108 responses so far ↓

• 1 Tiktaalik // Feb 17, 2011 at 8:22 pm

  How do we know all those unemployed kids from east van aren’t endlessly cycling around the block to skew the numbers? Huh? Answer me that Mr. Vancouver Engineer.

• 2 Unemployed East Van Kid // Feb 17, 2011 at 8:27 pm

  @tiktaalik: Um, because we have better things to do?

• 3 sv // Feb 17, 2011 at 8:33 pm

  Max?

• 4 Brandon // Feb 17, 2011 at 8:45 pm

  Why would unemployed East Van kids be spending their time cycling downtown?

• 5 Chris Porter // Feb 17, 2011 at 9:18 pm

  It’s sad that there are people out there who are so blinded by ideology that they feel the need to refute every piece of evidence that might run contrary to their own opinion. I’m all for critical thinking, but there is no grand conspiracy here. Cyclists are using the bike lanes, the world is warming, evolution is real. Move on people.

  Unfortunately, doubting this data may be human nature. Recent research has shown (http://arstechnica.com/science/news/2010/05/when-science-clashes-with-belief-make-science-impotent.ars) that showing someone evidence that they are wrong leads to them strengthening their original beliefs instead of changing their mind. Maybe that explains Max’s behaviour.

• 6 Ilove604 // Feb 17, 2011 at 9:18 pm

  More importantly, why do so many people seem to be hoping that these bike lanes fail? Do we not believe we are able to embrace such a bold, progressive transportation policy in this city? It’s taken great leadership, political courage and planning to build these lanes, and perhaps it will take more than 2 months for them to be used en masse. The long-term benefit of getting people out of their cars and using active transportation will hopefully turn critics into supporters, in due time. Vancouverites, we should dare to be great, just this once.

• 7 PGH // Feb 17, 2011 at 9:42 pm

  Max’s suspicions aside … could someone tell me how many cycling trips per month were happening on Hornby before the separated bike lane and now after the bike lane is in? Preferably I could be told a monthly average before and after just so we have some way of making a relative comparison. And I mean Jan ’10 vs Jan ’11.

• 8 Frances Bula // Feb 17, 2011 at 9:47 pm

  @ Hmm, I think this is a hard one, because the Hornby lane was only one way (northbound) and southbound riders went on Burrard. Or, since Burrard was terrifying, they likely scattered to other streets.

  The city’s Excel database doesn’t seem to have any Hornby numbers prior. I would guess you’d have to look at Burrard Bridge counts prior to all bike lanes to get a sense of who was using a north-south route across downtown to get to the bridge.

• 9 Shaun // Feb 17, 2011 at 9:49 pm

  Who are these non-anonymous people questioning the integrity of city staff collecting and analyzing his data? Let’s know who the crazies are!

• 10 PGH // Feb 17, 2011 at 9:56 pm

  Thanks Frances. I agree. So maybe we can we find out how many bike trips took place across the Burrard Bridge in both directions before and after the separated lanes were built? How many more cyclists are there actually riding across the bridge to get downtown?

• 11 Max // Feb 17, 2011 at 10:24 pm

  @ Chris Porter:

  The reason myself and others question the numbers lay at the feet of Robertson and Vision themselves.

  Through their actions they have created doubt when it comes to their inability to be ‘open and transparent’ and you can add truthful.

  They, Robertson and Vision have created their own conspiracy monster and they need to deal with the aftermath of that creation.

  As for me and my so called ‘behavior’ toward questioning these numbers, well I will thank you for the link. But this, the bike lanes, is far from a scientific study. It is one sided information that can very easily be manipulated to suit a cause.

  These numbers are being trotted out by our local government that holds an agenda to cycling.

  After all, why would Councilor Raymond Louie being saying we just all ‘have to get used to it’?

• 12 Declan // Feb 17, 2011 at 10:31 pm

  If you’re hearing accusations of fraud against the city engineering department from serious, non-anonymous sources, then do you not have a duty to tell us who is making these allegations?

  We know Rob Macdonald is one, “someone at City Hall is fudging the facts.” but who else?

• 13 Max // Feb 17, 2011 at 10:37 pm

  @ Frances #8

  Great.

  Then maybe we can figure out how many cyclists crossed the Burrard Bridge prior to the grand annoucement of the one millionth rider…. solely due to the dedicated bike lane.(of course)….and if that number is actually true, or not.

  However, it was quite novel seeing the tent with people handing out t-shirts commemorating the ‘event’ . Laying aside the very convenient fact that the ‘one millionth rider’ just so happened hours before the success of the ‘trial’ of the Burrard Bridge bike lanes were announced as a permanent fixture.

• 14 Frances Bula // Feb 17, 2011 at 10:44 pm

  @Declan. I don’t know. I just know I’ve been to business meetings where there’s been a lot of talk about it. I haven’t been in a position to run around demanding identification from everyone. And, yes, Rob Macdonald in print, so I thought it was important to address it.

• 15 Sean // Feb 17, 2011 at 11:00 pm

  @ILove604 #6

  “More importantly, why do so many people seem to be hoping that these bike lanes fail?”

  Yes, this is a puzzling question, isn’t it? Everyone (even motorists) benefits when more people cycle, so just what is it that people are afraid of?

  It’s almost as if people think that you’d have to be a little crazy to commute by bike. You don’t, at lease not if you have reasonable facilities. Believe it or not, cycling is actually enjoyable! Less so in the rain, it’s true, but even then I arrive at my destination feeling a lot more refreshed and alive than if I drive or take transit.

  Bike lanes aren’t going to FORCE anyone to cycle, but they will ALLOW more people to cycle – and that’s a good thing, really!

• 16 Tiktaalik // Feb 17, 2011 at 11:15 pm

  I laid on the sarcasm a bit too thick I think.

  For the record my bike currently has a flat tire, so this east van kid hasnt been skewing the numbers.

  Next time I see one of those counter cord things I’ll definitely jump onto it extra hard though.

• 17 Richard // Feb 17, 2011 at 11:42 pm

  There are tons of cities and engineers with pro car agendas. How come no one ever questions automobile counts but some people seem to question the bike counts.

  Radio stations and newspapers have done counts on Dunsmuir and they have supported the city’s numbers.

• 18 Mark Allerton // Feb 17, 2011 at 11:47 pm

  @Max

  What would you require as proof, to convince you that the numbers published by the City are correct?

• 19 Morven // Feb 18, 2011 at 12:03 am

  There is confusion and angst about the bike lanes (still).

  I am surprised given the scale of the investment, that the city engineers do not have, or provided a set of guidelines for bicycle traffic measurement that are consistent with other bicyle projects (such as the US Transport Research Board Guidelines for Analysis of Investment in Bicycle Facilities.

  If we all understood that there is a consistent basis for analysing the economic benefits, we might stand a chance of a reasonable debate.
  -30-

• 20 Glissando Remmy // Feb 18, 2011 at 12:31 am

  The Thought of The Evening

  “Stop speculating. These bike lanes numbers are real. Pamela Anderson’s boobs are real. Bob Rennie’s fire sale numbers are real. Yeti, the abominable snowman is real. Penny Ballem, MD is real. Loch Ness monster is real. Vision’s lofty poll numbers are real. Santa Clause is real. Stop speculating.”

  Is no wonder why no one trusts the numbers the Vision apparatchik are putting out… Why is that? Reread ‘The Boy Who Cried Wolf’ story! Then check their record to date.
  Better, type in Google :
  ‘Vision, honesty, knowledge, loyalty, experience, 500 years plan’.
  You’ll get:
  ‘Hillbillies’.

  One more thing…

  Victor Frankenstein, the naive Castle Administrator, the hero from Mary Shelley;s novel, was real. His monster on the other hand, wasn’t real at all. In reality it was only a disgruntled Castle Employee, who following a series of unfortunate events was constructively dismissed. Oh, but I’m not wrong.

  We live in Vancouver and this keeps us busy.

