101 responses so far ↓

• 1 Chris // May 29, 2009 at 10:24 am

  Great news!
  The ciclovia sounds like it is modelled on Bogota’s, but on a smaller scale.
  http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ELa5CHsUepo

• 2 not running for mayor // May 29, 2009 at 12:36 pm

  Don’t forget that the rates at the transfer station are set to increase by 300% for small loads, and by at least 50% for all others. That will remove a portion of cars from the street that would normally be heading to the station. (tic)

• 3 Frothingham // May 29, 2009 at 2:25 pm

  … i think it would work. and it would be great if limited to the summer months ( July and August). But I suspect that cyclists may be “abused” outside those areas if motorists start to get frustrated in moving about the city. We see that even now in some areas where cars are loath to share roads with cyclists. Unlike Europeans and elsewhere, Vancouver motorists do not understand how to behave around bicycles. But it’s time they damn well learned.

• 4 Len B // May 29, 2009 at 3:56 pm

  Last weekend, 2 blocks of Pt Grey road were shut down between MacDonald and Balaclava for some work. This was all day Saturday and Sunday.

  Although I enjoyed my runs with a small stretch of street with no cars, what this did to 4th Avenue, and the side streets from the Burrard Bridge to Alma was absolutely insane.

  No one living on any of these streets appreciated the traffic, the insane drivers, the extra smog…….it was disgusting. It wasn’t safe for kids or animals on these streets.

  Keep in mind many side streets in Kits with two lanes of parking allow for barely one lane of traffic through and add bikes to that.

  Does anyone remember that some of these streets are supposed to meant for cyclists? Why close off main streets if other streets are already designated cycling streets?

  For all of you people that don’t live in these areas, and don’t get to see the mess this makes of the neighborhoods, please do not say things like “I think it will work”.

  This is a distastrous idea and I’m getting quite sick and tired of Vision and their delusional ideas on what will make the city more liveable.

• 5 A. G. Tsakumis // May 29, 2009 at 4:47 pm

  Len–pls stop making sense like this or you are likely to awaken the cycling fascists.

• 6 Darcy McGee // May 29, 2009 at 7:02 pm

  On the way home from work tonight a young woman driving a blue Nissan Versa pulled over to pick up her friend, while she was talking on the cell phone. That I was in the BIKE lane right beside her was irrelevant. She’s lucky she still has a mirror. I’m lucky I have a life. She was literally going to drive right into me.

  On Union Street approaching Main a Yellow Cab driver pulled over into the right hand of the street to wait for his fare. He pulled over quickly, and didn’t use his turn signals while hitting his brakes suddenly. The cyclist beside me came within inches of being taken out by the cab’s bumper: I was luckier…I was relatively to the left, and hit my brakes and went around him. It was closer than it should have been, and I made sure he knew.

  Fuck the cars. Make downtown a passenger car free zone.

  The car free seawall is quite pleasant to walk and mostly pleasant to ride. I do both on a regular basis. The biggest problems are:
  1) Cyclists who don’t respect the speed limit, in the sense that that is not a place to go fast
  2) Pedestrians who feel its their right to walk side by side the full width of the seawall. I usually just hit the grass to go around them, but that doesn’t make it any less annoying.

• 7 Chris Keam // May 29, 2009 at 8:37 pm

  These streets will be for everyone not just cyclists or cars. A big-city idea whose time has come.

  Len:

  Blaming the insane drivers on road closures is misguided. Drivers end up frustrated because they have been given unreasonable expectations regarding the possibilities of using cars in urban areas. They’re just not the right kind of vehicle to move people about in populous areas. It’s not a car-hate or a cycle-smugness issue (before we go down ‘that’ road).

• 8 Richard // May 29, 2009 at 9:35 pm

  The advantage of this proposal is it makes it practical and safe for anyone including famities with childreen to cycle from English Bay to Jericho. This should reduce traffic somewhat on the other streets.

  It is really not much different from the marathon street closures. That seemed to work fine. It was really nice to wake up to the sound of clapping and cheering instead of traffic.

• 9 Len B // May 30, 2009 at 7:56 am

  Funny how Richard and Chris come out of the woodwork to slam cars at every opportunity.

  Perhaps the both of you should disclose your affiliations to various groups……

  There are few times in my life where I have come upon the likes of such a self-serving sanctimonious group of individuals as you. It’s unfortunate that you cannot see anything but your own agenda in this – there are hundred’s of thousands of people in this city who see things differently.

  The reality is this city has built 23 kilometres of Seawall for the public to use. This doesn’t include the sidewalks around English Bay for people to use as well.

  All of this is without cars and have far more appealing views to travel around False Creek than using Cornwall and Beach avenues.

  To suggest that roads should be taken away because people are lacking options to travel is showing how incredibly near-sighted you are.

  The negative impacts do not stop with the dangerous driving on side streets and excess pollution in these same neighbourhoods, but continues on to hurt local businesses by the reduced spending by people coming into the city and not being able to get around on anything but foot.

  Every single BIA group that encompasses this area should be standing up and fighting this from taking place.

  We are not Paris.
  We are not New York.
  We are not Copenhagen.
  We are not Amsterdam.
  We are not Toronto.

  We are Vancouver.

  Now let’s find some solutions that suit our way of life and stop dreaming that we are anything but who we are.

  If anyone of you love those cities more I encourage you to move to them…..

• 10 Chris Keam // May 30, 2009 at 9:21 am

  Where did I slam cars Len?

  At least I’m putting my full name to my posts. A quick google search will bring you to my website where I unabashedly stand up and proclaim my allegiance to a world where my child can breathe and travel without relying on the automobile.

