51 responses so far ↓

• 1 Darcy McGee // Sep 2, 2009 at 1:59 pm

  I just hope my former Attorney-General isn’t gunning for me!

  I’m pretty A.G. Tsakumis is though.

• 2 Not Running for mayor // Sep 2, 2009 at 2:10 pm

  The city has data from Aug in previous years, why are they comparing datat just before the trial? Seems to me an apple to apple comparasion w0uld be better for all parties involved. I’m pretty sure once rainy season comes around they don’t want to state that cycling is down 25-50% over the beginning of the trial.

• 3 IanS // Sep 2, 2009 at 2:42 pm

  It appears from the City’s numbers that the much publicized 30% bump in cycle trips has already fallen away, leaving the numbers for cyclists using the bridge pretty much where they were prior to July 13. Given the inevitable decrease in cyclists once the rainy season starts, and the increase in car use in the Fall, I wonder how the City will be able to spin the bike trial as a success over the next few months.

  I wonder if it’s possible to make the bike lane a seasonal thing, putting the lane in place for June, July and August and removing it for the rest of the year.

• 4 Darcy McGee // Sep 2, 2009 at 2:42 pm

  If cycling is down 25 – 50% over the beginning of the trial in the “rainy season” so be it. There’s no point fudging the numbers. The numbers are the numbers.

  I know…I know…that last bit was a bit philosophical.

  But you know, the numbers on cycling will drop as the weather change. It’s fact. It’s also well know that weather is only ONE of the factors in people’s decision not too cycle, and not even the top one…safety is most often rated number one.

  I for one am just waiting for the study results.

• 5 Frances Bula // Sep 2, 2009 at 2:51 pm

  Here’s the modern world for you. I just got a call from someone at the city who says there is a Burrard Bridge conference call going on at the moment, where there’s been discussion of “not running for mayor”‘s comment about the August stats.

  The answer is
  “The city doesn’t have month by month bike numbers for the bridge because the bike counter devices only went in just before the trial.

  You’ll remember that before the trial began, and during the time that council debated the issue, there was much bula blog commenting over the fact that the city’s only stats for bikes over the bridge were from a brief period in the summer of 2005. Those numbers, which are included in the b bridge staff report dated May 5 of 2009, show 3300 cyclists and 2300 peds a day using the b bridge.

• 6 gmgw // Sep 2, 2009 at 3:13 pm

  I realize this is OT, but I wonder whether the same attention is going to be paid to any changes in north/south auto traffic patterns and/or volumes in and out of the city after this Sunday (Sept. 6), when all north/south intercity bus traffic will end, as part of Translink’s draconian plan to force people to use the Canada Line. At the very least we should see a dramatic increase in C-Line ridership, which will please the idiot planners at Translink no end, I’m sure. Doesn’t matter how you achieve your goals, as long as you achieve them and look good in the eyes of the boss.
  gmgw

• 7 Not Running for Mayor // Sep 2, 2009 at 3:46 pm

  A conference call due to me? I hope not, next thing you know there will be another resignation at cityhall and my cover would be blown.

  I will admit I am surprised even somewhat shocked that there are no numbers for cyclists from previous years even if they were from an outside source, I’ve seen post sec students out there all the time over the years probably doing statistics assingments for class.

• 8 Bill Lee // Sep 2, 2009 at 4:48 pm

  For those who haven’t visited the Burrard Bridge stats page above, they have added data up to 30 August, another 4 weeks since the last FaBula mention.

  I’d still like to see traffic per hour per direction, so that when it rains, blows or sleets, we can determine that factor to their starting out. I still think that the casuals are influenced by the weather when they come out the door in the morning.

  And the reference by Mr. McGee above to the “ex-Attorney General” is to a Monday night confrontation with a politician and a bicyclist on Bloor street.
  The paper that buys Miss Bula’s strings collection is in a huzzah about it and it was leading the stories read, along with Radowanski and Blatchford columns on it.

  Since we all know that the Village of Van copies the Big Smoke of Toronto, the discussion about bicycle’s place in the road scheme will affect what the burghers do here.
  That should be “the place of automobiles on the bicycle paths” of course.

• 9 Frances Bula // Sep 2, 2009 at 5:38 pm

  gmgw

  conference call was ongoing when someone saw your comment. wasn’t strictly caused by you.

