104 responses so far ↓

• 1 Fred // Oct 19, 2010 at 9:47 am

  It could be an issue . . with a $20 million budget deficit, spending $3.2 million for “temporary” bike lines sure seems like a stuck-on-stupid expenditure.

  Or maybe the Hornby “experiment” was never intended to be “temporary” as our truth challenged Mayor says.

  Hoisted on their own petard possibly?

• 2 Bill McCreery // Oct 19, 2010 at 10:00 am

  I support Suzanne Anton’s position to consult before you build.

• 3 Chris Porter // Oct 19, 2010 at 10:46 am

  Anton has enjoyed a lot of support in the past from crossover voters like me, who spread their support between candidates in every party. She’s the only NPA councillor to get more votes then Peter Ladner in the last election. Personally, I liked her stance on recreation and especially cycling. But now that she’s gone all anti-cycling she can kiss that support good-bye. And I know I’m not the only one.

• 4 West End Gal // Oct 19, 2010 at 11:01 am

  @ Chris Porter #3
  Read @ Bill McCreery #2.
  Then sleep on it. Then post!
  I’m an avid biker myself, but the way people tend to look at me these days when I’m biking the streets of Vancouver is the DIRECT RESULT OF THE ACTIONS TAKEN BY THE HYPOCRITES at 12th and Cambie, Vision and friends.
  People are NOT AGAINST BIKING, not at all, it’s not what I heard, they are against the process behind used to ENFORCE IT! That’s not healthy behavior and I don’t that want to be a reflection on me. I am a good person, I bike responsibly, Robertson and Vision are the bullies. Address that first and then you’ll see. Suzanne is swimming among sharks, and the water is already infested. So far she is hanging OK in there. You go Gal!

• 5 Dan Cooper // Oct 19, 2010 at 11:49 am

  @M. Gal, #4

  Hmmm… I bicycle daily, come rain, come snow, come dark of night, and no one is hating on me. People – drivers, cyclists, and pedestrians alike – seem to me just about as kind and/or clueless as ever. When I do occasionally run into a loony, I figure it’s probably something about them, not bike-lane rage or any other particular motivation.

  And now, some opinions: Was the consultation about increased bicycle infrastructure enough? In the big scheme, definitely: no one should be surprised that separated lanes are being installed, or claim that it was not according to the majority political will to install them. Could the specifics of the north-south separated bike lane have been improved based on further consultation? Probably. Will the Downtown Businessites, among others, ever agree to any separated bicycle lane, no matter how designed and where located? Not likely. Are there many opponents of this lane who have indicated through their statements that, in fact, they simply oppose all bicycle infrastructure, believing either that there aren’t enough bicyclists for it to be worthwhile, that bicyclists are bad bad, scary, and unworthy, that Vision is the embodiment of evil, or other reasons? Oh yeah. Are these M. Anton’s reasons for changing her vote? Probably not (though a little Vision-bashing may not make her too sad). On the other hand, should she have been at all surprised that the construction did in fact go ahead, since apparently it was well known by the time of the vote that street markings had already been laid out, rather than expecting everything to slam to a halt for another four or five months of consultations that might have improved the lane design in some ways, but without any chance of actual buy-in from many of the opponents? No.

• 6 Tom // Oct 19, 2010 at 11:58 am

  So if I’m to understand Ms. Anton and Mr. McCreery correctly, you’d like to give people the chance to speak, and then do what you always set out to do anyway.

  At least Vision has the fortitude to be what they are.

  The way I see it, the NPA still wants to pretend to listen to the masses and then do what they please anyway.

  Sorry, but if you think this approach is going to get you votes, you’ll only get the ones you deserve….the fools.

  Sad..pathetic…what else is there to say. With the current board, the ghosts like Peter Ladner hanging on and Suzanne Anton being their lone voice, the NPA is as pathetic as ever.

• 7 Richard // Oct 19, 2010 at 12:41 pm

  @Bill McCreery

  There was consultation before it was built including one on one meetings with the businesses that resolved many of the issues. There were also two open houses, on-line forums, an on-line survey, cards sent out to businesses and residents along Hornby. During the trial, issues can also be resolved as well.

  It looks like for some people, there is never enough consultation. Don’t forget, endless consultation is expensive for the taxpayers. For example, the 18 years of consultation on Burrard Bridge cost taxpayers millions of dollars and in the end, it was the trial that resolved the issues or more correctly, proved that many concerns turned out not to be problems.

  How about waiting until after the trial is complete to judge the process as the trial is part of the process.

• 8 IanS // Oct 19, 2010 at 1:06 pm

  The fact that someone can read this:

  “But although the NPA might appear to be the party of “anti-bike people,” past and current NPA councillors say that’s not true.

  It’s the way bike lanes were planned, not bike lanes themselves, that are the wedge issue, says [Anton].

  “If people are looking for someone to stand in the way of the bike lanes, they’re looking at the wrong person. They’re not going to get that from me,” said Ms. Anton, an avid cyclist. “The people who actually hate bike lanes, it’s a fairly small group of people.”

  … and conclude this:

  “But now that [Anton's] gone all anti-cycling she can kiss that support good-bye. ”

  …proves that this:

  “Ms. Anton’s position – we’re in favour of bike lanes but we want to do a better job of planning them with the community – might be too subtle for voters to understand, say some political analysts.”

  … is absolutely correct.

• 9 Chris Porter // Oct 19, 2010 at 2:42 pm

  I was a fan of Anton’s but her actions speak louder then her double-speak.

  First, she revoked her support for the Hornby Lane, then she got all huffy about the “Bike Lanes Make Me Hornby” t-shirts. She also joined a group on Facebook that called for fewer cycling lanes, mandatory cyclist insurance, and more road space for cars. And yet she still maintains she “supports cycling”.

• 10 The Fourth Horseman // Oct 19, 2010 at 4:02 pm

  Speaking about all huffy…

  Take a pill, Chris Porter! Somehow, you can’t square in your own mind the difference between “process” and “project”.

  If you don’t think that citizens should be be consulted–or at least properly informed and educated and given options on public projects, just come out and say so.

  Remind us of that attitude, btw, should someone come by and appropriate your property, or work on the street outside your business for 3, 4 or 10 months for a good and noble cause like transit…

• 11 Dan Cooper // Oct 19, 2010 at 5:12 pm

  “Remind us of that attitude, btw, should someone come by and appropriate your property, or work on the street outside your business for 3, 4 or 10 months for a good and noble cause like transit…”

  You mean, like Cambie (my street), parts of Yaletown, and Granville St., essentially closed for Canada Line construction for two years? How about King Edward between Fraser and Knight, closed for some months recently to lay new pipes, as I remember. Construction happens all the time, for various reasons, and sometimes takes quite a while to complete. Now, if you were making an argument for reparations for lost business (a la Susan Hayes), rather than – if I understand – implying that there should never be months-long construction closures…

  p.s. I’m curious about how both West End Gal and TFH have responded to Chris Porter’s emotional but not overly angry posts, in which he alleges that M. Anton took specific actions for specific reasons, and expresses his feelings about that, by essentially yelling (LOTS OF CAPS! Exclamation points!), “Why are you so upset? Shut your yap, idiot!” and making sweeping accusations against him and others who disagree with them. Can anyone say anything specific to refute his points?

• 12 A.E. // Oct 19, 2010 at 6:17 pm

  @Tom – do you agree that spending $3m on a trial project is the best choice when we are looking at a considerable budget shortfall? Just curious about your thoughts on that.

• 13 The Fourth Horseman // Oct 19, 2010 at 7:04 pm

  @Dan Cooper #11

  …because, Dan, if anyone is making sweeping generalizations, I thinks it is Chris.

  My ref to road closures (a la Cambie) is exactly what I intended it to say: if you didn’t have a say, or weren’t given sufficient warning (and even though there was “warning” about Cambie work, the businesses were not advised as to exactly how long that street would be out of commission-the howling–with the resulting lawsuits—has I would say, informed TL’s public engagement going forward quite a bit !),wouldn’t you want to think that there was a chance, given civic and civil discourse, that the City might actually listen to your concerns—and perhaps, even come up with an alternate plan so that maybe you wouldn’t lose too much money?

  BTW, though perhaps you think it only a hiccup, the work on Drake has been stopped for a time, as the staff did not anticipate some problems there. Perhaps, had they canvassed the neighborhood well prior to the start of work—or when the mayor signed the noise by-law exemption work order for the area in September—take you pick of your fave “starting” date!—, some of the the “hysteria” as some call it, could have been alleviated.

  Do you actually run a business, Dan Cooper? Perhaps you would like to take a guess as to how tearing up long stretches of Hornby, and if what saw last week was an indication, pretty much all at once, it might affect those businesses bottom lines?

• 14 The Fourth Horseman // Oct 19, 2010 at 7:14 pm

  @Dan Cooper. As to Chris’s staement that Anton has gone “anti-cycling”…really? Seriously? I am no Suzanne fan, but I do know she’s pushed cycling consistently, and that prior councils that she has sat on have laid most of the groundwork for the biking lanes that do exist.

  What we see VV do is add the barricades and try to take credit for the entire cycling network that has been devleloped in Vancouver. Incredible.

  I guess that is not the sort of “fact based’ argument and “proof ” that washes for just one side of the argument. As per usual.

• 15 spartikus // Oct 19, 2010 at 8:16 pm

  do you agree that spending $3m on a trial project is the best choice when we are looking at a considerable budget shortfall?

  Once again, another question answered countless, countless times before. Sigh.

  The trial is paid out of the the Capital Plan approved by referendum in the 2008 election. That money was only available for projects such as this.

  That was the electorate’s choice.

• 16 Declan // Oct 19, 2010 at 8:33 pm

  I agree with Chris in that I’m a previous supporter of Anton who has lost some respect for her in this episode. As I recall, news stories leading up to the vote on the Hornby lane specifically said that construction would begin right after the vote, so it was hardly a surprise.

  I don’t think she has gone ‘anti-bike’ as much as she has caved in to pressure from her non-partisan alliance to maintain their ability to make cycling a partisan issue.

  Of course, Anton is still likely better than whatever alternatives NPA comes up with, and as long as Vancouver continues to insist on listing the candidates in alphabetical order on the ballot, Anton looks good to get back in regardless of what anyone thinks.

• 17 gasp // Oct 19, 2010 at 8:56 pm

  spartikus @15

  The Capital Plan approved by referendum in the 2008 election did not state that 25 million dollars would be going specifically to install separated and other completely unnecessary bike lane infrastructure in this City.

  The fact that voters approved a capital plan for upgrading streets is not justification for spending all this money on bike lanes based on the unproven theory that “if you build them people will use them”.

  The bike lanes in my neighbourhood are rarely used, but the City is busy putting more signs out for them and wasting taxpayers’ money moving stop signs so that the poor baby cyclists won’t have to stop on a downhill run (not that they did anyway), EVEN IF THIS JEOPARDIZES PEDESTRIAN SAFETY in an area where there are school children and seniors residences. Despite all the money spent, there are no more cyclists on these routes now than there were last year or even 40 years ago.

  Throughout this City, unnecessary barriers have been put up to placate these non-existent cyclists, and unnecessary expenditures of tax dollars have been incurred.

