Just had lunch with SFU urban-studies program director Anthony Perl, who was beyond dismayed with council’s decision to opt for a one-lane bike trial Thursday. Perl says he’s now come to believe the city needs an advocate for pedestrians, as exists on Portland’s city planning staff, since they are the group that now has to take the hit to provide space for bikes. Perl points out that it’s not cyclists but, in fact, walkers who are the fastest-growing share of transportation modes in the city. That’s thanks to the city’s overall move to create a residential-heavy downtown. But, other than that and the seawall, the city has done little to improve their lives. Perl, a transportation expert, says cities improve when its leaders make decisive moves, not when they tinker with things and hope that the results will give them evidence that they can be a little bolder.
He notes that, in New York, when Mayor Michael Bloomberg decided to make the city more pedestrian friendly, he simply shut down Park Avenue from the bridge to the park every Sunday last summer. He didn’t fool around by shutting down one lane and seeing whether that went over okay. Perl also points to Ken Livingstone in London as a key figure in, as he phrases it, “putting an an end to road socialism by launching the congestion charge.”
Perl says that many studies have shown that when road space is reduced, what happens — against all intuition — is that traffic flow improves because drivers make more of an effort to search for other options, whether it’s a different driving route, a different way of transporting themselves, or different choices about where they really need to go.
Interestingly, Perl and I were sitting next to the main advocate for no bike-lane trial (or at least not an immediate one): Charles Gauthier, of the Downtown Business Vancouver Improvement Association. This is such a tiny town. No hostilities ensued and the lunch showed that we all had one thing in common: an appreciation for Italian food.
61 responses so far ↓
1 Forthingham // May 8, 2009 at 2:55 pm
Totally agree. Sidewalks for Pedestrians. and Bike lanes for cyclists… I don’t like cycling across the Burrard bridge on the sidewalk.
Council should have created special bike lanes by reducing the number of car lanes to tow each way. It would have changed car-drivers behavior. And besides there is no reason why more people who travel work downtown coming from west of the bridge for using the buses.
2 Not Running for Mayor // May 8, 2009 at 3:46 pm
I remember when a former city planner was asked by an visiting planner about what they planned on doing to increase transit, the response was if we did a good enough job in planning communities we won’t even need transit and we could walk everywhere.
Hopefully that’s the still the ulimate goal, knowing it can never be reached but it should remain what we strive for.
3 Lewis N. Villegas // May 8, 2009 at 6:11 pm
As long as we make it a reversible experiment we should all have a look and try to learn something from it.
4 Darcy McGee // May 8, 2009 at 6:25 pm
Pedestrians aren’t taking “…the hit to provide space for bicycles.” Pedestrians aren’t losing space.
Currently there are two “sidewalks” each divided in half. Pedestrians have half of each, and cyclists have half of each.
Under the trial plan pedestrians will have 1 complete sidewalk. Now my math skills are pretty good, and it doesn’t take a calculator to figure out that 1/2 + 1/2 = 1.
So they’re not providing space, but their movement pattern is shifting.
But YES, a pedestrian advocate is needed, but that statement is patently false.
What needs to happen, big picture, is that “transportation” has to stop meaning “cars and other stuff’ and start meaning ‘how do we help people get where they’re going.’
And yes, sometimes that will involve cars..at least for my forseeable future.
5 Wayne // May 8, 2009 at 6:28 pm
I’m pleased Anthony Perl made a statement on the matter. In my opinion the one lane option is a fairly gutless compromise. After waiting for something like a decade and a half for something to be done this is a lame outcome. If this is our new ‘green’ council they have to do a lot better than this.
6 Len B // May 8, 2009 at 7:41 pm
Allow me to reiterate my position that this is an old idea that was never popular, never going to please everyone and there was a reason why in 15 years this didn’t happen until now.
It was a bad idea all along and to continue beating this drum is just making everyone upset. There is no need for the divisiveness this issue creates.
Mayor/council need to start considering other options, such as a pedestrian and/or cycling bridge, wage a design contest to deal with the challenges and cost issues, and start building consensus among all groups and modes of transport.
Council could ram this through and construction could start in summer 2010.
It’s time to stop making excuses and get on with a new direction and realize this issue has lived longer than it should have.
Lets start working on bringing everyone together instead of dividing everyone apart.
7 Len B // May 8, 2009 at 7:43 pm
Further to my above comment, I believe there would be enough interest that fund-raising efforts could be launched to generate some or all of the funds needed for this project.
8 gmgw // May 9, 2009 at 12:13 am
I would love to see the reaction of Charles Gauthier if Gregor was to unilaterally order that, say, Robson from Seymour to Denman be shut down to car traffic every Sunday for the summer. Gauthier would be storming the next Council meeting at the head of a column of DVBIA guerillas armed with M-16s.
Perl is right. Vancouver lags far behind other cities in finding ways to encourage pedestrian traffic. Perl errs, though, in assuming it’s valid to apply any study of traffic flow made in cities such as Toronto, New York, or London to the vancouver situation. Why? Simple. Those cities have extensive and efficient rapid-transit infrastructure which compensates for any reduction in access to their core areas by car. What alternatives do Vancouverites have? 1) A hopelessly overtaxed and inefficient transit system; 2) Bicycles, suitable only for the able-bodied and physically fit; 3) Shank’s mare, which comes with its own, obvious limitations… to cite only one example, no one is about to walk from Marpole to downtown and back every day (not many would even care to bike that distance– I walked it, once, a few years ago, and am not anxious to repeat the experience). I haven’t mentioned Segways, which are little more than a bad joke.
It will be instructive to watch what happens when the Canada Line starts running in September(?) and all intercity bus service to and from the communities south of the Fraser, including the heavily used 98 B-Line (which does yeoman service in providing a handy express service for Vancouverites travelling to and from downtown along the Granville corridor, thereby taking some pressure off the overburdened trollies), is suspended. People in the southern ‘burbs, including mayors, have been screaming loud and long about the impending elimination of these services, but to no avail. As things stand, commuters who are now able to ride non-stop from far-flung locales like White Rock and South Delta (or Richmond, for that matter) will now be taken on a time-consuming detour over to #3 Road in Richmond where they will have to pile off their nice warm bus and be forced to wait for the next Canada Line train. This will be especially problematic for people traveling to *or* from the city late in the evening, when service will be slower. All of this is being done, of course, to ensure that the two-billion-or-so spent on the Canada Line does not go to waste thanks to those who are unwilling to alter their transit habits.