• 10 pw // Sep 2, 2009 at 5:47 pm

  I have my doubts about those numbers. Every time I drive across the bridge (yes yes denounce me for driving) the pedestrians outnumber the cyclists by at least 2 to 1. Sometimes they even outnumber the cyclists in the cycling lane on the east side.

  It is the pedestrians who are really getting screwed, despite the rhetoric out of City Hall about pedestrians being the highest priority.

• 11 Darcy McGee // Sep 2, 2009 at 6:06 pm

  > the pedestrians outnumber the cyclists by at least 2 to 1

  The stats that Frances linked to a while ago addressed this. People really should read such things if they’re going to comment.

  The counters have shown that, in general, more cyclists have used the bridge than pedestrians. The reason is /appears/ that more pedestrians use the bridge is because they spend more time on it: it takes them longer to get across.

  Basically, you’ll see more pedestrians on the bridge in the average freeze frame, but over time it’s a bike friendly bridge.

  http://tinyurl.com/ljveoe

• 12 Darcy McGee // Sep 2, 2009 at 6:09 pm

  I posted this in late August over on a July posting on this topic…it’s particularly relevant given recent events in the world, and it does relate to Burrard Bridge as it pertains to cyclist/pedestrian safety. Sorry if the re-post annoys anyone (I note that Bill Lee commened after my post, but no one else.)
  ———-
  In Toronto, motor vehicles are responsible for 90% of all car/bike collisions.

  http://www.research.utoronto.ca/behind_the_headlines/smart-cycling/

  —————
  The most common type of crash in this study involved a motorist entering an intersection and either failing to stop properly or proceeding before it was safe to do so. The second most common crash type involved a motorist overtaking unsafely. The third involved a motorist opening a door onto an oncoming cyclist. The study concluded that cyclists are the cause of less than 10 per cent of bike-car accidents in this study.

  The available evidence suggests that collisions have far more to do with aggressive driving than aggressive cycling.
  ————–

  So now who needs their own space to be safe?

• 13 Chris Keam // Sep 2, 2009 at 9:33 pm

  I think we should build condos on all the beaches because people only use them in the summer.

• 14 pw // Sep 3, 2009 at 1:35 am

  oh of course! the avid cyclsitss! the eighth wonder of the world! they are here they are there, those wonderous cyclists, they are everywhere!

  how could anyone not understand they happen to cycle so fast we cannot see them as they whiz across the bridge, reducding their carbon footprint and saving the planet, invisiible to the mere materialisist human eye!

  i am forever humbled.

  i am humbled!

• 15 Chris Keam // Sep 3, 2009 at 6:57 am

  Hi PW:

  Spend a rush hour along Tenth Avenue and you will start to get a better sense of just how many people are riding bikes for transportation. It’s a steady stream of riders right now (summer) and although the numbers drop in bad weather, it’s still pretty illuminating (for those who haven’t taken the opportunity) to see just how many people are choosing cycling as a means of getting around.

• 16 IanS // Sep 3, 2009 at 8:07 am

  If, in light of the new figures with respect to use of the bridge, the City is going to change its focus to the safety aspect if the trial, are there any studies or figures which suggest that there have been fewer accidents since July 13, or that the bridge is otherwise safer?

• 17 Chris Keam // Sep 3, 2009 at 8:12 am

  Safety was the focus of the trial since Day One.

  Trust me, the bridge is safer. I cycled with my young daughter southbound after a trip to Second Beach pool a couple of weeks ago, a route that would have been dangerous and foolhardy without the separate lane. Too bad it’s a small island of safety in a big sea of hazards created by questionable driving decisions.

• 18 Sharon // Sep 3, 2009 at 8:16 am

  I am predicting mayhem in the next 2 weeks. All the bus realignment due to CanadaLine activation is going to send people scrambling to figure out how best to get to work. Granville bridge may have capacity but the approach and exit routes from the south do not. They keep talking about the bridge in isolation which leads me to think that their planning has far to much agenda attached.

• 19 IanS // Sep 3, 2009 at 8:25 am

  Chris,

  Safety was “a” focus of the trial, but I don’t believe it was ever the primary focus, at least not based on public pronouncements from bike trial proponents. The focus was always on the laudable goal of increasing bike usership of the bridge, and the corresponding decrease in car traffic and associated pollution etc. That, I assume, is why the City of Vancouver page cites user numbers, and not accident numbers. That is also why the 30% boost in bike usership of the bridge was so widely cited at the end of July as a sign of success. If an increase in bike users is a sign of success of the trial, surely a decrease must be a sign of failure?