  Based on your belief that approval of the Capital Plan gives City Council carte blanche to waste money on their pet projects, the only reasonable response for voters and taxpayers is to vote against the next Captial Plan proposed for the 2011 election. This will force City Council to concentrate their spending on those activities required of them pursuant to the Vancouver Charter, rather than on activities to advance their personal whims.

• 18 Tessa // Oct 19, 2010 at 9:12 pm

  @Gasp 17
  Yes, approval of the capital plan gives Vision “carte blanche” to do exactly what they campaigned for in the election. And you sound surprised.

  And I’m sure you’ve counted bike numbers over the past 40 years on routes around the city, let alone the separated routes, for which there is data showing a statistically significant increase since their construction.

  I agree with Chris that Anton’s actions speak louder than words. City staff said outright that work would start the next day during the marathon meeting that Anton was at. Unless she wasn’t even listening to speakers that night, then how can she say she is surprised? It makes her “kangeroo council” claim sound completely disengenuous, like a staged stunt for the media. Come on. She’s lost my respect, certainly.

  Now, let’s get on with the rest of the city’s business.

• 19 Chris Keam // Oct 19, 2010 at 9:33 pm

  “The fact that voters approved a capital plan for upgrading streets is not justification for spending all this money on bike lanes based on the unproven theory that “if you build them people will use them”. ”

  There are a number of inaccuracies in gasp’s comment, but this one is the most egregious. With almost any transportation improvement be it buses, trains, bike routes, even freeways, if you improve access and make it more convenient and safer to use, people will take advantage of the facility. Unsurpisingly, many people aren’t idiots. If something comes along that makes their life easier or more enjoyable, they tend to embrace that innovation. That’s why cycling for transportation is on the increase, in Vancouver, in Canada, and around the world.

  Further, the ‘theory’ is very much a proven fact, in countless cities around the world, where it rains, there’s hills, they have a winter, etc, etc.

  Someone upthread commented that many of the ‘usual’ posters aren’t offering their opinions as often, with the usual supercilious asides regarding blind party faith and so forth. Speaking strictly for myself, and as someone who has contributed often, here and elsewhere, the whole thing is just becoming rather silly. If individuals wish to traffick in nonsense and falsehoods, there’s probably not much sense in wasting time on arguing with closed minds and snide comments, so why bother?

• 20 Chris Keam // Oct 19, 2010 at 9:40 pm

  correction. it wasn’t this thread that had a post wondering why some familiar posters weren’t showing up with their usual regularity.

• 21 Richard // Oct 19, 2010 at 9:55 pm

  @gasp

  You are forgetting that the voters also voted for this mayor and council. That is why they are mayor and council. In their election platform, it was pretty clear that Vision supported more traffic calming on bike routes and separated bike lanes. They won by a landslide. They are following through on their promises. Welcome to democracy.

  Oh and by the way, it is speeding cars that are the real threat to children, seniors and everyone else in the city. 20-30 people are killing each and every year in the city by motor vehicles or more correctly, people driving these vehicles carelessly or recklessly. The traffic calming on bike routes will also make the streets safer for children and seniors and the rest of us.

• 22 spartikus // Oct 19, 2010 at 10:11 pm

  moving stop signs so that the poor baby cyclists won’t have to stop on a downhill run

  I’m not sure if sublime has been covered yet, but ridiculous has a check mark beside it.

• 23 Bill McCreery // Oct 19, 2010 at 11:08 pm

  There are exaggerations on both sides in this thread. It seems to go with this territory. But, as an impartial observer, it is my opinion that there is not only exaggeration but, spin on the pro-bike side.

  While the Visionistas did promote bike lanes, so did Anton, Ladner & co, & they actually had built 90% of them which Vision is now trying to take credit for. The Capital Expenditure for street improvements did not specifically mention bike lanes. Therefore, the argument for now is mute. Let’s wait till next November to continue this conversation.

• 24 Chris Keam // Oct 19, 2010 at 11:11 pm

  “But, as an impartial observer, it is my opinion that there is not only exaggeration but, spin on the pro-bike side.”

  Opinions are great Bill. Can you provide some specific examples?

• 25 voony // Oct 19, 2010 at 11:50 pm

  “While the Visionistas did promote bike lanes, so did Anton, Ladner & co, & they actually had built 90% of them which Vision is now trying to take credit for.”

  yes, you could be right on that point, because it is playing on vocabulary:

  there is a world of difference between a bike lane, and a bike path,

  the former require no more than a can of paint, the later is requiring real political will since it talk of real paradigm shift in regard of road space allocation.

  and it is what we are talking about:
  while motorist represents less than 40% of the journey in Downtown, they are predating 100% of the street space:
  In response, Vision in Vancouver, like Delanoe in Paris come with a policy of space protection from motorist occupation:

  While previous Paris mayors (Chirac and Tiberi) could have also make use of the can of paint, the real paradigm shift in term of cycling use has happened under Delanoe mayor, and believe me it has been a dramatic shift…and naturally he got the whole credit for it.

  On a side note, the Vancouver anti cyclist brigades have done their own poll on the bike lane, and boomerang is coming back:

  http://roadjustice.ca/component/poll/2-do-you-support-addition-of-the-new-separate-bike-lane-on-hornby-street-further-taking-away-road-space-from-motor-vehicles.html

• 26 Bill McCreery // Oct 19, 2010 at 11:57 pm

  Voon, Thank you for continuing to muddy the waters. I’m Ok with your “a policy of space protection from motorist occupation” downtown, it’s just how it’s done that I don’t agree with.

• 27 Sean // Oct 20, 2010 at 5:29 am

  @gasp #17

  “Despite all the money spent, there are no more cyclists on these routes now than there were last year or even 40 years ago. ”

  I’ll counter your empirical observation with my own: as someone who rode a bike extensively in the 70′s and 80′s and have only started riding again in the last few years, its plainly obvious to me that there is a LOT more bike traffic in the city than there used to be.

• 28 Morven // Oct 20, 2010 at 9:55 am

  @ spartikus # 15

  We seem to have different views. We have previously canvassed some of them

  A capital plan referendum is a vote to give council the authority to borrow money for broad purposes. The authority to actually spend this money must be by vote of council and any reasonable elected representative (there are some) requires the project be fleshed out in terms of costs, risks, benefits before spending approval is granted. The referendum is approval in principle and the budget is approval in practice

  If VISION believes (and I do not think they do) that no further checks and balances are needed before moving from borrowing to spending, then we are all in a lot of trouble.

  It is not a matter of electoral commitments, it is a matter of budget control and any council that avoids that, should be swept out of office as soon as is practicable.
  -30-

• 29 The Fourth Horseman // Oct 20, 2010 at 10:34 am

  Thank you for the clarification, Morven.

• 30 Jason King // Oct 20, 2010 at 10:44 am

  “If individuals wish to traffick in nonsense and falsehoods, there’s probably not much sense in wasting time on arguing with closed minds and snide comments, so why bother?”

  Unfortunately Chris, the same could be said of many bike lane proponents….you tend to like to color the argument as the bike lane advocates having facts on their side, and anyone who opposes them going against “facts and common sense”. Not true….but you’re entitled to your opinion. I would also argue that those “questioning the bike lane logic” are more likely to have open minds than the bike lane advocates…but again, you’re entitled to your opinion…even if I do believe it’s incredibly biased.

  At the end of the day I’m tired of arguing about whether the bike lanes were the right or wrong decision…the debates over, the lanes are going in. The debate now needs to move to whether this mayor/city council have made the right or wrong decisions for this city….and I definitely know where I stand in that debate.

• 31 Dan Cooper // Oct 20, 2010 at 10:46 am

  @ gasp #17:

  Hark! ‘Tis the sound of the animals chanting, “Four wheels good! Two wheels bad!” Heh!

  ——-

  Bill McCreery #23: “But, as an impartial observer….”

  Bill McCreery #26: “I’m Ok with your [policy], it’s just how it’s done that I don’t agree with.”

  Okay with this; oppose that. In other words, you aren’t impartial. You (and M. Anton) may not be anti bike, or even anti-bike lane, but that’s not the same. I note also your many previous posts describing the current Vision council as, essentially, evil, ravaging pirates, intent in all they do on destroying our fair city, e.g. Oct 14, 2010 at 11:04 pm, “I am really offended that these people could be so deceitful, insensitive & simplistically clumsy from an ubanist perspective as well as other considerations like fiscal responsibility. They are truly off the scale. They are destroying my neighbourhood & also plundering the rest of the City.” Impartial? Again, I say, “heh!”

  Anyway, the lane is going to be built, for better or worse, and I guess by next November we will see whether Hornby Street (and the rest of the City) have collapsed into the saltchuck or not!

• 32 spartikus // Oct 20, 2010 at 11:56 am

  If VISION believes (and I do not think they do) that no further checks and balances are needed before moving from borrowing to spending, then we are all in a lot of trouble.

  Inconvenient facts:

  “If this question receives the assent of the electors, Council has the power, without further assent of the electors, to pass by-laws, as and when Council considers appropriate to borrow money for the projects described up to $93, 820,000″

  The electors approved the Capital Plan, Morven. Council decides where to spend it. The bikes lanes were approved by Council. That’s how the system works. The end.

  @Jason King

  Unfortunately Chris, the same could be said of many bike lane proponents….you tend to like to color the argument as the bike lane advocates having facts on their side, and anyone who opposes them going against “facts and common sense”.

  Once again, the dearth of supporting examples is noted.

• 33 IanS // Oct 20, 2010 at 1:16 pm

  Unfortunately for the proponents on both side of the argument, and for those of us who try to view the issue objectively, there really is a dearth of facts available to judge the effect of the separated bike lanes.

  The City has posted data regarding the bike / car / pedestrian usage on Burrard Bridge, which data shows an increase in bike usage since the separated lane was put it, but there’s no way to tell whether this reflects a net increase in bike usage or simply more cyclists using the Burrard Bridge. (I suspect it’s a bit of both, but that’s just a guess on my part.) There’s no data available on increased congestion and the only accident / injury data available (the ICBC data) seems to suggest that, while there was a spike in accidents for a few months after installation of the bike lane, the accident rate has since dropped back down to pre separated lane levels.

  The City has also posted some bike use figures for the Dunsmuir lane which seem to show a significant increase in bike use (from about 600 pre separated lane to 1300 / day, IIRC), but, again, there’s no way to tell whether this represents new cyclists or simply pre-existing cyclists now choosing to take that route. AFAIK, there’s no data available reflecting safety issues or congestion issues for that route.

  And, AFAIK, there’s no data to indicate that the bike lanes are having any adverse affect on businesses in the area. I infer from that that there is no such adverse impact, but, again, that’s just a guess on my part.

• 34 Jason King // Oct 20, 2010 at 2:07 pm

  Spartikus…oh Spartikus.

  I was debating Chris on a sweeping statement that HE made about opposing points of view by simply stating that it went both ways. Not quite sure what “specifics” you’d like, or why a response to a sweeping statement that provided no specific examples, now requires specific examples to counter it….but I guess that’s for you to answer.

• 35 Chris Keam // Oct 20, 2010 at 2:20 pm

  I made a very specific comment. I spoke only for myself and made it quite clear I was talking about individuals who make statements containing easily disproven falsehoods (such as suggesting there aren’t more cyclists in Vancouver now than 40 years ago). That’s absolutely not a sweeping statement.