  I’m sorry if progress offends you. Perhaps you’d find a more retrograde city to your liking? Good luck finding one that ISN’T rejigging its transportation system to better suit all forms of travel.

  best wishes,
  CK

• 11 Richard // May 30, 2009 at 3:09 pm

  Your right Len. We should have just followed the herd and built freeways along the waterfront. People were fear-mongering predicting economic decline unless we build freeways everywhere. Fortunately, people with courage and vision stood up and defeated the freeways creating the wonderful city we have today.

  What you need to understand, is great cities continue to move forward and opening challenge the status quo. That is the only way to be a great city. There is always pushback from people who are scared of change. They always predict that the economy will suffer not realizing that the biggest risk is standing still while others pass us by.

  In Copenhagen for example, when they were creating their first car-free zone, the businesses were up in arms, saying that they will lose businesses. Well, you know what, the biggest problem has been that it was too successful. The pedestrian zones are so successful that big chains have replaced the local businesses.

  The bottom line is that the more people spend on cars, gas and parking, the less they have to spend at local businesses. Especially in our challenging times, walking and cycling are very good for business.

• 12 jimmy olson // May 30, 2009 at 3:47 pm

  I too “think it will work”. The trick will be to educate people that at certain times certain streets will be closed to cars and they should make alternate plans if they wish to use their auto. @LenB – I see no reason for the traffic mess you refer to because of he closure of the Pt Grey road. This road on WEEKENDS should not be anything but a slow drive to where??? back to 4th ave or to the yacht club.. . why then would this cause a problem? most folks could have stayed on 4th ave. and continued west. Pt Grey road has way too many speedsters anyway. that road should be mainly for those who live in that area. I favour making that road HARDER to speed down it, lets ensure that we keep cars to 40KM or less. There is no doubt that it will be much more difficult to move around Vancouver in cars as we go forth. There is no getting around that outcome Len B. You will have to get used to it. I am an avid cyclist and I am also a car loving driving nut. But I see the future… there has to be less car use for Vancouver. There will also be more alternate transportation options. buses, small electric cars, scooters etc etc. As a Peninsula it will be easy to make Vancouver much more friendly by REDUCING the # of cars that come into the city. We may not be PAris, but we are becoming a new better Vancouver.

• 13 Dave R // May 30, 2009 at 9:42 pm

  City talks about sustainability and reducing car traffic and it charges a mere $60/year or $5/month for residential parking permits in West End. On top of that, if I live in WE I can buy as many permits as I want. If I have five cars I can buy five permits and park all my cars on streets. I am wondering why anyone would park in underground parking in their apartment buildings where the monthly parking fee is between $50 and $100 per month.

  How that can discourage people to drive?

  Dave

• 14 A. G. Tsakumis // May 30, 2009 at 10:21 pm

  Len:

  As I predicted, you cannot talk sense with these people. Pollyanna says nothing of their pipe-dreams and lather.

  You see, even if there is gridlock, they don’t care. It’s not about making sense or actually coming close to helping the environment or their little babies breathe easier. That’s all just the usual horse shit that they offer.

  What this has to do with is screwing whom they perceive to be “rich”. It’s a class thing, you see Len?

  They are limo liberals: It’s okay if they make money doing whatever it is they do, because they ride their bikes to work–and that makes it all better. Make sense now? It’s about taking it to the those they view are corporatists.

  It’s what happens when your life is defined by eco-fraud and a cannabis latte.

  And hate.

  Don’t waster your time Len old boy. Just wait a month and watch what starts to happen.

• 15 spartikus // May 31, 2009 at 8:33 am

  A quick google search will bring you to my website where I unabashedly stand up and proclaim my allegiance to a world where my child can breathe and travel without relying on the automobile.

  You can even click on Chris’s name on comments here and it will take you directly to his blog – which is fine read, btw. One which has earned a spot in my RSS feed reader.

  It was there that I learned about New York closing Broadway to vehicles.

  The era of cheap personal powered transport is rapidly coming to an end, and it doesn’t make any sense to me that we should continue to focus constructing expensive infrastructure projects on it.

• 16 Chris Keam // May 31, 2009 at 9:15 am

  “You can even click on Chris’s name on comments here and it will take you directly to his blog – which is fine read, btw.”

  I sincerely appreciate the compliment Spartikus. Have a great day!

• 17 rf // May 31, 2009 at 10:03 am

  Jimmy is out of his mind. I got caught in the UBC to downtown traffic last Saturday where Pt. Grey road was closed.
  That wasn’t the only problem.
  What Jimmy is missing is just how many people headed for the beach. I swear there most have been 100,000 people on the beach between Spanish Banks and Kits beach. And make no mistake, many of these people are coming from the suburbs. It is not reasonable to assume that a family of 4 with 2 kids, a cooler, beach chairs and etc.., is going to use transit to get from New West to Spanish Banks. Not a chance.
  It was a crawl from halfway down the hill on Marine Drive to Spanish banks all the way into downtown.
  There are cars parked halfway into traffic lanes on the side of the road. There are pedestrians and bikes everywhere. The side streets are only wide enough for one lane between 4th and Pt. Grey leading to standoff after standoff.
  Worst traffic I’ve seen in my life.
  Sure, some will say, “it’s just like the fireworks, take transit”, but it’s a little different when you are packing for a whole day and have the chance to set up camp with a little more space and a couple of meals.
  It could have been 200,000 people from end to end. Never seen anything like it.
  Shutting off the traffic is like telling people outside of walking distance (with small kids) to stay home. It’s their beach too.
  All it will lead to is beach side nimbys to start going crazy as people park further and further away.