  In fairness, safety was consistently mentioned as concern as well and I don’t dispute that a decrease in accidents for cyclists would be a strong positive factor in any assessment of the trial. Which is why I ask if there are any studies or assessments which suggest that there has been such a decrease.

• 20 Chris Keam // Sep 3, 2009 at 8:48 am

  As a ‘bike trial proponent’ I can assure you safety has always been first and foremost with regard to the trial.

  That increased sense of safety is what is spurring the increase in riders using the bridge.

• 21 Darcy McGee // Sep 3, 2009 at 8:50 am

  > surely a decrease must be a sign of failure?

  A year over year decrease would be, but as has been pointed out accurate year over year data does not exist.

  A decrease in cycling numbers from August to October does not indicate a failure of the trial. It’s a seasonal expectation.

• 22 Darcy McGee // Sep 3, 2009 at 8:55 am

  The safety issue is real, and it was cited in the early days along with numbers and anecdotal stories about the narrowness of the shared sidewalks.

  Why I found a reference to the city’s press release on this fine blog:
  http://www.francesbula.com/?p=1745

  which quotes:
  “This trial
  addresses three key issues: safety, sustainability and affordability,
  and involves the following changes:”

  Richard provided some links to data, A.G. Tsakumis brought his usual enlightened viewpoint to the table, and we all had other comments. “Safe” appears 11 times on that page with 24 comments.

• 23 IanS // Sep 3, 2009 at 8:59 am

  Chris,

  “As a ‘bike trial proponent’ I can assure you safety has always been first and foremost with regard to the trial. ”

  I’ll take your word for it then. But can you point me to any statistics or study which indicates that the bridge has actually been safer since July 13?

  You did write this in your Vancouver Sun article: “The 30-per-cent increase in cyclists using the bridge reinforces a basic tenet of cycling advocacy — safety remains the biggest issue keeping many people from choosing cycling for transportation” and that is consistent with your point that increased safety = increase in riders.

  However, is the opposite true? Does the fact that that 30% increase has now melted away affect your assessment?

  (I should mention, I don’t mean to seem argumentative. I agree with your statement, in your Vancouver Sun article, that this is a valuable experiment and I would like to see it succeed. But, if the only measure of success the increase in ridership – either as a “green” measure or as a result of a perceived increase in safety – and the numbers indicate that there has been no increase, I’m wondering how the trial can receive a positive assessment.)

  In fairness, I’ll concede that the numbers aren’t in yet. Bike ridership might increase in the fall or car traffic might decrease. I don’t believe either of those will occur, but that’s just an assumption on my part. I think we should complete the trial and assess the results.)

• 24 IanS // Sep 3, 2009 at 9:02 am

  Darcy,

  “A decrease in cycling numbers from August to October does not indicate a failure of the trial. It’s a seasonal expectation.”

  I agree completely.

  Would you agree that, if the numbers show that there has been no overall increase in bike ridership since July 13, that the trial was a failure?

• 25 Frothingham // Sep 3, 2009 at 9:59 am

  Hold the Line Mr Mayor and Councillors. The traffic problems are due in _part_ to too many “dickarts” who insist on driving big honking, gas guzzling, road hogging, SUVs etc. The city is on the right track… CoV has to make it Painful for those abusers who insist that the roads of this city is made for such neantherdals. People don’t need such big vehicles. smaller is beautiful. That is why Fiat 500 will soon be available in NA. Why the most bought vehicle bought in the “cash for clunkers” was the smallish Toyota Corolla. Social Engineering can work!

• 26 Norm DePlume // Sep 3, 2009 at 10:22 am

  Burrard Bridge Bike Trial Stats Revealing
  Douchebaggery up slightly, mostly by sports car and SUV drivers.

  September 3, 2009

  Norm DePlume, Unassociated Press

  Vancouver, BC

  Three months into the Burrard Bridge Bike Lane Trial and the City of Vancouver statistics have produced some interesting results.