  Which brings me to my other pet peeve. Posters who misrepresent or mis-characterize other people’s words. If one truly believes in process and consultation then IMO the absolute first commandment for a reasonable dialogue must be a willingness to accept other people’s comments at face value and refrain from making erroneous generalizations about their statements.

  thx,

  CK

• 36 Jason King // Oct 20, 2010 at 3:02 pm

  “I was talking about individuals who make statements containing easily disproven falsehoods (such as suggesting there aren’t more cyclists in Vancouver now than 40 years ago).”

  Chris, please. I wasn’t taking your post at face value? You weren’t citing a specific example when you made the statement above, you made a blanket statement “SUGGESTING” (as you regularly do, only to claim that was never your intent) that the opposing side of the argument “trafficks falsehoods and nonsense” while you, and your merry band of cycling enthusiasts are only “peddling” (pun intended) facts, logic and statistics….

  “Which brings me to my other pet peeve…..willingness to accept other people’s comments at face value and refrain from making erroneous generalizations about their statements.” REALLY? That’s your pet peeve is it?

  You must be incredibly peeved at yourself then after the alex tsakumis fiasco you waded into, where you not only didn’t accept his comments at face value, but actually completely twisted what he said in order to match the story you were peddling at the time (that cyclists were in danger from vengeful drivers).

  Chris, I like debating with you, but you have “Gregor Robertson disease”…you believe your cause is so morally just and superior that you look down your nose at those with opposing points of view, ignore any facts or relevant information that doesn’t “fit” your storyline, and artful twist the facts to suit your agenda.

  Oh, and for the record…”Gregor Robertson disease”….that’s my pet peeve.

• 37 Chris Keam // Oct 20, 2010 at 3:29 pm

  Jason:

  Once again you’re purposefully misrepresenting my comments. Smart move to choose a thread where the original comments had to be removed because of implied threats of violence against me. Otherwise I’d have evidence to refer to when I tell you that my original comments were simply to link to the story of one man’s assault of a cyclist and point out that it’s not surprising that many people using bikes prefer a barrier between themselves and people in cars.

  My ’cause’ isn’t a question of morality or superiority. It’s simply support for some sensible improvements to civic infrastructure. Unfortunately, you seem to need to mis-characterize my comments in order to have something to oppose.

  In fact, I challenge you to come up with any indication that I even mention the Mayor w/r/t cycling infrastructure beyond a passing mention, or cite a single instance where I’ve dismissed verifiable facts or relevant information on the subject. Otherwise, you’re engaging in spin.

  cheers,
  CK

• 38 Chris Keam // Oct 20, 2010 at 3:35 pm

  “Chris, please. I wasn’t taking your post at face value? You weren’t citing a specific example when you made the statement above, you made a blanket statement “SUGGESTING” (as you regularly do, only to claim that was never your intent) that the opposing side of the argument “trafficks falsehoods and nonsense” while you, and your merry band of cycling enthusiasts are only “peddling” (pun intended) facts, logic and statistics….”

  Absolutely not. In fact, my original comment was about why I am finding it increasingly pointless to attempt a productive dialogue on this and other forums. You’re proving my point in spades by misrepresenting my comments, engaging in snide characterizations and putting word in my mouth.

  Thanks (not)

• 39 ThinkOutsideABox // Oct 20, 2010 at 3:52 pm

  Vancouver bike lanes an election wedge issue?

  The answer Frances, is no, despite the hullabaloo in the comments.

• 40 Jason King // Oct 20, 2010 at 4:43 pm

  LOL…Chris, funny…I said the exact same thing months ago….debate is pointless with most people on these threads because no ones listening….if memory serves me correctly, you chided me for it.

  Chris, you can’t complain about everyone else when I have yet to see you concede a point, give validity to an opposing point of view, or even acknowledge that people can be pro biking and anti bike lanes….

  You also seem to forget that dialogue online requires extremely clear statements, otherwise it’s completely open to interpretation…you tend to make “suggestive” statements and then complain at nausea about how everyone misinterpreted it. Perhaps your part of the problem? Or am I just out to get you?

  I don’t think I’m engaging in any “snide characterizations”….I think that I’m calling a spade a spade and saying you can’t have it both ways….you can’t complain about particular types of behavior from people on this thread, and then turn around and exhibit the exact same behavior. You’re going to get called on it.

  And as I’ve said before, I actually enjoy many of your comments, as you do often have statistics or information I didn’t know….and I appreciate getting the opposing point of view and debating an issue….but I’m willing to concede a point…I’m willing to consider that the other side may know more than me, or have information I’m not privy to…or at the very least, that their argument is worth listening to….I don’t feel that you have exhibited these characteristics in the slightest….and continue to exhibit many symptoms of “Gregor Robertson Disease”….

  You might want to get that checked out.

• 41 spartikus // Oct 20, 2010 at 4:54 pm

  you can’t complain about everyone else when I have yet to see you concede a point

  Such as that time you conceded Montreal doesn’t dismantle much of it’s biking infrastructure in winter?

  Oh right, you didn’t.

• 42 Jason King // Oct 20, 2010 at 5:20 pm

  Spartikus, spartikus, spartikus….you never fail to disappoint….you’re like a broken record of bad music….

  How about:
  a) Montreal Bixi bike sharing stations are removed in winter.
  b) Westmount has decided to keep open its portion of the de Maisonneuve bike path THIS WINTER — but only on a trial-run basis…up until this year the lanes have been closed during winter and used for parking.
  c) I already put the links up in the previous post when you were complaining I made this up

  And that wouldn’t be conceding a point…that would be I either have my facts wrong or right…I will happily concede that my initial statements were partial incorrect….and I believe my statement was that they opened them up to alternate forms of traffic (transit), cars, etc. during the winter…which I actually think still makes sense….and that Westmount was doing up until this year (for parking)

  So Spartikus….did you get all that? Can we agree the point has been cleared up now…or can I expect you to bring it up every time I post something you don’t like?

• 43 Chris Keam // Oct 20, 2010 at 5:24 pm

  “Chris, you can’t complain about everyone else”

  Sweet Jesus. Give me strength. Please re-read my comments. I spoke for myself only and made a point of saying I was referring to ‘individuals’. Not ‘everyone’.

  What you need to do Jason is make a point. One that has some proof attached to it. Something provable. Then you need to ensure I actually disagree with it. Then you need to make me refuse to accept your point. Then you’ve got game. Until then, you’re making stuff up and attributing it to me, sans any evidence to back it up. Which is weak, weak sauce.

• 44 Chris Keam // Oct 20, 2010 at 5:25 pm

  “you tend to make “suggestive” statements and then complain at nausea about how everyone misinterpreted it.”

  citation needed.

• 45 Chris Keam // Oct 20, 2010 at 5:30 pm

  I don’t think I’m engaging in any “snide characterizations”

  O rly?

  “you, and your merry band of cycling enthusiasts”

  “you’re like a broken record of bad music….”

  “continue to exhibit many symptoms of “Gregor Robertson Disease””

• 46 Jason king // Oct 20, 2010 at 7:01 pm

  Oh chris…always so sensitive…

  Are you not a part of a group of cycle enthusiasts? Is spartikus not a broken record? And I believe you honestly do have GRD…those aren’t snide characterizations…they are thoughtful observations….

  “What you need to do Jason is make a point. One that has some proof attached to it. Something provable. Then you need to ensure I actually disagree with it”….chris I made a lovely argument on a preceding post about alternate usage of bike lanes in winter…I could not get you to even concede, after providing stats from the city website that bike usage in winter was less than 1/4 in winter time….if I can’t even get you to acknowledge a fact Chris, why would I try to once again debate a point (which I’ve done quite often with you in the past…as you well know)

• 47 Bobbie Bees // Oct 20, 2010 at 9:29 pm

  Well, I sure look forward to enjoying the bicycling lanes.

• 48 Agustin // Oct 21, 2010 at 2:20 am

  I agree with ThinkOutsideABox, #39.

• 49 Chris Keam // Oct 21, 2010 at 8:03 am

  “Are you not a part of a group of cycle enthusiasts? Is spartikus not a broken record? And I believe you honestly do have GRD…those aren’t snide characterizations…they are thoughtful observations….”

  No, those are unwarranted and unnecessary characterizations that just offer up additional proof that it’s hard to have a grown-up conversation amongst reasonable people when the kiddies keep screaming for attention from the little bridge table where intelligent debate mostly consists of calling people names.

  If you want more interaction with me, then you’ll need to come up with something more.

  And sorry, suggesting bike lanes close because they’re less used in winter just shows you’re not paying attention. It’s weather, not season that affects ridership. In fact, if you’re any kind of regular cyclist you should know that riding in cool, dry weather is as enjoyable, if not more so, than pedaling during the sweaty summer.

• 50 Jason King // Oct 21, 2010 at 12:47 pm

  “it’s hard to have a grown-up conversation amongst reasonable people when the kiddies keep screaming for attention from the little bridge table where intelligent debate mostly consists of calling people names.”….I told you, it’s a case of GRD….combined with a humor failure.

  “It’s weather, not season that affects ridership”

  Chris, this would be an excellent example of how nailing you down on even the simplest of points is impossible…it makes debate a waste of time.

  Yes Chris, weather is different than seasons, but I hope we could both agree that the two tend to follow one another to a large degree…hence the lack of snow in downtown Vancouver in July. Oddly enough, even though winter is a SEASON, all the cities ridership numbers show a drop of at least 75% (and I’m being generous with that number Chris) in cyclist during the winter months. So we see a huge drop in cyclists in the winter months….hence my suggestion that rather than leaving the lanes to be used for cyclists ALONE in the winter, some of the remaining 99+% of the population could also use the lanes (such as for transit).

  But again, given that I can’t get you to agree that ridership drops off to marginal levels in the winter (which is on the cities website), nor that winter, while a season, does tend to have the worst weather of the year, I doubt that I’m going to be able to even get you to consider my bike lane suggestion.

  “In fact, if you’re any kind of regular cyclist you should know that riding in cool, dry weather is as enjoyable, if not more so, than pedaling during the sweaty summer.”

  Chris, so you belittling me is fine, me belittling you is childish? I think I just proved the point I was making earlier about you Chris….you complain about everyone else and then exhibit the exact same behavior…..oh, and that’s another pet peeve of mine.

  And no, I’m not a “regular” cyclist…I’m a recreational cyclists…but I also ride a motorcycle…and I can tell you that during the winter months my bike is uninsured and in storage because I don’t like the danger of riding on ice, in the snow, or in terrible winter conditions. And I have MULTIPLE LANES at my disposal and still choose not to do it. But then again, I tend to believe that seasons and weather have some correlation.

• 51 Chris Keam // Oct 21, 2010 at 1:51 pm

  Jason:

  Good luck fitting a bus into a bike lane.

  A motorcycle is more dangerous than a bicycle under any road conditions, but even more so during icy weather.

  No one is disputing the fact there’s fewer cyclists in the winter, but that doesn’t mean safety should be compromised for those that continue to ride when it’s cold or wet. As I already mentioned once before, given the reduced visibility and braking capabilities of all vehicles during bad weather, it’s still important to have protected lanes.

  Don’t even think to start whinging because I gave you a dose of your own snide medicine.

  Further, try arguing the real issues instead of the ones you’re making up to fit your self-image of the voice of reason who just can’t get a break. Just because someone doesn’t agree with your analysis or conclusion doesn’t mean they’re questioning the numbers.

