Umm, ‘we people are about as diverse a cross-section of the population as you are likely to find. The Friends of the Burrard Bridge started a Facebook group so that people could express support and our members represent the full range of ages, occupations, and demographics. ‘We’ are you and your neighbours.

As to the cycling lobby working with other people, we are also going to bat for pedestrians, so they don’t have to share sidewalk space with bikes travelling three times as fast as they are. We have repeatedly offered advice to motorists regarding nearby alternate routes for getting downtown. We have encouraged critics to come forward with valid concerns, but they are so few, that those who do present themselves simply highlight the paucity of opposition to this idea. Where are the MLAs for Point Grey and Fairview Slopes on this issue? They didn’t respond to my letters to them. To his credit, I did hear from Spencer Herbert who represents the people of the West End. He offered support for the idea. What does the Transportation Minister think? Surely he must have an viewpoint. Where’s the BCAA? They had no problem addressing the issue of the vehicle levy. The best the DVBIA can come up with regarding the trial is the request that the taxpayer fund economic studies of the lane re-allocation, and a non-committal stance on the project itself.

The ‘cycling lobby’ is working for everyone and presenting long-term solutions to ongoing issues that can’t be fixed using the strategies that delivered road congestion in the first place. Any other characterization of those efforts looks like (to me) an attempt to marginalize and discount the hard work of a large group of dedicated individuals who give freely of their time and expertise in an attempt to improve our transportation infrastructure.

Converting lanes on the Burrard Bridge is an old idea. I believe about 15 years old. Just because an idea hasn’t been implemented doesn’t make it “new”!

Frankly your cycling lobby could do a lot of good if you were to try and implement change that works with other groups, as opposed to working against them.

Like I stated before, if this is the vision you people have, it’s completely myopic.

They will look like leaders that can learn and adjust policy accordingly. Like politicians interested in solutions for their constituents rather than tenure and a pension.

Lane re-allocation doesn’t seem like an old idea to me. How many places in the Lower Mainland have already tried it? It’s a new idea, hence the trepidation.

I’m getting quite a chuckle from being accused of barracking for old ideas. This is a first for me.

Thank you.

p.s. I had fries yesterday. So delicious. One of the great joys of self-propulsion, esp. for folks like me that can put on pounds by merely walking past a bakery, is the freedom to indulge in deep-fried goodness on occasion.

Maybe dialing down the vitriol might dial up the clarity.

Please don’t mistake my disdain for you with anger – you’d just be flatteringly yourself.

There you go again Blunders, not speaking whole truths, I didn’t call Ms. Ballum a simple troll, but hey what else can we expect from you?

Absolutely Penny Ballum is a “ledger troll”.

For your benefit, a ledger troll is someone who is hired or assumes a management position they are not qualified for, and in their rush to jump into their new role, uses the ledger line items of their budget to manage their responsibilities.

This would be as opposed to someone with adequate experience being hired for a position, which comes in and uses their knowledge to exact change necessary to better an organization, while working within their budget to do so (even if that budget is being reduced or requires reduction).

“Ledger trolls” are known for causing more damage to their new employ than for any value they create. From the growing view of many at city hall and the public for that matter, Penny Ballum is exactly that, a “ledger troll”.

That phrase is not copyrighted, so please those of you who like the phrase, use it whenever you like.

With respect to the trial Blunders, the mayor has clearly stated the time for debate is done and he’s going ahead with this. This has been very clear so save me any spin b*llsh*t that they would consider anyone coming forward with a plan, regardless of who it is.

Finally, your arrogance is reaching new heights to believe your party can back out of this gracefully when it fails. VV will have pissed off too many people on an issue that has been bitter and divisive for over a decade now.

He’s damned if he does and damned if he doesn’t. If you can’t see that, than I’ve given you far too much credit to date.

It’s actually quite easy to see how VV can back out gracefully – it’s called a trial. A trial is by definition set up to allow it to be cancelled following the evaluation., or it can be continued. Some people think it will work, others don’t.

And yes, I’m quite happy to say that the $63 million sidewalk widening includes the $30 million for upgrades. But unlike the widening, the bike lane trial doesn’t require the $30 million maintenance as part of its implementation.

“There are solutions, real ones – that are practical and make sense to a wider range of the population of Vancouver than congesting a bridge for nothing more than what is really a green legacy project for your “team”.

“With respect to sharing my ideas with VV, if I thought for a moment I would be heard and taken seriously – I would have by now. ”

Really LP? That’s it? Your policy ideas are so good but they won’t be taken seriously, so you’re going to keep them to yourself?

I hate to be a downer, but I highly doubt the Vision caucus sits around reading the comments section for policy ideas. So feel free to enlighten us.

But be careful – as we learned from you about the GCAT meeting agendas, your idea must be fully fleshed out and ready for public consumption. No musing!

If you’ve read my other comments, you will see that one of my main points has always been that ‘strategically’, VV have backed themselves into a corner on this, and will not be able to back away from any change to the BB even after the trials go poorly.

You’ve taken only one quote from a dialogue replying to my Newman on this blog, and attempted to come up with the ever-so-lame line “….do you want fries with that?…”

It seems as though all of you supporting this are stuck on old ideas, and old phrases (re: fries) – lacking the originality to come up with present day solutions (and phrases – really who eats fries now a days) that will be suitable for this city for the next 50 years.

If you’d like to debate me on the validity of strategy, I would love to hear your take on how VV and their “green team” would look should they decide the BB should not be permanently altered when the trial is over.

So humour me and just try and imagine that this doesn’t work, regardless of how difficult that may be for you to believe……and then think of how VV and their “green team” can back out gracefully without having their face full of organic mud, after pissing off enough votes to swing the 2011 election back into the NPA.

If you’d like to jump into my pissing match with Vision Blunders, feel free, please just try and stick to why the comment was made in the first place.

Frankly, it’s the height of arrogance to suggest you know anything before all the evidence is in. Such hyperbole only weakens any valid criticisms you might bring to the trial.

Unfortunately for you LP, other jurisdictions that have re-allocated road space to pedestrians and cyclists have almost uniformly indicated such experiments turned out to be extremely successful. When it comes time to eat your words, do you want fries with that?

The only myopic view regarding this topic is the belief any BB lanes at all, should be converted to other use.

As I’ve read through other posts on this topic and the comments associated to those posts, it is clear that city planners had not planned on going this route with the BB.

Subsequently, infrastructure changes have been taking place over previous years that in combination with current lane reductions on the BB will cause much grief to all neighbourhoods on both sides of the bridge.

Further, development and population growth in other parts of Vancouver will exceed that from the west side and would on that basis alone imply that bike lanes and alternative transportation planning should take priority on other routes.

Lastly, over the years many people have come forward with great suggestions for integrating more alternative forms of transportation with car use in Vancouver.

One poster here, Darcy, believes a separate pedestrian bridge should be built for example. Whether I personally agree with that approach or not isn’t relevant, but in my opinion what’s been lacking is the will – to plan for the next 50 years and pay for that infrastructure in today’s dollars.

All we hear is excuses as to why ‘it’ [what should be done] can’t be done. Read that, EXCUSES.

VV and “team green” are now using the current economic climate as part of their “excuse” for not having another plan while proceeding with this old stale one, that’s been beaten to death in this city for the past 15-20 years.