There have been many predictions that, at least initially, a lot of disgruntled south-of-the-Fraser commuters are going to strike a blow for self-determination by going back to their cars, thereby creating massive congestion on the 99 corridor in the morning and evening rush hours. Personally, I think that if that revolt happens, it’s likely to last only a short time before those commuters tire of said congestion– not to mention big-city parking rates– and go crawling back to transit, their tails between their legs. In the interim, however, this may provide an excellent opportunity for Anthony Perl to test his theories.
If I was to launch into the topic of pedestrian safety and the difficulties faced daily by pedestrians in this town, I would be here all night, and I’ve used up enough of Frances’ bandwidth already today. But I will repeat what I’ve said before about the Granville Bridge, if only because I know it so well. Each of the crosswalks crossing each of the bridge’s on-and-offramps is a potential deathtrap for pedestrians (some are worse than others), and the prospect, recently raised in this blog and elsewhere (some are even enthused about the idea!), that the anticipated congestion on the Burrard bridge due to the closure of one of its lanes will lead to an increase in car traffic on the Granville bridge makes my blood run cold. The Granville bridge would make an excellent case study for anyone seriously wanting to explore ways of enhancing the “pedestrianability” (ouch) of Vancouver, and the sooner the better.
One last note: I find it a bit odd that Anthony Perl would say that Vancouver “needs a pedestrian advocate”. There are a number of people in this city who have played that role over the years, and who have consistently met with apathy and sometimes even hostility from the people who run Vancouver, both in and out of City Hall. The most visible and vocal of these folks is undoubtedly Bev Ballantyne, who I mentioned in another thread yesterday; Bev and her “Putting Pedestrians First” group have been front-and-centre on pedestrian-related causes for many years. I haven’t talked to Bev in some years but the last time I did talk to her she admitted to having developed a certain level of cynicism after fighting the good fight for so long with so little to show for it. Bev tends to rub a a lot of people the wrong way; she can be abrasive, and does not suffer fools gladly– and there are an extraordinary number of fools in positions of power in Vancouver– and she speaks bluntly and directly, without making much of an effort to put a diplomatic or deferential spin on her words. She doesn’t put a lot of value on compromise. But even so, her work and expertise are invaluable. I can’t think of anyone in this city who knows more about pedestrian-related issues, and if Perl is at all serious about pedestrian advocacy, the first person he should talk to (if he hasn’t already) is Bev Ballantyne, ’cause she’s already been out there on the front lines of the cause for a good long time.
If you Google “Bev Ballantyne”, “pedestrian” and “Vancouver”, you will find a number of mentions of her; you will also find this item, which, despite being eight years old, seems very germane to the current discussion (this really ain’t a new topic, folks):
http://www.vcn.bc.ca/spec/spec/documents/pedsafety.pdf
gmgw
9 Chris Keam // May 9, 2009 at 6:57 am
Marpole (Oak and 70th) to BC Place according to driving directions provided by Google Maps – 8.9 kilometres. About a two hour walk. Less than an hour on a bike going slow, probably about a half hour for the average cyclist. Lots of people bike that distance every day. Best case scenario in a car is a 13 minute trip (according to Google). You’ll probably spend 15 minutes finding parking and walking to your final destination, not to mention the extra time one must work to pay for the expense of driving.
Don’t presume to speak for people please. Your lack of willingness to make a small change for our childrens’ future is not universal.
Bicycles are for almost everyone. In fact there are even hand-cycles for those who have lost the use of their legs. Designed and built right here in B.C. I might add. The mental barriers erected by those of little gumption or imagination, combined with the very real physical barriers of poor cycling facilities are what separate us from other cities where more people bike.
I know disabled people that bike. Fat people bike. Children bike. Grandmas bike. Don’t perpetuate myths. Charitably, it’s misinformation. Honestly, it’s a damn lie to say that cycling is only for the physically fit. The reality is lots of people (like myself) start out unfit, get back on our bikes after a long hiatus and lo and behold find ourselves shopping for pants a couple sizes smaller after a while. Anyone can natter negatively from the sidelines. Some, like the clearly overweight woman cycling on 10th ave that I pedaled past yesterday, put paid to your supposition and demonstrate that not everyone has been so softened by our culture that moderate exercise as a part of their daily life is an insurmountable obstacle. Sorry, I could be polite, but you’re spreading lies and therefore don’t get the privilege of courtesy.
Yes, damn right we need a pedestrian advocate and better transit and more bike routes. What we don’t need are discounted theories and falsehoods.
10 Chris Keam // May 9, 2009 at 6:58 am
Oh yeah, Ms. Ballantyne has been a boon to our city. As they say, no good deed goes unpunished.
11 gmgw // May 9, 2009 at 8:43 am
Geez, I should have known that if I said “Marpole” instead of, say, “Chilliwack”, some iron-thewed macho peabrain would start thumping his chest and bellowing about how he bikes to downtown from Cloverdale every day, in the fast lane of the freeway no less, and anyone who says they can’t is an effing pussy. Why hello there, Chris Keam! We were just talking about you…
More seriously: You can disagree with me, CK, but y0ur overt hostility and aggression cancels out whatever moral authority you might bring to bear on the subject. Moreover, you have no right to call me a liar.What *is* this crap you’re hysterically spewing? My “lack of willingness to make a change for our children’s future”?!? “Discounted theories”?? (I think the word you were struggling to remember may have been “opinions”.) Say *what*?? I said *that*?? Your Aryanesque, strength-through-joy written assault is the verbal equivalent of McGee’s “brushback” tactic. Both are hostile, aggressive, potentially dangerous bullying tactics, aimed at people who inadvertently stray into the path of two-wheeled fascists like yourselves. I fervently hope that guys like you two don’t speak for the entire bicycling community, because all that would accomplish is to tar said community as a-holes. This does not exactly serve to advance the sacredness of your cause.