  By your ridiculous argument, all motorcyclists should have to put their bikes away in winter because you don’t want to ride when it’s nasty out. Does that make sense?

• 52 Jason King // Oct 21, 2010 at 3:55 pm

  “Don’t even think to start whinging because I gave you a dose of your own snide medicine.”

  Oh Chris…there you go again….I wasn’t whining, I was pointing out that you’re a hypocrite, and can’t take what you give out….there’s about 3 examples of that in the post above. Thank you for once again proving my point.

  “Further, try arguing the real issues instead of the ones you’re making up to fit your self-image of the voice of reason who just can’t get a break.”

  I didn’t realize that was my self image, but I kind of like it….thank you!

  “No one is disputing the fact there’s fewer cyclists in the winter”

  Chris, would you like me to find the post where you claimed I was “pulling numbers out of thin air” when I stated that ridership drops by over 75% in the winter? So yes, you were disputing that, and yes…you were proven wrong…and yes, I accept your apology.

  “Good luck fitting a bus into a bike lane. ”

  Actually, you want to make a bet whether a bus would fit? I’ve watched SUV’s drive right down the bike lanes when they were under construction with PLENTY of room on either side….I don’t think we’d have any trouble getting a bus down there. But are you saying it’s only a size issue? Because if that’s the case, and I can get a bus down a bike lane, seems to me we’re in agreement.

  “A motorcycle is more dangerous than a bicycle under any road conditions, but even more so during icy weather.”

  Excellent point…so we’re in agreement then that motorcyclists are in more danger during the winter and should therefore have access to the bike lanes? I mean if your so incredibly concerned about the exposure of cyclists, and you state very clearly that motorcycles are in even more danger in the winter than cyclists, wouldn’t it be prudent to let them use the lane?

  “By your ridiculous argument, all motorcyclists should have to put their bikes away in winter because you don’t want to ride when it’s nasty out. Does that make sense?”

  Chris…what was your previous complaint about twisting words that made you just so…damn…angry! Yup, there ya go again, proving my point that you only hate it when it’s done to you….

  You know very well that I was talking about myself, and was using that as an example of how WINTER (which you’ve clearly stated is a season and not weather…thank you for that), tends to have bad WEATHER…and therefore I (meaning me, not others) don’t drive my motorcycle then…making the point that weather in the season of winter is not as nice as other months…a point that apparently had to be debated with you.

  I appreciate how you managed, in one post, to get an example of every single thing you accuse others of doing on these posts….thank you for that, it makes proving my point so much easier.

  Good day sir….

• 53 spartikus // Oct 21, 2010 at 4:34 pm

  I will happily concede that my initial statements were partial incorrect

  Correction, it was wholly incorrect. It wasn’t the first time, and I’m sure it won’t be the last.

  But, progress. Of a kind.

• 54 A.E. // Oct 21, 2010 at 6:43 pm

  I wonder when the city will be putting in protected sidewalks for pedestrians! Walkers are obviously at the bottom of the transportation food chain. I walk or take transit almost 100% of the time, unless someone is going my way and offers me a lift. From my vantage point I’ve seen cars cause accidents and I’ve seen bikes cause accidents. Bikes though, have the best of both worlds; roads when it suits and sidewalks when it suits. And when a bike pops up to the sidewalk and still travels at the same speed as it was on the road, it’s very unsafe for the walkers, and we have no where else to go.

  All users of the road should be subject to the same rules, which are to be tested for compentency and knowledge of the rules of the road, and to be required to purchase insurance and display a valid license plate. And no one but pedestrians should ever be allowed to use the sidewalks.

• 55 weaver // Oct 21, 2010 at 7:41 pm

  “I’ve watched SUV’s drive right down the bike lanes when they were under construction with PLENTY of room on either side….I don’t think we’d have any trouble getting a bus down there.”

  Depends. If you’re talking about a Class A/1 grade separated 2-way lane yes, a bus will fit. If you mean the Carrall St bikeway, no it won’t, not without having to encroach onto the sidewalk or road (where it’s meant to be) like these delivery trucks.
  http://vancouver.mybikelane.com/

  I use the bike lanes (grade separated where I can, painted suicide lanes where there’s no other option) every day, so have plenty of experience trying to get round parked stuff. Only on Dunsmuir is it possible to get past parked SUVs.

• 56 Jason king // Oct 21, 2010 at 10:36 pm

  Weaver

  Yes, to clarify, I was referring to the Dunsmiur lane, hence the comment about watching the SUV during the construction period.

• 57 Mark Allerton // Oct 21, 2010 at 10:50 pm

  @Jason – remind me: which transit route do you think should use the bike lane on Dunsmuir when it is taken down during the winter?

• 58 pacpost // Oct 21, 2010 at 11:27 pm

  @ A.E.

  “All users of the road should be subject to the same rules, which are to be tested for compentency and knowledge of the rules of the road, and to be required to purchase insurance and display a valid license plate.”

  I could spend some time crafting a response to your post, but I find the UK’s James May has a much better one:

  “Bicycles should not be insured or registered and cycling proficiency should not be subject to a test.
  That’s just weak-kneed nonsense from people who believe the world can be cured with paperwork.”

  http://bit.ly/cv4ze8

• 59 Jason King // Oct 22, 2010 at 9:28 am

  Mark,

  I wasn’t speaking of specific routes, I was speaking generally….stating that the idea of using the bike lanes for alternate traffic in the winter is not unheard of, and has been done in other cities, whether it be transit, HOV, parking, handicap/elderly buses, etc. etc. Most of the Dunsmuir buses were rerouted for the bike lanes, so I’m not sure which route would make the most sense if it were to reopen to public transit.

  My main point was that with bike usage dropping off severely in the winter, alternate usage should be looked at. If we, the taxpayers are spending the money on the lanes, we should try and maximize their usage year round.

• 60 A.E. // Oct 22, 2010 at 9:51 am

  @pacpost, I disagree. A pass or fail would be noted on paperwork, but demonstrating the competency in a road test requires ability. A licence plate is also an identifier of the user. These are reasonable suggetsions.

• 61 Chris Keam // Oct 22, 2010 at 9:57 am

  Jason:

  Once again… reduced visibility and longer braking distances during winter months arguably make protected lanes more necessary, not expendable.

  There are only three places in Vancouver that have protected, dedicated bike lanes wide enough to allow other vehicles to use them. Burrard Bridge, Dunsmuir and the upcoming Hornby trial. Which one are you suggesting should be taken away from cyclists during the winter? All the rest of the painted bike lanes are only wide enough for one-way bike travel, and further, most bike ‘routes’ in Vancouver are already shared space used by cars, buses, and cyclists.

  Finally, what do you mean by winter? Please provide some context. Are you talking about the 2 months when cycling actually dips closer to your 25% statistic, or 4 months, or 6 months?

  Speaking generally, what other cities comparable to Vancouver in climate and size remove bike lanes during winter, and for how long? Something more definite in terms of data to validate your assertion would go a long way to providing some background for considering your idea.

  Also, given that everyone seems to agree that changing traffic patterns can lead to increased accidents, per the spike in collisions on the Burrard Bridge north side after the bike lane was installed, are you considering the likelihood that you are sacrificing safety, and increasing the costs in roadwork to be adding and removing barriers and signage at least twice a year?

  Finally, putting aside the fact that you appear to be suggesting it’s OK to put a minority of road users at greater risk for part of the year, to add convenience for the least efficient road users (automobiles)… if you are suggesting it’s OK to take away cycling amenities during low use periods, do you think it would be OK to add even more protected bike lanes during the summer when usage peaks? If so, which roads would you consider good candidates for that process? What ratio of roads should have that change? Given that 10% is the number used to describe cycling use in the Kits/Fairview/MtPleasant/Strathcona areas during peak cycling periods, do you think it’s reasonable to allocate 10% of road space to self-propelled road users in warmer months?

• 62 Chris Keam // Oct 22, 2010 at 9:58 am

  “A licence plate is also an identifier of the user.”

  A licence plate is only an identifier of the registered owner of a vehicle. Anyone can be behind the wheel.

• 63 Mark Allerton // Oct 22, 2010 at 9:58 am

  @Jason Noticeably light on specifics when it comes to the crunch, as usual. With one exception, of course – you’re very specific about what you don’t want the space used for.

• 64 Jason King // Oct 22, 2010 at 11:03 am

  Chris Keam:

  “Finally, what do you mean by winter? ”

  Really? REALLY? So first you insist on debating the difference between weather and seasons and now I have to clarify what winter is? LOL. Oh my.

  “most bike ‘routes’ in Vancouver are already shared space used by cars, buses, and cyclists.”

  Well then I suppose sharing Dunsmuir and Hornby shouldn’t be an issue then! Again, agreement Chris, we’re getting somewhere!

  “Speaking generally, what other cities comparable to Vancouver in climate and size remove bike lanes during winter, and for how long? ”

  Funny, what happened to your whole “we’re not a unique snowflake” argument about bike lanes…it’s funny how when I’m asked for stats they must be equal in climate/size to Vancouver, yet you will use stats from any city around the world to justify bike lanes. Funny that….

  “are you considering the likelihood that you are sacrificing safety, and increasing the costs in roadwork to be adding and removing barriers and signage at least twice a year?”

  Funny, you didn’t seem to worry about any of this when the bike lanes required pedestrians to sacrifice their safety by crossing multiple lanes of traffic for the bike lanes, or when we spent $4 million installing the bike lanes….but now suddenly your worried about it! Why Chris, a cynic would say you have no problem doing anything for cyclists but could care less about the remaining 96% of the population that come downtown by other means! Why is your safety more important than theirs? Oh Chris…another symptom of GRD….you MUST see a doctor soon.

  “put a minority of road users at greater risk for part of the year, to add convenience for the least efficient road users (automobiles)”

  Funny, I could have sworn…wait…yes….yes, a BUS is not an automobile…I KNEW IT! That’s where we’ve misunderstood each other all along Chris…you’ve been thinking that a bus is an automobile! You see, I’m in favor of MASS transit…it allows large numbers of people to move to and fro…rather than one person at a time.

  Mark:

  “Noticeably light on specifics when it comes to the crunch”

  Mark, if you’d like me to designate a specific bus route that would use Dunsmuir during the winter, I’m happy to do it, or please feel free to choose the one you think is best…and I’m sure the students at VCC would greatly appreciate having buses return right outside the college doors again.

  And finally, I’m not sure if you fellas noticed, but the bike lanes are in…and they are here to stay. You can loosen those clenched fists, and relax…you guys don’t know how to enjoy a victory!

  By next year we’ll have all the stats we need on OUR separated bike lanes….and if Chris is right (as he ALWAYS IS!), then the mad rush of cyclists during those cold winter months (if we can figure out which months those are, and what the weather should be during them), will make my whole point mute anyway. I’m willing to wait if you are!

  In the meantime, Chris….as a peace offering, how about you and me going biking down Hornby during the first snow fall this winter? You can show me how it’s done!

  ____________

  Oh, and finally, one last point….without the humor….

  “Given that 10% is the number used to describe cycling use in the Kits/Fairview/MtPleasant/Strathcona areas during peak cycling periods, do you think it’s reasonable to allocate 10% of road space to self-propelled road users in warmer months?”

