189 responses so far ↓

• 1 Bill Smolick // Feb 13, 2011 at 3:31 pm

  Oh I can’t wait for Alex Tsakumis to respond to this. I suspect he’ll have to first recover from the heart attack it no doubt caused him.

• 2 Higgins // Feb 13, 2011 at 3:36 pm

  Peter Ladner…another bitter looser trying to get some face back. And why does his opinion counts, because…? My point exactly. What a joke!

• 3 Richard // Feb 13, 2011 at 4:15 pm

  @Higgins

  Personal attacks are a sure sign that you don’t have much of an argument. How about sticking to debating the issue.

• 4 George // Feb 13, 2011 at 5:29 pm

  @ Bill

  I don’t think AGT would have a heart attack in fact this is what he said…

  AGT says:
  February 13, 2011 at 3:51 PM

  1) I hardly ever go to Bula’s site. It’s no longer elegant unless you want Vision speaking notes put into print.
  2) the problem with Ladner is that while he gets it eight on some issues (against casino development) he has a very anti-establishmentarian streak and likes to jab the very downtown business district that provided his family great riches.
  3) Ladner, Anton an Sullivan have taken the NPA too far to the left. Huge problem.

  I’m all for bike lane infrastructure but the new ones including Burrard could have been handled differently. Widen the bridge or offer a second crossing and forget the other lanes downtown.

  Peter forgets his flip flop an the reason I and other counseled him to do it earlier. Now he’s back at it again. Very stupid. But this is the unevenness of Ladner.

  pretty reasonable, but I do question why you would not go to his site and ask him yourself?

• 5 Mark Allerton // Feb 13, 2011 at 6:11 pm

  AGT himself being a model of “evenness”, of course.

  Looks like we have the line from the politburo, anyway: paint Ladner as flaky and irrelevant, nothing to see here, move along…

• 6 Richard // Feb 13, 2011 at 6:24 pm

  @George

  Widening Burrard Bridge would have cost around $60 million and caused a couple of years of traffic delays due to construction. What a fine solution. Not!

  The lane reallocation is working well. Redesign the intersection of Pacific and Burrard, as the city is planning to do, will improve safety and traffic flow.

  And it doesn’t seem like you really support cycling infrastructure that people will actually use that takes them where the want to go.

  Only 1 out of 14 streets downtown has a separated bike lane and even on those streets typically 75% of the space is still for parking or automobile traffic. Not sure what the big deal is.

• 7 George // Feb 13, 2011 at 6:30 pm

  @ Bill & Mark
  perhaps you can explain to me why the first commenter(Bill) found reason the bring in AGT to the conversation, then you (Mark)to further character assassinate when the article is about Peter Ladner.
  I don’t understand why or how AGT even entered into the conversation. I tend to agree with Richard

  “Personal attacks are a sure sign that you don’t have much of an argument. How about sticking to debating the issue.”

  Thanks

• 8 George // Feb 13, 2011 at 6:34 pm

  @ Richard
  huh….sorry I ‘m not here to debate the issue I just questioned why AGT was being dragged into this and why none of these posters have voiced their personal insults at the site of the person they were slagging…

• 9 George // Feb 13, 2011 at 6:39 pm

  @ Sorry Richard I didn’t read your entire post at first.
  In answer to your question, I really don’t care about the cycling lanes, except that I personally feel the way they have been politicized and shoved down peoples throats have been disastrous for the city.
  I agree with AGT it has become very radical and out of control.

• 10 T Ian McLeod // Feb 13, 2011 at 7:18 pm

  I write as a resident of the deep suburbs and won’t comment on the Hornby bike lanes. Just want to say that the amount of media time and animus that has surrounded this issue is surprising to me. Could it be that the discussion is actually about something else?

  If a traffic change was implemented in a suburban municipality, and it had precisely the same level of impact on commercial activity as the Hornby bike lanes — let’s imagine the permanent removal of a left-turn opportunity on a provincial highway or regional road — there would be absolutely zero discussion or media attention. No city council would be accused of Castroite tendencies. It happens all the time. And, yes, such changes improve road capacity for motorists, but arguably only in the short term.

• 11 Sean // Feb 13, 2011 at 7:24 pm

  @T Ian Mcleod #10
  “Could it be that the discussion is actually about something else? ”

  That’s sure the feeling I get. A lot of people seem to feel threatened by bike lanes, and I can’t quite understand why.

• 12 Richard // Feb 13, 2011 at 8:51 pm

  @George

  Well, to bring AGT back in, it is people like him, Bruce Allen and Laura Jones that have had the radical overreaction to them both for political reasons and to attract people to their web sites and listeners to their radio shows. They have spread misinformation and have been fear mongering.

  Controversy sells.

  Notice how their dire predictions have not come to pass.

• 13 George // Feb 13, 2011 at 9:19 pm

  @ Richard,

  Thanks for responding, so what was the point of Bill’s @1 comment? Just mud slinging? Stirring the pot.? Afraid to debate AGT directly.

  I just found it strange that the comment was made just days after a post was made by AGT in regard to bike lanes. Slagging comments are made here but very few with a comment are willing to debate him… just seemed odd.

  As to the dire predictions not coming to pass… I have never found that to be true, in fact, I find AGT to be pretty spot on.

  Take the illegal firing of the fire safety inspector Ark for example, and the tragic consequences. Where did Johnathon Ross and Civicscene.ca disappear to after AGT exposed the FD Element connection.
  BC RAIL Memo’s… brown envelopes do come his way..
  Thanks again for taking the time to respond I do appreciate it.

• 14 Richard // Feb 13, 2011 at 9:59 pm

  @George

  I have no problem debating AGT except that it really isn’t debating when it comes to bike lanes with him. When he makes such statements as “the ham-fisted manner with which Mayor Moonbeam and his cadre of extremists and radicals “, I really don’t expect he is interested in debating the facts, just throwing around hyperbole and rhetoric. He has also called people who support the bike lanes the rather charged nickname for the National Socialists who ruled Germany 70 or so years ago.

  Now, he does seem to be evenhanded on some issues (although I don’t typically know enough about many of those issues to be sure) but when it comes to bikes, well, he pretty much loses it.

  There is really no point in posting on his blog, I doubt that anything I had to say would have much impact on the people that tend to frequent it.

  Regarding the bike lane rant by Rob Macdonald, AGT did not do any of the fact checking that he claims to do on some of his other postings. For example, Macdonald claims that the downtown bike lanes cost $25 million dollars. Well, the $25 million is for bike routes all over the city. The Hornby and Dunsmuir lanes only cost a bit over $4 million. A big difference.

  Macdonald also claimed that the separated lanes are more dangerous. However, the collision shown in the video that he supplied to Global was caused by a van illegally turning in front of a cyclist. This type of collision happens often with painted bike lanes as well. To claim that this proves that the separated lanes are more dangerous is really stretching it. Again, AGT did not do his homework here.

  In fact, a study that just came out from Montreal, shows that similar bike lanes there do improve the safety of cyclists.

  It is also rather callous of Macdonald to twist a collision (where someone likely got injured) for political purposes by blaming the bike lane when the real cause of the collision was the illegal actions of the driver.

• 15 Glissando Remmy // Feb 13, 2011 at 10:10 pm

  The Thought of The Day

  “After reading his last counter-argument… twice, Jiminy Cricket, looked Peter Ladner in the eyes and said to him: ‘I quit!’”

  As the story goes, just before becoming a real boy, the Fairy Godmother gave Peter Ladner a cricket, as a present…and as a future personal guidance councillor. His name was Jiminy. Peter liked to sing to Jimmny. A lot.

  ‘Jiminy, Jiminy, go away,
  Come again another day,
  Little Peter wants to play.’

  One day Peter asked Jiminy to grant him a wish.
  ‘What is your wish?’ accepted Jiminy.
  ‘I want the people of my city to Worship me one day and my rich American friends to fund my political campaign and for me, to never get caught in my own lies…
  ‘Now, say ‘I wish’’ said Jiminy.
  ‘I wish!’ …

  Many years later, Gregor Robertson became the Mayor and Peter didn’t. Needless to say there was no much love lost between Peter and Jiminy since. Maybe it’s always good to remember, to always be careful what you wish for. I for one wished Peter kept his mouth shut.

  We live in Vancouver and this keeps us busy.

• 16 Tessa // Feb 13, 2011 at 10:47 pm

  Big difference between the comments on this thread and the ones from Rob MacDonald. See, this is what happens when someone posts a reasonable, factual and logical post, rather than simply ranting without regard to facts. If only more of the discussions on the bike lane could resemble Peter Ladner’s column.

• 17 gmgw // Feb 13, 2011 at 10:59 pm

  If Tsakumis genuinely thinks that Anton & Sullivan (and Ladner, for that matter) have “taken the NPA too far to the left”, I’d say he’s finally about ready for that long-anticipated padded cell.

  I wonder where Harry Rankin and Bruce Yorke would have fit on the Tsakumis Scale of Political Orientation (“TSPO”, enunciated with a sudden, violent expulsion of hot air)? Right off it, I guess.
  gmgw

• 18 George // Feb 13, 2011 at 11:12 pm

  @ Glissando…. you have an incredible mind…

• 19 Bobbie Bees // Feb 13, 2011 at 11:14 pm

  Good ol’ Alex sure is great for a laugh.
  And that’s about all.

• 20 George // Feb 13, 2011 at 11:36 pm

  @gmgw.. el al

  After reading your posts and having Glissy so eloquently state the obvious… I think Alex has the cycling community worried.

  Otherwise his name never would have entered this conversation from the very first comment…there was no reason to bring his name up…

  what does AGT know that worries everyone, the responses here do demonstrate an unnecessary attack.
  The fact that not one of you has the backbone to comment on his site about this subject, but are willing to back snipe here is very telling.

  I don’t see much integrity here. Perhaps Alex has called it like it really is.

  I wonder…..

• 21 Tessa // Feb 13, 2011 at 11:46 pm

  @George. Alex is a foil; he’s a stereotypical example of someone who is so far off the rocker that they are fun to make fun of and to paint all of your opponants as having the same characteristics. The only thing that worries cyclists about Alex is …[Edited because I can't bear the hysteria that will ensue otherwise]

• 22 The Fourth Horseman // Feb 14, 2011 at 12:00 am

  From Twitter:

  @vancityvegas Vancouver Not Vegas
  Petition comment of the day: “Bike lanes and casinos don’t mix.” http://is.gd/b12Clf

• 23 Richard // Feb 14, 2011 at 12:09 am

  @George

  Well, looking back on the first few posts, it really doesn’t seem like the “cycling community” brought AGT into the discussion. It was you and Bill that started talking about AGT.

  Not really sure if telling like it is and correcting misinformation is really much of an attack. Or if it is, it isn’t much of one compared to what is dished out on AGT’s site.

  Anyway, some have already tried to correct some of the misinformation AGT posted from Macdonald’s piece and AGT would have none of it. The subject got changed really fast. It end up at Kerouac and Twain somehow.

• 24 George // Feb 14, 2011 at 12:12 am

  @Tessa you are misrepresenting facts here… intentionally.
  What you fail to mention is the cyclist damaged a vehicle with CHILDREN in it, as Alex pulled over to help a woman that was having a heart attack … don’t cherry pick here.. this post by Frances was about Peter Ladner, but for some reason the very first comment was about Alex, what is the point of the slanderous misinformation? And it is slanderous.. why does Alex and his information scare your group?

• 25 George // Feb 14, 2011 at 12:18 am

  @ Richard sorry I got the impression that Bill was part of the cycling community, my error. I just found it strange. I do appreciate your effort to clarify.

• 26 Richard // Feb 14, 2011 at 12:26 am

  @George

  You can have the last word on what’s his name. Lets get back on topic.

  The bike lanes are great!

• 27 Richard // Feb 14, 2011 at 12:30 am

  @George 25

  Thanks.

• 28 Bobbie Bees // Feb 14, 2011 at 12:30 am

  I agree with Richard, let’s leave what’s his name alone and concentrate on the fact that the bicycle lanes are working.

• 29 Paul // Feb 14, 2011 at 12:44 am

  I love the optics of this post. It almost screams “HE’S CHANGED HIS MIND, WHY DON’T YOU?!?” The trouble is, the hatred of the separated bike lanes is not rooted in the NPA ranks. The NPA have always been very positive towards the need for expanded bicycling facilities. In fact they brought in more kilometers of bicycle friendly facilities than any Vision council could have ever.

  What Mr. Ladner is missing is the point the more sensible of anti-separation advocates are saying. You can’t just put in concrete and expect the situation to get better. It doesn’t work that way. Other measures must also be taken. And it should be a concerted effort amongst all levels of government.

  Should these travesties be removed by a new city council? Absolutely. But they should be replaced immediately with a better facility. The new council should immediately start working with Victoria and Ottawa on strategies to engage people. Get them to realize how much better and sustainable cycling is.

  That’s the name of the game folks. You procycle trackers don’t want to spend every last discussion on the topic trying to defend something you know you can’t. Why don’t you try listening to us instead of fighting us. We might just have a better idea than your precious Gregor Robertson. Believe it or not.

• 30 Bobbie Bees // Feb 14, 2011 at 1:05 am

  The only better idea would be lowering the speed limit in the city to 20km/h on all roads. 10km/h in school zones.

• 31 Paul // Feb 14, 2011 at 1:15 am

  How about shared spaces Bobbie?

  They’re proven to work better. They get more cyclists out and best of all are the proven safest facilities for cyclists in an urban area.

• 32 The Fourth Horseman // Feb 14, 2011 at 1:31 am

  Re: Alex T. and Chris Keam.