• 18 Chris Keam // May 31, 2009 at 10:24 am

  Hi RF:

  Perhaps we will see the return of low-cost day trips to the beaches such as those that took Lower Mainland residents to Bowen Island in the summer months? Such a service might make it possible for even more people to be able to enjoy summer fun, such as those who don’t own cars. If there’s a demand, someone will find a way to deliver the service.

  http://www.bowenisland.org/wow/explore/stories.php

  Bowen has a rich island history and summer marks a long tradition of visitors joining us to play. First Nations people from the Squamish nation summered here long before the Europeans discovered the island. By the 1890s holiday visitors could rent cabins or tent platforms set-up under the trees by local residents.
  In 1900 Captain John A. Cates, the island’s first developer, initiated his 20 year development with the purchase of land in Deep Bay and Snug Cove. To pioneer the island’s reputation as a destination resort with day excursions, he regularly delivered visitors on his 300 passenger ship, Britannia. Guests stayed at either his Terminal Resort Hotel, in one of the two hundred cottages or perhaps just camped in one of the platform tents. Vacationers and picnickers arrived en masse to the island during the summer months, earning Bowen the moniker, the people’s playground, and the area eventually became the premiere resort destination in the province.
  Two decades later, the Union Steam Ship Company purchased the resort in the 1920s and continued a vigorous expansion program. In the heady days 5,000 visitors arrived on “The Happy Isle” every summer weekend. They set sail on the Lady Alex’s moonlight cruises to rub shoulders at the Dance Pavilion, jive to the big band tunes of Wilf Wiley or just spend the weekend enjoying a get-away at the newly constructed Bowen Inn.

• 19 Chris Keam // May 31, 2009 at 12:53 pm

  My polite response to A.G.’s hate-filled tirade was lost to the Internet Gods. Suffice to say, it’s pretty clear who is trafficking in hate and uninterested in working together to find solutions for everyone. The real question is why would someone be motivated to name-call and mis-characterize people if they had substantive facts to back their position? Usually, it’s fear of something they don’t or won’t understand. If you’re scared of some aspect of this A.G. you should screw up your courage and tell us what it is. Perhaps the answers to allay your fears are just waiting for you to ask the right question. Or, perhaps you have another agenda that has nothing to do with addressing the issue? I’d be grateful if you could address this question as I think it would help one and all to have a better understanding of the concerns at play here. I’ll show you mine. I don’t want to end up dead or in a wheelchair simply because I choose to ride a bike as my main means of transportation. I don’t think that’s an unreasonable request given that we have the resources to make cycling safer without materially affecting traffic flow in the city. Further, the cost to do so is more than paid for by the ancillary benefits that accrue when a significant number of people also make a commitment to alternatives to the single occupant vehicle for urban travel.

• 20 Westender // May 31, 2009 at 1:22 pm

  Dave R (May 30, 2009 at 9:42 pm) writes with criticisms of the City’s approach to permit parking in the West End. Note that permit parking takes place in other areas as well, such as Kitsilano and Oakridge. (And no, I don’t think anyone in the West End has five cars that they park on the street). These permits are important for residents of buildings who have no parking on-site – many of the older walk-ups or heritage buildings have limited parking, and the permit system allows for people to park “close to home.”
  But Dave R. raises a very valid point about people who DO have access to parking on-site, choose to leave that space empty and instead use a space on the street for a nominal annual charge.
  I would much prefer to see the City require residents to show the need for the street permit, rather than issuing them to any resident in the West End. As an example, I have underground parking, but for some years also purchased a permit because it made running errands easier in the neighbourhood – the City didn’t care that I was using the permit for something other than necessary “household parking” – they just wanted the revenue.
  Why not eliminate 50% of the existing “permit only” areas and convert them to meters? I’d love to have more opportunities for visitors to my neighbourhood to be able to park, and would be happy to pay the loonies to allow for it.

• 21 Frothingham // May 31, 2009 at 8:38 pm

  @rf. the issue of 100,000 people heading to the beach is a red herring. That would cause a traffic jam no matter what! And yes the beach belongs to families. No quarrel there. But there is no parking for all those car around Kits Beach or English Bay. No way those areas can support that many parking spaces. That problem will require some creative thinking.

  @AGT. re: “What this has to do with is screwing whom they perceive to be “rich”. It’s a class thing, you see Len?” what decade are you living in? Have you actually read the comments?

  CF … see this post: Where Am I? author weighs in on taking lanes from cars…

• 22 rf // May 31, 2009 at 8:44 pm

  I find it hard to believe that an influx of city-based daytrippers to Bowen Island would not eventually be met with giant resistance from island residents complaining that their tranquility is being spoiled….
  I know that there are several tourism saavy residents (Eaglecliff’s proprietor being one) on the island…..yet in the back of my mind (the even darker place that my ‘so far left of centre that it will be a shorter distance to get there from the right’ critics shudder to think of) and can’t help but think……Be careful what you wish for, Chris….

• 23 Darcy McGee // May 31, 2009 at 9:08 pm

  > As I predicted, you cannot talk sense with these people. Pollyanna says
  > nothing of their pipe-dreams and lather.

  Alex, people who are so attached to their automobiles that they can’t imagine life without them…are they any better to talk to? Really…you think advocates of cycling as a form of transportation are the problem?

  Keep in mind that the carbon in the atmosphere that’s _currently_ causing global warming was emitted by your PARENTS and your grandparents.

  We…and I mean those of us who aren’t car dependent…are trying to solve a problem that’s a generation old. It’s a known problem that’s been acknowledged by every reasonable scientific body.

  Continuing to design cities around cars and car ravel ignores decades of knowledge, and perpetuates a problem that’s LONG past it’s crisis point.

  The problem was created 20 years ago. Continuing behaviours that existed 20 years ago isn’t going to solve the problem.