• 21 Declan // Feb 18, 2011 at 8:28 am

  “I haven’t been in a position to run around demanding identification from everyone. And, yes, Rob Macdonald in print, so I thought it was important to address it.”

  I wasn’t questioning why you posted it, just trying to figure out how many crows to order, where to deliver them, etc.

• 22 spartikus // Feb 18, 2011 at 8:33 am

  Thanks for this post, Frances.

  This is a real pet peeve of mine. People might think their cavalier accusations of fraud only strike and affect politicians. But they don’t.

  And the accusers, like many here, like Mr. MacDonald, seemingly don’t comprehend or don’t care that they’ve placed their own integrity under the microscope.

  For example:

  
  I am surprised given the scale of the investment, that the city engineers do not have, or provided a set of guidelines for bicycle traffic measurement that are consistent with other bicyle projects

  Really. You know this for a fact? How? How do you know they don’t have a set of “guidelines”. How do you know they don’t follow the US Transport Research Board Guidelines for Analysis of Investment in Bicycle Facilities

  I personally challenge you, Morven, to take up Dobrovolny’s offer.

• 23 F.H.Leghorn // Feb 18, 2011 at 9:07 am

  Commuters and cyclists disagree? Let’s devote endless time and effort to pointless squabbling.

  Thousands of locals and hundreds of Canadians die defending a gas pipeline through the world’s biggest heroin producer? Never mind, let’s argue some more about bike lanes.

• 24 Morven // Feb 18, 2011 at 9:28 am

  All they have to do is to tell us what consistent procedures are used, what guidelines are followed and whether they are specific to Vancouver projects.

  Quite simple. Transparency.

  As a taxpayer, regardless of what I think of bike lanes, I am entitled to know that city officials are careful about assessing the value for money.

  It matters not whether it is bike lanes, a community centre or a sewer project, – did it meet it’s purpose, did it meet it’s budget and did it achieve value for money.

  I expect that elected representatives have a duty of care to ask those very questions.
  -30-

• 25 Mark Allerton // Feb 18, 2011 at 10:10 am

  @Morven,

  As far as I am aware, the City has always been clear about the methodology used to compile these statistics. Can you give an example of some information about methodology that you believe has been missing?

  I’m somewhat baffled here. Here is what the City has told us (and I have verified with my own eyes.)

  There are pressure sensing hoses in the lanes at various points.
  The various points are documented (download the spreadsheet.)
  There are counters interfaced to the hoses that increment each time a bike rolls over the hoses.
  The daily total for each counter is recorded in the spreadsheet.

  What else do you need to know?

• 26 jason // Feb 18, 2011 at 10:20 am

  “The reason myself and others question the numbers lay at the feet of Robertson and Vision themselves.

  Through their actions they have created doubt when it comes to their inability to be ‘open and transparent’ and you can add truthful.

  They, Robertson and Vision have created their own conspiracy monster and they need to deal with the aftermath of that creation.”

  I couldn’t agree more.

  I have absolutely NO doubt that the city engineers are providing accurate numbers and information and attempting to do the best job they can. I do, however, think that some data may be pushed, while either data may be “ignored” by the politicians pushing a particular agenda. Vision cannot afford to have these bike lanes fail, they placed a big chunk of their political capital on them, and they are going to do whatever they can to have them appear to be a success. That breeds distrust, and it is a distrust bred from their lack of transparency in general.

  Having said that, this is not unique to Vision, and I agree that these same tactics could be used by politicians to push new bridges, highways, etc. But that doesn’t justify anything, it’s just basically an argument that “everyone is lying, so if Vision lies, they are just playing the same game”.

  Those of us who are downtown every day, and drive or walk by the bike lanes every day, wonder where the hell the bikes are. The lanes seem empty for most of the day, and we get frustrated and feel like the lanes were a giant waste of money….but again I will readily admit, we could be wrong. I would love a very comprehensive report that looks at overall bike ridership into, and out of, downtown Vancouver before and after the bike lanes. And if numbers are going up, terrific. But we have to choose a set of criteria that are fair, and we have to be open to the data. “Perceived additional Safety” is not actual safety, “More cyclists on Hornby” is not necessarily more cyclists riding downtown.

  We have heard and seen the data from everywhere else in the world…now lets see what OUR data has to say.

  I promise to keep an open mind if everyone else will.

• 27 Chris Keam // Feb 18, 2011 at 10:26 am

  “Those of us who are downtown every day, and drive or walk by the bike lanes every day, wonder where the hell the bikes are.”

  I have the same sense of wonder every time I look down Twelfth Ave and it’s almost devoid of cars from Fraser to Commercial. Why so much space? Why is it so under-used?

  I would urge anyone curious about our transportation system to start casting the same jaundiced eye toward every piece of pavement. What I’ve discovered personally is that there is literally miles of over-capacity in our road system, designed only to accommodate absolute peak periods. And that’s not even taking into account the fact that most cars are capable of holding four passengers, but only have a driver, essentially operating at 25% efficiency.

  Let’s have an even playing field.

• 28 Morven // Feb 18, 2011 at 10:32 am

  I have not questioned the accuracy of the pressure devices. Or the accuracy of the spreadsheet

  But pressure devices do not measure demographics. Are the users bike couriers, commuters, shoppers or merely the curious?

  Are they affected by weather?

  No one doubts that the bike lanes achieved their safety objectives.

  But did they move commuters out of cars, or only move bus passengers to bikes? How do the numbers vary by time of day, day or weather?

  I
  We are entitled as taxpayers to know just how the city will assess effectiveness.

  Pure numbers are not enough for a “trial project”. Did it achieve it’s intended purpose – which was far more than political grandstanding.

  Just this week we had a vivid example of failed projections on the very expensive Golden Eear’s bridge. And that is why surveys are done to establish reasons why a policy does/does not fail. Simple common sense.

  -30-

• 29 Morven // Feb 18, 2011 at 10:34 am

  I have not questioned the accuracy of the pressure devices. Or the accuracy of the spreadsheet

  But pressure devices do not measure demographics. Are the users bike couriers, commuters, shoppers or merely the curious?

  Are they affected by weather?

  No one doubts that the bike lanes achieved their safety objectives.

  But did they move commuters out of cars, or only move bus passengers to bikes? How do the numbers vary by time of day, day or weather?

  It is also trite to say that motor vehicles are not affected when, if my observation is correct, many car drivers now avoid Hornby and use other routes.

  We are entitled as taxpayers to know just how the city will assess effectiveness.

  Pure numbers are not enough for a “trial project”. Did it achieve it’s intended purpose – which was far more than political grandstanding.

  Just this week we had a vivid example of failed projections on the very expensive Golden Ears bridge. And that is why surveys are done to establish reasons why a policy does/does not fail. Simple common sense.

  -30-

• 30 Paul // Feb 18, 2011 at 10:54 am

  @Morven… Couldn’t disagree more. Safety objectives are the clear problem here. Studies have shown safety is achieved as well or better with painted lanes. You don’t have to go pumping millions of dollars worth of concrete to achieve safety. I want to see injury statistics. If there truly is a negligible amount of injuries then I’ll proclaim the bike lanes a success. I highly doubt that will be the case though.

• 31 boohoo // Feb 18, 2011 at 11:08 am

  Paul,

  You can’t have it both ways. If the number of injuries is negligible you’ll call it a success. But where the Golden Ears Bridge isn’t up to projections you say give it a while.

  You either take a long term view of these things or you narrowly look at short term statistics.

  Which is it? You can’t flip flop to suit your argument.

• 32 jason // Feb 18, 2011 at 11:10 am

  “I have the same sense of wonder every time I look down Twelfth Ave and it’s almost devoid of cars from Fraser to Commercial. Why so much space? Why is it so under-used?”

  Really Chris? Really? I’m not sure how often you’re in a car, but I drive 12th ave often…day and night, and it is an EXTREMELY heavily used thoroughfare. In fact, I don’t think I’ve ever been on 12th when it’s not being used, unless it’s 4am in the morning.

  Regardless of whether your example is based in reality, I think your underlying point is valid. We should not be building or expanding infrastructure unless it is warranted. I also agree that there should be way more HOV lanes that attempt to influence more occupants in a vehicle.

