of the much hated AT.
Just thought I’d get it out there before anybody else had time
Heaven forbid we should actually celebrate our minor successes.
Lol, thanks Lucy – but you don’t need to defend us all the way from your holidays (any cyclists in Mexico?).
You can see – by our stubbornness in insisting that things actually are changing – that we are totally compromised and beyond all hope already.
I’m not sure whether to be flattered or disappointed. Flattered, because you find my review so important as to elicit a pre-emptive defence. Or disappointed, because you (as cycling advocates) are insecure enough in the data to make a flippant parody of a critical response, instead of examining the report for basic errors yourself.
The only change I see here is in the (mis-)representation of facts — a disturbing precedent.
No, don’t be flattered.
It is a sad thing to see how you manage to phrase even sensible analysis of data (which often shines through in your comments) in a way that manages to offend, instead of assist. That condescending attitude from Day One, more than anything, is what I dislike about your comments here, and is a key reason why people find it hard to take you seriously.
So long as you don’t reject my arguments on the sole basis of tone, that’s fine by me — but of course feel free to reject them on more reasonable grounds (like facts).
Snowball sighted at top of hill. Looks to be gathering pace. Nice.
This astounding analysis wouldn’t pass a high school statistics test.
Firstly, the counts for 2011 and 2012 include two new observation sites (Alten Road and Westhaven Drive). This is marked in red in the data table. However, it is not excluded from the overall bar chart and ratio calculation from 2008.
That makes the charted trend look misleadingly like it’s growing much faster, and monotonically. And the text incorrectly says that the growth since 2008 is 57%.
Minus the inflation due to two observation sites being added to 2011 and 2012, the apparent growth since 2008 is 47%, not 57%. And in 2011, there was a drop in the cycle count by 47 (i.e. 789, not 853).
Given that 2011 failed to keep pace with projected growth from 2010, it would make 2012 seem like a bigger year than it was, in a rolling pairwise comparison. The apparent growth from 2010 to 2012 is about 18.5%, which isn’t as dramatic as 25%.
I say “apparent growth” because these figures are not adjusted for population growth. The sub-national population estimates for Auckland Central West and Auckland Central East show that there has been a steady growth in the last few years.
Since a 2012 estimate is unavailable, we might approximate population growth for the period (most recent 3 years) by taking 2009-2011, which is about 3.5%. So our real 2010-2012 cycling growth would be around 15%.
From 2008-2011, Auckland Central West and East grew over 6% (likely more including 2012). So our overall real growth for cycling is more like 39% or less, not the hyped 57%.
To the extent we can characterise the trend over the last 5 years, it is levelling off (given that more recent growth rates are lower than longer-term rates), and somewhat bumpy along the way (given 2011). (Interestingly, all this roughly corresponds to the findings in the regional cycling survey.)
That’s still nothing to scoff at — it certainly outpaces population growth.
What it doesn’t say, however, is whether it represents a growth in mode share, since this is a local measure and it could just mean a reallocation of trips from elsewhere in the city. Certainly the hypothesis for the general growth since 1994 given in the reports suggests that recovering economic activity (employment) in the CBD might account for that.
To be clear, that hypothesis means that more trips overall, by any mode, are being made into the CBD — more cars, more trains, more buses, more cyclists, etc. If these numbers make anything look good, it is the development of the CBD itself as a place people want to go to, not specifically cycling as a whole in Auckland. This makes sense intuitively too, considering all the changes to Queen Street, the shared spaces, Wynyard Quarter, Britomart, and so on, taking effect in this period — all making the CBD an attractive space, but none a keystone for cycling. (Meanwhile, cyclists got more perishable green paint…)
But nevermind all that. For me the most amusing thing in this particular report is that two streets nearest the heart of the proposed Grafton Gully cycleway project have seen dramatic decline in use, while the elephant in the room (Symonds Street) — which would be neglected and bypassed — appears to have consolidated them all. So it goes.
I like how your analysis basically rubbishes everything you can find that would contradict your basic premises (while “rebutting” claims that weren’t made) – but when you find something that seems to support something you have made up your mind about (“Symonds Street instead of Grafton Gully Cycleway!”), you pounce on it as if a single-year count suddenly meant a lot after all.
Lovely.
I only found it amusing — I would never provide that as credible evidence for a serious claim. It was an illustration of how ridiculous it is to make such year-on-year comparisons, as you’ve rightly spotted.
‘This astounding analysis wouldn’t pass a high school statistics test.’
Pretty sure most of my high school teachers would have had you standing in the corner facing the wall until you had worked out how to phrase you criticisms more constructively.
What a reprehensible way to treat another person, to force them against a wall — for what, the unconscionable crime of exercising their freedom of expression in a pointed, civil and thoughtful manner? Goodness, I wouldn’t have tolerated that from anyone, teacher or otherwise!
I’m happy to leave our disagreement at that, as it is straying from the topic of this discussion. If you care to elaborate on how I might have “more constructively” phrased my comment, you could let me know via email (nonmotorist@hush.com) or DM me on Twitter — I’m happy to take feedback.