  “We’ve been keeping close tabs on a number of metrics related to the Trial” said Jorge Stanfield, manager of information with the City’s Transportation and Planning department. “After three months, we now have enough data to start identifying trends and drawing conclusions.”

  Bike related driver obscenity was up slightly from pre-trial data, at 8% of total trips over the bridge. “This number remains relatively low” said, Stanfield. “What is interesting however, is that nearly 90% of that obscenity comes from three classes of vehicle: sports cars, SUVs and trucks with disproportionately large tires.”

  According to City statistics, drivers of sports cars were twenty times more likely than the average driver to shout obscenities out their windows at bikers as they sped by, taking a brief break from talking on their Blackberries. Among the sports car class, Chevrolet Camaro drivers led the way, followed by Porsche Boxters and Mazda Miatas. As a whole, the sports car class swore, threw items or gestured obscenely at cyclists on 58% of trips over the bridge, and accounted for 60% of overall obscenities.

  “Those fucking jerkface hippies think they’re so fucking special. Well you know what? I could buy thee or four bikes for what I spend on gas every month. Do the math: it means I’m 42 times better than you on an annual basis. I pay my taxes!” said one driver who asked to remain anonymous as he sped off to his point grey home in a red dodge viper. “Ahhrfgamoafaakingtreehuggeroarashlam!” yelled another driver of a silver Mercedes-Benz SL 55.

  SUV drivers were the second most likely class to hurl bicycle related obscenities, doing so on 37% of their trips across the bridge (3% of overall trips). “SUV drivers were lower in overall obscenities, but led the pack in items thrown, accounting for nearly 60% of projectiles.” said Stanfield. “This is of particular concern because it is not only dangerous, it is littering.”

  Fortunately, no cyclists to date have been injured from the flying litter. “I have been yelled at a few times, but compared to fearing for my life [riding in the old configuration], it’s easy.” said Mary Santos, a 36 year old account manager and mother of 2 who commutes from Dunbar rain or shine. “My commute is often the best part of my day. I doubt many drivers can say that.”

  Indeed, Ms. Santos’ sentiments are supported by the City stats: 83% of cyclists smiled while crossing the bridge, while only 17% of drivers smiled. 39% of drivers either frowned or grimmaced and 12% gnashed their teeth.

  The City will continue to collect statistics for the remainder of the Trial. Some trends, however are becoming apparent as the data accumulates. “I think it’s fair to say that if you drive a sports car, SUV, or truck with inordinately large tires, you’re probably a douchebag” said Stanfield.

  In related news, Pedestrian traffic has remained constant, cycling is up 30% and vehicular traffic is down 15%.

  By the numbers:

  Obsencities most yelled:
  1) Fuck: (58%)
  2) Shitty: (32%)
  3) Dirty Hippy: (9%)
  4) Jerkface: (8%)
  5) Asswipe: (2%)

  Items most thrown:
  1) McDonalds’ Coke (Supersized): (38%)
  2) Bud Light Lime: (12%)
  3) Starbucks Triple Grande Mocha Latte: (9%)

  Fingers most saluted:
  1) Thumb (up) – *not considered obscene: 56%
  2) Middle: (35%)
  3) Thumb (down): (22%)
  4) Index: (8%)

• 27 Darcy McGee // Sep 3, 2009 at 10:57 am

  > Would you agree that, if the numbers
  > show that there has been no overall
  > increase in bike ridership since July 13,
  > that the trial was a failure?

  I think you need to be clearer here. I’m not entirely sure what you mean.

  The trial has multiples goals. Only one of them — but obviously an important one, and arguably the most important one — is to increase cycling.

  If the number of trips over the Burrard Bridge from 7/13/09 – x/y/09 is LESS than 7/13/08 – x/y/08 than yes, certainly I’d agree that this goal of the trial has failed. As far as we know right now accurate data doesn’t exist.

  If this isn’t what you mean, perhaps you could be clearer. I don’t want to speculate at random.

  Note that I said in my assumed example that this GOAL of the trial had failed. That does not inherently mean the trial has failed. Safety is also a goal, and any safety benefits reaped may justify calling the trial a success (for example.)

  From my perspective the trial is already a success because it HAPPENED. That was more than I had hoped for.