  And Paul, the safety statistics are going to be a VERY useful indicators on the effectiveness of separated bike lanes. However, I think we need to look at numbers and safety. If the separated lanes do end up encouraging additional ridership, even if safety is on par (or slightly less than) with painted lanes I’d be willing to give them a pass. I still feel, as you do, that painted lanes are as safe (or more so), but am very interested in whether the separated lanes do achieve the objective of increasing ridership, as many have claimed.

• 33 Richard // Feb 18, 2011 at 11:12 am

  @Morven

  Does it really matter who is cycling on the bike lanes and why they are cycling on them? Just like people in cars, there will be a variety of people using them for a variety of uses. People are using them, that is the bottom line.

  If they are using them instead of the bus, that leaves more room for other people to get out of their cars and onto the bus.

  And, yes, obviously ridership is affected by the weather.

  I never see people like you asking similar questions about automobile traffic. Like how much of the automobile traffic is couriers and cabs?

• 34 Chris Keam // Feb 18, 2011 at 11:15 am

  Jason:

  I live a block away. There are plenty of times when a single lane in either direction would be more than enough capacity for Twelfth. As I say, if we are looking at peak periods, then that should be the criteria for everything IMO. We, as a rule, build transit, roads, etc to handle peak periods and future capacity. For some reason it seems the goal posts move when it’s time to build a bike lane.

  cheers,
  CK

• 35 Paul // Feb 18, 2011 at 11:40 am

  @Boohoo 31 – The Golden Ears bridge is failing currently, and I think the lesson should be learned from that. It was the wrong time to build that bridge. In 3 or 4 years it may be more successful due to tolling on the Port Mann, but for now it’s failing to perform.

  However, the comparison is not really valid boo. The Golden Ears Bridge was part of a massive connection project that was never there before.

  The Separated Bike Lane on Hornby tore up a perfectly safe working bike lane and replaced it with something that is not any safer, in fact I contend (based on studies that have been posted) that it is actually less safe than what was there before.

  If you do want to take the lesson from the Golden Ears and apply it to the bike lanes though, clearly the message is that just building it won’t fix the problem. Instead of using concrete, council could have expanded the cycling network downtown with many more painted lanes and used the savings to fund campaigns to increase ridership.

  That is the name of the game isn’t it boo? We want to see more riders using lanes and doing our best to ensure their safety. Increased ridership leads to better safety and better safety leads to increased ridership. My contention has always been that concrete and rubber-maid eye-sores are not the most effective way of achieving those goals. They are just a political statement.

• 36 jason // Feb 18, 2011 at 11:45 am

  Chris, I’d say your criticism is valid if I walked by the bike lanes at any time and saw “peak” traffic….But I don’t. I commute Mon – Fri downtown, I go out pretty much every day at lunch…and during all those times I’m going by the separated lanes…and I NEVER see “peak” traffic. They are empty. So if we use “peak” criteria, I would still say that the bike lanes are not fulfilling their goal….nor do I feel I’m “moving the goal post”

  HOWEVER, it’s winter time, the weather sucks and so it’s obviously not the best indicator. I’m willing to wait until Spring/Summer…and if I’m seeing tons of cyclists, and families, etc. all happily using the bike lanes (and the numbers are increasing overall), I’m going to happily stop complaining.

  I still think my comments and criticism about rushing to build the lanes for Winter has proven to be correct (based on usage), but I’m still hopeful that the lanes prove to be a success overall. I may not currently be a huge fan of separated lanes, but after all the debate, I am hoping to be proven wrong.

• 37 Morven // Feb 18, 2011 at 11:52 am

  @ Richard

  I had always thought, in the case of Hornby, the public policy objective was to move commuters from cars to bikes and/or transit. To do this required linkage with the Burrard lanes.

  To encourage the reasonable citizen to participate safely, segregated lanes were constructed. I have no issue with the public policy rationale.

  Demographics do matter.

  If surveys show that the main use is to circulate bike riders within the business district rather than flow bike commuters into the business district, then the original policy reasoning is in error.

  In fairness, I should say that even 12 months is too short as period to tell if the policy works.

  But if no information is gathered on demographics on an ongoing basis, then that is not a reasonable policy analysis.

  There no doubt will be future bike lanes. But if the taxpayers are unconvinced that reasonable steps are taken to ascertain the value of the exercise, they may just want to spend their tax dollars on other worthwhile projects.
  -30-

• 38 spartikus // Feb 18, 2011 at 11:53 am

  I take it, Morven, you are not going to visit the Engineering Dept. and that you would prefer to continue to call them liars.

  For that is precisely what you are doing, though obliquely.

  Mr. Dobrovolny has made an offer (bent over backwards imho) to open up his Dept to accommodate certain concerns and you have the nerve to carry on about a lack of transparency?

• 39 Mira // Feb 18, 2011 at 12:08 pm

  LOL
  Spartikus, stop speculating. The numbers are real!
  Morven proves a point. Vision cannot be trusted. Oh, and Glissando is not wrong.
  

• 40 Chris Keam // Feb 18, 2011 at 12:20 pm

  Hi Jason:

  I understand completely what you are saying, but realistically, when we look at Twelfth Ave at peak period, we are also looking at a facility that has had decades to build ‘market share’ facilitated in no small part by billions in advertising promoting automobile use as a sensible transportation choice.

  I think the gains cycling has made in such a short time, with just a fraction of the marketing muscle of the auto industry, makes both the mode, and the infrastructure initiatives to support it, pretty darn successful by comparison.

• 41 East Vancouverite // Feb 18, 2011 at 12:25 pm

  Painted lanes on busy streets tend to only attract cyclists who are comfortable riding in a painted lane on a busy street. This is a narrow cross section of the population and it is not surprising that they are able to negotiate with a general degree of safety the many threats that abound, including abruptly opened doors and right turning vehicles that do not yield or signal. Protected bicycle lanes have been found in other cities to attract a broader spectrum of the population due to the greater perception of safety that they create. Encouraging more people using bicycles as a regular mode of transportation is a stated, long supported Council policy and unsurprisingly different approaches are required in different parts of the city and on different types of street.

  Returning to the issue of the importance of perceived safety, it occurs to me that our standard design for sidewalks heavily reflects this. I think that people almost universally prefer raised curb sidewalks as opposed to a level surface with a line painted to delineate space because the former feels safer than the latter. That raised curb provides almost zero protection if a car were to veer off the road into the pedestrians but the perception of safety that it creates allows sidewalk street life to flourish.

• 42 Max // Feb 18, 2011 at 12:49 pm

  This is up on the CoV web site as reasoning behind separated bike lanes:

  ‘The experience of other cities suggests that the perception of safety is essential to attracting more people to cycling and that separated bike lanes are perceived to be safer and more satisfying for cyclists than cycling next to traffic.’

  *************

  There is a difference between the ‘perception’ of being safe and actually being safe.

  Which is it.

• 43 Paul // Feb 18, 2011 at 1:00 pm

  @ East Vancouverite: I agree people FEEL safer in a separated cycle track. I’m not arguing the benefits that all of the pro-trackers have been saying. My issue is that there are proven better ways to implement separation without spending millions on concrete and having to make confusing traffic alignments. A one-way contra direction painted lane between the parking lane and the sidewalk is the right way to upgrade a route like Hornby. Pylons could be used to add a degree of separation.

  It would also be the right way to redesign Burrard Street. AND it should have been done on Howe and Thurlow too. FOR THE SAME PRICE OR LESS.

  Again, Hornby was nothing but a political statement, when what we actually needed was leadership.

• 44 jason // Feb 18, 2011 at 1:51 pm

  “think the gains cycling has made in such a short time, with just a fraction of the marketing muscle of the auto industry, makes both the mode, and the infrastructure initiatives to support it, pretty darn successful by comparison.”