  Cars are only a part of the problem, but they’re a big part of it…and a good one to design around.

  > I would much prefer to see the City require residents to show the need for
  > the street permit, rather than issuing them to any resident in the West
  > End.

  This has always disgusted me. You should be _required_ to demonstrate that you don’t have an available parking spot on your property before having a permit issued.

  Permits don’t nearly reflect the actual cost of parking in downtown either, and they should more closely do so. They should, of course. also reflect the failure of the city to require high density buildings to provide parking on private property rather than public property….the gap between private downtown parking and the cost of a permit should reflect that fault on the part of the city.

• 24 Chris Keam // May 31, 2009 at 9:17 pm

  I wasn’t suggesting we all go to Bowen Island. Just presenting a past example that shows a car isn’t necessary to go to the beach. Even with our current system, a family could Skytrain to Science World from New West and take the little harbour ferry to Kits Beach quite easily. The amount of walking wouldn’t be any further than the long marches people were making today from whatever parking spot they could find. Most kids I know would much prefer a train and boat ride to sitting in traffic inside a sweltering car for most of the day.

  I was at Spanish Banks today for a picnic and the amount of cars was unreal. By the time I left people were simply driving onto the grass on the north side of the road and parking there. I noticed many of them were SOVs, generally containing young, ablebodied drivers. If those who could ride bikes to the beach did so, then there would be that much more room for those who can’t. A small bike trailer and panniers would provide more than enough cargo space for a cooler, beach chair and all the usual fun in the sun accoutrements. All we really need to do is stop telling ourselves can’t or won’t and start asking ourselves how. There’s no way I’m much smarter or motivated than anyone else. If I can do this, I’ll bet there’s literally hundreds of thousands of Metro Vancouverites that could reduce their car use by half just by making the decision to find alternatives and commit to using them.

• 25 Chris Keam // May 31, 2009 at 9:25 pm

  Regarding parking permits, perhaps we should be asking ourselves why the city is in the business of providing storage for people’s personal possessions? Can I get a permit to leave a garden shed on the road in front of my house? Of course not. It’s a shame. I could use the storage space.

  Given the costs usually associated with parking I’m left wondering how this sizable subsidy to car users could possibly be justified when space is at such a premium in our city. I paid two bucks for a half hour of parking downtown on Thursday and we’re basically giving away real estate to car owners? This makes no sense.

• 26 gmgw // Jun 1, 2009 at 2:51 am

  I’ve been lurking in this thread for several days, reluctant to get involved again in what I see as an irreconcilable argument (not to mention trying to get Darcy Mc’s tire tracks off my back after our last encounter). However, what the hell, here I go again. I don’t know why I have to explain this to people who at least give the appearance of being intelligent, but: The permit parking system as it stands was intended to discourage people from outside the “permitted” neighbourhoods from parking in said neighbourhoods. The biker people evidently choose to ignore the fact that most (but not all) permitted streets are in high-car-traffic areas: the West End, near the PNE, near large parks, hospitals, and so forth. If the bicycle purists would actually try to look at the world once in a while from another POV than the view over their own handlebars, they might understand that the permit parking system aspires to one of the same goals that they espouse– to discourage people from traveling to a specific destination by car.

  And it works. Before we moved to the False Creek area in the mid-80s, we lived in the West End for a number of years. After we moved, there were a few restaurants we liked well enough on Denman and on Robson to drive back over there occasionally. We drove there because it was (and still is) too complicated, time-consuming, and unpleasant to get there by bus from where we live, and to get there by foot meant (and still means) walking to Granville Island, taking a ferry, and then walking from the Aquatic Centre to mid-Denman– a pleasant enough walk in warm weather, but sheer misery in the colder, wetter months (when the ferries quit early as well, so getting back means a even longer walk back across one of the bridges). So yeah, Darcy & Chris, we sometimes drove ourselves to dinner in our little death machine. I admit it. Really, really sorry.

  In any case, when permit parking came to that part of the West End (many years ago now), we stopped going there by car. There’s no place to park on any of the side streets thanks to the permit zones, and it’s almost impossible to find a place to park on Denman on a weekend evening. I would really rather not have to try; it’s just too frustrating. I can’t remember the last time we ate at a West End restaurant (except Hon’s, a couple of times), and we make a point of treating ourselves to a restaurant meal once a week. So you can see (or maybe you can’t, given your rhetoric), permit parking works. It certainly worked on us: That’s one less car in the West End.

  Another example: Residents near Granville Island have been trying to get residents-only parking in front of their buildings for many years. The city has consistently refused, for arcane reasons. The result is that parking along Lamey’s Mill Road in particular is often full, all day, of non-resident cars belonging to Granville Island visitors (until the two-hour restriction was put in place, it was common for people working in the Island to park there in order not to have to pay for Island parking). On summer weekends it’s all but impossible to find a place to park along that stretch, despite said two-hour limit. This means that anyone living in any of the residential enclaves in that area who want to have friends or family over for a visit during such times are SOL, unless elaborate alternative parking arrangements are made. Eight million people a year go to to Granville Island and, yes, far, far too many of them arrive by car. But that’s another discussion, and one that has been ongoing for many years.