  The new Vancouver/Richmond bridge under Canada Line should provide some interesting related data which should be considered as well in the consideration of what future options are. Basically there seems to be three general options:
  1) Restore the Burrard Bridge to it’s pre-trial state
  2) Implement some sort of permanent system which reallocates the Burrard Bridge in some way
  3) Built a pedestrian/bike specific bridge
  (There are obviously multiple specific implementations of some of those options, but these are the three fundamental ones.)

  The Richmond bridge may provide useful guidance and data if the decision is to pursue either 2 or 3.

• 28 IanS // Sep 3, 2009 at 12:01 pm

  >> Would you agree that, if the numbers
  >> show that there has been no overall
  >> increase in bike ridership since July 13,
  >> that the trial was a failure?

  >I think you need to be clearer here. I’m not >entirely sure what you mean.

  >The trial has multiples goals. Only one of them >— but obviously an important one, and >arguably the most important one — is to >increase cycling.

  My apologies for not being clear.

  As you state, the best way would be to compare statistics from the same period one year earlier (or multiple years earlier). However, as I understand it, those statistics do not exist. Hence, the best we can do in the context of the limited trial, is to compare stats before and after the bike lane was put in. Certainly, when proponents were declaring an initial success based on the 30% increase the week of July 13, they seemed happy enough to take that approach.

  I hope that addresses your point.

  >Safety is also a goal, and any safety benefits >reaped may justify calling the trial a success >(for example.)

  I agree. However, apart from the initial increase in ridership, I don’ t know that there has been any evidence cited to support the assertion that the bridge is actually safer since the bike lane was put in.

  >From my perspective the trial is already a >success because it HAPPENED. That was >more than I had hoped for.

  Fair enough.

  But it is a trial and, presumably, the powers that be will have to assess the results of that trial based on some kind of evidence or study. Apart from the ridership numbers, is there any kind of study or assessment being conducted?

  How do you see the City assessing the results of the trial?

  As for options, how about incorporating the bike lane on the bridge as a seasonal thing, ie. putting it in during the summer months when the weather is good and car traffic lower and removing it in the fall / winter. Of course, I’m getting ahead of myself there, as we don’t have the numbers for September or October yet.

• 29 Darcy McGee // Sep 3, 2009 at 12:34 pm

  > Certainly, when proponents were
  > declaring an initial success based on the
  > 30% increase the week of July 13, they
  > seemed happy enough to take that
  > approach.

  OK, fair enough and yes those numbers were jumped on a bit. I think, however, that comparison was somewhat valid given the relative closeness of the periods. I.e. comparing the begining of July to the end of July is somewhat valid while comparing July to October is less so, given that we /know/ that weather has an impact.

  Lacking direct year over year comparisons, the next ideal might be some concrete measurement of those seasonal factors. By this I mean if we knew that on average October cycling trips were 30% lower than July, we could assess the impact the lanes have had on the /difference./ The lanes might be considered successful if trips were “only” reduced by 20%, for example.

  I’m not sure what the city’s plan for assessment is. It would actually be nice if they could share that, as there will inevitably be complaints of personal bias (“Vision loves cyclists so OF COURSE they’re interpreting it as a success.”) when reports are in. They don’t even have to tell us ALL the criteria (and I suspect they don’t know) but if they could lay out some of them, it would help.

  Your seasonal option is a good one that I failed to consider, and it might even be a stepping stone to a year round permanent solution (which it seems obvious is the goal of cycling advocates –myself included–in a general sense.) If drivers became accustomed to the annual summer implementation it might make an eventual year round solution more palatable. Nice idea.

• 30 Darcy McGee // Sep 3, 2009 at 12:35 pm

  Apologies for the length, incidentally, but your comments were insightful and provoked thought.

• 31 IanS // Sep 3, 2009 at 1:21 pm

  Thanks Darcy. I hadn’t thought of the seasonal aspect as being a stepping stone to an eventual permanent changeover, but that makes good sense.

  As for the numbers, I agree that the July / October comparison would obviously be affected by the weather, but, from my quick read of the data posted on the City’s website, the level of bike ridership in the latter part of August seems to be back at the pre July 13 level which suggests to me that the 30% bump was something of an aberration regardless of the weather.

  Like you, I am curious as to how the City is going to assess the bike trial. Apart from the ridership figures, do you know if they are collecting any other data? That may provide some insight into how they are going to make the final decision.