  I think those two have a little crush on each other. They keep each other amused.

  HAPPY VALENTINE’S DAY, ALL!

• 33 PGH // Feb 14, 2011 at 4:30 am

  I am a Vancouverite who now lives in Sydney. I have ridden my bike extensively in both cites. In Sydney we don’t have separated bike lanes … thank god!!!! … they are terrible. What they do here in a lot of the down town spaces is shared bike/bus lanes. It works great. For example there would be a dedicated bike/bus lane going into town along Burrard and Cornwall from 6 am -10 am. Then after work there would be the same coming out of town. Buses and bikes get their own lane in the direction of rush hour. No cars. No taxis. No parking. It’s great. I can get around with no problems. You don’t need to block the lane of 24/7 with concrete barricades. It’s all about effecient traffic flow. (I can’t wait for Chris Keam to ask me for the useless study that proves shared lanes are more efficient than divided bike lanes … sorry Chris no study exists … just my observations as a cyclist in both of these wonderful cities)

• 34 IanS // Feb 14, 2011 at 6:25 am

  @BobbieBees #28,

  I know I’m going to regret this but…

  “…concentrate on the fact that the bicycle lanes are working.”

  Well, to the extent the goal of the bike lanes is to stimulate debate, then, yes, they are working very well.

  Beyond that, the evidence is kind of thin. AFAIK, there’s no data to support the assertion that any of the separated bike lanes have had any beneficial effect whatsoever in Vancouver.

• 35 boohoo // Feb 14, 2011 at 7:24 am

  A little late to jump in but T Ian McLeod #10 & Sean# 11 have it right. This topic is so overblown it would be comical if you weren’t taking it so tragically seriously.

  25 million all in for bike lanes in one city = thousands of posts, accusations of fascism, political corruption, cronyism, ignoring the public, threats of businesses dying, traffic increasing, pedestrians suffering, demands for hard data conclusively supporting the benefits of bike lanes, showing this data, refuting this data, anecdotal stories, yelling at each other blah blah blah.

  4 (5? 6?) BILLION dollars on highway expansion, bridge construction, expropriations, no public consultation, paving over wetlands, creeks & bogs, enabling greenfield sprawl in all of Metro Vancouver = ho hum, nothing to see here.

  Please, some bloody perspective people.

• 36 AnnetteF // Feb 14, 2011 at 7:34 am

  @PGH
  I’ve seen those shared bike/bus lanes in Sydney and wondered if they were safe for cyclists.
  My personal experience cycling in the same lane as buses both in Vancouver and Victoria, is that they are terrifying. They seem to take great fun in trying to run me off the road, or at least into the curb.
  Perhaps Sydney bus drivers are nicer people (or better trained in sharing the road). For me, the idea of sharing a lane with bus traffic scares the hell out of me. I am really enjoying our separated bike lanes though and definitely cycle into downtown more than I used to.

• 37 Everyman // Feb 14, 2011 at 8:23 am

  @Richard 14
  Its unfair to call Macdonald’s commentary about the bike lanes a “rant”. Unlike many commentators, as an affected business owner he actually has skin in the game. In addition, he provided video proof of why certain elements aren’t working. Third, his history shows he is hardly hostile to cyclists. If the bike lobby is going to win over moderates, you’re going to have to move away from the knee-jerk negative reactions to anyone who criticizes your opinion. It would serve the pro-bike lobby well to remember that even in Vancouver, the average Joe & Jane is a car-owner.

• 38 Max // Feb 14, 2011 at 8:26 am

  So, if the cycling coalition is setting up Facebook groups and web sites to promote shopping and dining on Hornby to their group – does that mean they recognize there is a problem to begin with??

• 39 Richard // Feb 14, 2011 at 8:30 am

  @Paul

  So-called shared spaces on busy roads are horrible. They don’t work well for cars, bikes or buses. Just give Pender Street west of Cambie a try. The buses get stuck behind cyclists and the cyclists get stuck behind buses when they are stopped.

  A new study indicates that separated bike lanes in Montreal that are very similar to the ones here attract far more cyclists and and lower the risk to cyclists.
  http://www.montrealgazette.com/news/Bike+paths+lower+risks+riders+study/4253487/story.html

• 40 Max // Feb 14, 2011 at 8:36 am

  Seems another cyclist has an opposing opinion:

  http://www.vancouversun.com/travel/Readers+split+over+drive+more+bike+lanes/4277104/story.html

• 41 Richard // Feb 14, 2011 at 8:40 am

  @Everyman

  He hasn’t provided proof the separated lanes aren’t working, he has provided proof that a driver illegally turned in front of a cyclist. This type of dangerous, illegal behaviour occurs on streets with the painted bike lanes that Macdonald supports as well as streets without bike lanes. All it proves is that more enforcement and education of drivers is needed. And instead of demanding more enforcement, he instead for political reasons, blames the separated bike lane.

  Well, we can disagree whether it is a rant or not. It does however, contain misinformation and does resort to attacking people who support the lanes by using words such as “radical” and “extremist”. He doesn’t back up much of what he says with any real proof at all.

• 42 Bobbie Bees // Feb 14, 2011 at 8:49 am

  @IanS 34

  Well, the number of times I’ve had car pull hook shots in front of me in separated bicycle lanes is next to nothing.
  The number of times car drivers weasel their way past me as I ride from home over to a protected bike lane?
  Too numerous to count.

  The number of car drivers who race past me when we’re only 10 to 15 metres away from an intersection so they car pull a right hand turn directly in front of me and only end up blocking my travel as they’re not able to pass through the occupied crosswalk?
  Again, far too numerous to count.

  Number of car drivers that can’t obey ‘No Entry – Except for Bicycles’ signs near where I live and nearly end up smoking on coming car drivers AND cyclists not expecting cars to be entering a ‘traffic calmed’ street the wrong way?
  Too numerous to count.

  Number of car drivers that can’t obey ‘All Traffic Must Turn Right- Buses and Bicycles Excepted’ and end up driving straight through a right hand turn lane causing grief for cyclists.
  Again, far too many to count.

  And while we’re on the numbers game.
  Can anyone tell me the total number of potential mayoral candidates that have a blatant disregard for the British Columbia Personal Information Protection Act?

  http://www.oipc.bc.ca/

  http://www.oipc.bc.ca/news/rlsgen/Video_Surveillance_Guidelines%28March2008%29.pdf

• 43 Chris Keam // Feb 14, 2011 at 8:55 am

  Excellent question Max! You should make that comment on the St. Regis Facebook page.

  http://www.facebook.com/pages/St-Regis-Hotel-Vancouver/73586903125

• 44 Paul // Feb 14, 2011 at 9:07 am

  @Richard 39…. Keep up with the debate please. The Montreal study has been discredited because it only compares no bike facilities to separated bike lanes. Clearly that will be better.

  It did not take into consideration the possibility of alternatives to the separated bike lane. Basically it says CUTTING OFF YOUR ARM HELPS STOP THE SPREAD OF INFECTION. Of course it doesn’t mention that you could just use antibiotics and achieve the same goal.

  Also at #41… Again, your argument has been covered. No one is saying that the driver in the video wasn’t at fault. Clearly the yield sign was there and the cyclist had the right of way. The argument by pro-cycle trackers is that these concrete barriers will do away with the risk of these accidents happening. Well no they won’t. Proof is in the video.

  Let’s train drivers and riders better. Let’s give facilities that don’t separate commuters but make them aware of each other. Let’s also have better enforcement to drive home the need for all road users to obey the rules.

  Now let’s get away from fault for a second with that video. I’m sure all cyclists will admit the number one goal is to avoid injury. Again, watching the video, you can see the danger. The driver, for whatever reason, did not realize the danger that was coming up behind him. He was well into the bike lane when the cyclist finally slammed into the back of his vehicle.

  This is a fairly large truck that was crossing the cycle path. Why did the cyclist also not see the danger ahead and brake to avoid the collision? The reason can be found in the numerous studies that show cycle tracks lead to more accidents than painted lanes. Cyclists get a FALSE sense of security behind the concrete divider.

  Again, please don’t blast me back that I dare to question who is at fault. Technically the driver of the truck is 100% at fault. All I’m trying to do is piece together the failures that happened that led to the crash. Had the cyclist been more aware, he could have also prevented the crash.

• 45 spartikus // Feb 14, 2011 at 9:18 am

  The Montreal study has been discredited because it only compares no bike facilities to separated bike lanes.

  For a study to be “discredited” (and the only one who terms it as such is “Paul” from francesbula.com) it must be displayed to be false – whether that be errors in the data or errors using the data in drawing the conclusion.

  The Montreal study compared apples to oranges. It’s not “discredited” because it didn’t compare apples, oranges and pineapples. If you want to state that painted lanes are equivalent to separated bike lanes in terms of safety, that’s one thing. You haven’t provided any supporting evidence, but you can’t dismiss the conclusions of the Montreal study simply because they found separated bike lanes to be safer than no facilities.

  You overreach.

• 46 Max // Feb 14, 2011 at 9:25 am

  @ Bobbi Bees #42:

  You do realize every restaurant, shopping centre, bar, pub, retail outlet, many of our buses, cabs, etc have video surviellance?

  If you are that paranoid about having your pic taken, best not to wander outside and into the public arena.

• 47 Mark Allerton // Feb 14, 2011 at 9:27 am

  @Paul

  When you say “the Montreal study has been discredited” you forgot to say “by me”.

  You are assigning yourself an unwarranted level of authority.

• 48 spartikus // Feb 14, 2011 at 9:28 am

  A little late to jump in but T Ian McLeod #10 & Sean# 11 have it right. This topic is so overblown it would be comical if you weren’t taking it so tragically seriously.

  Let me add my agreement to this. Bike lanes generates lots of heat here, but I don’t think the commentariat reflect a cross-section of Vancouver.

  The election will not be won or lost on bike lanes. Or chicken coops.

  It might on the Olympic Village…but the NPA have their own considerable baggage on that to carry.

• 49 Paul // Feb 14, 2011 at 9:34 am

  Spartikus and Mark… You are both correct, the term discredited is a stretch. Sure it has validity, but not where the Hornby Bike Lane is concerned. Hornby had a working bike lane that was popular.

  This study is indeed comparing apples to oranges and we have pineapples. I apologize for the incorrect usage, I meant it is discredited as a talking-point when it comes to it’s relevance to the debate at hand.

• 50 Bobbie Bees // Feb 14, 2011 at 9:35 am

  @Max 46,

  If everyone was jumping offf a cliff, would you join in too?
  Actually Cadillac Fairview has a pretty extensive policy in place for their video cameras that happen to cover public space. The cameras inside the mall are a different story. By entering the mall, you are giving your implied consent to the capture and retention of your personal information. Walking down a public street is something entirely different.

  I did commercial property management a few years ago, which is why I am well aware of the legalities of recording images outside of your private property. My cameras were set up in such a manner that nothing outside of our property lines was visible at any of our buildings. Any camera that captured the public at large was set to not record.
  See, once you start recording the public with or without their consent, then you have to start answering requests to supply copies of personal information’ to which you are legally obliged to comply. As the act says, you’re better off only recording what you absolutely need to record and nothing more.

• 51 Bobbie Bees // Feb 14, 2011 at 9:36 am

  @spartikus 48

  HAIL SPARTIKUS!

• 52 IanS // Feb 14, 2011 at 9:36 am

  @bobbie bees #42,

  You write:

  “Well, the number of times I’ve had car pull hook shots in front of me in separated bicycle lanes is next to nothing.
  The number of times car drivers weasel their way past me as I ride from home over to a protected bike lane?
  Too numerous to count.”

  OMG… you mean, it’s gone from nothing to “too numerous to count”??? That’s like, from 0 to a bazillion, gazzilion trillion???

  I have to withdraw my comment then. The fact that the the separated bike lanes have improved safety a gazzillion, bazillion, trillion percent is undeniable evidence of their efficacy.

  And all without the necessity of data..

  You know.. actual facts…

• 53 Richard // Feb 14, 2011 at 9:39 am

  @IanS

  Well, until we have some data from Vancouver, here are the results a study of similar separated lanes from Montreal:
  http://www.montrealgazette.com/news/Bike+paths+lower+risks+riders+study/4253487/story.html

• 54 IanS // Feb 14, 2011 at 9:40 am

  @spartikus #48,

  Agreed. As I mentioned in an earlier post, if the purpose of the separated bike lanes was to generate debate, then they really are a success.

  I also agree with your comment that the OV will likely be the major issue and that there are points going both ways on that.

  Of course, until we have a full slate of NPA candidates and the actual campaign, it’s difficult to predict for certain how the issues will shake out.

• 55 IanS // Feb 14, 2011 at 9:42 am

  @Richard #53,

  Yes, that’s been discussed.

  In light of those results (which seem to be disputed by at least some), I look forward to the inevitable flood of data establishing that the separated bike lanes in Vancouver have resulted in an increase in traffic safety.

• 56 IanS // Feb 14, 2011 at 9:44 am

  @Richard #53,

  One further point.

  As it turns out, we do have some data, which was discussed on this board a while back. ICBC released some figures indicating that the accident rate at the north end of the Burrard Street Bridge increased for a few months after installation of the separated bike lanes and then decreased to its pre-bike lane level.

  AFAIK, that’s all the data we have so far.

• 57 Richard // Feb 14, 2011 at 9:49 am

  @Paul

  As I have said before, this type of collision right hook collision happens with painted bike lanes as well. And no one has every claimed that the separated bike lanes will prevent all collisions. Please don’t misrepresent what others are saying.