  Actually….Yes, I would. I wouldn’t support separated lanes in those areas (as I think there are a plethora of routes that don’t justify the need for the infrastructure), but I would be in absolute support of additional designated bike lanes in all of those areas….with ONE caveat. It HAS to coincide with an equal emphasis on transit. Cycling is not going to solve all our transportation/climate change issues…it must coincide with far more money and emphasis on transit….and I believe it should be paid for primarily with an increase in gas taxes that go solely to alternate transportation. That provides the money for the technology and infrastructure, while providing a further deterrent to driving.

• 65 A.E. // Oct 22, 2010 at 11:18 am

  @Chris, the suggestions are reasonable. I won’t be taking your bait.

• 66 Chris Keam // Oct 22, 2010 at 11:58 am

  A.E.

  No bait. Just pointing out that a license plate is not necessarily an indicator of who’s behind the wheel, or even if the driver has the appropriate skill and training to drive a vehicle. While no one I know would suggest added education for all road users is a bad thing, there are a number of reasons why a licencing and registration system for bicycles isn’t a worthwhile thing to pursue. There is quite simply lots of good reasons not to bother with this added step, and plenty of strong arguments already made to this effect. Here’s a few things worth considering:

  It presents an expensive and unnecessary impediment to low-income cyclists and youth using their bikes for transportation.

  Unfortunately, driver licencing and vehicle registration isn’t eliminating motor vehicle accidents, not sure why it would be a useful concept in curbing the relatively rare occasions when there’s a need to charge a cyclist with causing property damage and/or injury to others.

  Given the cost of registering and licencing for cars and drivers, a similar system for cyclists, pro-rated to properly reflect the overall risk to the general public represented by cyclists would come nowhere near covering the costs of administration.

  The obvious and nonsensical equivalent is to point out there is no licencing and registration requirement for pedestrians, skateboards, mobility scooters, Segways, etc. all of which are legal ways to travel in public space.

  Further, given that with some modicum of training, most children are capable of cycling without crashing, tends to suggest it’s nowhere near the kind of dangerous activity that vehicle accident rates throw into sharp relief.

  Another thing to consider is whether or not this licence will be only confined to Vancouver, the region, the province, or nationally. Will visitors from out of town will be required to pass a test to rent a bicycle?

  Also, if you start to license cyclists, it’s only a matter of time before a 14 year old with a bike license makes the connection that 16 years is an arbitrary cut-off point for a drivers’ license and finds a lawyer willing to argue that competency rather than age should be the criteria for licensing, using the fact that there are many young people authorized to use things such as farm vehicles, even though they are under 16 years of age.

  It’ a solution in search of a problem, and unfortunately too often brought up as a quid pro quo for providing safe, separated cycling facilities.

  The idea might seem reasonable on the surface, but it only requires pulling at a few loose threads to make the whole fabric of the concept unravel.

• 67 Chris Keam // Oct 22, 2010 at 12:25 pm

  Jason:

  It’s a very reasonable request to ask you to elaborate on your idea if you want to present it as something worthy of the expense. Here are the specific questions again. I hope you’ll take the time to answer them with some strong arguments for your proposal rather than exhibiting surprise that someone would expect you to have some additional information to bolster your case.

  You want to take away separate cycling lanes for the ‘winter’. Which ones and for how long? There are three separated lanes and conceivably somewhere between 2 to 6 months where the idea has any merit at all. What exactly are you proposing?

  You clearly state in post #59 that you think transit should be able to use this re-allocated lanes. Which buses use the streets where there are separated lanes? Do you have any indication that the local bus companies see a problem with the current situation?

  Regarding pedestrian safety, I have gone on the record, both in appearances before Council and online, on my own blog and in other comments, as opposing the Burrard one lane compromise because of the additional problems it creates for pedestrians. Here’s my original blog comment and a link:

  http://www.chriskeam.com/2009/05/one-lane-lament.html

  “Safety, safety, safety. That was the mantra invoked again and again. But, it’s clear the two-lane re-allocation was the safest plan. Pedestrians first. That’s the city’s official position. Yet, walkers are now to be banned from one side of the bridge. Anyone wishing to walk from the southeast side of False Creek to the northeast side on the Burrard Bridge will now have to cross more than twenty lanes of road to make the trip. Currently, they needn’t ever set foot on asphalt. If this is how we improve walking in the city I hope we never find the money or will to really improve cycling infrastructure! ”

  Feel free to retract your unfair and inaccurate portrayal of my opinion regarding pedestrian safety. It is absolutely a consideration for me.

  Regarding statistics for bike lanes and comparable cities, I would be happy to provide you with numerous examples of major metropolitan areas with separate bike lanes. Here’s a general sampler off the top of my head. New York, London, Montreal, Copenhagen. You’ll note that all these places have winters as inclement as Vancouver, if not more so. Which ones close bike lanes for the winter? Again, what time frame constitutes ‘winter’ in this context, and what portion of their separated lane network is shut down during those months?

  Since you are proposing a solution that is tied to weather and climate, it’s not the least bit unreasonable to inquire as to similar examples.

  I look forward to reviewing your answers and considering the additional context you will provide for your idea.

  best wishes,

  CK

• 68 Jason King // Oct 22, 2010 at 2:27 pm

  Chris,

  It’s lovely to see all that anger seems to have subsided a bit….I was really beginning to worry about you.

  “I hope you’ll take the time to answer them with some strong arguments for your proposal rather than exhibiting surprise that someone would expect you to have some additional information to bolster your case.”

  Ok, so Chris…I’m happy to start putting information together…just as soon as you can provide me with the following:

  Speaking specifically for you, what is the minimum % of cyclists on the road that would justify “alternate” usage for these lanes? Is there any number that would, in your mind, justify alternate usage? Please be specific, I don’t want to “twist” your words, or be accused of “manipulating” what you’re saying.

  Now we both know, Westmount in Montreal is doing a “trial” this winter and keeping their bike lanes open. Prior to that it was closed during winter and used for parking.

  http://www.montrealgazette.com/travel/Westmount+gives+parking+fees+keep+bike+lane+open+this+winter/3648334/story.html

  As you can read, they don’t know if this “trial” (and in Montreal its actually a trial, where as in Vancouver its a forgone conclusion) will be successful or not. They close Mid Nov until Spring (you know, winter time) Now again I ask, if their trial fails, and they find that not enough people are using the lane in the winter, would that have any affect on your opinion?

  We’re also going to have the Dunsmuir bike lane open all winter long this winter. Once you provide me with your acceptable “floor” for lane usage, we can then look at the stats after this winter to determine whether alternate usage makes sense. That way we don’t even have to consider what’s happened in other cities, we have stats from right here in our own! Would you also agree this is fair? Again, please be specific….don’t want to misinterpret anything!

  As I stated in my earlier post, I’m happy to wait for the stats to come in, and if ridership is low enough, look at all the possible alternative usages. Again Chris, don’t you agree that’s fair and would provide us with the best possible information?

  And as I’ve stated in previous posts, I’m actually hoping now that we’ve spent all this money that the bike lanes are a huge success and usage increases significantly. All I ask is that if the numbers are significantly low in the winter that other options are considered rather than making it sacrilegious to even suggest that the lanes be used for alternate transport in the winter.

  And Chris, I’m disappointed that my acceptance of your “challenge” to me of increased bike lanes in the summer was left unacknowledged in your previous post….Once again, I was more than happy to meet you half way…..while you still appear to be standing in the corner with your fists clenched, unwilling to accept any alternative, no matter how potentially reasonable.

  December…you, me, two bikes, and a whole lotta snow! Can’t wait!

  Lots of Love.

  JK

• 69 Chris Keam // Oct 22, 2010 at 3:03 pm

  Hi Jason;

  This is your idea. Please provide your own figures, instead of relying on others to set the criteria for you.

  I am perfectly happy with the status quo, namely having protected lanes in place on a year-round basis and have no interest in trying to define the criteria for an idea I don’t support. Clearly, as the person putting forward this concept, the onus is on you to do the work.

  “Once again, I was more than happy to meet you half way…..while you still appear to be standing in the corner with your fists clenched, unwilling to accept any alternative, no matter how potentially reasonable. ‘

  Frankly, at this point there’s no indication your alternative is potentially feasible, let alone reasonable, or even that there’s a problem in need of a solution. Best not waste your time fantasizing about where I am standing or what I’m doing with my hands, and spend a bit more time building a strong defense of your idea.

• 70 Jason King // Oct 22, 2010 at 3:50 pm

  Oh Chris….

  So you want me to build an entire case for my suggestion when you openly admit you would not even consider it. Why in god’s name would I waste my time? If no set of criteria, no matter how compelling, would in anyway sway your opinion, then what’s the point?

  I do appreciate you being honest that you are closed minded to any alternate suggestion. That was what I was stating from the beginning, it just took us awhile for you to come around to admitting it.

  “Best not waste your time fantasizing about where I am standing or what I’m doing with my hands, and spend a bit more time building a strong defense of your idea.”

  No fantasizing here Chris (although I’m sure you look smashing in bike shorts, and what exactly are you referring to with your hands?), my point was simply to determine if there was a dialogue to be had, or if one side was completely closed minded to any possible alternatives or suggestions.

  You’ve now stated clearly (or am I once again twisting your words?) that no possible argument would even be considered, so no point in you and I continuing the discussion.

  I hope to see you again on further discussions, where I will once again remain open minded to all alternatives and ideas, and where you can continue to preach your views with no possible consideration of any others.

  See you in December!

• 71 Chris Keam // Oct 22, 2010 at 4:17 pm

  Jason:

  Are the words I’m using too big for you?

  Pay attention:

  I don’t support your idea because there’s no indication that there’s a problem at this point or that your solution is even remotely workable. Actually, based upon the arguments I’ve provided you for my reasons for lack of support, it would actually make roads less safe. Further, given that traffic accidents are the number one cause of road congestion, your cure is probably worse than the disease.

  This has nothing to do with me having a closed mind. In fact, it appears at this point that I”ve given the idea more thought than it’s originator. Awkward. No wonder you won’t actually address the issues I’ve raised.

  This isn’t because I have a closed mind or an unwillingness to consider compromises. It’s, at face value, a dumb idea. Why don’t you stop evading the issue and simply spend some time expanding on your original thought? If you think this is a good idea, then it should be easy to make a good case for it. You haven’t done that, nor made any attempt to do so. Really, that speaks volumes, as does your pathetic and juvenile attempts to discredit me. If you had a strong argument, you’d bring it to the table. You have continually mis-represented what I’ve said:

  “You’ve now stated clearly (or am I once again twisting your words?) that no possible argument would even be considered, so no point in you and I continuing the discussion.”

  Really? Give me a break Jason. I’m encouraging you to come up with something worth discussing, but you seem to be unable to provide grist for the mill. You’ve embarrassed yourself, wasted my time and now you think you can cloak yourself in self-righteousness?

  Unbelievable.

• 72 Jason King // Oct 22, 2010 at 5:55 pm

  Chris,

  If one’s intention was to come on an empty message board that no one but you is reading and:

  1) antagonize you to reveal that you display all the attributes you complain about in other posters

  2) Pull out select pieces of an argument (which is your bread and butter move) that have little to do with the main argument, in order to try and discredit the person, thereby discrediting their argument.

