
The Rise of Walking and Biking in America - duck
http://awesome.good.is/transparency/web/1006/rise-of-walking-and-biking/flat.html
======
techiferous
I have the luxury of living in a city that's pedestrian friendly, so I got rid
of my car. Never have I felt _wealthier_. I walk and use the subway. Cars are
a time and money sink in ways that you don't even realize at first.

* They cost a lot of money and the value depreciates quickly.

* They break down. When that happens, you have a problem that you have to respond to _immediately_ no matter what else is going on. If the subway breaks down, you are late but you don't have to fix it.

* My transportation costs are very predictable. I don't have any sudden major car repairs that cause a financial crisis.

* My current transportation costs equal my former car insurance costs.

* Car keys are big and unwieldy.

* Car alarms suck.

* I don't worry about that funny noise in my engine anymore.

* I don't have to replace my tires. I just have to buy new shoes more often, which is less expensive.

* I don't have to ask around to find a good mechanic.

* I don't have to take the time to have the oil changed and the tires rotated.

* I don't have to take time out of my week filling up my car with gas.

* I spend zero time looking for parking spaces.

* I don't have to pay parking tickets or worry about speeding tickets.

* Instead of spending my commute in a stress-inducing traffic jam, I spend my commute walking, which is naturally stress-relieving.

* My car doesn't get scratched.

* Because I walk a lot, I've probably added 10 years to my life.

* I don't lock my keys in the car.

* I don't spend any more money or time on car washes.

* I don't spend time or money getting my car inspected.

Unfortunately, the majority of Americans don't live in a walkable city. :( But
at least you can offer your support for projects that will make your city more
walkable.

~~~
potatolicious
I think most importantly:

* I spend far less time involved in the simple act of _transportation_. On the bus? Read, watch a movie, catch up with the news, chat with someone, or just grab some shut-eye and rest. When one is driving, they are actively engaged in _transportation_ only, to the near exclusion of just about everything else.

~~~
ZeroGravitas
I cycle commute and am therefore fairly actively engaged in transportation
(though your mind can wander at times if your route is as pleasant and winds
through parks and along rivers as mine does). I don't consider this much of a
loss as cycling is a joyous activity, much as I'd imagine car driving might be
if you were the only one on the road. In the reality of stop'n'go rush hour
jams car commutes are stressful. I saw one report that claimed driver stress
in commutes is on a par with fighter pilots and I can believe it.

------
martian
It's awesome to see that more people are biking and walking, and that the
government is spending money on programs to encourage this behavior.

However, this is essentially chart junk. The time spacing is not consistent,
which makes comparing any two years essentially impossible. Also, this data
does not take into account the growth of walking & biking per capita. The
stick figures are clever but tell me less than the numbers below them. The
only thing this chart really shows is that the government is spending money.
Sorry GOOD, this is pretty, but you should do better.

------
jules
To put things into perspective that's 0.035 bicycle trips per person per day.

In the Netherlands 26% of all trips are bicycle trips, so probably more than 1
per person per day. To put _that_ into perspective, fifty years ago this was
more than 80%. The budget for cycling is about 2 times higher than in the US
(per capita).

I think the group you should focus on is children. In the Netherlands 49% of
primary school children (4-12 years old, no helmet ;) cycle to school, 37%
walk to school and 14% use a car. I bet the ones that use a car are exactly
the ones that don't use a bike later in life.

------
chroma
The US population increased substantially over the time of that infographic.
Using their figures and census estimates, biking trips per person doubled
between 1990 and 1995, then stayed roughly the same since. Walking trips per
person is weird though: it almost doubled between 1995 and 2000.

Here's the spreadsheet I made to do the math:
[http://spreadsheets.google.com/ccc?key=0AllYoqUY9bu5dGEwTDlz...](http://spreadsheets.google.com/ccc?key=0AllYoqUY9bu5dGEwTDlzTTkwXzNtUEJQV0piVjI2OVE&hl=en)

~~~
_delirium
Curious if anyone has any explanations for the surge in walking. Did people
who were able to walk previously but chose not to suddenly decide to do so in
the late 1990s? (Why?) Did a bunch of people move into walkable areas within
that relatively short time span? Did these projects the chart mentions really
improve the pedestrian infrastructure noticeably enough in that period of time
to encourage a large increase in walking by people who previously didn't due
to lack of things like good sidewalks and pedestrian bridges? Some
combination?

~~~
sophacles
There has been a "downtown resurgence" trend all over the US. Since this makes
lots of various things local to each other, and puts lots of things local to
housing, I would be surprised if it wasn a contributing factor.

~~~
chroma
I think it's more probable that the numbers in the infograph are inaccurate.
We have no idea how the DOT did their survey.

------
adolph
Is Good making the point that the US DOT has poor ROI for bike and pedestrian
projects?

~~~
pmccool
I wondered the same thing. If you assume that the level of investment dictates
the number of trips, then the ROI is steadily decreasing. Whether it's any
worse than the ROI on, say, roads I have no idea.

My opinion, and I have no hard data to back it up, is that it's not a case of
build it and they will come, but a case of they come, they complain bitterly
about the lack of facilties and then and only then does it get built.