  Please provide some evidence that backs up your claim that separated bike lanes provide people with a false sense of security. People opposed to bike lanes who want cyclists to mix with traffic make the same arguments against the painted bike lanes. The Montreal study at least shows that separated lanes are safer than nothing at all. You will have to admit that.

• 58 Richard // Feb 14, 2011 at 9:53 am

  @IanS

  The ICBC data from Burrard Bridge is really not relevant to this discussion on Hornby and Dunsmuir. Everyone acknowledges that the Burrard and Pacific intersection needed upgrading even before the trial to improve safety for drivers, cyclists and pedestrians. The city, however, needed to decide on the configuration of the lanes on the bridge as this impacts the intersection design.

• 59 Bobbie Bees // Feb 14, 2011 at 9:59 am

  @IanS 52

  Okay, for example, coming home yesterday from figure skating.

  I know of three hookshots that happened on Commercial street. Two at commercial and first, one at Commercial and Broadway.
  Two violations of the ‘No entry for cars’ at the start of the 10th Ave bicycle lane.

  But that’s what I mean by ‘too numerous to count’.
  The five potential accidents were just in the span of 15 minutes.
  To keep track of all of the other days of the week and weeks of the year I’d have to ride a tandem bicycle and give the stoker a tally board so he or she could keep a running total.

  And, someone in here mentioned something about the cyclist should have anticipated that the truck was going to pull an illegal manoeuvre.
  Hrrrrmm, it’s a good thing our legal system doesn’t work this way.
  But I guess when you’re trying to make a point of just how ‘dangerous’ bike lanes are, it’s always better to spin it into a ‘blame the victim’ slant, right?

• 60 IanS // Feb 14, 2011 at 10:01 am

  @Richard #58,

  I had understood we were discussing the separated bike lanes, including those on the Burrard Bridge. I’m not certain why the ICBC data would be irrelevant, though I certainly agree it’s not determinative. To date, though, it’s all we have.

• 61 Paul // Feb 14, 2011 at 10:03 am

  Sure Richard.

  http://www.bicyclinginfo.org/faqs/answer.cfm?id=3962

  “Additionally, cyclists may have a false sense of security when using cycle tracks that may also make them less attentive to their surroundings”

  Follow the link at the bottom of that page to the actual study in Copenhagen that shows the increase of intersection collisions.

  And yes I’ve never discounted that no facility is worse than some kind of facility. What I’m saying is that this “trial” is going to be a failure. It will not result in greater ridership. It will not result in greater overall safety. We have the proof. You can’t just build it and they will come.

  Enticing greater ridership takes more than just a few million in concrete and planter boxes. But the cycling faction who are in charge of city hall won’t listen to reason. They want their concrete no matter how much the studies show it’s not the way to go.

• 62 Chris Keam // Feb 14, 2011 at 10:13 am

  “Enticing greater ridership takes more than just a few million in concrete and planter boxes.”

  Actually, according to any separated lane project I’ve heard of, it’s pretty much a guarantee you’ll get more people on bikes. So, this would be the part where you cite numerous studies proving otherwise, and blow a huge hole in the credibility of the concept, which interestingly, isn’t confined to Vancouver but can also be found as a key strategy for increasing ridership in New York, London, Paris, Bogota, Seville, South Korea, Sydney NSW, Los Angeles, Portland, and on and on. Either a lot of politicians are drinking from the same jug of Kool Aid or there’s validity to the idea.

• 63 Paul // Feb 14, 2011 at 10:14 am

  Bobbie Bees @ 59

  Now come on man. My whole post I reiterated that the fault of the accident was on the driver of the truck. Without a doubt.

  I don’t know if you’re a driver, but certainly the number one driving skill that is taught is to drive defensively. Even if you’re not in the wrong you should do everything you can to avoid a crash.

  I would say the vast majority of cyclists follow that motto as well. And I can only imagine the cyclist in that video does as well. But for some reason, on that day, in that place, the cyclist did not anticipate the danger and act defensively. The question has to be asked… Why?

  And I’m saying the studies show why… The cyclist had a false sense of security in the separated bike lane. I put no blame on the cyclist, I put the fault on the driver with a contributing factor being the separated bike lane.

• 64 IanS // Feb 14, 2011 at 10:17 am

  @Bobbie Bees #59,

  Here’s the thing: everyone has anecdotal evidence. Often it conflicts. My experience of the separated bike lanes will be different from your experience. I can respond to your subjective experiences with my own, but to little effect.

  Hence, the importance of data.

  My point, which I’ve repeated now a number of times, is that the separated bike lanes in Vancouver should be judged on their merits, based on the facts (ie. data). Hence, as I indicated in the Macdonald thread, I discount critics’ unsupported assertions the same way I discount the unsupported assertions of those who support the bike lanes.

  I’m consistently surprised at how controversial a position that is.

  To date, AFAIK, there’s precious little in the way of data supporting the assertion that the separated bike lanes in Vancouver have had any beneficial impact whatsoever.

  Having said that, I agree (and agreed) with Sean’s point in the Macondald thread. If the bike lanes are to have any beneficial impact, it will take time and they should be given that time.

  Hence, I oppose any suggestion that the separated bike lanes be removed any time soon (I don’t think any politicians are suggesting that) and oppose any suggestion that more such lanes be constructed, at least until we are able to determine whether there’s any benefit to doing so.

• 65 Max // Feb 14, 2011 at 10:18 am

  @ Paul #61

  Vancouver City Assistant City Engineer, Jerry Dobrovolny, aslo made the comment that separated bike lanes provide a false sense of security in a Van Sun article, Aug, 2010.

  ‘Those lime-green swaths of paint that have begun appearing in bike lane intersections are the latest effort to remind both cyclists and motorists to be careful. Unlike painted bike lanes, where both travellers tend to be aware of each other, separated bike lanes can create a false sense of security. That’s why there’s increased signage to warn both motorists and cyclists of approaching changes where conflict can occur. ‘
  *****
  As he made the statement to Jeff Lee for the article, it would suggest the City has ‘studied’ the issue.

• 66 Richard // Feb 14, 2011 at 10:21 am

  @Paul

  Paul, separated bike lanes have been proven to increase cycling in cities all around the world. In Metro Vancouver, the Cycling in Cities research shows that they are preferred over painted bike lanes and mixed busy streets by cyclists of all abilities. http://www.cher.ubc.ca/cyclingincities/survey.html

  Dunsmuir has already resulted in dramatically increased ridership. Both the city counts and just observing the number of cyclists on the street demonstrate this.

  Notice how they use the word “may”. Not exactly concussive.

  Measures have also been taken to reduce intersection conflicts including right hand turn bans and bike only signal phases on Hornby. Due to these measures, the separated lanes as implemented could indeed be safer than the previous painted bike lanes. Also note that several of the intersections on Burrard have the some of highest levels of bike collisions in the city. At least now, some cyclists will avoid Burrard and use Hornby instead.

  By reducing the number of parking spaces along the bike lanes and moving the bike lane to the passenger side of the parked cars, incidences of dooring, one of the major causes of cyclist injuries will be greatly reduced. Also, wrong-way and sidewalk cycling will decrease, further decreasing the chances of crashes.

• 67 Chris Keam // Feb 14, 2011 at 10:25 am

  “The question has to be asked… Why?”

  The driver stopped after making the turn. If they had looked before turning they wouldn’t have blocked the lane. If they had continued without stopping they wouldn’t have blocked the lane. It was a cascading series of poor choices that began with not making the choice to be aware of other vehicles travelling in the adjacent lane. Drivers do it all the time without a concrete barrier too and there’s little to suggest that this incident would have had a different outcome without the divider.

• 68 Richard // Feb 14, 2011 at 10:26 am

  @Paul

  Totally agree about defensive driving and cycling. I always shoulder check even if I have the right-of-way. More education is needed regardless of the type of facility.

• 69 Everyman // Feb 14, 2011 at 10:29 am

  @BobbieBees#42
  Your attempt to bring up privacy laws relating to Macdonald doesn’t stregnthen your case, rather it comes across as an evasion. From the description of your commute it sounds as though you live in Kits, in which case I can see how the newly installed bike lanes would benefit you, however for many living farther afield it is not a practical option.

  I’d be curious to hear the cyclists opinion on one aspects of Ladner’s article: The Don’t Be Jerk Campaign” in NYC which resulted in 29,000 tickets issued to cyclists for infractions.

  Finally, is Ladner’s opinion really a surprise to anyone? He was always a vocal advocate of cycling. Of more interest to me, at least politically, is whether this is part of a gearing up for another run at Council, or even Mayor.

• 70 Paul // Feb 14, 2011 at 10:38 am

  Richard thank you for the agreement, as to your point about increased ridership I won’t discount the fact that in some city ridership has increased with the advent of cycle tracks.

  However, those studies were also done in cities and countries where other factors were at play. Many of those countries also made driving so expensive that a bike was a person’s only option. They also focused on education and enforcement instead of just building lanes.

• 71 Chris Keam // Feb 14, 2011 at 10:48 am

  “They also focused on education and enforcement instead of just building lanes.”

  There is nothing stopping the prov or fed gov’t from participating. In fact, talk to anyone involved, from bike mfrs and retailers, to advocates and politicians at the local level and they would all welcome a greater level of commitment. But, a lack of foresight on the part of some levels of gov’t should not stop cities from doing what is within their power.

• 72 Richard // Feb 14, 2011 at 10:59 am

  @Paul

  In the Netherlands, 97% of households have at least one car, yet they have really high cycling levels. The cost of gas in England is similar to that of the rest of Europe yet England has pretty much the same cycling levels as Canada and the US. The difference is the facilities supported by education, not the cost of driving. In rich Western countries, most people can afford to drive.

  Here is a post that counters the cost of driving and many other myths about why people do and don’t cycle.
  http://hembrow.blogspot.com/2011/02/all-those-myths-and-excuses-in-one-post.html

• 73 Paul // Feb 14, 2011 at 11:12 am

  @ Chris Keam 67…

  The full quote is “But for some reason, on that day, in that place, the cyclist did not anticipate the danger and act defensively. The question has to be asked… Why?”

  I’ve already placed the blame and fault for the accident on the driver Chris. And there could be ANY number of reasons why this driver took the illegal right turn and obstructed the bike lane. But it’s almost certain that he/she was driving with undue care and attention.

  My point is, clearly the cyclist should have seen the large vehicle slowing turning into his/her path. The question remains, why would a rider barrel head long into a crash that they could have avoided? Based on the studies I’ve seen this is a blatant example of the cyclist having a false sense of security in the lane. The cyclist was not riding defensively because he/she felt safe in the bike lane. But in reality the rider was not safe and a crash occurred.

• 74 Paul // Feb 14, 2011 at 11:21 am

  @Richard, this was posted in the discussion of Rob MacD0nald’s article.

  The top 10 motivators/deterrents that might influence the likelihood of cycling, according to the UBC survey…this is data from surveyed BC residents:

  * the route is away from traffic noise and air pollution
  * the route has beautiful scenery
  * the route has bicycle paths separated from traffic for the entire distance
  * the route is flat
  * cycling to the destination takes less time than travelling by other modes
  * the distance to my destination is less than 5 km
  * I can make the trip in daylight hours
  * I can take my bike on the Skytrain at any time
  * a 2-way off-street bike path has a reflective centre line for night and poor weather cycling
  * secure indoor bike storage is available at my destination

  The top 10 deterrents:

  * the route is snowy or icy
  * the street has a lot of car, bus, or truck traffic
  * the route has glass or debris
  * vehicles drive faster than 50 km/h
  * the risk from motorists who don’t know how to drive safely near bicycles
  * the risk of injury from car-bike collisions
  * it is raining
  * the route has surfaces that can be slick when wet or icy when cold
  * the route is not well lit after dark
  * I need to carry bulky or heavy items

  Separated bike paths are but ONE influencing factor, and all the downtown separated bike lanes fail when it comes to:

  influences:
  * the route is away from traffic noise and air pollution
  * the route has beautiful scenery
  * cycling to the destination takes less time than travelling by other modes (may or may not)
  * the distance to my destination is less than 5 km (may or may not)
  * secure indoor bike storage is available at my destination (may or may not)

  detterants:
  * the route is snowy or icy (may be in the winter time)
  * the street has a lot of car, bus, or truck traffic
  * the risk from motorists who don’t know how to drive safely near bicycles (arguably the case)
  * the risk of injury from car-bike collisions (watch the Global video)
  * it is raining (only 166 days a year on average)
  * the route has surfaces that can be slick when wet or icy when cold (only in the winter)

• 75 Chris Keam // Feb 14, 2011 at 11:28 am

  “The cyclist was not riding defensively because he/she felt safe in the bike lane.”

  Huge assumption. Since we’re now basically playing a game of ‘What if Spartacus had a Piper Cub’ I’m going to leave the discussion before Max feels compelled to start counting my posts again.

• 76 Richard // Feb 14, 2011 at 11:41 am

  @Paul

  - The separated bike lanes have more separation between cyclists and traffic than the previous painted lanes
  - Especially on Dunsmuir, the traffic speeds are slower reducing noise and improving safety.
  - The planters add some greenery improving the experience for cyclists and pedestrians
  - Especially on Hornby, people cycle between the trees and the planters. This is much more pleasant than cycling between parked cars and moving vehicles. Sure, it is not the Seawall but really nice considering it is the downtown of a major cit.
  - The city is doing a good job of deicing the separated bike lanes
  - The Global video doesn’t prove one way or the other that the lanes are risky or not. Anyway, a cyclist can likely avoid such incidents by illegally turning vehicles by shoulder checking

  No one ever claimed that other measures such as improved bicycle parking are not needed as well.

  Anyway, there are other cities with similar climates where a lot of people cycle on such separated bike lanes so, for whatever reason, people are choosing to use them.