  3) Show that you will continue to debate against anyone that does not share your point of view (no matter how ridiculous) and insist on having the final word to ensure people believe your view is the correct one

  Then that person would have proven their point effectively.

  Sorry for wasting your time…it was a slow week, I was bored, and felt like having a little fun and proving a point.

  I’m serious about the bike ride in December though….and now I think I owe you a coffee.

  Now you can have the final word….

• 73 Chris Keam // Oct 22, 2010 at 6:57 pm

  Coffee sounds great Jason. I’m going to order the fanciest one they have. Monday is the best day for me next week, or Friday.

  There’s a Cafe Artigiano on Hornby across from the Art Gallery. 10:30 work for you?

  Let me know if you can make it. I don’t want to come downtown for no good reason. You can send me a private email, call or text by clicking on my name and following the contact link. Please get in touch privately to confirm. We can talk about your idea and how it went from something you’ve been touting across a few threads now, to a clever ploy to attempt to play me for a fool. I think that’s an interesting progression worthy of further analysis.

  cheers,

  CK

• 74 Bill McCreery // Oct 23, 2010 at 12:36 am

  Sorry DC 31, I have other lives.

  You quite rightly describe the current crop of Visionistas as “….. evil, ravaging pirates, intent in all they do on destroying our fair city”. Thank you, we agree. As a regular participant in these forays I would have assumed you might have seen my mediocre attempt @ poking fun @ myself by claiming impartiality.

  & “I am really offended….” because of a professional perspective formed from very sound, rational, experienced urban design & planning experience, knowledge & principles &, imposed, opportunistic, scatter bomb density & willy nilly bike lanes are indeed, not only destructive to cohesive community building & are as such, offensive to me & a lot of others as well.

• 75 Lewis N. Villegas // Oct 23, 2010 at 10:06 am

  “I support Suzanne Anton’s position to consult before you build.”

  Bill McCreery 2

  “There was consultation before it was built including one on one meetings with the businesses that resolved many of the issues. There were also two open houses, on-line forums, an on-line survey, cards sent out to businesses and residents along Hornby. During the trial, issues can also be resolved as well.
  It looks like for some people, there is never enough consultation. Don’t forget, endless consultation is expensive for the taxpayers.”

  Richard 7

  “there is a world of difference between a bike lane, and a bike path, the former require no more than a can of paint, the later is requiring real political will since it talk of real paradigm shift in regard of road space allocation.”

  voony 25

  Not only are there cyclists “spinning” in here, but a tad of the old cross-channel rivalry. A man with my English granfather’s blue eyes, I am always more than ready to side with the Parisians. Vive la biciclette!

  I also agree with Bill, we must consult—and pay the price—before we build. The shape of that consultation process is critical, and in my humble it must proceed on the basis of concrete and verifiable facts.

  A car lane is 12.5-feet wide. We make them narrower, but that’s the standard. Clearly, we can give up a car lane for 2-way bike paths every 10 streets or so. And, it should be possible to do that and handle the problems with the right and left turns too.

  The two-way bike path on Dunsmuir measures 11-feet. The median that separates it from traffic 3-feet. If the median were just 24-inches wider, it would have been able to accommodate a row of mature urban trees, and provide an island of safety for pedestrians parking curbside against it.

  Nice to bike and to walk along a row of mature trees. They turn color in the fall, BTW, adding considerably to the resulting quality of the urban space. They also turn hydrocarbons into leaves, bark, roots, wood, etc. which is a much better way to sweeten the air than just having human lungs doing the job.

  What I am trying to suggest is that every urban intervention should be pointed towards the same goal: making good urbanism.

  We can build that with cycle paths (thanks Voony for the clarification), dedicated bus lanes, parking lanes, sidewalk cafes, village squares, fronting buildings… heck, every element of the city can be tuned up to deliver an improved human experience in a public realm—that I agree with Voony once again, is overrun with traffic.

  Therefore, when it comes time to charrette the bicycle network in Vancouver (and not just one piece at a time, lets see the whole network), the presentations and the workshops and the demonstrations should show how, at full build out, we get good urbanism.

  Now, to have a Hornby Bike Lane that puts the merchants—apparently the already-consulted-merchants—up in arms… well, that’s just not right.

• 76 Chris Keam // Oct 23, 2010 at 2:11 pm

  “Now, to have a Hornby Bike Lane that puts the merchants—apparently the already-consulted-merchants—up in arms… well, that’s just not right.”

  There’s quite a range of experienced planners and architects commenting on the Hornby bike lane in this thread. Presumably they are among the most likely candidates to offer up some examples of a separated bike lane in a commercial area that did have the blessing of businesses affected when it went in.

  For those of us who are unaware of any examples of such, it would be great to hear about them, so that we might compare the Hornby process and gain a better understanding of how it differs or falls short.

• 77 Jason King // Oct 23, 2010 at 5:28 pm

  Chris,

  1) I am happy to buy you the fanciest coffee you can find….that’s only fair. Next week isn’t good for me, but I will contact you next week to set something up for the following. That being said, I think Artiganio on Hornby is a bad choice…I don’t know if you’ve heard, but they are putting in a bike lane on that street and it’s a real mess at the moment.

  2) I should have clarified my previous comment. While my intention was to come on here and prove a point, that doesn’t mean I don’t still believe alternate usage of the bike lanes in winter is a bad idea, it just got messed in with my trouble making. More on that below.

  3) I’ll stop messing about and start fighting fair…but you have to agree to do the same…and I’m going to call you on it if I see you doing otherwise….even if it’s not with me.

  4) “examples of a separated bike lane in a commercial area that did have the blessing of businesses”

  While the Dunsmiur lane was controversial, I don’t remember businesses have nearly the visceral feeling that the Hornby merchants seem to. Yes, the DVBIA was against it, I admit…but you have to admit it just didn’t have the same complaints from the actual businesses on that street. There is a difference between businesses being “up in arms” vs. “unsupportive”….the difference may be the different traffic patterns/parking of the two streets, but it may also be implementation/consultation/etc. Just a thought.

  4) Alternate usage of bike lanes….here we go. Again, no humor, no BS, just debate.

  Ok, so I figured I’d start small and build up, as you seem to already have me endangering bicyclists, causing traffic issues, etc. with just the mere suggestion of alternate usage(I believe that’s fair representation of your views given your previous posts…but please let me know if you feel I’m overreaching with my characterization).

  So let’s start with the Burrard/Drake sections of the Hornby bike lane.

  The Macdonald bus goes right now Burrard, and I can’t seem to find any plans to move it after the bike lane goes in on the foot of Burrard. This will move Burrard from 3 lanes to 2 near in the last 2 blocks of Burrard….which will more than likely cause decent traffic backups (that street already backups regularly). So, if the Macdonald bus is continuing to go down Burrard it’s going to get stuck in traffic….which isn’t good (slowing commutes for mass transit, idling bus, etc.). So, if the Burrard bus could use the bike lane in winter, it would avoid it getting caught in congestion, and allow it to move freely in an open lane onto the bridge. No new signs, and no real changes would be required (except for perhaps removing any plastic separators between the bike lanes themselves), and the bus could simply continue down Burrard. This ensures mass transit gets the jump on traffic, and does not sit there idling. I think a small concession for a worth while result.

  Part II – Drake.

  Yes, this is a small patch, but in reading all the complaints from elderly residents of one of the buildings that is being negatively impacted by the new lane, it made me think why not allow the buses that pick these people up throughout the week, to stop in the bike lane during winter. This way the elderly residents don’t have to try and traverse the lane in the snow (yes I know the engineering department is building a raised walk way, but in the snow, and your old, that’s still an obstacle). The bus could pull into the lane while the elderly get on, and then pull out of the lane at either end of Drake.

  Ok, so there are two meager suggestions for alternate usage of the bike lanes in the snow. If I haven’t provided enough detail, please let me know….I do believe they meet both yours and Mark’s request for a detailed suggestion, and a solution to an existing problem…and I don’t believe either would require much, if any change, to the lanes themselves.

  Debate away.

• 78 Lewis N. Villegas // Oct 23, 2010 at 8:58 pm

  DVBIA was for a win-win solution to the bike lane when I hear their rep on a radio talk show.

  Chris, I think the point is to learn how to do urbanism right the first time around. There are many here that feel it is possible, but we have to change planning paradigm first.

• 79 Jason King // Oct 23, 2010 at 9:37 pm

  Lewis,

  I honestly believe that the DVBIA, CFIB, Board of Trade, etc. are for win-win scenarios. I think many simplified their views as “anti-bike lanes”, when it was rather concern for their primary constituents, businesses….they wanted to ensure that business was being properly consulted/considered in all planning and this wasn’t going to result in an adverse situation for business in downtown Vancouver.

  I believe it was possible to get business, if not totally on board, definitely not in the adversarial role they now find themselves in on Hornby St. Unfortunately this mayor/city council were more concerned with getting the bike lanes in as quickly as possible rather than work to get business on board.

  The bike lanes may prove to be revenue neutral (or even positive) for business….but that won’t change the way business felt about the way they were treated during the process.

• 80 Chris Keam // Oct 24, 2010 at 9:19 am

  So tell me if I’m wrong in my interpretation of your statements Lewis and Jason, but apparently the problem was that the current Council didn’t completely revamp the planning process before beginning putting in three bike lanes? I’m absolutely not trying to be sarcastic here, that’s what I’m getting from your comments.

  Jason:

  As to your specifics, it would seem your chief opposition to the year-round protected lane is that it’s catering to a minority, yet you are suggesting two solutions that would do just that, namely remove an important section of the protected lane for the ‘winter’ (still undefined) for roughly 60-100 bus trips five days a week (the 22 westbound every five minutes during evening rush hour) and/or provide special treatment and privileged access to public space for a select group of people for the purposes of religious observance.

  It seems to me that this isn’t addressing your core concern, simply switching beneficiaries, and importantly, reducing safety for the thousands of cyclists currently using the Burrard Bridge (over 60,000 trips last October).

  In the spirit of planning and consultation, I would assume your plan would require some feedback and input from them before moving ahead? Most importantly, the issue you still haven’t addressed is an important one. If safety is a prime concern in creating these lanes, then does it make sense to take them out at the time of year of maximum darkness and generally poor visibility and slick roads?

• 81 Jason King // Oct 24, 2010 at 10:45 am

  Chris,

  “It seems to me that this isn’t addressing your core concern, simply switching beneficiaries”

  No, I believe I’m trying to:

  a) Make use of infrastructure that will be catering to less than 1% of the population during the winter (Let’s for argument sake say Nov through Feb so you have a definition of Winter)

  b) The bike lane on Burrard accomplished your concern already. It transferred access from transit users (a large percentage of commuters) to cyclists (a smaller percentage of commuters). I’m simply suggesting that you bring the level of service back from what this lane reduced it to.

  c) You keep suggesting that this idea would somehow put bicyclists in “more” danger. I disagree. A transit driver is not going to go bolting into the lane and not take cyclists into consideration, just as MOST drivers do not go bolting into the bicycle lanes now. We’re all sharing the road, and I’m suggesting continuing this sharing. I think you’re over emphasizing risk in order to justify leaving the lane for cyclists only.