  If the City does decide to make the change permanent, I hope they will be able to point to some solid data supporting that decision.

• 32 Chris Keam // Sep 3, 2009 at 1:31 pm

  “the level of bike ridership in the latter part of August seems to be back at the pre July 13 level which suggests to me that the 30% bump was something of an aberration regardless of the weather.”

  May well be that many bike commuters are on vacation too.

  Also, I would note that we built the Golden Ears and will build the proposed new Port Mann bridges to deal with expected future capacity as well as current. Notwithstanding the debate over the actual need for these facilities, the same approach is just as sensible with other transportation infrastructure. Expecting that people are going to en masse change their behaviour is optimistic IMO. Further, remember that every SOV on the bridge represents the road being used at less than 25% of possible capacity. If that level of use is acceptable w/r/t car lanes I would question why a bike lane must adhere to a higher standard.

• 33 IanS // Sep 3, 2009 at 2:08 pm

  >>“the level of bike ridership in the latter
  >>part of August seems to be back at the
  >>pre July 13 level which suggests to me
  >>that the 30% bump was something of an
  >>aberration regardless of the weather.”

  >”May well be that many bike commuters
  >are on vacation too.”

  That might be so, although, at a glance, car traffic and pedestrian use seem pretty consistent. Is there any reason to think that a disproportionate number of bike commuters take holidays in the latter part of August?

  I take your point regarding planning for future needs rather than actual needs. However, should we then disregard actual needs entirely? And how does that square with the figures that are being kept or the use to which they were put when they supported the trial? In assessing the trial, should we cite the figures when they support a particular conclusion and ignore them when they don’t?

  Let me ask you this, Chris. Is there any possible result from the trial which would lead you to conclude that it didn’t work and that the bridge should be returned to its pre July 13 status?

• 34 Chris Keam // Sep 3, 2009 at 2:42 pm

  “should we then disregard actual needs entirely?”

  No we shouldn’t. Thankfully we didn’t in this instance. There was a clear-cut need for this trial and the lack of traffic chaos (remember how it was supposed to be a given?) demonstrates car users were considered during the run-up to the trial. Pedestrians not-so-much unfortunately, but this can hopefully be addressed in the future.

  “Is there any possible result from the trial which would lead you to conclude that it didn’t work and that the bridge should be returned to its pre July 13 status?”

  A hypothetical question that’s pretty hard to answer. If there was traffic gridlock on both sides of the bridge, safety didn’t increase, and rational commentators who previously questioned its merits weren’t coming on-side and supporting the idea I suppose that would call into question the success of the trial. None of those things are happening however, so it’s probably better to focus on examining how we make similar progressive steps throughout the city rather than play a Burrard Bridge version of “What If Spartacus Had A Piper Cub?”

  Short answer, nothing really springs to mind, but my ability to conceive of such a scenario is handicapped by my knowledge of its apparent success to date.

• 35 Chris Keam // Sep 3, 2009 at 2:51 pm

  ” Is there any reason to think that a disproportionate number of bike commuters take holidays in the latter part of August?”

  Not really, just blue-skying. Everybody with excess money in their pocket from not paying for gas and insurance went to Burning Man? Don’t know and I’m not particularly worried about it. Six weeks is a very short time to try to assess what constitutes a fundamental shift in transportation priorities. It will take at least a generation to accurately assess how today’s initiatives are affecting our transportation choices. It will be the children who grew up on a diet of green thinking that will be the true test of the success of sustainable initiatives. Feminism has been around for decades and yet women are still facing some of the same battles that suffragettes had to fight. Various ethnic groups still face prejudice. Would we say the civil rights movement was a failure?

• 36 IanS // Sep 3, 2009 at 3:06 pm

  Chris,

  >Short answer, nothing really springs to mind

  That pretty much is my impression of your position. So, for you, it’ s not really a trial then. Fair enough.

  I do have ask again, though, for those of us who haven’t already decided, are you aware of any data or statistics which support your assertion that the bridge is safer with the bike lane?

• 37 Mark Allerton // Sep 3, 2009 at 3:43 pm

  >So, for you, it’ s not really a trial then.

  Very slippery, Ian. Surely it is possible for Chris to view it as a trial *that has been a success*.