• 77 Agustin // Feb 14, 2011 at 11:45 am

  Paul: I share your conjecture that the cyclist did not anticipate the truck because he did not feel the need to be on “full alert”.

  However, you must compare that to the alternatives:

  1. A lack of bike facilities leads to cyclists being on full alert, and being in danger of a number of types of collisions.

  2. Painted bike lanes lead to a bit less alertness on the part of the cyclist and a reduced danger from Situation 1.

  3. Separated bike lanes lead to less alertness on the part of the cyclist and a reduced danger from Situation 2. (There would be increased danger due to the reduced alertness but decreased danger due to the removal of car doors in the path, the removal of cars veering into the bike lane, the removal of parked cars in the bike lane.)

  As we’ve seen at Burrard and Dunsmuir (see the City web site for stats), separated bike lanes lead to increased cycling.

  And, as we’ve seen in a recent study (http://ehp03.niehs.nih.gov/article/info:doi/10.1289/ehp.0901747) the positive health effects outweigh the risk of injury.

  The most dangerous collision for a cyclist is one with a motor vehicle. And the more people cycle, the less they use motor vehicles. And the more bike facilities (including separated lanes), the more people cycle.

• 78 Victor // Feb 14, 2011 at 11:51 am

  @ Richard # 6
  Sorry hopping in a bit late here.

  You say …”The lane reallocation is working well. Redesign the intersection of Pacific and Burrard, as the city is planning to do, will improve safety and traffic flow.”

  Can you kindly elaborate what the plans are for this intersection?

• 79 Mark Allerton // Feb 14, 2011 at 11:53 am

  @Paul

  “all the downtown separated bike lanes fail”

  In your judgement.

  However, I strongly suspect that if you asked people for their motivators and deterrents for *walking* you would get a very similar list.

  So it would appear that, applying the same logic, all of the downtown sidewalks fail for pedestrians and their is no point in trying to improve sidewalks.

  Clearly this is absurd, and by extension so is the way you are using that study to support your argument against bike lanes.

• 80 Mark Allerton // Feb 14, 2011 at 12:00 pm

  …and in addition the un-separated bike lanes and shared spaces you advocate would fail when judged against the same criteria.

• 81 Paul // Feb 14, 2011 at 12:09 pm

  @Agustin #77…

  Agreed on scenario 1.

  However you are weighting the benefits of the scenarios as:
  1. Bad
  2. Good
  3. Best

  Studies show that this is incorrect. The studies tend to weight the benefits as:
  1. Bad
  2. Better (overall)
  3. Better (at some aspects) and Worse (at some aspects)

  In fact the Copenhagen study shows that while accidents from doorings and situations where cars collide with cyclists from the rear are reduced dramatically, there is a much more dramatic increase in intersection collisions. Therefore the Copenhagen study concluded that the overall benefits in safety of separated bike lanes are far out-weighed by the negative safety aspects of segregation.

  And yes I agree with the study, more cyclists is good. But no study has not firmly concluded that in all situations a separated bike lane is better at attracting cyclists than a painted bike lane on a city street.

  But yes, in some cities there is evidence that supports that opinion. But the results of the study also clearly attribute increased cycling to other elements as well as cycle tracks.

• 82 Richard // Feb 14, 2011 at 12:13 pm

  @Victor

  I think they are still early in the planning process for Burrard and Pacific. I certainly don’t have any details. I saw some preliminary plans a few years ago that included painted bike lanes but I expect that given the experience with separated bike lanes, any new design would incorporate them and they would have to go back to the drawing board.

  From:
  http://www.geoffmeggs.ca/2011/01/19/icbc-numbers-suggest-hornby-bike-lane-will-make-big-safety-contribution-for-cyclists/

  “Each end of the Burrard Bridge will undergo a complete redesign as a result of the upcoming remediation. That should go a long way to resolve festering problems there.”

• 83 Paul // Feb 14, 2011 at 12:19 pm

  @ Mark Allerton #79… AHHH! Finally someone who gets the message. Although I don’t think you actually realize it just yet.

  This facility is a waste because it’s not doing enough. We have a wonderful corridor through the heart of the city that could have easily been made friendlier to pedestrians and cyclists alike. It was NOT studied because it was deemed to be too far away from the Burrard corridor.

  I see a beautiful urban area through downtown Vancouver that can have parking for cars, wide sidewalks for pedestrians, safe corridors for cyclists. It’s called Granville Street. It was just redesigned and all we got is exactly what we had before because Vision Vancouver lacked Vision to actually be progressive. We were too busy arguing about tearing up a working cycling facility to realize we let a perfectly good one slip through our fingers.

  At night the area can still be transformed back into an entertainment district, in fact it would make the area more friendly for people who frequent those establishment as well.

• 84 Agustin // Feb 14, 2011 at 12:19 pm

  @ Paul, #81: Actually, I would agree with

  1. Bad
  2. Better
  3. Better at some aspects, worse at others, though better overall.

  Re. “But no study has not firmly concluded that in all situations a separated bike lane is better at attracting cyclists than a painted bike lane on a city street.”

  And no study will ever say *anything* about “in all situations”. If that’s the standard we’re aiming at, we’ll never do anything.

  Lastly, I think you have the agreement of the cycling community in saying that increased cycling is attributed to “other elements as well as cycle tracks.” You certainly have my agreement: cycle tracks alone won’t do it, but they are a factor in the success.

• 85 Agustin // Feb 14, 2011 at 12:24 pm

  @ Paul, #83: “This facility is a waste because it’s not doing enough.”

  Again, you have my agreement that it’s not doing enough.

  However, rather than judging it to be a waste, I would say that it’s a good step in the right direction.

  Certainly we need to do more. And there are some fantastic opportunities on Granville Street that we have not taken advantage of yet.

  I’d say the same for Robson Street, and a host of others around the city.

• 86 Paul // Feb 14, 2011 at 12:39 pm

  Agustin, we’re close to being in full agreement, but I almost glossed over your comment about the separated bike lane being better overall. Please review the quote that followed the list.

  “…the Copenhagen study concluded that the overall benefits in safety of separated bike lanes are far out-weighed by the negative safety aspects of segregation.”

  So actually according to Copenhagen it is:
  1. Bad
  2. Better
  3. Worse (overall)

• 87 Ron // Feb 14, 2011 at 12:43 pm

  would we look at Holland perhaps? What are they doing in the country best known for cycling – the safest place for cycling?

  Separated lanes. Throughout the entire country.

  Shared spaces in dense urban centers where there isn’t enough room to separate all modes AND where cars DO NOT dominate.

  What is the motiviation of those who are opposed to separated bike lanes? They hate bikes! They hate that growth in cycling represents the failure of the Jetsons to have become a reality.

  Get over it. In most of the great cities the car is in decline as a dominant force.

• 88 Mark Allerton // Feb 14, 2011 at 12:48 pm

  @Paul

  Your vision of Granville sounds lovely. However, one street does not make a network, and for people to practically use cycling as a mode of transport, what we need is a network.

  Perhaps I have been unfair in characterizing your expectations of the city environment as being too low – however it seems that advocating for what you see as the “best” infrastructure you are putting yourself in the absurd position of arguing that somehow lanes like the Hornby and Dunsmuir separated lanes are less safe than lanes like the Burrard Street “Suicide Lane”.

  It’s a classic case of “the best being the enemy of the good enough”.

• 89 Agustin // Feb 14, 2011 at 1:03 pm

  @ Paul, #86: “…the Copenhagen study concluded that the overall benefits in safety of separated bike lanes are far out-weighed by the negative safety aspects of segregation.”

  I’ve looked for that conclusion but didn’t find it. Can you help me find it?

• 90 Paul // Feb 14, 2011 at 1:09 pm

  Agustin… Absolutely. Go to:
  http://www.trafitec.dk/pub/Road%20safety%20and%20percieved%20risk%20of%20cycle%20tracks%20and%20lanes%20in%20Copenhagen.pdf

  Look at the last para of page 2.

• 91 Paul // Feb 14, 2011 at 1:30 pm

  Mark Allerton… If there wasn’t already a useful facility on Hornby I’d tend to agree with the “good enough” comment. In this case what got me riled up was that they tore up “good enough” and replaced it with “not quite as good, but still good enough.”

  In the end, the Hornby lane was nothing but a political statement. Vision saw a wedge issue that would pit devoted cyclists and environmentalists against commuters and residents. And to their credit they’ve succeeded. Anyone who doesn’t like the lanes is accused of being anti-environment, anti-safety and anti-progress. Anyone who is in favour of them is accused of being elitist environmental fascists who don’t care about the average person.

  It’s sad that our mayor has chosen this tack for the city. A mayor should try to unite the city, not pit the residents against each other.

• 92 Max // Feb 14, 2011 at 1:50 pm

  @ Paul #83

  I agree Granville would have been a very good option to study.

  Traffic patterns were already changed due to the Olympics and drivers were used to taking alternate routes etc. Parking would not have been effected nor businesses as again, the changes were already established and Granville is traditionally know as a pedestrian walk route.

• 93 Mark Allerton // Feb 14, 2011 at 1:53 pm

  @Paul

  The new lane on Hornby is two way, the old one was northbound only. The new lane gives southbound travellers a safe route that does not involve the Burrard Street bike lane.

  By arguing that the old lane was adequate, you are also arguing that the Burrard Street “suicide lane” was adequate.

  The ICBC accident statistics for that bike lane tell a different story. If you accept that cyclists have a need to travel south as well as north, it’s hard to argue that the Hornby lane is not an improvement.

  I can see I won’t stop you from trying, but in my opinion your position is utterly myopic.

• 94 Agustin // Feb 14, 2011 at 1:54 pm

  Thanks, Paul. I’ll take a look.

• 95 Paul // Feb 14, 2011 at 1:59 pm

  Ah, I see Mark.. Clearly there’s only two streets that head north/south in this city. Hornby and Burrard. Funny you’re calling my position narrow-minded, when in fact it’s you who isn’t opening up to other solutions.

• 96 Mark Allerton // Feb 14, 2011 at 2:04 pm

  And just to pre-empt IanS who will be along in 30 seconds to ask me where the accident statistics are for the new Hornby bike lane…

  Yes, I know we have no stats yet and yes, I am stating what I believe based on my intuition in the absence of actual data.

  But I believe…
  a) Previous data for the Burrard Bike lane demonstrate that there was a problem that urgently needed to be addressed.
  b) The Hornby bike lane is a good faith attempt to address that problem.
  c) The data when it becomes available will show this lane to have reduced the number of accidents along this corridor.
  d ) In the event that it does not, it will not have invalidated the need to have made an attempt to solve the problem.

• 97 Mark Allerton // Feb 14, 2011 at 2:07 pm

  @Paul

  Those are the streets with bike lanes on them, are they not?

  So in arguing in favour of the previous status quo – which I believe you are, despite your protestations, you are arguing in favour of the previous situation on those streets.

• 98 IanS // Feb 14, 2011 at 2:10 pm

  @Mark Allerton #95,

  Thanks for anticipating me.

  As for this… “Yes, I know we have no stats yet and yes, I am stating what I believe based on my intuition in the absence of actual data. ”

  Fair enough.

  Who knows… your intuition may prove to be correct. I hope it is.

• 99 pacpost // Feb 14, 2011 at 2:10 pm

  @ Paul

  Did you actually read the whole document you linked to regarding cycle tracks in Copenhagen?

  From their conclusion:

  Regarding cycle tracks, “safety effects are clearly dependent on a number design factors and regulatory conditions.” They then go on to list four specific points that city engineering departments should consider when building cycle tracks.

  The statistics they cite in the conclusion also point towards favouring cycle tracks over cycle lanes.

  For cycle tracks: 20% more cycling traffic, 10% less car traffic, 10% more accidents.

  For cycle lanes: 7% more cycling traffic, no change in car traffic, 15% more accidents.

  These stats directly contradict your statement from earlier: “But no study has not firmly concluded that in all situations a separated bike lane is better at attracting cyclists than a painted bike lane on a city street.”

  In fact, cycle tracks were more than twice as effective at attracting cyclists than cycle lanes. Per the study you linked to.

• 100 IanS // Feb 14, 2011 at 2:13 pm

  Further to my earlier point, does anyone know if / when the City will be making the car / bike ridership information available for Hornby Street?

  That is one area in which the City has been forthcoming with data for Burrard Bridge and Dunsmuir and I would hope we’ll soon see the figure for Hornby Street.

• 101 Agustin // Feb 14, 2011 at 2:44 pm

  Paul: I had a look at that report. I see where you were referring to now.

  The rest of the report also talks about the bigger picture, cycle lanes versus cycle tracks, and ways to make separated lanes (aka cycle tracks) safer.

  On the bigger picture: “Taken in combination, the cycle tracks and lanes which have been constructed have had positive results as far as traffic volumes and feelings of security go. They have however, had negative effects on road safety. The radical effects on traffic volumes resulting from the construction of cycle tracks will undoubtedly result in gains in health from increased physical activity. [b]These gains are much, much greater than the losses in health resulting from a slight decline in road safety.[/b]”

  On cycle lanes (painted) versus cycle tracks (separated): “The construction of cycle tracks in Copenhagen has resulted in an increase in cycle traffic of [b]18-20% [/b]and a decline in car traffic of 9-10%.” “The construction of cycle lanes has led to an increase in cycle traffic of [b]5-7%[/b] with no change in car traffic.”