  Residents-only parking is not the evil it’s being made out to be here, and the people who live in areas in which it exists are not your enemies (except, of course, for the actual car owners, who naturally deserve painful deaths for mindlessly destroying the planet). They are merely people trying to exert some control over their own neighbourhoods; they have every right to do so; and permit parking is one of the tools they use. Unless, of course, you bikies think that the 100,000 people or so who swarm into the West End and Kitsilano to watch the fireworks each summer– and an enormous number of them drive here, many from far-flung suburbs– should be allowed full access to those neighbourhoods, and should be allowed to park in them wherever the hell they like. Too bad it’s a little bit of a challenge for a family of five to bicycle in from Surrey with a picnic cooler, lawn chairs, blankets, and toys for the kids. Of course, I’m sure that our two resident Iron Men would think nothing of it…

  Speaking of whom, Keam’s whine about not being able to park a garden shed in front of his house (You live in a house, CK? How nice for you. Must make it kinda hard for you to understand the challenges faced by apartment dwellers in densely developed neighbourhoods, though), and about the city (harrumph!!) “providing storage for personal possessions” is an idiotic excuse for an argument. Like I said, permit parking is a Good Thing. It cuts down on Traffic. It is not Evil. Back off and go fire your popguns at another target for a while, OK?
  gmgw

• 27 SV // Jun 1, 2009 at 5:58 am

  Question for everybody-why is it that whenever cycling/driving is discussed here the thread soon breaks down into a collection of personal attacks and defensiveness?
  Put another way, why is it that whenever transportation comes up on this blog do people seem to develop thinner skins?

• 28 michael geller // Jun 1, 2009 at 6:21 am

  What would Fabula readers think of a COMPREHENSIVE review of the city’s parking policies, with a view to rationalizing the cost of permit parking with the cost of underground parking; the introduction of pay parking on some residential streets where there is inadequate visitor parking; extension of the hours during which pay parking is in effect…why not start at 7 am instead of 9 am and keep meters in effect until 10, or in some instances for 24 HOURS…on the understanding that all additional net revenues would be used to support public transit improvements and ‘car free days’ initiatives, etc?

  I personally think our current policies ignore the new technologies associated with parking meters ( automated machines…you should see the new units in Calgary where you print a ticket and stick it on your window); credit cards, payment by phone…and so on.

  While I appreciate this is a different topic, this car-free days, bike lanes, public transit, parking….these things are all related. I do worry a bit about changing some, without starting to look at related consequences…..

  In this regard on Tuesday, the City is moving forward with some SERIOUS REDUCTIONS IN PARKING requirements for downtown residential buildings. While this is something I have been advocating, even I am a bit shocked at the proposed changes. They include not just reduced minimums, but maximums….often 1 space per unit with no special provision for visitor parking.

  I hadn’t heard about this discussion, nor read very much about this….have any of you?

• 29 Darcy McGee // Jun 1, 2009 at 6:28 am

  > Put another way, why is it that whenever
  > transportation comes up on this blog do
  > people seem to develop thinner skins?

  Because, frankly, we are at war against cars. It’s the reality.

  If human beings don’t seriously reduce their dependence on internal combustion engines, it may lead to our own extinction.

• 30 Chris Keam // Jun 1, 2009 at 6:46 am

  GMGW:

  I live in an apartment in a converted house for the record. If you’re looking for the creme de la creme for you morning coffee, I’m afraid it won’t be coming from my teat.

  Further, my question was regarding the pricing structure for permit parking. It seems out of whack with the market near as I can tell.

  Regarding going to the beach from Surrey, note I pointed out one possible alternative for a family, which involved exactly zero pedal strokes. Your name-calling and mischaracterizations seem to come from some anger or fear. Perhaps you could examine those feelings and tell us where they come from? It might make it easier to have a productive dialogue.

• 31 Chris Keam // Jun 1, 2009 at 8:08 am

  “Question for everybody-why is it that whenever cycling/driving is discussed here the thread soon breaks down into a collection of personal attacks and defensiveness?”

  Because we view our transportation choices as an extension of ourselves. Cars are marketed almost purely as a symbol of one’s identity. We ‘brand’ ourselves in this day and age with our consumer choices for the most part. Inasmuch as a car is probably the most expensive and visible manifestation of this, when people hear criticism of the automotive paradigm they take it personally.

  Cyclists view their machines with a similar perspective. Further, the debate is about what’s in the best interests of the whole. Most of us like to think of ourselves as civic-minded. When evidence or opinion negates or reinforces this perception, people react accordingly.

• 32 rf // Jun 1, 2009 at 8:16 am

  Darcy and Chris,
  Just keep in mind that albeit you are at war against cars and a driving for a cycling culture….many of us simply could not give a crap about your quest. It’s just too extreme. We are going to live the life we lead, making small economical adjustments, and humankind will not go extinct because of it.
  “support our cause or we are all going to die”…..right. Heard that one before

• 33 Chris Keam // Jun 1, 2009 at 8:36 am

  I’m not at war against anyone. I define my position by what I’m ‘for’ not what I’m against.

  If you read my posts you will see I am definitely interested in a productive dialogue on the topic.

  However, we may have missed the window where small, incremental adjustments can bear fruit before the frost. All the data and science suggests we need some big changes stat.

  It would please me greatly RF if you would acknowledge you’ve made a slight error in assuming I’m looking for a war.

• 34 Darcy McGee // Jun 1, 2009 at 8:40 am

  > many of us simply could not give a crap
  >? about your quest. It’s just too extreme

  Firstly, don’t implicate Chris is my declaration of war. Chris may or may not agree with me on that point, and he should not be unfairly maligned by your implication.

  Secondly RF, I think you missed my point which was this:

  > If human beings don’t seriously reduce
  > their dependence on internal
  > combustion engines, it may lead to our
  > own extinction.

  Alex above suggested essentially a laissez-faire attitude: we should just keep doing what we’re doing.

  What we’re doing will eventually kill us. Perhaps not in your lifetime, and perhaps not in mine…but we are destroying the planet. We are robbing ourselves of our most precious natural resources. Species are going extinct at record rates thanks to habitat loss and pollution.