There’s a very big difference, physically, between fat people, children, and grandmas who go for a Sunday bike ride with their families and guys like you who are able to bike ten miles a day to and from work every day, without breaking a sweat. If you ever climb down off that high horse (so to speak) you’re riding and take a good look around at the rest of us, you might actually come to understand that.
By the way, you self-righteous twat, I have a question for you. I have degenerative arthritis in both knees, and there are days when I can barely get up (or down) a flight of stairs without experiencing knee pain. My wife has fibromyalgia and sometimes an hour of exercise can leave her in pain for several days (and sometimes not, thank god). What model of bike would you recommend for us?? Or should we just surrender ourselves to the Fitness Police, be taken off to bicycle training camp and forcibly re-educated until we, too, are made to understand the innate superiority of bicyclism (or else)? As long as guys like you (and guys like you are almost always guys) insist on hogging the podium, the chances of this city developing an integrated, egalatarian approach to the devlopment of practical alternative methods of trnsporation are almost nil.
Enough time wasted on you. See you at the next Critical Mass rally, CK…
gmgw
12 gmgw // May 9, 2009 at 8:43 am
Geez, I should have known that if I said “Marpole” instead of, say, “Chilliwack”, some iron-thewed macho peabrain would start thumping his chest and bellowing about how he bikes to downtown from Cloverdale every day, in the fast lane of the freeway no less, and anyone who says they can’t is an effing pussy. Why hello there, Chris Keam! We were just talking about you…
More seriously: You can disagree with me, CK, but y0ur overt hostility and aggression cancels out whatever moral authority you might bring to bear on the subject. Moreover, you have no right to call me a liar.What *is* this crap you’re hysterically spewing? My “lack of willingness to make a change for our children’s future”?!? “Discounted theories”?? (I think the word you were struggling to remember may have been “opinions”.) Say *what*?? I said *that*?? Your Aryanesque, strength-through-joy written assault is the verbal equivalent of McGee’s “brushback” tactic. Both are hostile, aggressive, potentially dangerous bullying tactics, aimed at people who inadvertently stray into the path of two-wheeled fascists like yourselves. I fervently hope that guys like you two don’t speak for the entire bicycling community, because all that would accomplish is to tar said community as a-holes. This does not exactly serve to advance the sacredness of your cause.
There’s a very big difference, physically, between fat people, children, and grandmas who go for a Sunday bike ride with their families and guys like you who are able to bike ten miles a day to and from work every day, without breaking a sweat. If you ever climb down off that high horse (so to speak) you’re riding and take a good look around at the rest of us, you might actually come to understand that.
By the way, you self-righteous twat, I have a question for you. I have degenerative arthritis in both knees, and there are days when I can barely get up (or down) a flight of stairs without experiencing knee pain. My wife has fibromyalgia and sometimes an hour of exercise can leave her in pain for several days (and sometimes not, thank god). What model of bike would you recommend for us?? Or should we just surrender ourselves to the Fitness Police, be taken off to bicycle training camp and forcibly re-educated until we, too, are made to understand the innate superiority of bicyclism (or else)? As long as guys like you (and guys like you are almost always guys) insist on hogging the podium, the chances of this city developing an integrated, egalatarian approach to the devlopment of practical alternative methods of trnsporation are almost nil.
Enough time wasted on you. See you at the next Critical Mass rally, CK…
gmgw
13 gmgw // May 9, 2009 at 8:47 am
Sorry about the double posting there, everyone. I had no idea that would happen if you inadvertently clicked twice (time for a talk with your webmaster, Frances).
gmgw
14 Stephanie // May 9, 2009 at 9:30 am
I am completely with gmgw here. It’s always seemed that a significant portion of the cycling lobby is composed of terminally superior, lifestyle-choice-fetishizing jerkwads, and Chris has just provided us with a perfect example of why that’s the case.
It’s absolutely true that some older folks, folks living with disabilities, etc., cycle – but it’s not a reasonable mode for transportation for many people. His easy dismissal of the challenges people face betrays a complete lack of respect for those people and those challenges.
My partner works at a terribly difficult job – it’s heavy physical labour, and he comes home from work exhausted. He has arthritis and is in chronic pain. Listening to some ableist, classist jerkoff imply that my partner can get stuffed because he’s apparently too lazy to pick up a bike makes me see red.
And never mind whether folks have physical challenges – I think of hospital workers getting off graveyard shifts, janitors, garment workers, all the city’s invisible workers, the ones who don’t have offices and showers, who do gruelling, exhausting labour every day – apparently their desire to take a safe, comfortable form of transportation home indicates physical and ethical laziness. Who knew?
Chris, you can kiss my sorry, transit-riding ass.
15 td // May 9, 2009 at 9:48 am
Back to the topic: Do we need a pedestrian advocate?
In many recent planning processes the interests of pedestrians have not been given first priority, contrary to the oft-quoted Council policy. The trial creates inconvenience for pedestrians, at least for those that want to be on the east side of Burrard, and it robs them of the wonderful experience of views across False Creek and down to Granville Island. Against the powerful lobbies of motorists and cyclists, pedestrians fare poorly. They don’t have a lobby, no Council Advisory Committee, no champion who is routinely involved when these decisions get hatched.
Almost everyone should be a pedestrian advocate as almost everyone walks but until everyone starts thinking like a pedestrian first, it would help to have an well-organised and diverse advocacy group to enter the interests of pedestrians into these planning processes.
16 Len B // May 9, 2009 at 11:26 am
The wife decided to give walking to work a try on Friday. Wearing her sneakers and yoga pants to make it a brisk pace, her time was 55 minutes from 4th and Balaclava to Seymour and Hastings.
I’m not sure what a pedestrian advocate could do to make her walking trip faster – although they may be able to help it become safer.
Walking isn’t practical, so its either car or transit.