  Chris, I somewhat agree with that statement, I just want to see those gains HERE rather than continue to use other countries as examples. Geoff Meggs, in his response to Macdonald pointed out:

  “Despite 15 years of careful investment, with more than 400 lane-kilometres of bike routes, Vancouver has not seen the increase in cycling that other leading cities have seen.”

  Now the HOPE/GOAL is that we’ll start to see cycling increases with the separated lanes….that’s the real argument from the “pro lane” side, and I hope it’s correct. I think a fair assessment of that would be to look at average growth over the last 3-5 years with no separated lanes, look at the lanes after year one and see if there is growth occurring…I don’t expect it to be a massive increase, but if the separated lanes are doing what they are supposed to there should be a decent increase (for example, if it’s 6% now, lets say it goes to 7 1/2% in year one, 9% in year 2, etc.) in cycling downtown. If that growth is occurring (and accidents don’t start increasing substantially at intersections) then I think the lanes could be called a “success” and the justification for additional lanes would be there.

  What I don’t want to see is us continue to build more and more separated lanes, prior to gathering all the data, with the argument that “we need these to encourage cycling”. If this is truly a “trial”, then let’s let the trial have a little time to prove itself, and then we can decide if more separated lanes are justified.

  Honestly, if the data supports it I will happily “eat crow” and support more separated lanes.

• 45 grounded // Feb 18, 2011 at 1:53 pm

  @ Max:

  According to a new study looking at Montreal’s separated bike lanes the safety increases are real:

  “Cyclists using special bike-only tracks that are physically separated from street traffic have fewer accidents compared to bikers pedalling alongside motor vehicles, a new study finds.

  “We found that there is a 28 percent lower injury rate when bicycling on cycle tracks, compared with bicycling in parallel and comparable roads,” noted study lead author Anne Lusk, a research associate in the department of nutrition at the Harvard School of Public Health in Boston.

  “Of course, intersections do have to be well-designed, ideally with red and green bicycle signals,” Lusk added. “And even then, we’re not suggesting that cycle tracks have zero risk. But rigorous research does show that the difference in the accident rate is real.”

  …

  “A lack of safe biking tracks might reinforce the car-centric culture that predominates in the United States, Lusk’s team said. While more than a quarter of all Dutch commuters get around by bike and 55 percent of Dutch cyclists are women, in the U.S. less than one-half of 1 percent of Americans ride a bike to work and fewer than one-quarter of those riders are women.

  Differences in biking infrastructure are also accompanied by starkly different accident rates: cycle injury rates are at least 26 times higher in the U.S. than in the Netherlands, the researchers noted.”

  Source: http://www.businessweek.com/lifestyle/content/healthday/650047.html

• 46 PGH // Feb 18, 2011 at 2:21 pm

  Lies, damned lies, and statistics!!!! Why do we have to go and visit the engineering department to get their hourly numbers? Is it that hard for them to put the spreadsheets of this data up on the city website? I find it strange that this information hasn’t already been released to the public. The more data released the less questioning and speculation you will get from the blogosphere. This reminds me a little of the data released by Penny Ballem showing that there hasn’t been high staff turnover at city hall since VV took over. If the numbers are available make it easy for people to see them.

• 47 Paul // Feb 18, 2011 at 2:47 pm

  @grounded 45: The Montreal study is absolutely correct and has some importance when looking at Dunsmuir and Burrard Bridge (as there was no cycling infrastructure on those routes). However the Montreal study did not measure the difference in safety between painted and separated bike lanes. Studies that include those options show that separation via concrete or other methods actually does not have a noticeable decrease in overall injury statistics, in fact in some areas separation increased the risk of injury.

  The Montreal study is fatally flawed because it took a much too narrow approach to justifying the safety of separated bike paths.

  I think the argument boils down to the same type of argument as LRT vs. Skytrain has in this city. Both are extremely efficient rapid transit options, one just costs a lot less. So if we can achieve the same goals with a lot less money, why are we wasting that money on cement, ugly rubbermaid bins and twigs er “plants”?

• 48 Sean // Feb 18, 2011 at 3:25 pm

  @Morven # 28
  “But pressure devices do not measure demographics. Are the users bike couriers, commuters, shoppers or merely the curious?”

  I don’t understand why any such distinctions would be relevant. Sure, the number of “Merely the curious” cyclists probably wouldn’t hold up over the long term, but the statistics themselves will bear that out sooner or later anyway.

  But how are bike couriers or shoppers any more or less deserving of a bike lane than commuters? Are taxis or delivery trucks less deserving of vehicle lanes than other traffic?

• 49 Chris Porter // Feb 18, 2011 at 3:38 pm

  I don’t expect this to change anyone’s minds here, but it is an interesting read and there are references to studies about the effect of bike lanes vs cycle tracks (specifically #5):
  Responses to common talking points by Those Opposed to Bicycle Infrastructure
  http://livininthebikelane.blogspot.com/2010/11/responses-to-common-talking-points-by.html

  Paul’s SkyTrain analogy is an interesting one. Both LRT and SkyTrain will result in increased public transit, but we continue to invest in SkyTrain for other reasons: separated grade travel and driver-less infrastructure. Both bike lanes and cycle tracks will improve cycling conditions and make them safer, but cycle tracks have the added benefit of encouraging more cautious cyclists to use them.

• 50 Morven // Feb 18, 2011 at 4:00 pm

  Sean:

  The answer is that these policies are supposed to be evidence based.

  The answer is to know whether the bike lanes are encouraging people to move from cars to bikes. And many studies show that the provision of separated lanes does that.

  But if the Vancouver lanes for whatever reason are only catering to dedicated commuter cyclists, then some enhanced communication programs are called for before the wrong policy decision is taken.

  And non-commuter cyclists are far more inclined to be influenced by weather than the commuters, making numbers and variability substantial.

  We all need reliable demographic evidence in addition to mere numbers. I will admit that to draw proper conclusions needs about three years of data, not six months.
  -30-

• 51 Max // Feb 18, 2011 at 4:43 pm

  Tweets coming in;

  RT @coleensdish: Are the bike lanes here to stay? Wait until you hear what the city has to say. See you at 5.

  *****

  RT @ctvethanfaber: City says lots of people using #bikelanes but drivers not convinced. Numbers fudged? Debate at six @ctvbc

• 52 grounded // Feb 18, 2011 at 5:12 pm

  @Paul:

  1) Which studies “show that separation via concrete or other methods actually does not have a noticeable decrease in overall injury statistics”? Please post a link to them as I’d like to give them a read.

  I did a quick search and found a couple of studies signaling the opposite may be at play. For example, a recent study looking at painted lanes in the UK found that:

  “where there is a bike lane, motorists tend to give less room to cyclists when they overtake.”

  (Source: ‘Cars and cycle lanes – too close for comfort’, Guardian UK, 11.09.09)

  While a study from Copenhagen points out that:

  “segregated bike lanes has resulted in three gains in road safety: fewer accidents in which cars hit or ran over cyclists from the rear, fewer accidents with cyclists turning left and fewer accidents in which cyclists rode into a parked car. These gains were outweighed by new safety problems: more accidents in which cyclists rode into other cyclists often when overtaking, more accidents with cars turning right, more accidents in which cars turning left drove into cyclists as well as more accidents between cyclists/ pedestrians and exiting or entering bus passengers.”
  (Source: http://www.ottawasun.com/news/ottawa/SBLDraftReportResponse.pdf)

  I’d imagine you’ll acknowledge that painted lanes don’t prevent cars from hitting or running over cyclists from the rear or cyclists from running into parked cars.

  2) How can you call the study “fatally flawed” when, in the words of the researchers, “Each cycle track was compared with one or two reference streets without bicycle facilities that were considered alternative bicycling routes”? I realize it is not comparing painted vs separated but it is still comparing streets used for cycling.

  3) Painted lanes don’t give those of us who aren’t hardcore cyclists the same sense of safety as separated lanes which is so critical in encouraging more people to commute by bike.

  4) The city’s ongoing installation of left turn bays along Knight Street are averaging between $3.5 million and $4.5 million; both of which are more expensive than the Hornby bike lane. To this end, this quote from Gordon Price puts things into perspective:

  “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?”