  Let me ask you a question: if at the end of the trial period, the stats show no increase in cycling or pedestrian traffic, but also no increase in car traffic congestion on the bridge, would you consider the trial to be a success or a failure, and what would you like to see happen if the latter?

• 38 Chris Keam // Sep 3, 2009 at 3:46 pm

  It will end at some point. It’s a trial. Just because it’s confirming my expectations is beside the point. Oppenheimer et al were expecting bright light and big noise in the New Mexico desert, but that doesn’t mean the Trinity test wasn’t an experiment, right?

  “I do have ask again, though, for those of us who haven’t already decided, are you aware of any data or statistics which support your assertion that the bridge is safer with the bike lane?”

  How could separate facilities for walkers and wheeled road users, with concrete barriers protecting them from being run over by cars not be safer? Really Ian, no offense, but this is pretty straightforward. Go talk to some folks that are using the bridge, or take a ride or walk over it yourself and make your own judgement. That would be my recommendation if you are undecided. Further, put yourself in the shoes of a young person or senior citizen and imagine crossing the bridge (ped, biker, whatever) having to share a narrow sidewalk without a barrier between it and the cars that regularly travel well above the speed limit about a foot away from you. It’s an unnerving experience and highlights how a small mistake could have huge consequences with the old set-up.

  Having said that, there’s a wealth of data available to support the contention separate facilities are safer. Google and be enlightened . Additionally, consider all the jurisdictions implementing separate facilities and decide for yourself whether so many other places are working with erroneous information. It seems unlikely right?

• 39 IanS // Sep 3, 2009 at 3:59 pm

  Mark:

  >>So, for you, it’ s not really a trial then.

  >Very slippery, Ian. Surely it is possible
  >for Chris to view it as a trial *that has been
  >a success*.

  I didn’t mean to seem slippery. My take on his position is that there was pretty much nothing which would lead him to conclude that it would be better to remove the bike lane from the bridge.

  >Let me ask you a question: if at the end of
  >the trial period, the stats show no increase
  >in cycling or pedestrian traffic, but also
  > no increase in car traffic congestion on
  >the bridge, would you consider the trial to
  >be a success or a failure, and what would
  >you like to see happen if the latter?

  I would call that a complete success.

• 40 IanS // Sep 3, 2009 at 4:05 pm

  Chris,

  I’ll take that as a no, you are not aware of any studies or reports which suggest that the bike lane has made the bridge safer.

  Really, would it be that difficult? If one of the reasons that the bike lane trial was considered necessary was because of the number of accidents which occurred, I would assume that, in order to make such a statement, someone must have been able to determine that a certain number of accidents had occurred on the bridge and then come to the conclusion that something needed to be done, right?

  If so, how hard can it be to determine whether the rate or frequency of accidents on the bridge had dropped since the bike lane was put into place?

• 41 Chris Keam // Sep 3, 2009 at 4:10 pm

  “My take on his position is that there was pretty much nothing which would lead him to conclude that it would be better to remove the bike lane from the bridge.”

  Let’s talk about the trial itself instead of discussing what goes on inside my head. ‘Here there be monsters’ to quote the old maps with liberal sprinklings of Terra Icognita in them.

  Better yet, buy me a beer and I’ll tell you my whole life story if yr interested. I promise to take a cab or transit home if one turns into a few.

• 42 Chris Keam // Sep 3, 2009 at 4:14 pm

  “I’ll take that as a no, you are not aware of any studies or reports which suggest that the bike lane has made the bridge safer.”

  There’s an ongoing study Ian. Direct your enquiry to someone who can answer your question with authority.

  http://www.straight.com/print/219696

• 43 Frothingham // Sep 3, 2009 at 9:04 pm

  @Norm DePlume : great story!

• 44 IanS // Sep 4, 2009 at 7:20 am

  Chris,

  Sorry if I seem to be personalizing the discussion. I guess my position is this: There are people on both sides of this argument who feel very strongly and will never change their minds, regardless of any data. Some people are opposed to the bike lane no matter what; others will support it, no matter what. You appear to be in the latter camp. That is why, when the statistics show a 30% increase in bike use, you cite that as evidence of success. When that 30% increase melts away, you assert that the statistics don’t matter. In the context of a discussion concerning how to assess the success or failure of the trial, an approach of that nature makes the discussion kind of futile.

  For my part, I try to keep an open mind and will reach my own conclusions, for what little they’re worth, based on the data which comes out of the trial.