Transit right now before the trials takes about 30 minutes for the same distance, with the lovely perk of smelling the people jammed like sardines all around you.
17 Darcy McGee // May 9, 2009 at 11:48 am
> It’s always seemed that a significant portion of the cycling lobby is composed
> of terminally superior, lifestyle-choice-fetishizing jerkwads, and Chris has
> just provided us with a perfect example of why that’s the case.
Sure, Stephanie, because THAT’s the kind of intelligent discussion we’d like to have about the topic.
Nobody has ever suggested that cycling is the only acceptable form of transportation. No one has ever suggested that your “partner [who] works a terribly difficult job” shouldn’t have a choice in how s/he gets to work.
The city of Vancouver is geographically small, and distances less than 10km are generally /faster/ on the aggregate when done by bicycle. Chris starts by making this point, and providing an example. Countering the example with ever increasing distances (I know someone who commutes from North Vancouver to Harrison Hot Springs fives days a week…really.) does nothing to invalidate the argument.
Chris’ other point is less well made, but equally valid. You don’t have to be “fit” to cycle to work. Cycling is a gateway activity TO fitness that can accommodate everybody in some capacity. Not everybody can climb hills all day, to be sure…the point is that even if you just integrate cycling into short trips to the grocery store you are doing A Good Thing(tm) for yourself, for your community and for the planet.
I know several hospital works who cycle home after graveyard shifts, by the way. Three separate nurses.
I *DO* think that chosing to drive a single occupancy vehicle on a regular basis to a job within 20km of your home does suggest “ethical laziness.” Public transit should be able to handle such distances in most cases.
Cycling just wants its fair shake as part of a forward looking transportation policy. At the moment we’re treated like a recreational activity…it’s more than that.
18 Chris Keam // May 9, 2009 at 11:53 am
I wasn’t hostile or aggressive. I called you out on the misinformation you provided. Further, no one is suggesting everyone must bike. I simply pointed out the situation YOU proclaimed as fact, is nowhere near the reality.
If your physical ailments preclude walking or riding, then by all means, use a car or the bus. Every other able-bodied person who walks or bikes is making space on the road or transit for those who can’t choose to be self-propelled. If you have to travel a long distance, same deal. I know when I need to travel a long way, I go by car. But, Marpole to downtown simply isn’t a long distance. If you HAD said Chilliwack or Cloverdale, you would have gotten my full agreement that residents in those areas have few options for travel outside of the private vehicle.
It’s your aggression and name-calling simply because I wouldn’t couch the truth in P.C. language that tells the real tale here.
Same for you Stephanie. Tell me where I said all must follow my example, or where I suggested people with chronic illness should ride a bike. I pointed out reality. You folks are the ones name-calling with labels of class-ist, or able-ist or whatever epithet you can conjure up. Your ability to infer all kinds of judgments from my comment, simply because I pointed out the obvious and dared to suggest many people might consider foregoing a smidge of convenience and comfort so we don’t irreparably destroy the planet just shows you aren’t willing to debate the issue as it is, but prefer to judge others based on prejudices derived from lack of information.
Too funny.
19 Chris Keam // May 9, 2009 at 11:59 am
BTW Stephanie, I spent approximately four of the past seven years on a graveyard shift. Guess how I got to work?
20 David // May 9, 2009 at 12:06 pm
Pedestrian Advocate great idea! Walking is great in this city but sometimes the layouts of bridge on-ramps, skytrain stations etc are NOT designed with the pedestrian in mind. The easier it is to walk the more people will walk. Do we still sometimes close Stanley Park half days on Sundays to cars? We should.
21 gmgw // May 9, 2009 at 12:23 pm
Stephanie:
You go, girl! (And that’s not a phrase I use very often.) Thanks for putting it a lot more concisely than I could or did.
gmgw
22 Chris Keam // May 9, 2009 at 1:02 pm
Concise, but totally wrong.
23 foo // May 9, 2009 at 4:51 pm
As someone who’s mostly on the sidelines on the great Bridge debate, I’m astounded by the arrogance of the cycling types. If you can re-read your postings, and not see how holier-than-thou, self-righteous, and flat-out snotty they come across, then there’s not really much more that can be said.
On a related note, I’m reasonably fit and able-bodied. I live less than 10km from my work. Cycling is not an option. Transit is not an option either. I have kids that need to be delivered to day-care (and it’s neither convenient for transit nor close enough for them to walk). I have kids that need to be fetched from daycare. Please explain how I can turn a 35 minute commute (including the stops) into a 95 minute commute, and still work a full day between the day-care operating hours?
I may be “ethically lazy” in your eyes, but, surprise, surprise, I’m just an average parent trying to make do as best I can in my eyes.
24 Merlin // May 9, 2009 at 6:35 pm
When hearing that Anthony Perl is dismayed about council’s decision, I’m reminded of Rahmn Emanuel’s repsonse to Paul Krugman’s criticism of the Obama sitmulus package: “how many pieces of legislation has he passed?”
yes 2 lanes would be great, but one thing at a time. 1 lane is still a major shift for our car culture – it took almost 15 years to get back to this point.
If the cyclists and peds are smart, they’ll stop making the perfect the enemy of the good, do eveything they can to make one lane succeed, and raise the pressure to go to 2 once the trial is done.
25 Darcy McGee // May 9, 2009 at 6:44 pm
I personally prefer to think of myself as more agnostic-than-thou, thanks. I don’t appreciate your assigning me religious beliefs of any sort.
foo: I’ve got a good friend who drops her kids at daycare and fetches them via a bike trailer for two. It’s approximately 5km from her apartment to their daycare.
People make choices: you’ve obviously chosen to justify your car as necessary (in part) due to your kids.
I’ll do my best to make sure there’s a workable environment around for them when they’re old enough to appreciate it.
26 Chris Keam // May 9, 2009 at 7:54 pm
Foo:
Double bike trailer and electric assist bike. Average speed around 20 km/h. Probably cost you about $2500 dollars all in. I towed my kid to daycare in a trailer for five years. Now she rides to school a couple times a week on a trail-a-bike.
