The 2011 bicycle count is expanding its time and locations, but organizers need additional volunteers to make it happen.
This year Pima Association of Governments’ Ann Chanecka, organizer of the fourth annual bike count, is hoping to perform counts at 130 locations over the course of two weeks.
“This year we decided to do two weeks of collection to provide a little more flexibility for our volunteers,” Chanecka said. “Plus if we end up getting some bad weather it will allow of some flexibility to change collection dates.”
The additional count locations are include various points along newly completed sections of the Loop and residential bike routes that are slated to become bicycle boulevards in the future.
Like last year there will be various counts on the weekend at popular locations for recreational cyclists.
Chanecka said the priority is to ensure that each of the 50 locations that have been counted all four years are covered, then they will begin filling in other locations with the volunteers.
The volunteers will count during the peak travel hours of 7-9 a.m. and 4-6 p.m.
To participate in the count, volunteers must attend a short information session. The sessions are scheduled for Thursday, Oct. 13 at 6 p.m. and Saturday, Oct. 15 at 9 a.m. Both sessions will be located at the Himmel Park Library. Download the flyer for more details about volunteering.
Last year’s count showed a 23 percent increase in riders. Advocates and planners will be looking to see if the upward trend continues.
Volunteers needed for what? To verify for the umpteenth time that cycling is “common” in relatively population-dense, employment-dense, amenity-dense, and relatively low income areas? Planners and advocates have known this for decades; it’s kinda a duh thing for these people.
And yet they persist.
Any possibility of getting from Ann Chanecka a map by zip code of the count stations?
That might be interesting…
Is something missing?
Quantifying increase and rate of increase is important as it factors into how resources allocated and into future plans. Just saying that cycling is “common” in Tucson is of no value to riders, to city and country planners, or to citizens in general.
One would have to see where (thinking zip codes, here) Chanecka is “counting” and, most important, where she is *not* to even begin to assess the demand for cycling, much less understand it county-wide.
If she wants to count the same old thing, in the usual places, again and again, using the same old method, what is the probability that she is willfully ignoring pent-up demand and policy recommendations and innovation that might follow? Or, at least building an unnecessary bias into her work?
To quantify changes and make counts relevant from year to year, such counts would be done at the same spots. As soon as the counting method changes, the counts from previous years are no longer directly comparable.
Certainly the counting methods used don’t merit snarky personal attacks as delivered in the very first response to the story. Moreover, if you have some proof–not mere suspicion or whatever–of anything that Chanecka is willfully ignoring, then post as much. Otherwise, your posts could be seen as willfully ignoring objectivity in favor of a bias against Chanecka.
Characterize the comments as you wish, for whatever reason of yours.
There’s a lot of money and, possibly, infrastructure change involved in these studies, not to mention problems of detecting under served areas and resource allocation. Questions of method, transparency are important and self-evident. Is it wrong to ask questions?
Would you prefer that County and City residents just sit down and shut up?
Remember it was your post that said, “Volunteers needed for what? To verify for the umpteenth time that cycling is “common” in relatively population-dense, employment-dense, amenity-dense, and relatively low income areas? Planners and advocates have known this for decades; it’s kinda a duh thing for these people.”
There’s nothing in that post that expresses any recognition that data is necessary. Likewise, there is nothing to suggest anything is wrong with counting method or that counting has been done enough and that any further counting will qualify as “umpteenth” and will therefore not be necessary.
You are free to request counting parameters from the people doing the counting. The reasoned response or course of action would be to get said information, objectively analyze it, form questions from that analysis, and then pose those questions to the people who produced the data. That would be, in your words, the “duh thing” to do.
Look, Red Star never stated that data is not important. Red Star raised questions of study design, questions of method, and yes, intent.
Here you go, it’s old (1979), in the context of epidemiology, but has proven to be generalizable to other fields and seminal. For decades. Probably the best presentation out there, still, especially the appendix:
http://www.epidemiology.ch/history/PDF%20bg/Sackett%20DL%201979%20bias%20in%20analytic%20research.pdf
The flyer by Ann Chanecka doesn’t go into the study’s method. So wouldn’t a policy maker (or, gasp, a resident and taxpayer) upon being presented with the results, kinda wonder about the how the study was done? Perhaps not if all are in sit down and shut up mode.
Margarine, yes margarine is produced and marketed with deeper thought than this Pima Association of Governments study, so it seems at this time.
Hey Red Star
You really piss me off sometimes, so I think I want to sit down and have a beer with you.
Sometimes I can’t follow your rambles and sometimes I think you have some good points but just come across as an abrasive jerk. I’m fascinated about what makes you tick and would love to get past your anonymous screen name and have a beer and face to face conversation. Seriously, I’m not being flippant – pick a place and give me a choice of a few evenings that work for you and I’ll buy.
Colby
There are sites in the count that have been included in every count – this is important for the stats folks.
Ann et al have increased the number of locations for the census to better capture the number of recreational riders we have in this town – these locations are well away from the urban core.
Mountain bikers are being counted as well, and these numbers will be included.
These numbers will be included in the application for Platinum status. This application is primarily concerned with commuter numbers, but Tucson advocates know that Tucson has way more riders than those who ride to work. We’re including recreational riders in the app to show “them” at the League of American Bicyclists, that Tucson is a happening cycling town.
Red Star can get the answers to his(her?) questions by attending bike advocacy meetings and/or by volunteering a few hours of his/her time to count during the census.
Mindy thinks Red Star, like others who speak of themselves only in the third person, might be best ignored. 🙂
Money and attention don’t necessarily follow the count and that’s more than just a PR problem. It is known where the concentration of cyclists are, yet cyclists (and even the BAC) have had to sit down and shut up over complaints and concerns. It’s not 100% disjunct, but enough to validate Red Star’s raising his point-sadly. If government is looking to the count numbers to boast to the LAB and it works to raise overall ratings and acknowledgement, then fine. But I think the recent census numbers would be more applicable to that end and the count numbers would show where to serve the need.
“Red Star can get the answers to his(her?) questions by attending bike
advocacy meetings and/or by volunteering a few hours of his/her time to
count during the census.”
Odd. Are you suggesting that residents must barter in order to get info from their government?
Thank you, Mindy Jones.
Red Star is glad to learn that you are pissed.
That’s what I figured – Peace.