  On how to make separated lanes safer:

  1. “Avoids greatly reducing possibilities for car parking,” which Hornby has
  2. “Avoids entry lanes without turn lanes at signalised junctions,” which Hornby has, at least at some intersections
  3. “Creates one and only one blue cycle crossing at signalised junctions,” which Hornby does not, and I agree it should. This would only require some paint, and I’m hopeful that it will be implemented.
  4. “Continue cycle tracks into raised exits at non-signalised junctions,” which I’m not sure I understand but seems to not apply to Hornby because it doesn’t have many (any?) non-signalised junctions.

  Overall, it seems that if we can build separated cycle lanes the right way (which Hornby largely seems to be, at least according to the criteria in this report), then cycling traffic will increase significantly. If cycling traffic increases significantly, the report tells us (as do other reports) that the overall health of the population will benefit.

• 102 Agustin // Feb 14, 2011 at 2:46 pm

  OK… how do I bold things?

  @ IanS: Your passion for data is extraordinary. You should get a job at the city collecting data!

• 103 IanS // Feb 14, 2011 at 2:51 pm

  @Agustin #101,

  lol.. thanks.. I think.

  But, passion aside, how else are we to determine whether the bikes lanes are / were beneficial?

  I am fortified in this view by none other than Councilman Meggs, who recently wrote:

  “A broad range of data are being collected, including vehicle volumes, bike volumes, pedestrian traffic, travel times and more. It will all be posted on the city’s website as available.”

  I look forward to it.

• 104 Paul // Feb 14, 2011 at 2:53 pm

  pacpost, I believe what we have here in the report is what is called a statistical dead-heat. There is not a significant amount of any benefit or detractor to call one better than the other. And that’s my point. Pay millions on concrete or pay thousands on paint. Both have a benefit.

  And no, you can’t say the cycle tracks were more than twice as effective. 7% and 20% have to be taken as a percentage of the whole. So the cycle tracks attracted 13% more riders than cycle lanes. So there’s definitely a marginal increase, but is it worth millions of dollars? Especially when those millions could be spent on other programs to get people out of their cars.

  On the topic of effectiveness of a cycle track, one key figure that is missing is the number of total cyclists that could use a cycle track compared to the number that do. Were these new cyclists? Or just cyclists jumping over to another route due to perceived safety?

  Of course, greater numbers on one route improve safety, but the exercise here is to coax people out of their gas guzzlers and onto a bike. This survey really doesn’t address that. It leaves me wanting more data.

  The survey is abundantly clear that when it comes to safety there REALLY isn’t much difference between paint and concrete.

• 105 Paul // Feb 14, 2011 at 3:01 pm

  Agustin, actually…

  1. “Avoids greatly reducing possibilities for car parking,” Hornby lost 158 parking spots… That’s not a great reduction?
  2. “Avoids entry lanes without turn lanes at signalised junctions,” Alleys seem to have been forgotten. It was an Alley where that bike slammed into the truck as broadcast by Global.
  3. “Creates one and only one blue cycle crossing at signalised junctions,” Agreed.
  4. “Continue cycle tracks into raised exits at non-signalised junctions,” Yeah, this one kinda confuses me as well. I read it as raise the bike lane up to the level of the sidewalk at non-signalised (ie. Alleys) junctions. If that is the case, then no the Hornby Bike Lane did not do that for the most part.

  So there were 4 key recommendations. Looks like none of them were actually implemented.

• 106 Agustin // Feb 14, 2011 at 3:02 pm

  @ Paul, #103: “Of course, greater numbers on one route improve safety, but the exercise here is to coax people out of their gas guzzlers and onto a bike. This survey really doesn’t address that. It leaves me wanting more data.”

  Take another look: it actually says that separated lanes led to a reduction in car traffic of 9-10%, whereas the painted lanes did not affect car traffic.

  @IanS: Yep, I meant it with a smile! I work with data all the time and I think it’s a great thing. I also look forward to seeing the results on the web site.

• 107 Richard // Feb 14, 2011 at 3:03 pm

  @Paul

  One big difference is that concrete allows for counterflow bike traffic, as is the case for Dunsmuir and Hornby. Now, one of 14 east-west streets downtown has an eastbound bike lane. Before, it was 0 out of 14.

  Anyway, these should be judged on a case by case basis. Trying to find make sweeping statements regarding separated bike lanes and painted bike lanes is really not that meaningful nor is it really that useful in the debate on the success of the Hornby and Dunsmuir lanes.

• 108 Paul // Feb 14, 2011 at 3:06 pm

  SORRY. Mis-read #2… Yes signalised junctions for the most part have turn lanes. I apologize. So 4 key recommendations.. Only 1 was implemented.

• 109 Agustin // Feb 14, 2011 at 3:14 pm

  @ Paul, #104:

  1. 158 parking spots out of how many? Hornby still has on-street parking at least on one side of the street the whole way, and on both sides of the street on some blocks.

  2. Good point about alleys. I hope the trial leads to safer ingress/egress for alleyways.

  3. Cool.

  4. Again, good point about alleys.

  This is a main benefit of the Hornby lanes. Before, we didn’t have anything concrete (pardon the pun) to discuss. Now we do. We can point at a physical lane and say it needs improvements here, or it has done well there.

  The City will learn a lot from this (as will other cities implementing bike lanes) and the next lanes will be better.

  But we (the City and the city) had to take the first step in order to get better at it.

  [As an aside: I'm really enjoying this discussion! It has a nicer tone than others I've seen/participated in.]

• 110 Paul // Feb 14, 2011 at 3:17 pm

  I could almost kiss you right now Richard. EXACTLY! Yes please pro-cycle trackers, stop making sweeping statements about how good segregation is, because the fact is, it’s up for debate.

  We put all our energy into building a lane that gave us NO guarantee of success. While at the same time we were redesigning Granville street and put NO effort into making it bike friendly!

  Also, one more thing Richard. East-West Streets. Did you know Helmcken Street has been on the list of Greenways to be completed LONG before the Dunsmuir Bike Lane was even a twinkle in Gregor’s eye? This is a quiet street that is just BEGGING for cyclists to use it. And yet council couldn’t find the money to upgrade it. It already has good connections to other Greenways. LITERALLY BEGGING to be completed. It almost makes me cry. And this is a route where you’d find NO political opposition. In fact residents along the corridor have literally been pestering city hall to carry through with the plans.

• 111 Jason // Feb 14, 2011 at 3:39 pm

  Paul, your comments are all bang on (especially your post on the UBC data that you copied from my previous post on the subject.

  The problem I see with the meggs & Ladner response to Macdonalds article is that both talk about increasing pedestrian spaces and transit usage, yet these lanes have actually resulted in a decrease for both. Pedestrians are now limited to one side of the burrard bridge, forcing them to cross the street multiple times to get to a destination. Transit on burrard has now lost their priority lane coming onto the bridge, as the hornby bike lane cuts over onto burrard on the last two blocks, effectively removing the bus lane and forcing the bus to sit in backed up traffic during rush hour.

  Pedestrians and transit users have not been made a priority in the slightest and I agree that the granville st corridor would have been the perfect alternative to hornby without the need of concrete barriers or starting a political battle over cycling that was totally unnecessary.

  In fact, had they gone thar route they could have connected easily into the arbutus corridor and had a lane from downtown Vancouver almost all the way to SW Marine drive.

• 112 Agustin // Feb 14, 2011 at 4:06 pm

  Paul, I echo your sentiment about pursuing other routes.

  Here’s hoping we can follow up the current network with even more facilities.

  @ Jason: I also am in favour of a bus-only lane down Burrard and having both sidewalks on Burrard Bridge be for pedestrians, with one lane on each side of the car deck being for cyclists. Hell, we should have bus-only lanes all over the city. And wider sidewalks, too. I’m hoping we are on our way there!

• 113 Paul // Feb 14, 2011 at 4:19 pm

  Thanks Agustin… I appreciate the consensus we are coming to here. My problem is, the bicycling coalition has put their weight behind Gregor and Vision Vancouver. Because of the stupidity of the choices for these “trial” bike lanes, I don’t want to see this gang of people have control of the city come November.

  Sensible people like myself and hundreds of others have been begging council to reconsider but pitbulls like Geoff Meggs and Andrea Reimer discredit us as anti-cycling and eco-UNfriendly.

  So come November, what do we do? I won’t support a mayor and council who refuse to be reasonable and discredit legitimate concerns as “theatrics.” But I fear they will win because the cycling coalition will only support them. Even though people like Peter Ladner and Suzanne Anton are strong supporters of increased cycling infrastructure.

  What’s a poor middle of the road person to do? Move away? I love my city too much.

• 114 Richard // Feb 14, 2011 at 4:27 pm

  @Paul

  Please realize though that what started this whole debate was Rob Macdonald’s claim that the Dunsmuir separated lane is more dangerous than the painted lane it replaced. There is no evidence what so ever to support that claim. The collision that he showed in the video could have happened with a painted bike lane as well.

  There are also other features of the Hornby and Dunsmuir lanes that likely make them safer than the painted bike lanes they replace include the decreased chance of getting doored, reduced motor vehicle speeds and a safe way for cyclists to travel the other way on one-way streets. The bike signals on Hornby should also decrease intersection conflicts.

  Anyway, there is pretty strong local and international evidence to suggest that people of all ages and abilities prefer cycling in separated facilities and will cycle more when these facilities are provided. Of course they need to be well designed to ensure they are safe.

• 115 Richard // Feb 14, 2011 at 4:28 pm

  @Jason

  I continue fully support reallocating a lane of traffic on the east side of Burrard Bridge so pedestrians can again use the east sidewalk. I trust you support this as well.

• 116 Richard // Feb 14, 2011 at 4:38 pm

  @Paul

  While I fully support the development of the Helmcken Greenway, east-west connections through the downtown core have been in the plans for years as well. Finally, 10 years after the 1999 Bicycle Plan, one of these east-west connections is finished. Smithe, Nelson and Robson (I think) are also in the plan.

  Helmcken is actually very challenging to connect with other Greenways. There is a right-of-way through a private parking lot at the alley between Mainland and Pacific that has to be obtained and the property owner has been very stubborn. There are also improvements through the mews between Pacific and Marinaside that have be negotiated with the strata. The connection down to the Seaside Path was not designed for bicycle use and would also require expensive improvements.

• 117 Agustin // Feb 14, 2011 at 4:55 pm

  @ Paul, 112. I understand what you’re saying about not feeling heard. I don’t know how you communicated with City Hall on the matter, but I suspect they may not have picked up on the nuance of your position because it’s difficult to transmit in a format that will hold someone’s attention.

  I gotta say, though, there sure were a lot of theatrics in the whole ordeal. I’m not saying that any of it came from you, but others did have a good go of it.

  I can’t speak for everyone, but I know what I will do come election time. I will evaluate the platforms of the candidates, put them in context of their past performance (if any) and make a decision.

  I’m not sure how long you’ve lived in Vancouver, but I’ve only been here a couple of years. I’ve seen how other cities are run, and this one, IMHO, is doing quite well.

  I may or may not vote for Vision in November; we’ll have to see who the other candidates are, and what they have to say. I can say that, had I been eligible to vote in the last election (I hadn’t been here long enough to qualify) I wouldn’t have voted for Robertson, though I quite like what he’s done, overall.

  But, again IMHO, Vision are weak on a few areas so there is room for another candidate to overtake them.

  As a bit of a politics junkie, I’m looking forward to the election.

• 118 Sean // Feb 14, 2011 at 5:01 pm

  I’d just like to point out the graph at the bottom of page 7 of the report that Paul linked to: http://www.trafitec.dk/pub/Road%20safety%20and%20percieved%20risk%20of%20cycle%20tracks%20and%20lanes%20in%20Copenhagen.pdf

  Regardless of actual statistics, the separated cycling facilities are overwhelmingly PERCEIVED as being safer. THAT’s what is needed in order to encourage people to cycle. And once you get them on bikes, studies have concluded that the health benefits of cycling far outweigh any additional risks that it entails (see: http://ehp03.niehs.nih.gov/article/info:doi/10.1289/ehp.0901747)

  The single biggest reason that council added bike lanes was to increase bicycle mode share. And it’s their PERCEIVED SAFETY that will do that, no matter how many studies anyone cites.

• 119 pacpost // Feb 14, 2011 at 5:02 pm

  @ Paul

  “I believe what we have here in the report is what is called a statistical dead-heat.” Well, we’ll have to disagree on that. Even the report writers favour cycle tracks built to a higher standard.

  “There is not a significant amount of any benefit or detractor to call one better than the other.” Again, disagree. Cycle tracks are more attractive to regular cyclists (and that’s who we’re talking about, not the lycra-clad hobby racers such as Mr. MacDonald). As stated in the report, the advantages of having more cyclists (who clearly find segregated lanes more attractive, according to the report) vastly outweigh the slight increase in accidents.

  “And no, you can’t say the cycle tracks were more than twice as effective.” Uh, actually, I can. I didn’t say they attracted double the amount of cyclists. Please reread what I wrote.

  “So there’s definitely a marginal increase, but is it worth millions of dollars? Especially when those millions could be spent on other programs to get people out of their cars.”

  I don’t see this as an either-or argument. Cycling lanes are simply part of the larger effort to get more people looking at alternatives. We just spent $2 billion building the Canada Line. $4 million for bike lanes is peanuts.

  “Of course, greater numbers on one route improve safety, but the exercise here is to coax people out of their gas guzzlers and onto a bike. This survey really doesn’t address that. It leaves me wanting more data.”