Holding people accountable and pointing out the consequences of their choices isn’t being holier than thou. I’ve found that whenever someone’s statements raise my hackles and leave me offended, there’s usually more truth to their comments than I’d care to admit. That’s my experience. Your mileage may vary.
Let me ask you a question. Why is it possible in other cities in the world that aren’t significantly different from Vancouver to see bike commuting reach levels as high as 40% of the population? Something must explain the discrepancy. What do you think it is?
27 Chris Keam // May 9, 2009 at 8:52 pm
“I would love to see the reaction of Charles Gauthier if Gregor was to unilaterally order that, say, Robson from Seymour to Denman be shut down to car traffic every Sunday for the summer. Gauthier would be storming the next Council meeting at the head of a column of DVBIA guerillas armed with M-16s.”
Such a situation would be the best thing to ever happen to Robson Street merchants. Opposing it would be foolish.
Check out Car-free day on Commercial Drive. It’s like Christmastime for merchants there with every stocking full to over-flowing. The streets are full of people walking around spending money instead of driving by looking vainly for a parking spot. The event is so popular that there are now events planned for Dunbar, Main Street, Kits and the West End. If it were that business-unfriendly would we see that kind of expansion? Of course not.
Cars don’t shop. People do.
28 Len B // May 9, 2009 at 9:19 pm
Chris,
Try talking to people who live in the Commercial Drive area about these car-free days and actually listen to what they say about them.
Since you said you were new around here, I encourage you to read back through other posts to read their comments.
These days are problematic for many in the neighbourhoods and in reality the residents do not want any more than a couple a year. Every Sunday would never fly – ever.
Nice try on the hyperbole though. I encourage you to continue posting your opinions here. When the unions advertised on behalf of the NDP in January, the Liberals soared in the polls.
Most people are quite tired of special interest groups and their one-sided “everything for me” attitude. You can say it’s about the planet, your kids, etc…honestly many just don’t buy it any longer.
Please do keep posting here as it can only help those of us who do not agree with you.
29 jesse // May 9, 2009 at 10:08 pm
gmgw: +1 on #8. A pedestrian advocate is only useful if his/her mouth has a commensurate ear into the circle of influence.
I really think the weather has a huge effect on commuter preferences. I think a huge thing that could help is GPS tracking of buses, minimising wait times at stops. There is nothing worse than waiting for 20 minutes at a bus stop in the rain. After standing in introspection in such conditions, the costs of using a car becomes that much more justified.
Has anyone considered bike lockers IN Vancouver’s neighbourhoods? I keep mentioning Holland, but many commuters have two bikes, one for each end of their commute, which they tie up at the points of embarkation/debarkation on the transit system. They also have fewer hills; another reason why cycling can never really become ubiquitous in Vancouver.
30 Andrea C. // May 9, 2009 at 11:14 pm
Sometime about three weeks ago, there was a most unusual sight in the downtown core of Vancouver. For some reason, Translink had scheduled a almost non-stop panoply of buses to run on all the routes. Bus after bus after bus. I couldn’t for the life of me figure out why. A wacky experiment? Rehearsals for the Olympics? The amazing thing was that this suddenly awe-inspriring level of service did not impede traffic any more than usual.
Then it hit me.
I felt like I was back in Europe (Budapest to be exact).
“Wow,” I said to the stranger standing next to me, “I feel like I’m in Europe!” “That’s exactly what I was thinking, too!” she replied, taking in the scene.
Then we looked at each other and shook our heads: “Only a dream…”.
31 Chris Keam // May 10, 2009 at 6:38 am
Please read what I wrote Len. I never suggested a car-free day on the Drive every Sunday. I responded to someone else’s comment about Robson Street and merchants, not Commercial Drive residents.
“Most people are quite tired of special interest groups and their one-sided “everything for me” attitude.”
Oh please. Speaking of hyperbole.
32 Darcy McGee // May 10, 2009 at 7:08 am
> I really think the weather has a huge effect on commuter preferences.
This is absolutely true. My very little used car gets used more in the winter rain than in the summer (though I do commute to work by bike in the Winter anyway.) In the summer I can go two weeks without starting my car…in the winter it will get used at least once a week.
(If I didn’t live in K’dale I’d get rid of it….my next move will hopefully allow me to do this and join the Car CoOp instead.)
33 Chris Keam // May 10, 2009 at 9:48 am
My final post (probably!) on the topic and then I hope critics of the two lane trial and other progressive plans for change might take a second look at their position.
The science doesn’t seem to be in dispute. It’s hard to argue with the before and after pictures of successful ‘complete streets’ projects. The intent is shared by all–make our planet livable in the long term and address the growing problem of people and goods movement in urban areas.
When all that is left is to deride the character and motivation of those who are working for these changes, we are seeing a classic propaganda technique at work. Shooting the messenger never once changed reality. It’s nothing more than a fear-driven response to upsetting news. If there were good arguments for continuing down the same road, they would be trumpeted from the rooftops. But, there aren’t… and the silence is filled by attempts to ostracize and vilify the very people who try to come up with better ways to meet the needs of everyone.
34 Chris Keam // May 10, 2009 at 9:51 am
I forgot to add one thing. It’s instructive to see who moves the goal posts on debates like these. A rebuttal to economic arguments is met with an un-related response about a different topic in a different locale. It bears closer examination.
35 gmgw // May 10, 2009 at 11:38 am
Jesse said:
“I really think the weather has a huge effect on commuter preferences. I think a huge thing that could help is GPS tracking of buses, minimising wait times at stops. There is nothing worse than waiting for 20 minutes at a bus stop in the rain.”
Too true. But I think Translink already has something similar in place, at least on the Granville corridor, the transit corridor with which I’m most familiar. Each 98 B-Line bus is equipped with a transponder, and each stop has an LED readout which, in theory, is supposed to provide riders with an ETA for the next B-Line bus as well as the current time (just the thing to send frantic late-for-work commuters even farther over the edge). In practice, however, this system is often wildly inaccurate and/or dysfunctional on both counts. I have complained about faulty readouts a number of times to Translink and have been given a different excuse each time– most recently it was supposedly because of rainwater leaking into some electrical vault in the control centre, which is at least original.