• 53 Sean // Feb 18, 2011 at 5:18 pm

  @Morven #50

  “But if the Vancouver lanes for whatever reason are only catering to dedicated commuter cyclists, then some enhanced communication programs are called for before the wrong policy decision is taken.”

  I’m not following you. The purpose of the lanes is to encourage and increase the number of cyclists. If it increases the number of commuter cyclists, how is that different than if it increases the number of shopping cyclists or recreational cyclists?

  “And non-commuter cyclists are far more inclined to be influenced by weather than the commuters, making numbers and variability substantial.”

  That will be borne out by the statistics themselves. You don’t need to categorize the cyclists as recreational and therefore likely not to ride in bad weather, you just have to measure the number of cyclists who show up in bad weather. Trying to extrapolate numbers based on the type of cyclist is never going to be as accurate as measuring the number of cyclists who actually show up.

• 54 Declan // Feb 18, 2011 at 6:37 pm

  It seems like Dobrovolny was basically saying ‘put up or shut up’.

  So far the ‘put up’ count is at 0 by my reckoning.

  —
  As for the usage of the lanes, I’m not sure what people were expecting, they seem busy enough to me (I work on Dunsmuir St.), and the bike racks are always pretty full, although certainly I’d expect the volumes to grow over the years as cycling infrastructure improves and the city continues to densify.

  Certainly you see far more women, older and younger, and more regular joe types on their bikes now, whereas a couple of years ago, you’d only see couriers and commuters who were mostly ‘serious cyclists’ in spandex from head to toe.

• 55 pacpost // Feb 18, 2011 at 7:01 pm

  @ Paul

  There’s one very important difference between Copenhagen and North America that you’re ignoring when you point to the Copenhagen bike lane/bike track study: vulnerable user laws.

  Denmark has very strict vulnerable user laws, as does the Netherlands. These laws put the onus on car drivers to avoid accidents, whether with cyclists or pedestrians. This may explain why they actually respect cyclists riding on roads with painted bike lanes more than North American drivers do, and why the statistics show less of a difference between the different types of infrastructure (although the Copenhagen study showed that a difference is there, despite your protestations).

  As the Dutch say in their own official literature: “The Dutch philosophy is: Cyclists are not dangerous; cars and car drivers are: so car drivers should take the responsibility for avoiding collisions with cyclists. This implies that car drivers are almost always liable when a collision with a bicycle occurs and should adapt their speed when bicycles share the roads with cyclists.”

  http://www.fietsberaad.nl/index.cfm?lang=en&repository=Cycling+in+the+Netherlands

  Imagine if the road laws were changed here in BC along these lines. Oh, the howls of protest…

• 56 Mark Allerton // Feb 18, 2011 at 7:29 pm

  @Morven 28

  You are moving the goalposts.

  In your comment 24 you said this:

  “All they have to do is to tell us what consistent procedures are used”

  …insinuating that the City has not been transparent about it’s methodology. But when pressed to give an example of how they have failed to do this, your response is instead to point out what you see failings in the methodology.

  So I take it you now accept that your original insinuation was baseless and have moved on to insinuating that the City’s data collection efforts are insufficient instead.

• 57 Mark Allerton // Feb 18, 2011 at 7:30 pm

  “what you see *as* failings”

• 58 Mark Allerton // Feb 18, 2011 at 7:38 pm

  I note also that Max can’t be bothered to answer my #18, presumably because proof of the validity of the City’s data would conflict inconveniently with their belief system.

• 59 spartikus // Feb 18, 2011 at 8:01 pm

  RT @ctvethanfaber: City says lots of people using #bikelanes but drivers not convinced. Numbers fudged? Debate at six @ctvbc

  There are 2 things to be learned from this. The first is the actual nitty-gritty facts, such as the CTV report shows no fudging…

  “What we’ve seen so far is that on average, we’re seeing about 600 cyclists a day during the midweek,” assistant city engineer Jerry Dobrovolny told CTV News…When CTV News counted bikes at Hornby and Georgia streets Friday afternoon, 99 cyclists used the separated lane in about an hour.

  99 cyclists x 8 hour working day = 600 easily. I’m sure CTV is in on the plot.

  The second thing one learns is anything originating from City Caucus is often less than advertised.

  This is your Waterloo, Max.

• 60 spartikus // Feb 18, 2011 at 8:14 pm

  @Morven 28 You are moving the goalposts.

  Indeed. Why is Morven, or anyone for that matter, refusing to take up Dobrovolny’s unprecedented offer.

  It would be a slam dunk. A coup. A triumph.

  Personally, I’m at the point where I would feel quite comfortable dismissing the Morvens and Maxs on the grounds of not having anything substantive to offer. On any subject.

  And so should you.

• 61 Paul // Feb 18, 2011 at 8:28 pm

  @pacpost 55: I completely agree with you about improving legal safeguards for vulnerable road users. However I will say that pedestrians in our province already share that safeguard with the Netherlands. The BC Motor Vehicle Act states “A driver of a vehicle must exercise due care to avoid colliding with a pedestrian who is on the highway.” I’d certainly be happy to see that law broadened to encompass all vulnerable road users. ICBC is already teaching this concept, but you’re right it lacks the bite of a law.

  @grounded 52:

  1) You answered your own question, read the Copenhagen study findings “…These gains were OUTWEIGHED by new safety problems: more accidents in which cyclists rode into other cyclists often when overtaking, more accidents with cars turning right, more accidents in which cars turning left drove into cyclists as well as more accidents between cyclists/ pedestrians and exiting or entering bus passengers.”

  2) It is fatally flawed, they took a couple of streets with no bike facilities and compared them to a street with a cycle track. They did not study other types of cycling infrastructure. So all it has said is that A is better than B, which is correct. But it totally disregarded C, D, E, F, G, etc. As I said, it was far too narrow of a study to be useful.

  3) The painted lanes as we had them did not offer that sense of security, agreed. However, look at some of the painted lanes they are doing in Sydney, Australia. Those are examples of a great way to do painted facilities. They’re safe AND they feel safe. Win win.

  4) It’s not about $3 million dollars, it’s not about $3 billion dollars, it’s about an amount of money that was used when a better, safer, cheaper option was available. Haste makes waste and clearly this council rushed staff to get this done (by their own admission). That’s not how you run any government.

• 62 Mark Allerton // Feb 18, 2011 at 8:30 pm

  @spartikus

  Believe me, I was at that point some time ago…

• 63 Richard // Feb 18, 2011 at 8:31 pm

  @Morven

  I saw a couple of children cycling on Hornby and Dunsmuir today. You can pretty much bet that would have not been the case before.

  If the lanes aren’t attracting a high number of new cyclists, it is likely do the the limited number of safe connections to them. For example, there is really no good way to access them from the West End. The Dunsmuir separated lane ends at Hornby. To the west, there is no eastbound lane and the westbound is only a painted lane.

  Most of the streets between the West End and Hornby have heavy levels of traffic and pretty much no bicycle facilities of any kind.

  On the south end of Burrard Bridge, the options are limited. The Cypress Bikeway is typically clogged with cars and Cornwall is down right scary.

  To the east, the block of the Adanac Bikeway between Gore and Main is also clogged with cars.

  The Seaside Path by the Convention Centre is still blocked by the “temporary” sea plane terminal.

• 64 Morven // Feb 18, 2011 at 9:11 pm

  @ Richard

  Your observation would be an encouraging demographic. And yes, (though an infrequent traveller downtown), I did see several family groups on bikes last Sunday on the Hornby lane so perhaps there is something positive coming out of this project.
  -30-.

• 65 Richard // Feb 18, 2011 at 9:48 pm

  @Morven

  Basic demographic data like gender mix and number of children would be useful. In Copenhagen, 55% of cyclists are women. In the City of Vancouver according to the 2006 Census around 30% of bike commuters were women (and likely still are). They did do manual counts including gender on the Burrard Bridge and found a greater increase in women than in men. Hopefully, the city will do similar counts on Hornby and Dunsmuir.