  I’ll leave you with this. Which country has the highest per capita rate of cycling in the world? The Netherlands. Which country spends the most on segregated cycling infrastructure on a per capita basis? The Netherlands. Which country has by far the lowest rate of cycling injuries and deaths on a per capita basis? The Netherlands.

  http://cyclinginfo.co.uk/blog/cycling/cycling-in-holland/

  http://www.ibike.org/library/statistics-data.htm

  I spent a year studying in Holland around the beginning of this decade. I then spent three years working in northern Germany. In both, my main form of transportation within cities was the bike. Even between two countries that both spend considerable effort on coaxing people to explore alternatives to the car, there was a marked difference in the quality and breadth of cycling infrastructure in Holland. I can heartily recommend a trip to the country to see what a real cycling network looks like.

  Lastly, the Netherlands didn’t achieve this overnight. They started back in the 1970s. Our two lanes are both less than a year old. A little patience may be in need.

• 120 Mark Allerton // Feb 14, 2011 at 5:10 pm

  @Paul

  You are the same Paul that said (in the other thread):

  “BTW I’ll be hosting a tear up the bike lane party on November 20th. You’re welcome to come by Hornby Street and join in the festivities. T-shirts and crow bars will be provided.”

  Right?

  Spoken like someone with a true desire for consensus.

  It would be easier to take you seriously if you were spending your time advocating the changes you like to see made on other streets, rather than advocating taking a pickaxe to Hornby.

• 121 Paul // Feb 14, 2011 at 6:19 pm

  Mark…. I’m the same. Yes. I want to tear up the sections that aren’t working and that are causing more accidents than they are preventing.

  I will most certainly stand by that opinion. If it’s broke, I want to fix it. In my feeling, the data will back me up once it’s released. I live on Hornby and can see the problems that occasional users may not see.

  If I’m wrong, I won’t lobby for their removal. But I really don’t feel I’m wrong. Move the North/South lanes to Granville in a shared space. Return Hornby to slimmer one-way bike lane (I actually would like to test it contra-direction) without the HUGE planters along the whole length, maintaining enough room to ensure people don’t get doored (although contra-direction actually would help that). Paint them green through every intersection (including alleys). Maintain the advance right turn signals and holds. Unless it is contra-direction, then the advance right turn signals are moot.

  Burrard lane should move to the east-side of the street and I’d also like to see it run contra-direction.

  Do I have a huge hate-on for the Hornby lanes Mark? Absolutely. But I would have had the same hate-on if they were on Thurlow. Two-way separated bike lanes are still too controversial to successfully work. Shared spaces are really the only proven safe facility for cyclists.

  Let’s also get the Helmcken Greenway done. Reduce the Dunsmuir bike lane back to Granville Street so commuting traffic can still get North of Dunsmuir without having to drive in a huge circle (only once Granville is completed). Improve cycle access along Georgia. Let’s work with the Province and Federal government on better incentives for cyclists. And most importantly let’s focus enforcement and education on cycling. And no I’m not only talking about riders, but more importantly drivers. Let’s educate them better. Heck it’s free advertising to get them out of their cars.

  You can take me as seriously as you want Mark, but speaking passionately does not equate to being irrational.

• 122 Mark Allerton // Feb 14, 2011 at 7:15 pm

  @Paul

  I have a feeling that if your fantasy cycle lane proposals were exposed to the same level of scrutiny that has already been given to the Hornby and Dunsmuir bike lanes, they would most likely fall apart like wet tissue paper.

  But, you know, start a facebook group or something and you might get some buyers. Worked in Egypt.

• 123 Paul // Feb 14, 2011 at 7:30 pm

  Under the same coin Mark. Painted bike lanes were installed all over the place in the city and, for the most part, there was as much resistance to them as the left turn bays on Knight Street.

  Why? Why is it that two way segregated bike lanes draw such ire? Could it possibly be because Gregor and Co. did next to no public consultation before implementing them? I don’t think so, because the NPA did less consultation at the time than Vision did. Could it possibly be because not only did they do no consultation but when they did consult they didn’t actually listen? That sounds like the case here.

  Other contributing factors are calling them a “trial” while using concrete, outright lying about notification to residents along the route, changing the alignment on Drake at the last second. And most importantly advertising these lanes as safer when every last study shows they are more dangerous at intersections.

  So I’d love to start consulting about one way contra direction lanes. I can take the heat. Tell me why my idea is worse than just pouring concrete and not doing anything else.

• 124 boohoo // Feb 14, 2011 at 7:38 pm

  All this talk about stats…so what if when the numbers come out there aren’t that many people riding—declare it a failure and tear it up? What if there’s more people than projected—start building more right away?

  This craze for instant results and ‘statistics’ is pretty meaningless considering the scope of infrastructure changes.

• 125 Richard // Feb 14, 2011 at 8:43 pm

  @Paul

  That is because previous city councils only did what was easy. As a result, there are still huge gaps in the bicycle network including east-west routes in downtown. There was no east bound and only one west bound bike lane in downtown a full decade after the 1999 Bicycle Plan was approved. This is in spite of the plan recommending bike lanes on West Hastings/Pender and Smithe/Nelson. The plan also specified the Georgia corridor as a primary bicycle corridor and Robson Street as a secondary corridor.

  Oh, and by the way, Rob Macdonald was at city hall complaining about the painted bike lane before it was approved years ago.

  The city did some planning years ago on Robson and gave up due to opposition from businesses. They also did some work on bike lanes along Pender and gave up as well when it got a bit difficult.

  The Mayor and many of the councillors promised in their election platform that they were going to install separated bike lanes along existing bike routes. They were elected by a landslide. I guess you are just not used to politicians following through on their promises.

  The city used the concrete curb because they consulted with businesses and the businesses did not want ugly barriers like those on Burrard Bridge. It is ridiculous that bike lane opponents are now complaining that the city did what the businesses actually wanted.

  Lastly, the Montreal study indicates that separated bike lanes are safer. Yes, that compared them to streets without bike lanes but that is valid here as there was no eastbound bike lane in downtown so you would have to admit that at least eastbound, the Dunsmuir lane is now safer.

  It would also be hard to claim that the Burrard “suicide lane between the buses and cars is safer than the southbound separated lane that is now on Hornby. Indeed, ICBC indicates that several of the most dangerous intersections for cyclists are along Burrard, including Burrard and Davie. At least now cyclists can avoid this intersection.

  So can we at least agree that eastbound Dunsmuir and southbound Hornby are now safer with the separated lanes.

• 126 Chris Keam // Feb 14, 2011 at 8:51 pm

  “Under the same coin Mark. Painted bike lanes were installed all over the place in the city and, for the most part, there was as much resistance to them as the left turn bays on Knight Street. ”

  It’s great that there’s passionate people on both sides of the bike lane barrier , but frankly Paul, that’s a widely inaccurate statement. There are in fact very few painted bike lanes in the city, as most cyclists can attest. There is a network of local street bikeways, which consist of some traffic calming and signage, and sharrows, such as on Main St, but painted bike lanes are actually a very small portion of Vancouver’s bike network.

  This PDF map from the city shows all the bike routes. Painted bike lanes, are second from the bottom in terms of distance and quantity available, with separated lanes at the bottom.

  http://vancouver.ca/engsvcs/transport/cycling/bikeways/documents/2011BikeMap.pdf

• 127 Glissando Remmy // Feb 14, 2011 at 9:26 pm

  The Thought of The Day

  “Paul of the Cross, Mark, Richard of Chichester, Victor, Augustine of England, Maximus, Peter Celestine, George…Saints. It feels like A Biking Confessional in here.”

  So…Forgive me Alex, as I’ve sinned.
  It’s been two months since my last bike lane confession. I’ll make three crosses, say five Hail Pennys, and two Our Fathers…

  Separating the Road from the Bike Lanes is a mistake…unless you make ALL roads separated from ALL bike lanes. Getting off a separated bike lane is like exiting the Highway. You know your speed limit is supposed to be 50 km/h but you still keep it close to 80km/h. Tell me it ain’t so.

  The Highways are the Separated bike lanes…only for cars. The HOV’s , I’m thinking tandems, here.

  We live in Vancouver and this keeps us busy.

• 128 Tessa // Feb 14, 2011 at 10:07 pm

  @Paul, I read some points from the study you mentioned and I read the debate surrounding it and I don’t understand why you’re continuing to say that separated cycle tracks are less dangerous. Intersections are one spot of the cycle track, and they are safer in every other way and, given the easy fixes for intersections, can be made just as safe on intersections with just a little bit of paint and signalized right-turns, which were included on Hornby. I would say Hornby and Granville is not only safer for both bikes and cars, but the right-turn signal has made it less congested, too.

  I think we could absolutely have improvements on Granville Street, but that’s useless for people coming off the Burrard Street Bridge and going down to somewhere west of Granville Street, which I would expect is the vast majority of cyclists from Burrard. As well, connections from Burrard would be extremely difficult, as I don’t see how bikes could connect from Pacific, or what street would connect to the bridge. The point of Hornby was to have a network that worked, not just one lane.

  I for one wouldn’t bike downtown without the Dunsmuir lane. I haven’t used the Hornby one, but that’s only because I live on the east side and rarely go to destinations on the south side of downtown. That said, I’m sure I’ll use the north side of the lane eventually. But that doesn’t mean I don’t do shoulder checks or cycle defensively, it just means that I know I’m not going to be doored and I know I’m not going to be cut off and I don’t have to be stressed out about riding right next to a moving one ton chunk of steel. Having tried the Burrard lane once, I can say I wouldn’t ever do that again. And I know I’m not the only one who has jumped on the bandwagon since the lanes were installed.

• 129 Bobbie Bees // Feb 14, 2011 at 10:34 pm

  Okay, sorry to burst your bubble boys. But Granville Mall would have been a no-go right from the start.
  Translink, as they ponied up a lot of the cash for the reno was adamant that the buses were going to return to Granville street.
  As predicted, the Granville mall has become dead again.
  See, under city bylaw, the Granville Mall is a pedestrian / transit corridor. Pedestrians have the right by bylaw to cross the mall anywhere except for within 10 metres of an intersection. But who the hell wants to gamble on their life with all of the buses that use the corridor as a ‘catch up point’ for when they’re running behind schedule.
  The city is well aware of the danger presented by the buses, and the fact that the buses pretty well nullify any rights given to the pedestrians, but they’re powerless to do anything as Translink sank a lot of money into fixing up the corridor.

• 130 Deacon Blue // Feb 14, 2011 at 11:04 pm

  Granville (Bus) Mall… a fiasco outdone by ripping up the curvy travel lanes and putting in those zany lights that look like the neon tubes… that dread and hated lighting of every factory floor 20 years ago and more.

  Very retro. As is the idea that the best thing to do in Vancouver for entertainment is a bar crawl. That’s just plain gold rush pioneer days along with the escort services and the stretch limos (mule teams in days gone by).

  The bike lanes on Dunsmuir and Hornby are working. Working to remind us that if we keep trying to solve the urbanism one piece at a time we’re going to get nowhere soon.

  Couldn’t bike lanes be an occasion for planting street trees, building the carbon sink, shading cyclists and dowsing them with fresh oxygen? Couldn’t we give shop keepers more curb side parking, given that the separated lane creates a new curb some 10-feet closer to the other curb? Others have already pointed this out, but couldn’t we use bike lanes to tame traffic and create more places with urban bustle?

• 131 George // Feb 14, 2011 at 11:58 pm

  Glissy @ 124

  

• 132 gmgw // Feb 15, 2011 at 12:37 am

  @Deacon Blue:
  Funny you should mention Granville Mall and street trees in the same sentence… As part of its reconstruction, the whole of Granville from Hastings to Drake was clearcut of its lovely shade trees, some of which were 50 years old or more. The end result was and is one of the butt-ugliest stretches of streetscape in the entire city; absolutely repellent. I happened upon the clear-cutting as it was taking place– I was stunned to encounter blocks and blocks of stumps. It was late on a Friday afternoon, IIRC; but I put in panicky calls to a couple of councillors, who didn’t return my calls, and to Loretta Woodcock (I think she was chairing the Parks Board at the time), who looked into it and called back to assure me that Parks Board staff had assured her that the trees would be replaced and that no one would notice the old trees’ absence. Yeah, that one sure has worked out nicely. At least those hideous new lights reflect nicely in the puddles of vomit that festoon the mall on most weekend nights.

  The supreme irony is that many of the trees, at least those south of Nelson, were removed in order to make room for the new on-the-sidewalk parking spots on the widened sidewalks (necessitated by the narrowed roadway). And people wonder why I’m a cynic…
  gmgw

• 133 IanS // Feb 15, 2011 at 7:00 am

  @ Bobbis Bees #126,

  I disagree with your assessment of the pedestrians’ “plight” on Granville. I walk there all the time and crossing is never a problem. Yes, there are buses, but there are plenty of breaks in traffic to cross. Not an issue at all.

  (I also agree with GMGW that the removal of the shade trees on Granville was a terrible loss for the street.)

  Ironically, the only recent new impediment to J-Walking for pedestrians downtown is the Hornby Street bike lane, with the ugly grey planters. I frequently see pedestrians grouped around the small breaks in the planters in an effort to get across Hornby mid street. In fact, to date, I think I’ve seen more pedestrians in the Hornby Street bike lane than bikes, but that’s another issue.

• 134 rf // Feb 15, 2011 at 7:57 am

  Diary of a rainy morning on Hornby.

  -exit granville bridge at Drake. Idle at light to turn left.
  -turn left, head up to Howe, idle at red light to go straight.
  -light turns green, head for Hornby. Light at Hornby has turned red (6 seconds of green post Howe light changing. Would have to floor it to make it).
  -can’t turn right on red at Hornby (legally). About half of the cars do. It’s not like there’s a biker in sight at 6:15am….in the rain.

  Right on Hornby. near miss with car turning left off Drake. There’s only 1 lane of thru traffic on this block, but cars turning into it from 2 lanes.