In addition, Translink offers a service whereby a prospective rider can dial a number on his/her cellphone and be given the time of the next bus due to arrive. I’ve never used this and I’m not sure how it works, on how many routes it’s available, or how well it functions. Nice idea, though, I guess. If you stand at the front of a bus (stay behind the red line, of course!), you will notice that the driver has a screen which provides him/her with constant updates on information about the route, including the exact distance to the next stop, measured in metres. This is probably a different manifestation of the same system
All of this would tend to indicate that something like Translink has a GPS system, or a reasonable facsimile, already in use, and that it could be adapted for additional uses. I’m not sure how useful it would be to dial that number and be told that there won’t be another bus for at least half an hour and that you’d better start walking or you’ll be way late for that appointment, but at least they seem to be trying.
gmgw
36 Darcy McGee // May 10, 2009 at 2:34 pm
Read this month’s Walrus. An article about Dave Hughes. If it doesn’t convince you of the fact that you need to drive your car less…well, you’re just not looking.
37 Richard // May 10, 2009 at 6:54 pm
Len B
Some people don’t really like cars and trucks speeding through their neighbourhoods either. Using your logic, we should then ban cars from all roads these roads because some people don’t like them.
38 Stephanie // May 10, 2009 at 8:03 pm
Chris Keam wrote:
BTW Stephanie, I spent approximately four of the past seven years on a graveyard shift. Guess how I got to work?
Floating hither and yon on your ego bubble, I expect.
39 Darcy McGee // May 11, 2009 at 4:50 am
Oh Stephanie. Where would we be in this discussion without you? Thank you for…elevating it so.
40 Peter G // May 11, 2009 at 6:17 am
We need to get moving and build a cycling/pedestrian bridge as soon as possible. It will, of course, be tolled in accordance with current thinking. Meanwhile, to satisfy Darcy and Chris, we can all walk to work, pushing our belongings in a handcart.
41 Darcy McGee // May 11, 2009 at 6:53 am
Peter, you won’t be satisfying me so much as fulfilling your ultimate role in a Cormac McCarthy-esque post-apocalyptic Vancouver.
Keep going as it is and we’ve got 21 years of life left under our current lifestyle. If you don’t START changing now you may well find that handcart coming in handy in a few years.
42 jimmy olson // May 11, 2009 at 7:08 am
A coordinated transit plan is the solution. A new logical mix of transit, bike, automobile, and walking. But it needs to be elevated up a couple of notches in creativity. For example we need to consider a new faster class of buses that serve a smaller area with a focus of moving people efficiently into high density areas. They could even cost double what regular buses cost. Lean and faster. New ways of looking at getting people from A2B. A continuum of transportation.
43 foo // May 11, 2009 at 8:27 am
Darcy: Sorry to offend your religious sensibilities. Perhaps a better word to use would be sanctimonious.
Chris,Darcy: Good for your friends. I have nothing against people who choose to bike everywhere. If you followed this debate, you might have noticed that some people (like myself) have no particular opinion about cycling lanes on the Bridge.
What my beef is really about is that if the city was REALLY serious about greening itself and making alternative transport useful to a majority of people, it wouldn’t be wasting time and energy on the Bridge debate, it would be building/enhancing east/west bike paths and transit. There would be debate about building a crossing over the Fraser, so it’s possible for cyclists to commute more easily and safely to Richmond. There would be effort to make it more convenient to get to jobs in Burnaby.
Of course, none of that is sexy to the council, or people like you, so what would work for a lot of people is ignored in place of huffing and puffing about a relatively insignificant part of the commuting landscape.
One last thing – I don’t know about Copenhagen, but there’s a significant difference between Vancouver and Amsterdam – it’s called hills. And, if you’ve actually spent working time in Amsterdam (as opposed to being a tourist), you would see that outside of the touristy city centre, the car still rules. Try commuting on the highways around the city, and see what congestion is like.
44 Len B // May 11, 2009 at 8:40 am
Richard,
You are being quite disingenuous with your post.
As you and I debated months ago on this very blog and [you] disagreed then, the Burrard Bridge trails will push cars into neighbourhoods off the main streets and endanger the lives of those people and animals that use these currently quieter streets.
Expect Kits point to become a race track of people trying to divert around the traffic chaos. Expect 2nd and 3rd avenues west from Burrard to become the new defacto route for many. I could go on and list the streets where problems will ensue, however I haven’t the time – on Ms. Bula’s space.
Do I want this? Absolutely not!
Now that the mayor’s own staff has acknowledged that there will be no reduction in ghg emissions from any conversion of the Burrard Bridge because the idling traffic will offset any gains by “a couple of hundred” people changing their behaviour, these neighbourhoods will also be subject to those gains in ghg emissions.
[You] disagreed then, to what now is being acknowledged by your green-caped leader.
So in summary more people will become endangered by more cars and emissions in neighbourhoods where they should feel safe, however it seems to be something satisfactory to you and your cycling movement.
Hmmm, for someone who posts on this blog and continually tries to push that safety angle, you’re being very hypocritical. Now you can add to that, an accusation that that is what I am promoting. How shameful.
Tell me how this isn’t just another special interest group caught up in their own mission and not seeing clarity?
45 Len B // May 11, 2009 at 8:47 am
Andrea C,
I was actually downtown during that little translink exercise, but in my car (gasp!!!) as opposed to your ‘standing’ (as you wrote).
I did think most of it was quite interesting, however what concerned me most was the inability of some bus drivers to comprehend what exactly they were supposed to do.
They will require much more practice so as not to run into one another when the games are on.
I wasn’t planning on using my car during the games and that was reinforced from watching what should have been a coordinated effort become somewhat uncoordinated and dangerous at times.
Shriners these drivers are not.
46 Darcy McGee // May 11, 2009 at 9:18 am
> There would be debate about building a
> crossing over the Fraser, so it’s possible for
> cyclists to commute more easily and
> safely to Richmond. There would be
> effort to make it more convenient to get to
> jobs in Burnaby.