• 66 Max // Feb 19, 2011 at 11:04 am

  From CTV’s web site article:

  ‘Packing bikes and cars together in close proximity has other consequences, too. Surveillance cameras at the St. Regis Hotel on Dunsmuir Street hotel have captured footage of five collisions since June.’

• 67 Richard // Feb 19, 2011 at 11:40 am

  @Max

  The collisions are most likely a result of drivers making illegal turns by not yielding to cyclists. Unfortunately these types of collisions happen where there are painted bike lanes as well. It is not an issue specific to separated bike lanes. Drivers have to learn to obey the law and yield to cyclists. The police should be ticketing drivers who don’t follow the rules of the road.

• 68 Paul // Feb 19, 2011 at 1:24 pm

  Richard your generalization of any driver who is involved in an accident with a cyclist is about as rich as people who generalize all cyclists as law-breaking. Of course some drivers will be guilty of being careless, I’d argue the vast majority of drivers do their best to avoid collisions with cyclists. As the Copenhagen study has shown, putting cyclists behind a barrier has two very negative effects on accident statistics where car/bike interfaces occur.

  1. Cyclists are lulled into a false sense of security and may not accurately be able to judge the risk that lies ahead.

  And 2. Vehicle drivers also get a sense of security or at least a lack of attention that a cyclist will always be in that lane. This will of course be mitigated by increased ridership. But increased ridership improves safety no matter what the infrastructure. “Out of sight Out of mind” is I believe the best way to describe the effect.

• 69 Richard // Feb 19, 2011 at 4:58 pm

  @Paul

  It was not a generalization. I was not implying anything about drivers in general as the large majority of them are careful around cyclists. It was a response to collisions at a specific location. On the Dunsmuir bike lane where Mr. MacDonald video taped collisions, cyclists have the right-of-way over turning vehicles. In the collision shown on Global, it was pretty clear that the driver should have waited for the cyclist to pass and instead, illegally turning into the path of the cyclist causing the collision. Regardless of whether cyclists are paying more or less attention, these types of collisions where drivers fail to yield are still the fault of the driver.

  And for the 19,000th time, these types of collisions are as big a problem on painted lanes down in Portland and Seattle.

  Bicycle ridership is increased by separated lanes. A much larger portion of the population is willing to ride in separated lanes. There will not be significant increases in cycling with only painted bike lanes.

  In fact, if you look back at the bike counts years ago on Hornby and Burrard, the numbers really didn’t increase significantly after the painted lanes where installed.

• 70 Paul // Feb 19, 2011 at 6:23 pm

  Richard, I love how the bicycle lobby sits there and tries to spew study after study at anyone who disagrees with their position. But when finally someone actually pushes stats and figures back at them they start whining how people will only use separated lanes. That’s despite the numerous studies that show a very minimal difference between the two.

  So for the 19,000th time please listen carefully. A well designed painted lane is a happy medium between expensive concrete and ineffective bike paths that we’re used to. Go look at Sydney’s design for painted lanes. Please. Before you discount the usefulness.

• 71 Richard // Feb 19, 2011 at 9:16 pm

  @Paul

  Sydney is building 55km of separated bike lanes because they work.

  Cities all around the world are building separated bike lanes because that is what people want to use. The numbers from Dunsmuir show a dramatic increase in usage.

  Show me a city that has has a high bicycle mode share that does not have a network of separated bike lanes or separated paths.

• 72 Richard // Feb 19, 2011 at 9:23 pm

  @Paul

  Looks like even LA is planning separated bike lanes:
  http://www.good.is/post/better-designed-streets-for-walkers-and-bikers-are-coming-to-l-a/

• 73 Paul // Feb 19, 2011 at 11:52 pm

  Thank you for not looking at Sydney carefully Richard. The painted bike lanes I speak of are considered separated because they use parked cars as the separation. Not concrete and rubbermaid containers. Cheaper, more effective, yet not even considered here. Why is the cycle lobby in this city so intent on giving us an inferior system?!?

• 74 Jason // Feb 20, 2011 at 8:59 am

  Richard…I believe a previous poster on here also pointed out that the sydney separated lanes (which, as Paul points out, are not separated as ours are) are also shared with transit….also something that appears to be a non starter here in Vancouver.

  “the numbers from Dunsmuir show a dramatic increase in usage”

  Richard, could also do me a favor and post the report that shows this? I don’t remember seeing a year on year comparison on Dunsmuir that show a “dramatic increase”

• 75 PGH // Feb 20, 2011 at 4:17 pm

  @Richard

  Please stop using Sydney, Australia as an example of a city that uses separated bike lanes to justify the mess the COV has made on Hornby St. and the Burrard St. Bridge. I am an active Sydney cyclist who rides almost everyday. Sydney uses painted bike lanes in most areas and uses dedicated shared lanes (Bikes and Buses) in the Central Business District. This system works just fine and doesn’t require a separate lane for bikes. On the Sydney Harbour Bridge they have separated cyclists and pedestrians. The sidewalk on one side of the bridge is for pedestrians. The side walk on the other side of the bridge is for Cyclists. Makes sense and works just fine. As a cyclist the only thing missing for me, in Sydney, is Bike Rack equipped buses.

• 76 Bobbie Bees // Feb 20, 2011 at 8:00 pm

  The only thing I need to remind any private business that is actively filming the public at large is that they need to be in full compliance with the BC PIPA ACT.

  Reminds me, I’ve got a complaint to forward off to the commission.

• 77 Bobbie Bees // Feb 20, 2011 at 8:01 pm

  PGH in Austrailia they have detention camps for refugees. Anymore bright ideas you wanna bring to Canada from the land down under?

• 78 Max // Feb 20, 2011 at 9:23 pm

  @ Bobbie Bees #76

  A short while ago, Pivot Legal got a hold of a video tape which resulted in a rather high profile case against a VPD officer. You may have seen it.

  It involved a VPD officer who pushed a woman – DTES. She had a medical condition. This tape was optained through a private business who had video surviellance surrounding their business that shot actions on the street – and protected that business.

  So tell me, where do your bounderies lie? Are they one sided as long as it benefits something your support, or, is it even across the board??

  You seem to be up in the air about the fact the Regis hotel shot videos which may or may not be damning against the ‘trial’ bike lane, yet, I can’t help but wonder if you were in the same frenzy when the video I’ve noted above came to light? Any peep out of you, anywhere????

  File any law suits then???

  And what about those private persons that may include ‘you’ while they are out snapping pics when they are out and about. Going after them as well??

  Holy crap, people post more damning pics and info on Facebook, yet you want to condemn businesses for protecting their clientele, their employees, and their premises by having ‘surveillance cameras’ watching over their property.

  Criminals LOVE people like you.

• 79 Jason // Feb 20, 2011 at 9:52 pm

  “PGH in Austrailia they have detention camps for refugees. Anymore bright ideas you wanna bring to Canada from the land down under?”

  Let me get this straight…Richard uses Sydney as an example of “separated lanes”…a person who actual cycles in sydney corrects him by stating that the lanes there are not like ours…and in response to that you make a derogatory comment about the entire country of Australia?

  Yup, seems reasonable….very balanced.

• 80 PGH // Feb 20, 2011 at 10:51 pm

  @ Bobbie Bees

  I’m not sure what Australia’s policy for dealing with the 134 boat loads of 6,880 Refugees, Asylum-seekers, Internally displaced persons and Illegal Immigrants (2010 Govt Stats) has anything to do with bike lanes in Vancouver, Canada … but thanks for staying on topic …. I’m sure everyone appreciated the relevance of your posts.

• 81 Gerry McGuire // Feb 21, 2011 at 3:26 am

  I know someone personally who received a serious head injury during the Burrard lanes “trial” which was not included in the statistics that Jerry Dobrovolny presented to council in the report that was used to pronounce that trial “an unqualified success”. Before the vote, Geoff Meggs crowed like a rooster against those who dared “impugn staff’s integrity”. Which came first-the chickens or the yeggs?

