The CCC surveys indicate 23% of Christchurch residents (~100,000) cycled on-road at least once a week (http://cyclingchristchurch.co.nz/2018/07/01/support-and-usage-of-cycling-still-high-in-chch/). It does seems entirely feasible that 1,440 of those might have biked to work on census day but not been counted because it’s not their usual mode of travel. If anything this result suggests we should expect the real number to be significantly higher than 1,440.

So if we accept that, is it reasonable to conclude that this census data does not show cycle mode share decreasing? If anything it shows it is most likely growing, although we won’t know for sure till next census.

In 2018, over 144,000 people in Chch said they usually drive a car/van/truck to work. So that is only 1% of this number that need to sometimes ride a bike instead; certainly possible.

PX 10 – I am currently spending the Xmas break mapping, riding , and describing 25 routes around the city that are safe and enjoyable for those ‘interested but concerned ‘ for the St Albans bike group. ( ages 50 to 80 ) Whilst including the major cycle routes as the default framework the challenge has been to ‘link ‘ them together using other quiet streets, at the same time avoiding intersections where the perceived risk of conflict is high for those less confident. Yes, it only takes one bad experience to put anyone off.
The intersection I would really like to avoid is northbound Colombo St at Beasley, despite it being part of the Papanui Parallel. Sad treatment for cyclists there, has been right from the start imo.
The other frustration is discovering how many so-called cul-de-sacs are signed at No Exit streets. ( when there are alleyways to walk and bike through ). This should have been dealt with years ago. There are some nifty ‘ complementary ‘ routes already available yet little is done to accurately sign and promote as a useful alternative to unfriendly corridors. In the big world of MCR funding it seems like the nimble, cheap and quick wins are taking the cinderella category.

Thank you Jan for some interesting numbers.

Many of us were concerned that Council’s focus on the MCR’s and neglect for the connecting local cycle network required to keep the “interested but concerned” or “8-80” cyclists engaged would end up discouraging cycling.

Having been enticed into cycling with the promise of infrastructure they would find themselves part way through their journey dumped onto an unsafe street. It only takes a few close calls to inspire fear.

This may explain the numbers.

Here is one comparison:

Difference between 365-day rolling average on 31/5/2018 and 18/12/2019
Marshland Rd, -11.2%
Main North Rd, -22.0%
#DIV/0!
Rutland Reserve, 12.0%
St Asaph St, -3.2%
Railway Cwy, -4.9%
Papanui Rd, -14.6%
Colombo St (North), 4.6%
Yaldhurst Rd, -14.4%
Heaton St, -23.0%
Hagley Park (North), 3.1%
Worcester St, 30.1%
Buckley Rd, 1.6%
Antigua Bridge, -11.0%
Hagley Park (South), -6.7%
#DIV/0!
University Dr, 21.7%
#DIV/0!
Little River Trail, -11.9%
Lincoln Rd, -12.5%
#DIV/0!
Colombo St (South), -4.5%
#DIV/0!
Cashmere St, -10.9%

Difference between 365-day rolling average on 30/6/2019 and 18/12/2019
Marshland Rd, -1.7%
Main North Rd, -4.2%
Travis Rd, 59.9%
Rutland Reserve, 4.6%
St Asaph St, 8.4%
Railway Cwy, 1.7%
Papanui Rd, 3.0%
Colombo St (North), 2.7%
Yaldhurst Rd, -0.3%
Heaton St, -6.9%
Hagley Park (North), 5.2%
Worcester St, 12.5%
Buckley Rd, -3.8%
Antigua Bridge, 5.8%
Hagley Park (South), 7.5%
Antigua St, 2.3%
University Dr, 7.3%
Linwood Ave, -0.1%
Little River Trail, 1.6%
Lincoln Rd, -0.8%
Collins St, 6.3%
Colombo St (South), 0.5%
Spark St, 22.7%
Cashmere St, -0.9%

I should add that I called a “365-day rolling average” but the way the formula works is that where the counter existed for less than 365 days for the date the rolling average is calculated, the average will be the average of however far back the numbers go. That’s for example the reason why there is a drop for the Eco counter. The “365-day average” on the 31/5/2018 was really the average from 17/5/2018 to 31/5/2018.

Yeah possibly, although it’s interesting that in my preliminary monitoring of the data the overall growth citywide seemed to peak for the 12-mth period ending May 2018 and then fall back a bit (starting to climb again now). I need to re-check my indexing analysis and see if everything is being weighted appropriately, then I might publish something.