  Regarding the safety test, I once again apologize for addressing the question to you, rather than someone with “authority”. You just kept saying it was safer, so I assumed that you had some evidence that it was safer. I take your assertion now to be that you perceive it as safer.

  In any event, I’m glad there is a study being conducted. I am curious as to the results and hope that they are properly taken into account in assessing the bike trial.

• 45 Chris Keam // Sep 4, 2009 at 7:44 am

  Where did I say the statistics don’t matter?

  There’s no doubt it’s safer, when the statistics are in the only question will be how much safer.

  Have you walked or ridden over the bridge Ian? Before the trial and/or after?

  Without direct observation you are relying on the p.o.v. of people such as myself and you clearly don’t trust my motives.

• 46 Chris Keam // Sep 4, 2009 at 7:50 am

  “Some people are opposed to the bike lane no matter what; others will support it, no matter what. You appear to be in the latter camp.”

  I support it because the statistics demonstrate that separate cycling facilities are safer as a rule and also creates fertile ground for growing the modal share of cyclists.

  My seven-year old kid commented on how much safer it was within a few pedal strokes southbound on the bridge. If a kid can figure it out in a few seconds….

• 47 IanS // Sep 4, 2009 at 8:00 am

  When I pointed out that the 30% increase had melted away, you indicated, firstly, that: “May well be that many bike commuters are on vacation too” and then “Not really, just blue-skying. Everybody with excess money in their pocket from not paying for gas and insurance went to Burning Man? Don’t know and I’m not particularly worried about it.” I inferred from that you you were not particularly concerned that the statistics relating to bike use, which you had earlier relied upon in support of your position, no longer did so.

  You also then wrote: “Also, I would note that we built the Golden Ears and will build the proposed new Port Mann bridges to deal with expected future capacity as well as current. Notwithstanding the debate over the actual need for these facilities, the same approach is just as sensible with other transportation infrastructure. Expecting that people are going to en masse change their behaviour is optimistic IMO. ” Again, I made the obvious inference.

  And, to be clear, I did not characterize your position as being that the statistics didn’t matter, only that they didn’t matter when they didn’t support your conclusion.

  Regarding safety, I take your position that it feels safer for you. No doubt the study will show a decrease in the number of accidents then.

  I don’t ride over the bridge often, as I live downtown, but I did bike over it coming north a few weeks ago, on the sidewalk side. Ironically, that sidewalk was filled with pedestrians (tourists, I assume), so it didn’t seem any different. :/

  Finally, Chris, I don’t mistrust your motives. I just recognize your position. You are an advocate. Your mind is made up. I don’t mean that as a criticism.

  I also think there is a different between perception and reality. In making an assessment as to whether the bike lane has made the bridge safer for everyone, I’ll await the statistics on the relative number of accidents etc.

• 48 Chris Keam // Sep 4, 2009 at 8:12 am

  Sorry to be prickly Ian. As a white male I hadn’t ever really experienced irrational prejudice until I got involved in cycling advocacy. Sorting out the genuinely skeptical from automobile industry lobbyists and those who fear progress can be a bit tough at times.

• 49 IanS // Sep 4, 2009 at 8:16 am

  No need to apologize, Chris. This has been an interesting discussion and I look forward to seeing how the trial does turn out.

  FWIW, I think it has been a success so far and hope that my fears concerning congestion in the Fall are not borne out.

• 50 Darcy McGee // Sep 4, 2009 at 2:18 pm

  > My seven-year old kid commented on how
  > much safer it was within a few pedal
  > strokes southbound on the bridge

  The single most heart warming thing about the bridge lane and Critical Mass is seeing kids pedaling freely, easily and safely to get somewhere. It’s amazing, and gives me hope for the future.

• 51 H1N1 // Sep 4, 2009 at 10:06 pm

  Darcy McGee I’m with you! My seventy seven-year old Grand commented on how much safer it was within a few walker strokes southbound on the bridge.

  The single most heart warming thing about the bridge lane and Critical Mass is seeing seniors advancing their walkers freely, easily and safely to get somewhere. It’s amazing, and gives me hope for the future.
  PS. I left my Grand on the bridge half way through around 6.00 PM . He’s not home yet, but at least I too know he’s safe out there.

Leave a Comment