• 82 Max // Feb 21, 2011 at 8:20 am

  @ Gerry McGuire #81

  The stats used to push the Burrard Street bike lane included 8 accidents prior to the lane being built.

  5 of those included pedestrians being hit by cyclists.

  According to an article posted on the CTV web site, there have been 5 recorded (video covering one area of the lane) accidents on the new Hornby lane . They did not go into specifics.

  Perhaps they provide a false sense of security?

• 83 Paul // Feb 21, 2011 at 10:28 am

  Jason and PGH. I won’t paint all of the pro-cycle trackers with the same brush, but this is a prime example of how heated this debate is on both sides. If you can’t win by good debate you get childish and throw a tantrum.

  This is how Meggs, Reimer and Robertson pushed their pro-cycle track position through the backrooms of city hall. If no one believes you, talk louder.

  Well the taxpayers will see what a waste of time and money this was. We may not see Dunsmuir or Burrard Bridge dismantled but at the very least we can use Hornby as an example of how to effectively use alternate forms of separation.

  Tear it up, return it to the useful one-way lane it was. Reposition it next to the curb for safety and get rid of the eye-sore. It’s a win-win. Anti-cycle trackers will be silenced because it’s foot-print isn’t nearly as large as this stupid bi-directional lane. Pro-cycle trackers will also be happy because there is separation.

• 84 Mark Allerton // Feb 21, 2011 at 10:54 am

  @Gerry

  “I know someone personally who received a serious head injury during the Burrard lanes “trial” which was not included in the statistics that Jerry Dobrovolny presented to council in the report that was used to pronounce that trial “an unqualified success”.

  I have two words for you: prove it.

  If you are saying that the City is lying about this, please give names, dates and times and a description of the accident.

• 85 Jean // Feb 21, 2011 at 11:33 am

  This data geek did some separated bike lane analysis on his own…for fun.

  http://canadianveggie.wordpress.com/2011/02/20/dunsmuir-bike-lane-anlaysis-numbers/

• 86 IanS // Feb 21, 2011 at 12:44 pm

  @Mark Allerton #84,

  I share your concerns about the use of anectodal evidence and unsubstantiated assertions (albeit from the other side of the fence), but your statement:

  “I have two words for you: prove it.

  If you are saying that the City is lying about this, please give names, dates and times and a description of the accident.”

  … makes me wonder how he can “prove it”. Suppose Mr. McQuire comes back and provides the name, date, time and description of the accident. Would that “prove it”?

  Likely not, as he could be making it up and, even if he is not, the fact that the accident occurred doesn’t prove that it wasn’t taken into account in the “statistics” in question.

  So, I’m curious. How does he “prove it”?

• 87 spartikus // Feb 21, 2011 at 12:52 pm

  If it was a “serious head injury” there would probably be a police/ambulance report.

  I was able to request a copy for my cycling accident.

• 88 spartikus // Feb 21, 2011 at 12:52 pm

  “If there…”

  I need an editor.

• 89 Mark Allerton // Feb 21, 2011 at 9:26 pm

  @Ian

  Gerry seems quite convinced that the accident was not accounted for, so presumably he has access to some information that has at least convinced him.

  So it would be a start if they were to simply elaborate on why it is they are convinced that this is true. Perhaps we will be convinced too.

• 90 westcoaster // Feb 21, 2011 at 9:37 pm

  Apologies if someone else has already suggested this, but why doesn’t the city hook up a couple of digital cameras along Dunsmuir and Hornby aimed at the bike lanes and stream the video on to the city’s website so we can all see how well busy those lanes are?

• 91 Everyman // Feb 21, 2011 at 11:24 pm

  @westcoaster #90 – That makes too much sense!

• 92 doug // Feb 23, 2011 at 8:02 am

  I’m a 55 year old male, and I used to ride a bike everywhere before I moved downtown. But there is no way I’m taking my life in my hand based on the fantasy that a line on the street will protect me from Vancouver drivers.
  With the implementation of separated bike lanes I’ve purchased a bike recently, in the hopes of taking up biking again as a means of transportation around downtown. A perception of my personal safety is completely the reason for this.

  I’d bet that most of those opposed to bike lanes are older people who will never be on a bike again in this lifetime. They simply don’t want money spent on something they will get no benefit from.

  one last thing….-30- for Morvan, what a pretentious sign off.

• 93 Paul // Feb 23, 2011 at 12:00 pm

  doug.. thank you for your views, and there is something to be said about perceived safety you’re absolutely right. But when the perception of safety is leading to an increased number of injuries we have to step back and make sure the positives outweigh the negatives.

  I think the more sensible anti-concrete crew here will agree with you that simply painting a line on the road is not safe enough. A painted bike lane has to be sensibly designed. And there are cities in the world where a good balance has been struck. Vancouver chose Copenhagen to model it’s cycle tracks on. Trouble is Copenhagen’s own studies have shown their shortfalls and Vancouver did next to NOTHING to compensate for them.

  I’m glad at age 55 you are taking up cycling again doug, but with only one north-south and one east-west route, I highly doubt it will encourage you to ride more on any particular day. However, if (for the same money) we got 3 or 4 north-south routes and 3 or 4 east-west routes, it might have a more pronounced benefit.

• 94 Sean // Feb 23, 2011 at 3:37 pm

  @Paul #93

  “However, if (for the same money) we got 3 or 4 north-south routes and 3 or 4 east-west routes, it might have a more pronounced benefit.”

  Money is the least of the obstacles toward getting that much cycling infrastructure downtown.

• 95 Chris Keam // Feb 24, 2011 at 9:41 am

  @Paul:

  I don’t know if you didn’t review the map link I posted when you claimed there were painted bike lanes all over Vancouver, or maybe you simply don’t ride much, but the reality is that there are a number of bike routes outside of the downtown core already. They can definitely use expansion and improvement, but the black hole in Vancouver cycling infrastructure was a downtown core that even people like myself, with forty years of cycling under their belt and tens of thousands of kms of distance covered, still found a frightening and intimidating place to ride.

  Until those separated lanes went in, I carefully considered where I had to go downtown and at what time before I chose to take my bike or rely on transit. Now it’s usually always by bike, with the bigger issue being whether or not there will be some semblance of secure parking if I’m going to be leaving my bike for more than an hour or two. Outside of downtown, it is generally only ever a question of which route was the most convenient for cycling.

  Now imagine I’m a person who hasn’t been cycling for most of their life and you might start to get an inkling of why something as simple and inexpensive as a row of planters is having a positive impact overall on our transportation network. Your continued focus on one type of cycling facility, suitable for only a small sub-set of the population, shows a disheartening lack of consideration for the big picture and how we get from our current auto-reliant situation, where vast areas of land sit empty waiting for cars to fill them up, to a place where we can unpave our city to some extent, and replace that under-used land with homes, parks, and agriculture… all three of which we need far more than another lane of asphalt sitting empty for 22 hours a day.

  cheers,
  CK

• 96 Paul // Feb 24, 2011 at 11:08 am

  Come on Chris, you’re being as unreasonable as people who don’t want to see any cycling infrastructure at all. The painted routes I’m proposing feel just as safe as the rubbermaid bin route involved with the “trial” bike lanes.

  And not only do they FEEL safe, they are proven to actually BE safer than the two-way, concrete divided cycle track. And they cost A LOT LESS.

  They also have the ability to quickly and cheaply be implemented or taken away if they aren’t living up to their expectations.

  So please stop spewing the drivel that the concrete and rubbermaid bins were our only option. They were not. There were better, safer, cheaper options… but Gregor wanted his concrete.

• 97 Chris Keam // Feb 24, 2011 at 11:27 am

  “The painted routes I’m proposing feel just as safe as the rubbermaid bin route involved with the “trial” bike lanes.”

  No. They. Don’t. You don’t get to invoke science and studies and then spout nonsense. Separated lanes feel safer. People are afraid of being run over from behind, or doored into traffic and having their head squashed like a grape. Bouncing off a quarter panel onto the sidewalk in a separated lane intersection is a day in the park by comparison.