  Eventually, human beings will be on that list if we don’t change. The fact that you’re being short sighted enough to ignore the long term impacts of your lifestyle…well, that just makes you Dick Cheney.

  The cause is YOU. The cause is not cycling. Cycling is one potential part of the solution. Another other one is your two feet.

  The planet is dangerously close to its tipping point. I don’t want to be there when you push it over the edge.

• 35 Darcy McGee // Jun 1, 2009 at 8:42 am

  Incidentally, I’m feeling particularly militant against cars this week given the Friday ride home I had. Blame the girl in the Blue Nissan Versa who jammed directly into me without even looking.

  Andrea Reimer, btw, is awesome.

• 36 A. G. Tsakumis // Jun 1, 2009 at 8:58 am

  Right, it’s militancy that’s fuelling you–and foolishness.

  The majority should bend to a venomous minority who drive their positions based on hate.

  Keam berates me on one hand and self-deflates on the other “it is an extension of ourselves” he claims.

  Of course it is. That’s the point, the doctrinaire left-wingnuts survive on hate, just like the far-right nutjobs.

  But those of us somewhere in the middle suffer at the expense of both.

  Why should I explain myself to Keam, when all that’s necessary is a simple view of his website to know exactly what he’s all about: Screw drivers, regardless of why they may NEED to drive, because he rides a bike.

  It’s sickening to think that there are people out there who want a minority opinion to control the city. Further, it astounds me that with such feeble arguments as “they do it in Amsterdam” we are any further along on the continuum of understanding.

  The majority of us want a better environment yes, but I will not sacrifice my three children’s safety and stuff one booster and three baby seats into a Prius.

  And even if I were in shape, I would NEVER ride my bike to work. It appeals as little to me as it does to the majority, otherwise, many of the cycling fascists wouldn’t have anything to bitch about. Otherwise, the streets would be loaded with bikes and not cars.

  Rapid transit appeals to me, somewhat and would be better–much.

  Bikes will always represent a minority of travelers, therefore, I will never consent to listening to the idle ramblings of people who spend a good portion of their day in lycra shorts.

  Happy June…

• 37 Peter G // Jun 1, 2009 at 9:04 am

  Darcy, I have some bad news for you. Even if we get rid of the infernal combustion engine tomorrow, you are going to be personally extinct in a few years. Perhaps, like most of the rest of us, you could just have a bit of fun in the interim. It’s much more satisfying than saving the world. Quit riding into cars. It’s bad for you.

• 38 foo // Jun 1, 2009 at 9:10 am

  Darcy, your regard for the planet is commendable. I take it that you do not heat your home in winter (especially not with gas), you are arguing for all buildings to have the thermostat set lower in cold weather, you do not buy any exotic high-tech clothing or cycling equipment, you don’t eat meat etc.

  You are aware that transport is only ~26% of emissions, and heating/manufacturing/agriculture etc are ~60% of emissions? (The remainder is “fossil fuel industries” and the like). (http://tinyurl.com/my9msq)

  It’s hard to take your environmental concerns seriously when you ascribe all the evils in the world to cars. It certainly sounds more like selfishness – you live in a nice part of the city, and you don’t want to share any of the cool stuff with the riff-raff from the rest of the region.

• 39 Chris Keam // Jun 1, 2009 at 9:39 am

  More fear and anger A.G.?

  Of course I called you on your remarks. Your posts are ill-mannered, inaccurate, and divisive with little or no basis in science or reputable studies to support them.

  It seems you can’t come to the debate with facts, so you have to resort to name-calling and mischaracterizations of others. That’s pretty juvenile and we both know it.

  Maybe you need a time-out to breathe, calm down, and start behaving with some measure of respect for those you disagree with? One minute for each year of age is the guideline according to the Super-Nanny.

  You’re going to pop a gasket at this rate. No matter. I find you entertaining, so it’s good fun to stir the pot just to see you bubble a bit more.

  Anyway, you’re not hear to amuse me. The real issue still remains unresolved. What exactly are you afraid of? It’s crystal clear something has you worried. What’s worse, (for you) you’re coming across an an ill-mannered, ill-informed extremist because of it. You make my task easier with every post Alex.

  The best you can do is rant about people’s clothing? Too funny my friend.

  Regarding the appeal of riding to work; the reality is many people would do so given safer roadways. This is backed up by research and your very own admission that safety is a factor for you and your children.

  Foo:

  Please don’t trot out this all or nothing red herring. We need to heat homes, eat, and wear clothes and yes, we should be cognizant of the environmental impacts of all our activities. Transportation however, is one area where there’s room for choices. Please don’t defend your choices by expecting those who are attempting to initiate positive change to be angelic. Perfect is the enemy of good. A little progress won’t be the downfall of the Western world.

• 40 A. G. Tsakumis // Jun 1, 2009 at 10:57 am

  Mr. Keam:

  You are a cycling fascist–period, over and out. You as the arbiter of fairness or who has made better points is laughable. There are a whole slew of people who advocate for the bike, and tey are reasonable and respectful. I describe you as I do for the MILITANCY of your own words on your own site and here.

  You want people out of their cars at any expense including the safety of their families. I think that’s sick.

  Your diatribe is, simply, a running joke when lifted against the facts that only 7-10% of people in this town use a bike on a regular basis.

  I assume, also, that you haven’t seen (or probably ignored) the overwhelming number of SUV’s in Kits.

  When is the last time any lovers of the environment have sent any idealistic emails to China, that opens a coal burning plant every five days?

  Never…hurt us but give the major polluters like big oil and mfcing a free ride because it’s easy to attack whom you perceive as or comfortable.

  Tails don’t wag dogs.

  Back to your pulpit.