  Idle at red light at Davie. Finally can get rolling on the timed lights.

  Approach traffic lights at Smythe. Where did the road lines go? It’s wet, there are 5 sets of traffic lights now. With water on the road the whole road looks orangey red. There are no reflectors on the lanes. You can’t see the white lines.

  Cross Smythe, apparently the lanes are swerving right. half the cars just go straight anyway and end up in the left lane. Easier than swerving right, then changing lanes left. Works great, except when there are cars in both lanes. Then it’s a near accident. Too bad no one can the lines due to the glare of the 5 sets of traffic lights at each intersection.

  cross Robson. swerve left now, otherwise you end up in a right turn only lane.

  -white lines are still invisible. 5 more traffic lights at Georgia. 2 Red, 2 Green, and 1 with a yellow bike have glared out any ability to see them on the wet road. no worries, it’s not like they will suddenly swerve in any direction.

  -oh wait, they appear to swerve right again after Georgia. Fun. Perfect place for bike parking. 3 yards from the middle of one of the busiest intersections in the province.

  Peter Judd is a genius.

• 135 IanS // Feb 15, 2011 at 8:43 am

  @Richard #114,

  You write: “I continue fully support reallocating a lane of traffic on the east side of Burrard Bridge so pedestrians can again use the east sidewalk.”

  Happily, we do have some facts we can look at in order to determine whether this would be a good idea.

  According to the City website, bike use on the Burrard Bridge peaked in July 2010. Assuming that’s so, I’ve used that as the highwater mark for bike use on the bridge since installation of the lane.

  The data for July 2010 indicates that there were 161,964 bike trips that month and 1,694,889 car trips. Unless my math is wrong (always possible), that means that the high water mark for bike trips over the bridge was about 9.5%. Most months it’s lower.

  That being the case, I think it’s safe to say that the data does not support an increase in the allocation of bike lanes on the bridge from about 16.5% (ie. one lane out of six) to about 33% (ie. two lanes out of six).

  If you are concerned about pedestrians being permitted to use the east sidewalk, the numbers indicate that the better solution would be to modify the separated bike lane for two way use.

• 136 Max // Feb 15, 2011 at 8:48 am

  gmgw #129

  Your assessment of Granville Street is spot on.

  I too was shcoked when the trees were cut down and remember reading that they were going to be replaced.

  Now aside from the endless ugly neon lights, the metal posts for both bike racks and parking spaces that dominate the ‘sidewalk’ are just a complete mess.

  The street is cold and souless looking.

  Honestly, did anyone think when they planned this or was this another ‘plunk’ it down and deal with it at another time experiment??

• 137 Paul // Feb 15, 2011 at 8:52 am

  Awwwwwww Tessa, you’re still not hearing this. Separated Bike Lanes pose more of a safety risk than painted lanes. Gah it’s like you’re the catholic church and I’m Copernicus. Yes I know you FEEL safer Tessa, but the fact is you’re not. Please see the Global Video for evidence.

  And thank you rf. I have similar problems with the lane.

  And finally Bobbie Bees. Really? Your excuse for not going with Granville is, ‘it’s really hard.’????

  Let me remind you this is a council who managed to start digging up the ground less than 7 hours after voting for the project to go ahead. Don’t tell me they couldn’t get their way on Granville. There was just no political will to do Granville. But for some reason VV and Gregor just fell in love with Hornby. Perhaps the t-shirts are right. Maybe bike lanes do make them Hornby. But that’s really no reason to go with a less safe system.

• 138 Morven // Feb 15, 2011 at 9:32 am

  I am late to this donnybrook.

  From a distance it reminds me of arriving at a tavern after a long brawl with participants swinging wildly at each other – and often missing.

  That said, it does point out two administrative deficiencies at city hall.

  One, when framing policies, administrators seem to do a poor job of marshalling the policy benefits and costs.

  Two, after project completion, there is a poor and often self serving analysis of the project benefits and costs.

  Essentially, the city does not use evidence to frame policies then gathers incomplete evidence to justify the value for money and frame future policies.

  In consequence, one can be philosophically in favour of separated bike lines yet opposed to the incomplete policy process and weak evidence base to frame future projects.

  While the city seems efficient at carrying out the projects, the weak policy appraisal process now seems to be the norm in the City of Vancouver.
  -30

• 139 Mark Allerton // Feb 15, 2011 at 10:47 am

  @IanS

  While I agree with your numbers, I have two quibbles:

  1) You say:

  “If you are concerned about pedestrians being permitted to use the east sidewalk, the numbers indicate that the better solution would be to modify the separated bike lane for two way use.”

  The numbers in no way support that conclusion, because the ultimate suitability of that solution would be determined by other factors such as limits to minimum lane widths (imposed by safety conventions) and the ability to connect at both the north and south ends of the bridge.

  Secondly, I’m glad you are coming around to the idea that it’s fair to allocate road space by proportion of journeys made. But bear in mind that the the allocation you should be counting is not “proportion of lanes across the bridge” but proportion of lanes across all False Creek crossings.

• 140 IanS // Feb 15, 2011 at 11:07 am

  @Mark Allerton #138,

  You write: “The numbers in no way support that conclusion…”

  I disagree. The numbers *d0* support such a conclusion, at least as opposed to the alternative. Of course, the other factors you mention are also important.

  In that respect, and in response to your second point (if I understand you correctly, and I’m not certain I do) please note that I was not advocating such a change. Rather, I was responding to the suggestion that another lane be allocated to bikes on the Burrard Street Bridge.

• 141 Agustin // Feb 15, 2011 at 12:49 pm

  @ Paul, #136 & post about having a party to tear down the Hornby lane on November 20: This wouldn’t be examples of the theatrics you were so indignant to be accused of, would it? We were having a good debate; I don’t understand the turn toward condescencion (even if it wasn’t directed at me).

  @IanS and Mark Allerton: I don’t think it makes sense to allocate infrastructure according to current uses. If that were the case, we’d all be stuck in the status quo permanently.

• 142 IanS // Feb 15, 2011 at 1:04 pm

  @Agustin #140,

  I don’t disagree, but I think there has to be some justification if there is to be an increased allocation. If, for example, the data showed that the percentage of bike use relative to car use was steadily increasing on the bridge such that it would soon exceed the current allocation, it would make sense to get ahead of the situation and look at an increase in allocation.

  If we look at the rest of the figures in the data, we see the following (subject to my math being wrong):

  July 2010 – 9.5%
  Aug 2010 – 8.5%
  Sept 2010 – 7.1%
  Oct 2010 – 5.5%
  Nov 2010 – 2.8%

  No data has been posted yet for December 2010 or January 2011.

  Now, of course one would expect bike usage to drop in the winter months, but, even taking that into account, I don’t see any trend in those numbers to justify increasing the allocation on the Burrard Bridge from 16.5% to 33%.

  Finally, due to the lack of available data, this analysis doesn’t take into account considerations such as the possible increase in congestion and delay due to the bike lanes. The City did, at one point, post data indicating that there was delay, but it was removed.

• 143 Bobbie Bees // Feb 15, 2011 at 1:05 pm

  @ Paul #134
  Again, Translink ponied up some serious cash for the Granville Street project. Translink wanted the city to repeal the by-law for the Granville Mall and to redo it so that it would be illegal for pedestrians to cross the mall.
  This is why to this day those stupid banners are still up and down the mall telling pedestrians to look both ways before ‘JAYWALKING’. How the hell can it be jaywalking if the by-law for the Granville Mall explicitly allows for pedestrians to cross anywhere on the mall except for within 10m of a intersection.
  Translink looks at the Granville Mall as being a transit corridor. As far as they’re concerned, the pedestrians are a nuisance.
  As far as I’m concerned, the buses should have stayed on Seymour and Howe. There was no need what so ever for the buses to come back onto the mall.

• 144 IanS // Feb 15, 2011 at 1:10 pm

  This is an aside, but perhaps someone here will know. On one of my trips down Hornby yesterday, I noticed rather a lot of horse sh*t in the bike lane between Robson and Smithe.

  Is the lane being used for horses?

• 145 Max // Feb 15, 2011 at 1:40 pm

  @ Ian S #143

  Perhaps VPD mounted police.

• 146 Paul // Feb 15, 2011 at 1:56 pm

  @ Agustin 140. Hehehe. Im sorry if I can at sound have a sarcastic tone. And really this line of commenting has been some of the best and most educating I’ve ever had on the topic. And yes I certainly get very frustrated with people who tell me I’m not allowed to pass judgement on the bike lane without seeing hard data, but then these same people justify the safety of the lanes by saying “I certainly feel safer.”

  So absolutely I can’t wait to see the data Agustin and I hope you’ll be around to discuss it then. But if the data does show a negligible increase in usage and an increase in injuries, I really hope you’ll join me in calling for a redesign of the Hornby and Dunsmuir bike lanes.

• 147 Paul // Feb 15, 2011 at 1:59 pm

  Wow trouth mubbles.

  That should have been “Im sorry if I can have a sarcastic tone at times.”

• 148 Paul // Feb 15, 2011 at 2:16 pm

  @IanS. Funny enough. I just heard the clippity-cloppity of horses out my window. Yup. It’s the VPD mounted squad.

• 149 Agustin // Feb 15, 2011 at 4:49 pm

  @ Paul – No worries; it’s hard to read tone sometimes on a website comment and I’m sure I come across in ways I don’t intend sometimes as well. I also get frustrated sometimes and I get the sense that a lot of the frustration stems from miscommunication. IMHO, communication is one of the hardest things for humans to get right!

  Re. “So absolutely I can’t wait to see the data Agustin and I hope you’ll be around to discuss it then. But if the data does show a negligible increase in usage and an increase in injuries, I really hope you’ll join me in calling for a redesign of the Hornby and Dunsmuir bike lanes.”

  I hope I am around, too! And if the lanes show a negligible increase in ridership and an increase in injuries, I will be looking for design changes. (Some, we’ve already talked about – like paint across intersections.) I am hopeful (and reasonably confident) that the City’s engineering department would concur.

• 150 Agustin // Feb 15, 2011 at 4:54 pm

  @ IanS: “I don’t see any trend in those numbers to justify increasing the allocation on the Burrard Bridge from 16.5% to 33%.”

  I would look at it the other way: would increasing the allocation to cycle lanes on the bridge help meet the goal of increased cycling in the city? Would it help increase walking?

• 151 Mark Allerton // Feb 15, 2011 at 9:13 pm

  @Agustin

  I actually agree with you about allocation based on *desired* proportion of trips over current, but decided not to fight Ian over that particular hill today. Baby steps

  It believe it’s well established that car traffic into downtown has been decreasing over time, so if we believe that drivers are currently adequately catered for* you can make a case for reducing their proportion of the road purely based on forecast demand, let alone the desirability of having fewer cars downtown.

  (* this will of course be hotly disputed.)

• 152 Mark Allerton // Feb 15, 2011 at 9:16 pm

  “*I* believe it’s well established…”

• 153 boohoo // Feb 15, 2011 at 9:39 pm

  Interesting article re: Golden Ears Bridge.

  Actual number of users nowhere near projected numbers. Taxpayers on the hook for another 33 million.

  Should we get the picks and crow bars out right away?

  http://www.vancouversun.com/Taxpayers+take+million+fewer+drivers+than+expected+Golden+Ears+Bridge/4291146/story.html

• 154 Paul // Feb 15, 2011 at 10:05 pm

  Really boo? You’d want to tear it down? I mean the lack of vehicle traffic must mean people are using their bikes. You’d really want to tear down a wonderful new pedestrian and cycling corridor?

  And as for usage stats, just give it a few years. Once the Port Mann is tolled, usage of Golden Ears by vehicles will quickly increase.

• 155 cgwyl // Feb 16, 2011 at 2:06 am

  Ouch, on to 154, only time for the 10 min scan, cyclist should have heard the truck braking or gearing down. The trucker on the other hand should have know better and will be held to at least 70% fault in the matter. Bottom line, urban bike paths rule the times and, ALWAYS DRIVE DEFENSIVELY.

• 156 boohoo // Feb 16, 2011 at 7:26 am

  Give it a few years? But Paul, if when the stats come out for the bike lanes and there aren’t as many users as predicted, will you say the same thing?

• 157 Chris Keam // Feb 16, 2011 at 7:42 am

  “You’d really want to tear down a wonderful new pedestrian and cycling corridor?”

  What are the destinations on either side of the 2 km long bridge that are likely to attract pedestrians and cyclists?

  The bottom line is that taxpayers are spending pretty much more per month in payments for this bridge than the the total installed costs for any one of the downtown separated lanes. I think it puts things into perspective.

• 158 Paul // Feb 16, 2011 at 7:48 am

  Yup. And I’ll be the first one to offer up solutions to the problem. I think you really don’t understand what I’m proposing boohoo. Yes I think the Hornby lane should never have been altered, but it’s done now. When the accident statistics show how dangerous they are I would like to see it returned to a single direction slimmer lane that still has some kind of separation. As mentioned it should flow contra direction.

  The rubbermaid plastic planters are eyesores. Those need to be replaced with something better.

  This lane sucks. It’s poorly thought out. But no I don’t want it completely removed. Why would I want to get rid of Gregor’s tombstone? Much like the fast ferries, I want them clearly visible so this gang of horrible leaders never come back into power.

• 159 Chris Keam // Feb 16, 2011 at 8:17 am

  Actually Paul, I think we all understand perfectly well what you are suggesting. Coupled with your clearly partisan reasons for posting, and erroneous claims regarding things like the number of painted bike lanes in the city, speaking for myself, I’d prefer someone with some expertise at the helm of the good ship SS Bike Lanes.