  D) “If safety is a prime concern in creating these lanes….” PERCEIVED safety Chris. I would say the lanes provide more of a perception of safety than they do real safety. Bicyclists in protected lanes cross intersections, which is the primary place accidents occur, and these lanes aren’t changing that. If you do believe the bike lanes are going to provide significant additional safety, I honestly don’t think a bus using the lane 60-100 times a day is going to reduce safety by anything less than a very marginal percentage.

  E) “Catering to a minority” is not actual my concern…and I’m not sure that transit users are truly a minority anyway. Quick and easy access to downtown Vancouver for transit users is good for business, and it’s good for Vancouver. Buses currently have “priority” on the road…I’m not actually suggesting a change, I’m suggesting the status quo rather than putting buses in a queue behind cyclists which is what this lane creates. Transit is now reduced to two lanes, significantly slowing down access for transit users.

  “current Council didn’t completely revamp the planning process”

  No, what we’re suggesting is that this city council has left businesses with the feeling they are not being listened to and they are being marginalized. Even the discussion in city hall between council and Laura Jones was arrogant and patronizing. I realize you believe that there was plenty of consultation, but business obviously doesn’t feel that way. Business doesn’t hate cyclists…in fact, many of the institutions and businesses that have been against the Hornby lane have displayed very pro cyclist attitudes over the years. Their visceral reaction suggests more than “business opposition to change” and instead anger when they feel business….which is necessary for the growth of our city/province, is not being listened to in the slightest.

  “In the spirit of planning and consultation, I would assume your plan would require some feedback and input from them before moving ahead?”

  Absolutely. I would simply hope that they wouldn’t come to the table with completely closed minds to the topic.

• 82 Chris Keam // Oct 24, 2010 at 11:48 am

  Jason:

  “a) Make use of infrastructure that will be catering to less than 1% of the population during the winter (Let’s for argument sake say Nov through Feb so you have a definition of Winter).”

  Once again, cycle commuting from the West Side represent some of the highest percentages for this mode share in the region and continues to increase, plus the Burrard Bridge protected lanes are used extensively by recreational cyclists on weekends.

  “b) The bike lane on Burrard accomplished your concern already. It transferred access from transit users (a large percentage of commuters) to cyclists (a smaller percentage of commuters). I’m simply suggesting that you bring the level of service back from what this lane reduced it to.”

  Please provide some substantive proof that the #22 has reduced the level of service along its route due to the protected lanes. The bus continues to use the bridge, there is no reduction in access, esp since the two lanes are proving more than sufficient to handle traffic volumes.

  “c) You keep suggesting that this idea would somehow put bicyclists in “more” danger. I disagree.”

  I would point to the traffic accident statistics as ample proof that roads are more dangerous in dark, wet conditions. If you think otherwise, please tell me where I might find some information to support your opposition to this presumption.

  “Even the discussion in city hall between council and Laura Jones was arrogant and patronizing. ”

  Ms Jones gave a presentation long on rhetoric and very short on data. Her presentation was accorded as much respect as any of the other presenters I witnessed speaking to the issue, but unfortunately she failed to provide any substantive answers to the completely reasonable and valid questions raised by Councillors.

  “Their visceral reaction suggests more than “business opposition to change” and instead anger when they feel business….which is necessary for the growth of our city/province, is not being listened to in the slightest.”

  Every business along the street was consulted and the budget for the project increased by 33% to address their issues.

  Other than your Montreal example (now no longer really to the point, since they are not closing lanes this winter) where can I find some examples of the bi-annual reduction in bicycle lanes you feel is necessary?

• 83 Chris Keam // Oct 24, 2010 at 11:50 am

  sorry, annual reduction in bicycle lanes. I meant to also make a point that the lane change-over will occur twice a year.

• 84 Jason King // Oct 24, 2010 at 5:10 pm

  Chris,

  I’ll try and address all your points.

  “Once again, cycle commuting from the West Side represent some of the highest percentages for this mode share in the region and continues to increase”

  It’s still an incredibly small percentage using the downtown lanes, especially in Winter, and is significantly smaller than transit users for downtown commuting.

  Please provide some substantive proof that the #22 has reduced the level of service along its route due to the protected lanes.”

  You and I both know this is impossible because the lane hasn’t been finished yet. HOWEVER, Burrard is one of the most congested routes in downtown Vancouver already. During rush hour going South, Burrard is often backed up to Nelson (or farther). The bike lane will now take out an entire lane going onto the bridge…I don’t think its physically possible for that NOT to a) slow down traffic/increase idling and therefore b) significantly slow down the #22

  In addition to this, when the Dunsmuir lane went in they moved 90% of the buses off that route. One may conclude that this was for the same reason…concern about the ability for the bus to quickly get through traffic with an entire lane removed.

  “I would point to the traffic accident statistics as ample proof that roads are more dangerous in dark, wet conditions. If you think otherwise, please tell me where I might find some information to support your opposition to this presumption.”

  Actually Chris, I never stated otherwise….you’re making up an argument here. The reality is that if the bike lane does indeed make cyclist more safe, then the lane will STILL make cyclists more safe by having a bus use it as well. So if there is in increase in safety due to the bike lane, then adding a bus is not going to significantly decrease this improvement, no matter the time of year.

  “Ms Jones gave a presentation long on rhetoric and very short on data. ”

  I’m not going to debate this point, but what I will say is that she is the main representative of a substantial business group in Vancouver. When you have business already feeling like they are being ignored by this council/mayor, treating her with disrespect CERTAINLY doesn’t help matters. Perception becomes the reality if you continue to treat the representatives of a constituent group disrespectfully.

  “Every business along the street was consulted and the budget for the project increased by 33% to address their issues.”

  Chris, you can say this until you’re blue in the face….you’d be hard pressed to find a business on Horby or a business group in Vancouver who feels the same way….so either the “consultation” has been significantly overstated, or the consultation was far less than business expected. Either way, it’s a problem.

  “where can I find some examples of the bi-annual reduction in bicycle lanes you feel is necessary”

  You like to use this one Chris, but you and I both know it’s a disingenuous debating ploy. If I don’t provide an example that fits you simply go “AH HA! Well then, if no one else has done it doesn’t that tell you something!”….when in actual fact, it doesn’t. No progress would be made if everyone with a new idea had to find a previous example….I can also provide a plethora of examples of extremely poor urban planning…does having an example of those make them right? No, it doesn’t…so how about we stop playing games.

  That being said, let me also point out that many of the European cities one might use as examples have superb underground transit and therefore don’t have the problem we have. We have a substantial above ground transit system that relies on the ability to get through traffic….it means traffic changes can significantly alter the availability of transit, thereby negatively affecting a large % of those commuting in and out of downtown Vancouver.

  In addition, I just spent a couple weeks in Barcelona, and I can tell you that their lanes ARE multi-use. I walked the city for days and could not find one separated lane that didn’t appear to also be used by Mopeds and cabs. Whether they were supposed to use these lanes or not is kind of irrelevant….they were all doing it and no one was stopping them. It might be that policing is incredibly liberal, but it suggests that perhaps cyclists can coexist with other modes of traffic without it resulting in the massive decrease in safety you seem to suggest.

• 85 Lewis N. Villegas // Oct 25, 2010 at 12:06 am

  “If safety is a prime concern in creating these lanes, then does it make sense to take them out at the time of year of maximum darkness and generally poor visibility and slick roads?”

  You are not being a good urbanist, Chris. Design is not about using facts to win the day, good design is about accommodation. You know, the other guy and the other gal, too.

  For short lengths, under special conditions, sharing a bike lane would seem like a damn good idea. The safety issue is going to be determined by the habits that the people using the public right of way develop. I’m sure cyclists and buses could learn to travel a stretch of road together with very little problem.

• 86 Dan Cooper // Oct 25, 2010 at 9:46 am

  @Bill McCreery #74. “As a regular participant in these forays I would have assumed you might have seen my mediocre attempt @ poking fun @ myself by claiming impartiality,” you wrote.

  Ah! I did miss that this was ironic. My bad.

• 87 Sean // Oct 25, 2010 at 12:29 pm

  @AE #54

  “All users of the road should be … required to purchase insurance …”

  I suggest you go to an insurance agent and inquire about buying “cyclist liability insurance”. The answer may surprise you – there is NO SUCH THING.

  Motorists are required to carry specific insurance because of the very large amount of damage they cause. Bicycles cause so little damage overall that they’re not required to be insured and in fact no insurance company I’m aware of actually sells liability insurance specifically for cyclists even if they want it. ICBC certainly doesn’t.

  An insurance agent will advise you that any damage caused by a cyclist is normally included in their household or renter’s insurance. So for the majority of cyclists on the road who have such insurance, their liability is already covered.

  It IS possible for a cyclist (or anyone else for that matter) to buy “under insured motorist protection” so that the CYCLIST can be compensated if struck by a motorist without enough liability coverage. ICBC sells $2,000,000 of coverage for $25/year. This covers you whether you’re cycling, walking, or riding as a passenger in someone else’s car.

• 88 Jason King // Oct 25, 2010 at 1:00 pm

  Just to add my two cents to the insurance/licensing debate…

  I don’t think cyclists should have to do either.

  I think a lot of debate about the cycle lanes has trickled over into “anger” suggestions. People who have had bad run ins with cyclists and want some sort of recourse. But I don’t think licensing or insurance is the answer…just good policing of stated laws should deal with 95% of the complaints.

  My daughters can’t drive a car, but they can ride a bike….I don’t think we want to head down a path as a society where that changes because we over regulate an activity that for the VAST majority of people is harmless and recreational.

  There are crappy drivers, and there are crapping cyclists…but even going full speed, the damage done by a bike is extremely marginal compared to a car. And again, I don’t think it’s even the damage caused by a bicycle that anyone is complaining about….it’s about abusive cyclists/cyclists breaking the law/etc. and again, good policing can deal with all of this.

  Just my 2 cents.

• 89 Dan Cooper // Oct 25, 2010 at 3:41 pm

  Speaking of enforcement, I wrote somewhere on this blog recently that although I couldn’t say it doesn’t happen, I had never seen random police enforcement of traffic laws for drivers, bicyclists, or pedestrians in Vancouver, but only the occasional speed or stop-sign trap. Well, today as I was driving along for work, I saw an unmarked police car pull someone over at Cambie and 16th.

  Just keeping the record straight!

• 90 Richard // Oct 25, 2010 at 5:56 pm

  @Lewis N. Villegas
  Buses and cyclists sharing the same lane is just a bad idea. Just try cycling or taking a bus on Pender Street and see what I mean.

  Buses are faster than cyclists between stops so having cyclists in the same lane slows cyclists down. At the stops, cyclists must wait behind the bus, which is a pain, or they have to pull into a lane of traffic to pass the bus. Then repeat for every bus stop. Cyclists and buses “playing” leapfrog down a street is inconvenient and not very safe.

• 91 Jason King // Oct 25, 2010 at 7:06 pm

  Richard,

  Your argument essential boils down to “it’s inconvenient”, which to me is a horrible argument for why cyclists shouldn’t share the same lane with a bus from time to time.

  As a driver, it’s not “convenient” when a bus has priority to pull into my lane and make me stop, it’s not convenient when the bus has priority and I don’t….it’s not convenient when I’m stuck behind a big bus and can’t see what’s ahead of me in traffic…but guess what, too bad for me. Transit SHOULD have priority…it’s an essential part of our transportation system…to say its a “pain” that a cyclist or two may have to temporarily stop behind a bus full of people seems to me INCREDIBLY self centered.