• 41 Darcy McGee // Jun 1, 2009 at 11:08 am

  Tsakumis : Foolishness is ignoring the reality that we need to reduce dependency on cars. We need to reengineer our cities and towns to encourage the use of all other modes of transportation.

  You say you’re not “will not sacrifice my three children’s safety and stuff one booster and three baby seats into a Prius” but that’s an incomplete thought. What are you doing then? Putting them in an SUV for safety reasons? A compact car? Only walking? Driving is incredibly dangerous: by far the most dangerous mode of transporation.

  In any case, I’m glad that you’re not willing to sacrifice your children’s safety. That warms my heart.

  The fact that you’re willing to sacrifice their planet…that’s just disgusting. What good is being safe if there’s nowhere left to live?

  Around the turn of the century the world tipped: the majority of the world’s citizens now live in urban centres, instead of rural areas. The world has become more dense, and yet our reliance on the automobile has not lessened. Worldwide demand is increasing as economies which were formerly unable to afford personal automobiles are increasingly able to.

  I echo what Chris says to Foo., with the additional comment that there ARE choices with respect to heating homes. I once had someone suggest to me that we should all be burning wood because it’s a renewable resource. She failed to understand _completely_ that if 6 Billion people were heating their homes with wood the planet would not be sustainable, and the pollution levels would be insufferable.

  We–and by we, I mean EVERYBODY–need to reduce our energy consumption dramatically.

  Watch the whole board, folks. Everybody needs to stop focusing on a single square and start watching the whole board.

• 42 Chris Keam // Jun 1, 2009 at 11:09 am

  Nice talking with you. I’m getting a much better understanding of the deficiencies in your understanding of this issue.

  Here’s a very useful link regarding children and road safety.

  http://www.kidsonthemove.ca/

  In it you will find a number of resources that explain how and why we can make the urban environment safer for children. As a parent myself, I share your desire to do as much as possible to make our streets safe for kids. I think the best way to do that is to make a safe space for all kids, not just the ones whose parents can afford to drive an SUV.

  I hope you might reconsider your posting style and revisit the manner in which you address the people you disagree with. It’s one thing to poke a little fun, but accusing people of trafficking in hate is a serious matter that cannot be left un-addressed. In doing so you are fostering a dangerous rationale that can escalate into road rage and the death of another driver, a cyclist, or pedestrian. When a respected member of the community mis-labels the efforts of advocates, resorts to name-calling, and refused to debate based upon someone’s choice of clothing, you exacerbate the problems we already have

  You’ve obviously gone to a good school and had the benefit of an excellent education. I hope you will take that experience and dispassionately view the measures being suggested by sustainable transportation advocates and see how increased safety for all road users can have a positive impact on the driving experience for those who can’t or won’t find a way to choose, transit, walking, or biking.

• 43 Chris Keam // Jun 1, 2009 at 11:11 am

  oops, above post meant for A.G.

• 44 rf // Jun 1, 2009 at 11:19 am

  I acknowlege it was only Darcy who used the term “war”.

• 45 Chris Keam // Jun 1, 2009 at 11:26 am

  thanx rf! Appreciate the clarification.

• 46 Darcy McGee // Jun 1, 2009 at 11:29 am

  > not just the ones whose parents can afford
  > to drive an SUV.

  Most SUVs do very poorly in crash test ratings.

• 47 Chris Keam // Jun 1, 2009 at 11:35 am

  “I describe you as I do for the MILITANCY of your own words on your own site and here.”

  Provide an example or retract your statement A.G. Do your alma mater proud and demonstrate the values they supposedly instilled in you. If you can’t do that, then please bow out of the discussion and let those of us who are willing to engage in dialogue on the topic do so.

  regards,
  CK

• 48 Chris Keam // Jun 1, 2009 at 11:47 am

  “You want people out of their cars at any expense including the safety of their families. I think that’s sick.”

  And yet, somehow my family and I made it to Richmond and back last night (in a car!) without imploding into a black hole of self-loathing! Does my moral elasticity know no bounds… or is a rational use of the auto when sensible alternatives don’t exist the star by which I navigate? Hmmmm, life can be so complex when one isn’t reduced to a stereotype.

• 49 Chris // Jun 1, 2009 at 12:30 pm

  Video on Portland’s Ciclovia:
  http://www.streetfilms.org/archives/portlands-sunday-parkways/

• 50 spartikus // Jun 1, 2009 at 12:53 pm

  Provide an example or retract your statement A.G.

  I’m going to second that. I really don’t see any “militancy” from Chris Keam, here. Unless you define that term very broadly.

  Reasonable people can disagree on any given subject, and what not.

• 51 A. G. Tsakumis // Jun 1, 2009 at 1:02 pm

  Look, it’s really simple, the fantasists like Keam and Darcy believe we are at the tipping point.

  You are extremists. Your rhetoric says it all.

  I discounted Al Bore’s horse shit long ago. You guys take it by the bucketful.

  That’s nice.

  I don’t care.

  The idea that there will be no planet and that somehow I’m contributing to that by driving an SUV is INSANE.

  Buy a hybrid: So I ordered one and it’s here in a couple of months, but the notion that someone made it to Richmond ONE DAY belies that fact that an unforgiving minute could come at any time in the future. I don’t stop caring about the safety of my family FIRST, just because we made it through one car ride. What idiocy!

  And NO, the SUVS I have driven all test very well. But it’s funny how you set the goalposts for the rest of us to follow, but when we score you complain the shot was too hard.

  Did you ever play for the Flames?

  Bye boys, I’ll wave as I’m going past you on the bridge.

  Oh, and of course, I promise to swerve out of the way.

