Michael Geller, in the comments for the post below, asks: “what criteria have been established in order to assess whether this bicycle ‘trial’ is a success or a failure?” (And there’s been an ongoing debate about ‘benchmarks’ on other blogs.)
So I thought I’d check what criteria has been applied to the Gateway Project. Here’s the list:
The goals for the Gateway Program are to:
- Reduce congestion and travel times
- Move people, goods and transit more efficiently
- Improve access to key economic gateways through improved links between ports, industrial areas, railways, the airport and border crossings
- Improve safety and reliability on the region’s road network
- Improve quality of life in communities by keeping regional traffic on regional roads instead of local streets
- Reduce vehicle emissions by reducing congestion-related idling
- Better connect transit, cycling and pedestrian networks
With the exception of the third and a slight rewording of a few of the others, I’d go with these:
The goals for the Hornby Cycle Track are to:
- Reduce conflict and travel times
- Move people more efficiently
- Improve safety and reliability
- Improve quality of life in communities
- Reduce emissions
- Better connect cycling networks
Anyone wish to add anything?
I couldn’t find anything with respect to the actual measurement of these goals – i.e. benchmarks – with respect to Gateway. But if there are, again, let’s compare the two projects, even if the differential in cost is three orders of magnitude.
(And just in case this is a little too subtle, my point is this: Why is there such insistence for measuring the impacts of a bike lane costing $3 million when hardly anyone cares about the metrics of a $3 billion highway expenditure? Huh?)
I wonder whether “goals” are the same as “criteria.”
Criteria –“a principle or standard by which something may be judged or decided.”
Goal — ” an aim or desired result.”
Very related certainly but I would suggest the most appropriate word, this terribly pretentious term. “metric” — “standard of measurement.”
I think the point is to get inside the goal to determine if it is working. The Hornby Cycle Track, for example, sets forth goals — but how do we know if the goals are met? It’s tough but some sort of numerical measures are often quite good. Once we’ve said ” We need to decrease infant mortality” we need to offer some numbers to tell us if we are doing well.
Yes, metrics can be annoying and there are many qualitative elements difficult to measure. But effective political action demands numbers.
David, what metrics should be used?
Good question, Agustin. I really don’t know…just winging an answer…but maybe…choose a population in the “bike shed” — forgive me as I don’t know the specific geography — say the trail is to serve a population of 50, 000. Then the most basic task (I would think) is to find out how many people are using the trail, just like highway departments do for roads. Time of day. Origin-destination. Age/sex/demography of users.
As to the others…
Reduce conflict and travel times
— also measurable straightforwardly by number of traffic accidents, fatalities and average trip times.
Move people more efficiently
— ditto? – average trip times?
Improve safety and reliability
— again number/types of accidents?
Improve quality of life in communities
— difficult, “social indicators” not easy — how do you judge social welfare? lower crime rate? fewer divorces? higher proportion children graduating from high school? All because of a bike trail? 🙂
Reduce emissions
— easy; just do standard air/water quality sampling for appropriate “sheds.”
Better connect cycling networks
— no idea what metric might apply
For the connections piece, you are look at existing gaps and then seeing if the number of gaps has been removed.
David,
I can get on board with most of the metrics you’ve suggested, and I think (expect) the City will be doing things like measuring trip times, usage patterns, and accidents.
Demographics of users might be a bit tricky, as would be (as you say) quality of life indicators.
Emissions reductions would be interesting; to be honest I don’t know what goes into this type of measurement.
Connectivity is easily measured: all you have to do is count the number of nodes that are added to the bicycle network. This one, we can know right away and it is a definite plus.
Cheers
Apparently the cost of the entire Hornby Bike Lane is less than the cost of a single left turn bay on Knight St., so really you should be comparing the goals of the bike lane to the goals of a left turn bay at one intersection.
What, you mean people haven’t been demanding that concrete targets be set for the new left turn lane. What, you mean the left turn lanes just went ahead and weren’t even done on a trial basis? I got a survey on the bike lane, but I never got a survey on the left turn bays. Did the city commission any polls on whether the left turn bays were supported. How many public meetings were held? How much time elapsed between when the left turn lanes were approved and when they started construction on them? What kind of autocratic fascistic government are we living under???
To help with the comparison, here’s my proposed list of goals for a left turn bay on Knight St:
* Help people get down Knight St. slightly faster in their cars
I would add affordable transportation as another important key benefit particularly given the anticipated soaring gas prices anticipated from peak oil:
“Charles Maxwell, a former energy exec who is now an analyst at Weeden & Co., says “peak oil” will drive oil prices to US$300 a barrel over the next decade.”
(http://www.financialpost.com/news/business-insider/going+barrel+peak+coming+soon/3783841/story.html#ixzz14jPF8dxm)