  As far as safety is concerned, cyclists now have an entire lane separating them from cars….I think sharing that lane with transit in order to ensure transit doesn’t get backed up in traffic is a very small price to pay.

  Cyclists need to decide whether it’s all about making the city better for cyclists, or if it’s about making the city better in general.

• 92 Sean // Oct 25, 2010 at 8:01 pm

  @Jason, #91

  I think the problem is that the pace of the bus and a typical cyclist (well, my pace anyway) is very similar and so you get the same bus/cyclist conflict occurring over and over again every other block.

  As a cyclist it feels very unsafe because you’re forced to pass the buses by veering into the non-shared lane (where cars don’t really expect you to be), and for the bus driver I’m sure its frustrating because s/he ends up having to repeatedly wait for or maneuver around the same cyclist block after block. So the shared lane ends up not being a very good bike lane and not a very good transit lane.

  And in terms of encouraging cycling, it really does suck, big time. There’s just no comparison with the sense of safety you get with a separated lane.

  If we could get some comparative numbers on the volume of cyclists on Pender Street vs. Dunsmuir I’m pretty sure you’ll find that very few cyclists are willing to jockey for position with the buses.

• 93 Jason King // Oct 25, 2010 at 10:08 pm

  I’m honestly flabbergasted.

  I have to say, never in my wildest dreams would I have thought that the pro-bike lane/cyclist community, who made grand statements about sharing the road, and thinking green, and being progressive, would be the same ones to complain about sharing 2 1/2 blocks with a bus because it’s inconvenient.

  Sean/Richard I hope you stop and consider what you’re saying, because it really comes off badly. It suggests that all the grand statements that were made by the cycling community in order to justify the lanes in the first place all get thrown out the window when CYCLISTS might have to give up something.

  As I have stated before….I mostly drive my car…but I am all for transit getting priority on the road, I’m all for raising gas taxes to go towards transit, I’m all for my tax dollars being spent on transit…because I believe it’s in EVERYONE’s best interest, even if it’s not in my own.

  As a driver I have stop and give priority to a bus….I have to share the road with a bus…I think a cyclists can do the same. Especially when we’re talking about 2 1/2 blocks.

  And Sean, a bus doesn’t go at my pace either….but I deal with it.

• 94 Sean // Oct 25, 2010 at 11:59 pm

  @Jason # 93

  “I have to say, never in my wildest dreams would I have thought that the pro-bike lane/cyclist community, who made grand statements about sharing the road, and thinking green, and being progressive, would be the same ones to complain about sharing 2 1/2 blocks with a bus because it’s inconvenient.”

  I don’t know what the exact numbers are, but in fact the vast majority of bike routes in Vancouver actually do share space with cars. Its viable because they’re mostly on local traffic calmed streets. Unfortunately those kind of streets just don’t exist in the downtown core.

  I’m not sure if you’ve had to bike in downtown traffic much (or at all), but it’s very intimidating. A lot of cycling detractors complain about cyclists on the sidewalk – try to imagine the discomfort pedestrians feel when that happens and then multiply it by a factor of several and throw in the very real possibility of being killed in the process. There’s a huge number of people – probably the majority of those who own bikes – who wouldn’t even think of cycling under those circumstances. And here you are basically saying that they should just suck it up.

  The great thing about the separated bike lanes downtown is that they do such a good job of increasing both real and perceived safety – and they do it with negligible impact on transit because there was very little transit presence on those streets to start with.

  And in all likelihood the separated lanes will substantially reduce the number of cyclists on busy transit routes like Pender Street (which incidentally is a shared bus/cycle lane for a heckuva lot longer than 2-1/2 blocks) and therefore contribute at least a little to speeding up transit service on those routes.

  Sorry Jason, but you’re not convincing me that I’m being completely unreasonable.

• 95 Jason King // Oct 26, 2010 at 9:29 am

  “There’s a huge number of people – probably the majority of those who own bikes – who wouldn’t even think of cycling under those circumstances.”

  Actually Sean, what I’m proposing is that for a 2 1/2 block stretch of Burrard, one of the busiest corridors in Vancouver, that the bike lane be shared with the #22 Macdonald bus. Nothing changes with the bike lanes – they are still separated, and your perceived/actual safety is not decreased by any significant margin. All you have to do is share the lane with a bus that runs approx. every 15 mins down that stretch.

  Is that really too much to ask? Really?

  And quite honestly Sean, I’m not really surprised that I can’t convince you you’re being unreasonable. If I felt that buses full of people should take a back seat behind me, a lone cyclist, I probably wouldn’t be easily convinced that I’m being unreasonable either.

  Be sure to wave to all those people on the Macdonald bus who are stuck in traffic Sean as you go cruising by in a lane you don’t want to share…I’m sure you’ll get a warm response.

• 96 Sean // Oct 26, 2010 at 10:42 am

  @Jason #95

  “Actually Sean, what I’m proposing is that for a 2 1/2 block stretch of Burrard, one of the busiest corridors in Vancouver, that the bike lane be shared with the #22 Macdonald bus.”

  OK, I guess that’s my bad for having missed your earlier post. I’m still a little confused about the “2-1/2 blocks”, though – it looks to me that there’s only 1 block on Burrard between Drake and Pacific? What am I missing?

  And you know for that one block, as long as:

  - the bike lane is one-way southbound,
  - there are no bus stops in the block, and
  - there’s still physical separation between that lane and the other traffic lanes

  …I personally don’t have a problem sharing it with a relatively infrequent bus. My biggest concern is that if a bus can get into the lane then cars and trucks can too. I’d be a bit worried that queue-jumpers would have a field day with it. But as far as the general idea of letting buses use it, I could live with that.

  In fact I’ll go you one further – if it really is a one-way bike lane, I could live with making it narrower than a full traffic lane for that block. It looks to me like it would be possible to trim the sidewalk back a foot or two and have a narrower, physically separated lane in that block while still maintaining southbound three traffic lanes.

  But that’s just me – I don’t hold myself out as a representative of the cycling community at large and I’m certainly not a traffic engineer who understands all the ramifications of something like that.

• 97 Jason King // Oct 26, 2010 at 11:48 am

  Sean,

  I take back what I said…you’re being reasonable.

  From what I can tell from the plans (and looking at it on the street) it appears the new lane goes from Pacific, up until Drake….that’s about 2 1/2 blocks. I think you are right about it being one way, as from what I can tell going North you’d follow the Burrard street bridge lane all the way to Hornby.

  I think the lane is going to be too wide not to reduce a lane of traffic, meaning that traffic will be giving up a lane.

  Not that you or I have any say over this matter…but it is nice to see a regular cyclist who feels “compromise” is possible.

• 98 Mark Allerton // Oct 26, 2010 at 2:04 pm

  @Sean – Google maps is your friend here. There was a bus stop just before the bridge, southbound, between Harwood & Pacific. But, if you check the detailed CoV plan you will see it is being relocated north of Drake.

  http://vancouver.ca/engsvcs/transport/cycling/separated/pdf/2_Pacific_Davie.pdf

  The bus won’t have to stop along the portion of Burrard where the bike lane is. And since there are only two traffic lanes on the bridge itself, the net result of this change as far as the 22 is concerned is that it has to merge to the right half a block earlier.

  I somehow doubt this will be a “wedge issue” for the next election

• 99 Mark Allerton // Oct 26, 2010 at 2:12 pm

  PS: I notice that the latest plan for Drake incorporates a section to accommodate the Anchor Point loading zone. The formwork for the concrete was changed last week (I ride past here every weekday.)

  It’s almost as if… the City was taking account of the needs of residents. But given the conviction of some commenters here I am sure it’s all just a Vision ploy, and the space will be occupied 24/7 by a Happy Planet food cart staffed entirely by Hollyhock visitors working off their bills.

• 100 Jason King // Oct 26, 2010 at 3:41 pm

  Mark,

  While a Happy Planet food cart staffed entirely by Hollyhock visitors would not entirely surprise me (kidding)…I’m glad the city is listening to them….

  However, this may suggest that there might not have been quite the level of planning and consultation in advance of the Hornby bike lane that has been suggested by others in previous posts….

  And please let it be known that despite my dislike of Gregor and Vision, I have not let this trickle over into my juice buying….my daughter is a fan of happy planet, and I will not deny her juice just because I don’t like one of the original investors.

• 101 IanS // Oct 28, 2010 at 1:06 pm

  I come bearing facts.

  The September numbers are now available for the Burrard Bridge bike lane. Unless my math is off (always possible), they show a 7.1% decrease from bike use on the bridge in 2009.

  To put this in context, here is my assessment of the numbers for cycle use on the Burrard Bridge (again, subject to being corrected on the math):

  JUNE 16 – JULY 10
  2009 (pre-separated lane): 3775 / day
  2010 (post separated lane): 4296 / day
  - increase of 521 cyclists / day (13.8% increase)

  All other figures are post installation:

  JULY 13 – 31
  2009 – 5536 / day
  2010 – 5617
  - increase of 81 cyclists / day (1.4% increase)

  AUGUST 1 – 31
  2009 – 4207 / day
  2010 – 4494 / day
  - increase of 287 cyclists / day (6.8% increase)

  SEPTEMBER 1 – 30
  2009 – 3576 / day
  2010 – 3322 / day
  - decrease of 254 cyclists / day (7.1% decrease)

  Of course it’s not possible to tell how much of this is weather related. Just as the higher increase in August 2009/2010 might be related to better weather in August 2010, the lower figures in September 2009 / 2010 may be related to a worse weather in September 2010.

• 102 spartikus // Oct 28, 2010 at 2:38 pm

  I, too, come bearing facts. Or at least to inform you the Courier has more information about the spike of car accidents in July and August of 2009.

  The gist: Rear-end fender benders, from the post-bike lane merge lane is the culprit. A redesign is underway.

• 103 IanS // Oct 28, 2010 at 3:42 pm

  @Spartikus,

  So it’s pretty much what we discussed when the ICBC statistics first became available (albeit in a rather sensationalized form in the Province), ie. the alteration in traffic patterns to accommodate the bike lane on the bridge resulted in a spike in vehicle accidents for a couple of months, but the accident rates have since gone more or less back to their pre-bike lane levels.

  So, as far as the available data shows, the separated bike lane only resulted in an increase in accidents for a couple of months.

• 104 Lewis N. Villegas // Oct 29, 2010 at 7:21 am

  “Buses and cyclists sharing the same lane is just a bad idea. Just try cycling or taking a bus on Pender Street and see what I mean.

  Buses are faster than cyclists between stops so having cyclists in the same lane slows cyclists down. At the stops, cyclists must wait behind the bus, which is a pain, or they have to pull into a lane of traffic to pass the bus. Then repeat for every bus stop. Cyclists and buses “playing” leapfrog down a street is inconvenient and not very safe.”

  Richard 90

  OK I’m an infrequent visitor here. I agree Richard, mixing is not a good option.

  However, what we were saying, without looking at the space, walking, biking, and talking to bus drivers, was that for one block a bike lane might take on special characteristics without it becoming a safety issue.

  Interesting to see others see flexibility as an option as well.

  If we are going to have a bike network, we better be ready to embrace complexity and invention at key points along the way. Not suggesting it’s the solution every time. Suggesting it is a tool in the kit.

Leave a Comment