This hits on one of Vancouver’s biggest problems: your two suggestions are essentially impossible to address at the municipal level, as they cross municipal boundaries. They would require two distinct municipal governments to cooperate…something they’re not terribly good at.
Having said that, crossing into Richmond is not a big deal. The No. 2 Road bridge has dedicated bike lanes in both directions, as does the Arthur Laing bridge. It’s harder when you go farther east though….Knight Street should have a lane, or better sidewalks.
Crossing into Burnaby isn’t much of an issue from Vancouver. I do it almost everyday. Having said that, the state of crossing the second narrows bridge leaves a lot to be desired. Narrow sidewalks, high fences, not enough room to pass a pedestrian. (The biggest problem, though, is often a single cyclist coming the WRONG way…sometimes these problems are of our own making.)
As for this:
> I don’t know about Copenhagen, but
> there’s a significant difference between
> Vancouver and Amsterdam – it’s called
> hills.
It’s a red herring argument put forward by people who don’t believe bicycles are vehicles. Bikes these days come with a full range of gears, and it’s not that hard to get up most hills.
Most of Vancouver’s hills aren’t that bad and the ones that are are fairly short…you can always walk your bike up those. (I climb Queen Elizabeth Park every day….very steep on the way home.)
47 Peter G // May 11, 2009 at 10:37 am
Darcy, You have no idea who I am so why would you want me to change. For all you know, I might crawl to the office on my hands and knees. If we want to make Vancouver a place for pedestrians, we should perhaps start by asking why most of our sidewalks are obstructed by construction activity. Try to walk from Yaletown to Pacific Centre without encountering something akin to a bomb site. Time for the new council to give us back our city…
48 Forthingham // May 11, 2009 at 10:49 am
Put forth your opinion, view, bias, etc. … but leave your rhetoric out of it. And don’t be argumentative nor “holier ” than others. Not all of us can / will commute in one fashion or other. As already stated we need a creative mix of transportation options going forth. Challenge your city councils…
49 Mark A // May 11, 2009 at 12:24 pm
Len B, I do have to ask, but is there any form of transportation other than the private car that you would consider to be acceptable for your trips from 4th & Balaclava to downtown?
It seems that your wife’s trips are served by no fewer than 3 different bus routes with journey times of 19 to 30 minutes. There are a lot of people in this city who would love that level of transit service. But that appears to be unacceptable to you – so what would it take to get you out of the car?
Also, I am sure you are an upstanding citizen and would never join the hordes doing a rat-run along 2nd or 3rd avenue – but if any of your friends feel tempted, do ask them to keep their speed under 50kph. Cheers.
50 Len B // May 11, 2009 at 1:48 pm
Mark,
What my partner does, does not always allow for transit use at all times. She uses both but does use the car more than transit.
I’m not sure where you get the 19 minutes from, According to her that would be the absolute shortest time possible, and that almost never happens from her personal experiences. It will be interesting to see what the trials do to that time – we’re not very optimistic.
Life is complicated Mark, and not as black and white as some would like to think. Not everyone has a 9-5 job, or a place to lock up their bike in the daytime, or a place to shower and change into business attire.
Unlike Europe, I believe most women here shave their underarm hair and have better overall hygiene. Perhaps many who work in our downtown offices would prefer to show up at their places of work feeling clean and not sweaty from their commute – however short or long that is.
When you start adding up the inconveniences of switching modes of transport the cost and/or the time doesn’t justify the switch.
As for myself, I use my car for work so switching to public transit, cycling or walking is simply not going to happen – it isn’t possible or realistic.
So although you like to think it’s unacceptable – to me it’s simply not realistic. Two very different things entirely.
Now Mark, back to my original and continuing position, I’m against the trials for many reasons. Rather than go into each of my reasons yet again I’ll stick to my overall theme.
I’ve stated that I’m actually for improving cycling and pedestrian infrastructure where it does not take away existing car lanes – especially over our bridges where congestion occurs currently.
What is different Mark is that some people have the ideology that we need to get out of our cars for one reason or another – and that’s that. Based on your comment, you appear to be one of those folks.
David Suzuki recently stated that he was wrong and for 20 years beat his head against the wall trying to get people to see things his way regarding the environment. He’s come to the conclusion that unless there’s something in it for people (ie: saving money, greater convenience, etc..), society will not change.
“Beating his head against the wall”, was a direct quote by the way.
Let me repeat this quote from Jane Addams: “Social advance depends as much upon the process through which it is secured, as upon the result itself.”
If there is to be any meaningful change, it needs to be done with respect for those that use all modes of transport. In short, the anti-car crowd needs to tone it down.
What I have seen from Chris, Richard, and now yourself is a great illustration why this trial will fail. Again, go back to the quote for some inspiration.
This idea of converting lanes on the Burrard Bridge is 15 years older and has not become any wiser. It’s time to shelve the damn thing and start working on solutions that will be more acceptable to more of the population.
51 gmgw // May 11, 2009 at 3:18 pm
Darcy plaintively wails:
“Oh Stephanie. Where would we be in this discussion without you? Thank you for…elevating it so.”
Gee, Darce, maybe you should just, ah… brush Stephanie back, as a little warning, hm? After all, she seems to be getting in your way…
gmgw
52 Kathy M // May 11, 2009 at 3:30 pm
Regarding gmgw’s comments above about GPS/position tracking for buses:
Last year my partner and I travelled for about a month in Greece, and spent a week in and around Thessaloniki, a city of about 1/2 million pop.
The bus system all over TH was set up with tracking for ALL the buses. At any bus stop, there was a digital sign (about the size of Vancouver’s typical bus-route signs) that listed all the routes that serviced that stop. The sign displayed, updated every minute or two, how long it would be till the next one for each route that used the stop.
It was fantastic! It meant that if you were waiting for a relatively rare bus (say every half hour) you could use whatever time you had before the next scheduled bus to walk along the route. Or–you could duck into a shop and do an errand. Or–whatever.