• 98 Max // Feb 24, 2011 at 8:24 pm

  @ Chris Keam and other VCCA advocates;

  Why is it that the VCCA was putting out information to the Hornby Street businesses on how to market to ‘cyclists’ prior to the time that City Council voted to pass the Hornby St. trial initiative?

  The ‘trial’ lanes were passed in October (5th) yet according to a post by Jill Bennett, a marketing piece from the VCCA was sent to Horby retailers on or about Sept. 28.

  ***

  Give Cyclists a Discount? Are You Kidding Me? Posted 10/3/2010 8:57:00 AM

  Earlier this week CKNW reporter Jordan Armstrong was talking to businesses on Hornby Street, asking about the “proposed” separated bike lane, when he came across a flyer that had been handed out by the Vancouver Area Cycling Coalition

  It’s called the ‘VACC Business for Bikes Program’.

  The initiative officially launched on September 28th.

  It includes a marketing guide and Consumer Outreach program where businesses are encouraged to be bike-friendly. Umm…excuse me but when did that become as issue? The businesses are bike friendly. That’s never been an issue. It’s having an unnecessary concrete barrier and bike lane rammed down their throats they aren’t too pleased with.

  ***

  Did the VCCA have an ‘in’?

  Did they know in advance that this was a done deal?

  Comments?

• 99 Chris Keam // Feb 24, 2011 at 8:46 pm

  You should ask the VCCA whoever they are.

  Seriously Max, since when is it wrong to speak to businesses and/or the public in advance of a council decision? Would it have been wrong for VANOC to offer businesses 2010 advice before the city won the bid? Of course not.

  I don’t claim to speak for the VACC on the matter, but I will defend common sense when it takes a beating from people on a mission to tear down a local gov’t. You’re looking for subterfuge and conspiracy where there is simply some forward-thinking marketing.

• 100 Paul // Feb 25, 2011 at 9:28 am

  No one needs to try to tear down a local gov’t CK. Gregor and friends are doing a perfect job of that on their own.

• 101 Sean // Feb 25, 2011 at 5:32 pm

  @Paul: If I read you correctly, you’re talking about these kinds of lanes, right? http://www.sydneymedia.com.au/asset/2/images/Artistimpression_separated_cycle_lane.jpg

  My comments would be:

  - you still need physical separation (such as the bollards in the picture) between the parking lane and the bike lane to prevent car incursions into the bike lane. I’m not convinced that this would be substantially cheaper to build than our bike lanes.

  - As a cyclist I’d still be very concerned about being “doored” by parked vehicles unless there was a 3-foot wide median (or other permanent barrier) to prevent doors from extending into the bike lane.

  - Hiding the bike lane behind parked cars will make cyclists less visible to motorists – this would make the lanes a lot less safe than they have to be.

  - This design increases pedestrian traffic across the bike lane and seems likely to cause more cyclist/pedestrian accidents.

  - In most places room for the Dunsmuir and Hornby bike lanes came from eliminating parking in order to preserve through lanes (and making up the lost spaces on nearby streets). I’m not convinced that it would be politically feasible to eliminate the through lane required to build these kinds of paths in the downtown core.

  With all these issues, I fail to see how these would be superior to what’s already in place. Don’t get me wrong – these kinds of lanes are still miles better than a painted lane with no separation – but I still don’t see a reason to choose them over what we’ve got.

• 102 craig // Feb 28, 2011 at 9:01 am

  No need to question the legitimacy of the bike numbers they are probably correct but certainly nothing to be jubilant about. What is missing from the Vision Vancouver approach is honesty. They dont lie about the actual data, they lie about its meaning. For example, the idea that any of these bike lanes were ever a ‘trial’ is a dishonest and inaccurate statement. If they are a trial, what are the criteria for failure? Never stated or written anywhere as far as I can tell and to me that means they probably dont exist.
  12,000 ‘trips’ in high summer and during the fireworks downtown. Well that means 6000 actual cycle round trips per 7 day WEEK. Rough numbers are 1700 ‘one way trips’ per day. Most of those would be within the 12 hours of daylight 7 am to 7 pm which is 840 minutes for 1700 bike ‘trips’. Yes you get about 1 bike every half a minute which is why they always look empty. To me, that is a failure and clearly illustrates why people are upset about $25 million in bike lunacy while the city has to cut schools, fire services and so on because it has a 24 million dollar budget DEFICIT. I wonder where that deficit came from?

• 103 Chris Keam // Feb 28, 2011 at 11:11 am

  For the umpteenth time… if you are going to bitch about honesty then you should play by your own rules. The $25 million dollars for bike infrastructure covers all of Vancouver and includes a long-range planning process component, not just the downtown bike lanes. If you truly want to save the city some money, drive less. It costs far more to provide downtown access to a car user than a bike user.

• 104 Craig // Mar 2, 2011 at 9:33 am

  Chris..
  If YOU are gonna bitch about honesty then you need to read more carefully. Others have made the mistake, but I have never stated that the 25 million was for downtown lanes alone..You jumped to that conclusion. I know full well it is a 2 year budget for biking and I never meant it any other way.

  However 25 mil for biking lunacy is still 25 mil they dont have and it is still true that the so called trial is still not a trial but a sham and therefore dishonest. ‘TRIAL’ means there is the possibility of a negative outcome built in to the design of the ‘TRIAL, before it is begun. I still havent heard what traffic level would make the so called trial be declared a failure and I still say that shows that there is no traffic level that would produce that outcome from the present city council.

• 105 Earle // Mar 2, 2011 at 10:10 am

  Has anyone looked at the concrete barrier erected on Hornby at Beach, a totally unnecessary waste of money when one realizes that this is a cul-de-sac that has so little traffic, only drivers who live in the 2 condos at the foot of the street use it….why such an expensive system of barricades when we cannot afford a few thousand dollars for the Children’s Petting Zoo in Stanley Park? Aside from that issue, there’s no reduction in pollution when vehicles are backed up on Pacific or when they are required to go two extra blocks 0ver to Howe Street rather than directly down Hornby to Beach. Bad planning for sure, but Robertson, Dobrovolny, Meggs & others will not admit that.

• 106 Chris Keam // Mar 2, 2011 at 4:43 pm

  Craig:

  Your entire post was concerned with downtown bike lanes and you’ve conflated the $25m two year budget with a single year deficit if I’m not mistaken (again). My apologies for the inference, but you’ve made it easy to assume you’re only referring to one aspect of cycling infrastructure.

  As to whether something is a trial or not… I’m sure if there were catastrophic impacts from the lanes they would be removed. It would only make sense. But, using ridership numbers from the first months they have been in place strikes me as unrealistic. When we look at projects such as the Golden Ears Bridge, the metrics tend toward projecting use statistics for a decade or longer. Other roads and bridges are built to accommodate long-term growth, why wouldn’t we expect the same for bike lanes?

• 107 Craig // Mar 11, 2011 at 10:18 am

  >>
  you’ve conflated the $25m two year budget with a single year deficit if I’m not mistaken
  >>
  Oh… you mean to say the 25 million in deficit is only for ONE year? that there is likely gonna be 50 million in deficit by the time we get through the 2 year cycling budget of 25 million? ( Assuming VISION survives an election). Of course that isnt the case, since they are thankfully obliged not to run a deficit ( so far ) meaning they have to cut somewhere and bike budgets trump everything else with this bunch.

  I dont agree with the word ‘conflate’ but I agree I could have been more precise in my wording. Nonetheless, the main points still stand.

  The lanes are empty and Meggs talks as if they arent. Like most people I just hate being lied to especially when I have to pay for it.

• 108 Craig // Mar 11, 2011 at 10:22 am

  Oh and one more thing..

  >>
  ..roads..bridges..are built to accommodate long-term growth, why wouldn’t we expect the same for bike lanes?
  >>

  The reason we wouldnt ‘expect the same thing for bike lanes’ is….wait for it…..
  because it is a TRIAL not a permanent installation.. isnt it?

Leave a Comment