• 160 IanS // Feb 16, 2011 at 8:51 am

  @Agustin #149,

  Heh. As so often happens in these discussions, I’m beginning to feel like the hapless lecturer in the “turtles all the way down” story.

  If the data showed that the bike use relative to car use on the Burrard Bridge was increasing, you would argue (with, I would agree, some factual justification), that it made sense to allocate another lane for bike use.

  If the data shows that the bike use relative to car use on the Burrard Bridge was decreasing, from a peak of 9.5% to the latest figure of 2.8% (as it does), you argue that it makes sense to allocate another bike lane, on the hope that it might increase bike use.

  I’m tempted to ask what your position would be if the percentage of bike use to car use on the Burrard Bridge remained steady, but I’m pretty certain I know the answer to that.

  At the end of the day, I guess, it comes down to a question of belief and I’m just not prepared to make the leap of faith necessary to agree with your conclusions.

• 161 Agustin // Feb 16, 2011 at 9:14 am

  @ Mark Allerton – I hear ya.

  @ IanS – what I’m saying is that looking at data gives you an excellent indication (as long as the data are good quality) of what has already happened. If you want to make changes, you have to rely on modeling. Certainly, data would seed that modeling, but it’s not a 1:1 predictor.

  I admit to having as much bias as the next guy (nobody approaches anything without bias; it’s the human condition) but I am not talking about a leap of faith. I’m talking about looking backward versus looking forward. Data is useful for looking backward; modeling (seeded with data) is useful for looking forward.

• 162 Paul // Feb 16, 2011 at 9:28 am

  @Chris Keam 158… Dude you are not one to talk about being partisan. You and boohoo are the biggest pro-Vision commenters in the city. You (much like Vision) are incapable of taking criticism and perhaps even using that criticism to make better decisions.

  I appreciate that Gregor is a big backer of cycling, including riding in the monthly Critical Mass bike protest. That does not give him expertise in the field of designing cycle friendly facilities.

  When his own engineers told him that two way separated bike lanes were not an ideal situation he overruled them and pushed them to go ahead with it anyway.

  At the sham public hearing on this, Gordon Price made the argument for two-way instead of one way. His argument was that even if it was constructed as one-way, people would still use it as two-way.

  I’m sorry, that’s not a good enough reason.

  I’m still shocked that the VACC stands behind this man when he has polarized the populous so much. He has single-handedly taken an uncomfortable situation and made it into an all out war. And for what? A few million in concrete, asphalt and plastic planters??? What a waste of a good opportunity.

• 163 Chris Keam // Feb 16, 2011 at 9:39 am

  Paul:

  I’m not pro-Vision or any party. I’m registering my support for cycling infrastructure. The politics behind it is irrelevant to me, as my posts (which rarely address politics) can attest. Your comments speak clearly to your biases however.

  I invite you to check out my latest blog post. You’ll find it decidedly non-Vision-boosterish.

  cheers,
  CK

• 164 boohoo // Feb 16, 2011 at 9:43 am

  oh god paul, give it a rest. How many bloody times are you going to just dismiss people as ‘pro-vision’ when it’s just a bs excuse to get out of an argument. I’m pro sanity which you lack.

• 165 Paul // Feb 16, 2011 at 9:53 am

  And exactly which biases would those be Chris? That I want good, safe cycling facilities? That I want open and honest government that doesn’t hold sham public hearings? That I want a government who listens to their hired experts and gives guidance instead of overruling sound advice?

  If that is my bias, then guilty as charged.

• 166 Paul // Feb 16, 2011 at 10:19 am

  @boohoo 163. You keep saying you’re not pro-vision, but I have yet to see one thing from you that is critical of the current administration at City Hall.

  I know you say you’re Non-Partisan (not the NPA) but you seem to only comment on stories or conversations that are not favourable to Gregor and Vision. And your comments serve to either prop up their views or deflect the conversation away from the criticism.

  I can play your game as well. Not once have I blatantly supported the NPA or any other party. In fact I’m just as critical of Suzanne Anton as I am of Gregor. Once the NPA has elected all of their nominees I will certainly begin to round down who I support. But I can guarantee you it won’t be any of the people on this current council.

• 167 boohoo // Feb 16, 2011 at 11:01 am

  If you can’t understand my criticisms, so be it.

• 168 Richard // Feb 16, 2011 at 4:16 pm

  @IanS
  Reallocating a lane of traffic on the east side so pedestrians could be allowed back on the east sidewalk would not increase the space allocated for cyclists, it would increase the space allocated for pedestrians.

  It would significantly decrease travel times for many pedestrians 24 hours a day, seven days a week while only affecting travel times for half the motorists a couple of hours a day. It would also improve pedestrian safety (they wouldn’t have to cross streets nearly as much) and likely motorist safety by encouraging lower speeds that are closer to the legal limit. There might even be space for a cable barrier in the middle to prevent deadly head on collisions. This could be a win-win for everyone.

• 169 IanS // Feb 16, 2011 at 5:02 pm

  @Richard #167,

  That’s a good point and one I hadn’t thought of before. I’m primarily a pedestrian and have no objection to additional allocations being made for pedestrians. The issue IMO, is how best to achieve that goal.

  At present, given the available data for bike and care usage on the bridge, I remain of the view that the better way to provide the additional allocation for pedestrians would be to make the existing bike lane into a two way lane for cyclists.

• 170 Everyman // Feb 16, 2011 at 9:02 pm

  So I’ve been away for a couple days and I notice none of those who would be considered the “pro-cyclists” here have answered my question: Do you support the NYC “Don’t Be A Jerk” campaign that Ladner referenced?

  And Richard, I disagree that voters chose Robertson over Ladner because of his support of bike infrastructure. Like me, I suspect they looked at them as Tweedle Dee and Tweedle Dum, and chose the Tweedle not associated (at that time) with the unfolding Olympic Village fiasco.

• 171 Mark Allerton // Feb 16, 2011 at 10:29 pm

  @Everyman

  Missed your mention of it before, but yes I think that campaign in NYC is a good idea and I would support campaigns to encourage good cycling behavior in Vancouver too.

• 172 Richard // Feb 16, 2011 at 10:41 pm

  @IanS
  Only problem is for two-way bike path to safely accommodate the volumes of bicycles on the Bridge would have to be at least 4.5m wide. Maybe even wider considering the speed on the long downhill sections and the passing on the long uphill sections. This would require another lane of traffic to be reallocated anyway. Note that the only serious injury that I am aware of during the trial was due to a cyclist cycling the wrong way near the beginning of the trial. It is pretty obvious that the current path on the west side would not be safe for two-way bicycle traffic.

• 173 Richard // Feb 16, 2011 at 10:46 pm

  @Everyman

  Regardless, they promised separated bike lanes during their campaign and then they delivered on their promises.

  Even after all the misinformation spread by the media and opponents of the bike lanes, the percentage of Vancouver residents that support the Hornby bike lanes is the same as the percent who are against them.

• 174 Sean // Feb 17, 2011 at 1:20 am

  @Everyman #170

  I think there should be a bicycle education course for all high school students, possibly through the Physical Education curriculum. This would ensure that EVERYONE – future cyclists, pedestrians and motorists – ALL understand the rights and responsibilities of cyclists.

• 175 IanS // Feb 17, 2011 at 9:01 am

  @Richard #173,

  I was not aware of that. I thought I’d read somewhere that 1.5 m was the standard minimum width for bike lanes, but I’m sure I must be wrong on that.

  In any event, I still have trouble agreeing with any solution which allocates 33% of the road to a mode of transportation which, by last count, represented 2.8% of the usage.

• 176 IanS // Feb 17, 2011 at 9:03 am

  @Richard #173,

  I agree that Vision did campaign on the promise that it would be adding bike lanes.

  I respect that and hope that, in the run up to this November’s election, they do so again, indicating whether they intend to install new bike lanes and, if so, where.

• 177 Chris Keam // Feb 17, 2011 at 9:19 am

  “In any event, I still have trouble agreeing with any solution which allocates 33% of the road to a mode of transportation which, by last count, represented 2.8% of the usage.”

  Here’s a different perspective. What if we allocate road space equally to all individuals, regardless of mode? It’s public space and theoretically it should be shared on a per capita basis. A child should have as much right to public space as an adult. A cyclist should have as much right as a driver. A pedestrian would have as much right as anyone else. Once you start to calculate based on the presumption that we are NOT our choice of technology, the imbalance in favour of auto users becomes more evident. Why is a driver entitled to monopolize the hundreds of feet of road space required to drive safely at 50 km/h, when that resource is limited? Shouldn’t they be paying a surcharge for the privilege?

  If we allocated public space equitably, driving would quickly become unaffordable for all but the very rich. So, it’s not feasible or reasonable to do so. But, to favour other means of transportation (bus, bike, ped) slightly, isn’t a privilege IMO, but rather a slight adjustment to the pavement scales in favour of equity.

• 178 Sean // Feb 17, 2011 at 10:05 am

  @Ian # 175

  “In any event, I still have trouble agreeing with any solution which allocates 33% of the road to a mode of transportation which, by last count, represented 2.8% of the usage.”

  To be fair, it’s 33% of THAT bridge, not 33% of ALL bridges crossing false creek. Just as the Dunsmuir bike line is 33% of Dunsmuir, but only a much smaller percentage of all east/west streets in the downtown peninsula.

• 179 Paul // Feb 17, 2011 at 10:09 am

  @Richard 173… As has been debated here at length, there was misinformation being spread around by the proponents of the project. BTW There is still an FOI request with the city to show which buildings along Hornby were mailed notices and when. I know of 4 strata councils along the street that had no knowledge of the plan until it was reported in the Vancouver Sun, despite the city’s contention that notice was sent.

  @ Sean 174… That’s a great idea. I also think a special section of driver’s licensing should be devoted to cyclists. And driver’s education courses should also have improved sections on being aware of cyclists.

• 180 Chris Keam // Feb 17, 2011 at 10:20 am

  While I support the idea of better education, I’m not sure it belongs in the P.E. curriculum, but rather, given the amount of time and money we all spend getting around, that there might be good reason to devote time outside of gym class to understanding our transportation system.

  cheers,
  CK

• 181 IanS // Feb 17, 2011 at 10:21 am

  @Sean #178,

  I take your point. But, of course, if are going to take into account all bridges crossing False Creek, I suppose we should also be taking into account the relative car / bike use for all such crossings.

• 182 IanS // Feb 17, 2011 at 10:35 am

  @Chris Keam #177,

  You write:

  “What if we allocate road space equally to all individuals, regardless of mode? It’s public space and theoretically it should be shared on a per capita basis.”

  I’m not sure I follow you here. Are you suggesting that road space be allocated equally to everyone, regardless of whether they use it? How would that work? Apologies if I’m missing something here.

  As to this point:

  “Shouldn’t they [car drivers] be paying a surcharge for the privilege?”

  To the extent you are proposing the use of tolls or congestion fees to levy charges to drivers, I’m in agreement, as long as the revenues generated are used to pay for the facilities being used.

• 183 Mark Allerton // Feb 17, 2011 at 11:27 am

  @IanS

  “I suppose we should also be taking into account the relative car / bike use for all such crossings”

  Agreed, but I wouldn’t be afraid to measure by that metric, Cambie gets pretty good bike traffic (bidirectional and shared with pedestrians on the eastside.) Granville, not so much.

• 184 Paul // Feb 17, 2011 at 11:29 am

  @ IanS 182… I’d seriously be willing to see some sort of congestion fee implemented as well. That would probably be the single greatest way to get people out of their cars and onto bikes. This would (of course) outrage any business in the downtown area, but that could be mitigated by direct tax benefits to them or improving access to transit or publicity.

  An aside to this is… I remember before our last big transit strike, hardly a soul could be found walking across the Cambie Street Bridge. During the strike, both sidewalks were packed with people. Then (amazingly) after the strike was over, it seems like some people figured out that they didn’t have to rely on public transit to get over that bridge. It always brings a smile to my face when I see the number of people still using it.

  It’s funny how a negative transit strike actually had a positive long term result. I think a congestion tax could have a similar net result, and we wouldn’t have to put people’s lives at risk to do it.

• 185 Bobbie Bees // Feb 17, 2011 at 11:30 am

  Okay, I’m going to have the final word.
  Bicycles are good.
  Good for your health and good for the environment.
  That’s all that needs to be said.

• 186 spartikus // Feb 17, 2011 at 4:12 pm

  Hornby and updated Dunsmuir stats have been posted on the CoV website here.

• 187 Max // Feb 17, 2011 at 6:42 pm

  @ Bobbie Bees #185

  If a poorly laid out bike lane/plan causes backup and conjestion by vehicles using that same roadway, how does that translate to being ‘good for the environment’?

• 188 Chris Keam // Feb 18, 2011 at 9:40 am

  “As well, City staff have collected data on vehicle traffic on Hornby Street. Preliminary results indicate vehicle travel times along Hornby Street are unchanged on weekday mornings and have increased by one minute (from 5½ to 6½ minutes) on weekday afternoons. This increase is equivalent to one traffic signal cycle. Travel-time data collection will continue.”

  http://vancouver.ca/city-highlights.htm#bikelanes

• 189 Craigs // Mar 29, 2011 at 3:56 pm

  Paul:
  Let me see… a ‘congestion tax’ you say?
  I do hope you meant to apply it to any bikes coming into downtown too.. since accommodating them causes the loss of entire fast moving lanes of traffic and they generally move slower than cars are able. especially on the uphill grades. That would seem to cause more ‘congestion’ than the equivalent auto dont you think?

Leave a Comment