The timing was extremely reliable. Presumably, if all the Vancouver buses have live tracking of where they are in their routes, the tracking signs would be all that was needed to put together the same kind of system.
Stilll–if Van can’t even afford enough buses, I guess electronic tracking signs everywhere are out of the question
53 Mark A // May 11, 2009 at 4:31 pm
Len, my friends would get a real laugh out of the idea that I am anti car. You should see what I drive when I do drive. I absolutely freaking love my car.
The 19 minutes comes from Google Transit, BTW. I agree that’s the fastest possible time, which is why I quoted it as the low end of a range. Duh.
I absolutely accept the idea that transit, or the bike, or walking is not for everybody at every possible time. If you or your partner are travelling at odd times when there is poor service etc then obviously the car makes sense.
But in that case, it seems like you guys won’t be much affected by the changes on the bridge, right?
By all means, go ahead and paint me as some kind of hair shirted zealot if that makes you feel better – but as far as I can tell your logic is all over the map. Sadly, not a transit map.
54 Andrea C. // May 11, 2009 at 6:27 pm
Len: “Shriners these drivers are not.”
Ha, ha…. soooo true.
I guess part of my shock was seeing all of those buses roll along downtown and not actually hit each other/anything else.
The trouble is (to this reluctant full-time transit user) that the service we have now is way too infrequent and never on time. And they still hit each other occasionally.
55 Len B // May 11, 2009 at 6:42 pm
Mark,
As I said, I have many reasons for the bridge to remain as is. If you’d like to think I’m all over the map, thats fine. Your comment to me was viewed as judgemental, and if that was wrong, I’ll apologize.
This debate has ebbs and flows and can seem to get off-track. Just like people’s lives are not black and white, so is this issue with the bridge.
56 I.M. // May 11, 2009 at 6:49 pm
First off, I think people are digressing on this posting from the discussion of a pedestrian advocate. Secondly, I think people have misunderstood the term “pedestrian advocate” as used by Anthony Perl. He is not talking about another pedestrian activist like Bev Ballantyne (who does great work and I mean no disrespect to her or any other pedestrian activists out there – I am after all a pedestrian first and foremost). Dr. Perl is referring to someone who works for the City and whose job it is to ensure that the pedestrian realm is constantly being improved and that new policies and projects (like the Burrard Bridge one-lane trial) do not adversely affect pedestrians. Certainly, the Burrard Bridge trials give greater priority to bikes. With a pedestrian advocate on City staff, this reversal of official priorities would be less likely to happen.
57 LP // May 12, 2009 at 12:08 pm
I.M.,
Your last sentence, “…With a pedestrian advocate on City staff, this reversal of official priorities would be less likely to happen…”, is wishful thinking.
Mayor/council have gone against city staff recommendations on the Burrard Bridge, not once, but twice. They have let all city staff know there is a new sheriff/mandate in town and are doing as they please….”if you don’t like it, find another job…”
Employing an advocate that would disagree with their position/action would just be wasting more taxpayer money with an end net-result of zero for the pedestrian.
We already have enough experienced staff at city hall that are currently being ignored by the blunders in VV to bother hiring anymore of them.
58 Not running for mayor // May 12, 2009 at 12:40 pm
The easiest solution is to have a volunteer committee ala the te Bicycle Advisory Committee which would meet once a month to discuss what could be done to improve the pedestrian realm. They could provide one member to sit on the urban design panel as well. Would only cost the city some sandwiches and usage of a broadroom, but would benifit the city at large.
59 MB // May 12, 2009 at 1:10 pm
Darcy brought up Chris Turner’s thought-provoking article “An Inconvenient Talk” in this month’s Walrus.
Though he interviewed retired geoscientist David Hughes extensively on peak oil, what grabbed my attention was an unplanned interview over lunch with a senior production manager from a big oil company based in Calgary. The manager approached Turner (not the other way around) because he saw the evidence too, and feared for his job, therefore he remained anonymous. To paraphrase:
“We have only two or three years left before oil prices escalate again. The $150 a barrel we hit in 2008 was only a preclude.”
When I look at the big picture and read Anthony Perl’s comments about a pedestrian advocate, I wonder if his comment was prescient or based on his own extensive research on the topic.
60 Don Buchanan // May 12, 2009 at 1:31 pm
MB and Darcy,
You both mention Chris Turner’s thought-provoking article “An Inconvenient Talk” in this month’s Walrus.
Their website does not seem to have it available to the general public. Is there a subscriber only option that you could post? If not, which month was it in?
Thanks!
61 Darcy McGee // May 12, 2009 at 7:52 pm
You could buy the magazine…it needs the help. June 2009, with a cover story called “Off the Rails” (written by Monte Paulsen who noted on Frances’ blog here http://www.francesbula.com/?p=1430 that this was coming.)
What can happen when you write policies that treat bikes with respect:
http://outside-blog.away.com/blog/2009/05/cyclists-bill-of-rights-for-colorado.html
I thought of this as I came across Granville today, while a motorist proceeded straight at a “right turn except for bicycles” intersection. I slapped the side of the clueless, SUV driving Shaughnessy resident. (And yes, she was speaking on a cell phone at the time.)
Contrast this with an incident on the same ride when a car in front of me (moving in my direction) pulled over…a truck coming the other way proceeded through the only available slot. I had slowed down, but wound up beside the driver moving in my direction…I misread the situation, and didn’t realize he was pulling back into traffic (maybe he was picking someone up…who knows…anyway, bad read on my part) He started to move, saw me, stopped, gave me a friendly wave to apologize while I proceeded. I gave him a friendly wave. He then proceeded, and when beside me rolled down his passenger window and apologized. I told him no need, not your fault, I misread the situation…it was just one of those things that happens in traffic…no big deal.
But dude rolled down his window to apologize to me.
I’d like to give that guy a medal. Most drivers are reasonably polite, but that guy….if I ever wind up sitting at a table with him…beer’s on me (unless you’re driving.)
Bikes are traffic, as are pedestrians. Cars need to stop acting like everything else is in second place.
Leave a Comment