• 52 Chris Keam // Jun 1, 2009 at 2:21 pm

  I thought the lane reallocation was going to create gridlock in your opinion AG? Won’t the cyclists and walkers be the ones passing you in such an event?

  The rhetoric is in no way extreme. It’s the height of reasonableness to expect our society to make some provision for eco-friendly travellers to have a measure of safety in their daily journeys. I know you say my words are unrealistic, but since you can’t provide an example, I’m afraid you’re just making yourself look like a person who’s unwilling to actually engage in a constructive conversation about solutions.

  The Richmond example was simply made to put paid to your characterization of me as a bikes only, no exceptions kind of guy. I have no idea what you are on about now. Feel free to elaborate.

  It’s too bad so much energy must be expended defending reasonable attempts in creating a better city. Think of how much progress we could have made in understanding each other’s perspective if you’d come to this discussion willing to listen to the other person and proffer something more substantial than character attacks. I’ve invited you both here and with a personal phone call to have a discussion of the actual issues, but you are unwilling. No offence, but that’s not the mark of a reasonable person, nor good practice for someone with a job in the media.

  You say your primary concern is the safety of your children? One day they will be grown up and may well choose to cycle for transportation themselves. It’s certainly the trend among young people. Perhaps we should be talking about how this city looks in 2019 when your boy graduates from high school? Is it going to be a place where cars and buses are the only option, or would you prefer he have freedom of choice and a relative measure of safety no matter which mode of transport he decided upon.

  regards,
  CK

• 53 Darcy McGee // Jun 1, 2009 at 2:23 pm

  1) Classy. The name calling really makes your rhetoric work. You are a classy guy Alex.

  2) Who listens to Al Gore? Try reading the science instead. Al Gore’s just a marketing guy…an effective one, but he’s still just a marketing guy.

  3) What exactly did you “score” there? You’re killing your kids slowly but surely. Not gonna win you “father of the year” is it?

  4) I guarantee you that at any time except late at night, I’m getting across that bridge farther than you.

• 54 rf // Jun 1, 2009 at 3:09 pm

  My “global warming highlight of the year” was when Al Gore had to cancel his hearings in Washington due to excessive snow storms.

  Not enough snow, “global warming”. Too much snow, “global warming!”. We can’t lose!

  The global warming debate on a daily basis is simply “debating the weather.”

  You say look at the science. I say look at Sun spot theories. That’s science too. It seems to be a more efficient predictor as well.

  As soon as you go all Nostradumbass it makes it a pointless debate. You are declaring a certainty that something will happen in which none of us will be alive to verify. That’s a red herring which is rather silly to debate with such certainty.

  I’d rather see the cycling debate be a pro-health debate. That’s a good cause and the results can be measured with some actual evidence.

  I love attaching this link to global warming fear mongerers. It’s an cover story from Time Magazine. It’s only 35 years old. Who’s to say that the current debate will not look like this 35 years from now?

  http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,944914,00.html

  I really encourage everyone to read it and perhaps step back from the brink of global doom.

• 55 Chris Keam // Jun 1, 2009 at 3:37 pm

  Most of the debate here is about safety and a forward-thinking approach to urban planning, in response to the limited resources available to move people in urban areas RF. One could also make an argument that air quality locally is also an issue. When you speak with an air of certainty on the one hand and then criticize others for doing the exact same thing it kind of nullifies whatever point you are trying to make wouldn’t you say?

  We should really focus on trying to understand each other’s positions and look for areas of commonality. Invoking Mr. Gore and the vagaries of climate change doesn’t really advance the debate. Since we can’t know the truth of the matter according to you, it’s best to concentrate on that which we do comprehend. Clearly we can’t just keep building roads until we’ve paved every inch of the Lower Mainland. Obviously single occupant vehicles are an inefficient means of transportation. Given these facts we must dispassionately analyze the situation and find the cheapest, most effective ways to maximize the amount of people who can safely find alternate means of transportation… besides cars. Further, it behooves us to take a hard look at the promises made by the auto industry and see if cars are actually delivering on their claims of freedom and efficiency. Clearly, judging by the traffic jams that drivers are bemoaning, this isn’t happening. We also need to build with the future in mind. In looking at other jurisdictions, we see the greatest successes are coming from those places which choose to lower auto priority and make other options easier for people to implement. For all these reasons, the answers keep coming up the same. More buses, more bike lanes, more pedestrian-friendly initiatives, and less reliance on automobiles. Even if climate change were not an issue (I disagree with you that it’s a red herring and I don’t need Al Gore to be the weatherman when I can already see which way the wind blows, but that’s beside the point) we’d still be facing problems of urban land use and resource allocation. I’d be happy to debate this issue purely on the basis of safety for all. Why don’t we do that?

• 56 gmgw // Jun 1, 2009 at 3:51 pm

  RF sez:
  “My “global warming highlight of the year” was when Al Gore had to cancel his hearings in Washington due to excessive snow storms.

  Not enough snow, “global warming”. Too much snow, “global warming!”. We can’t lose!”

  This is why the term “global warming” is now considered obsolete, RF, and why it has largely been supplanted by “climate change” in discussions among those serious about the issue. The phenomenon of “global warming” is only part of a larger, even more ominous set of phenomena. The entire topic of climate change is much too complex, challenging, and crucial to allow it to be trivialized with lame jokes about whatever kind of winter weather Washington– or anywhere else– might be experiencing in any given year. Time for you to catch up.
  gmgw

• 57 not running for mayor // Jun 1, 2009 at 5:08 pm

  Vechiles account for only 35% of emission in the region, the number one producer is buildings, heating and cooling them. An Leed Gold or Platinum building can lower it’s emission by more then 50% for minimal upfront cost. In fact on new construction rolling the costs into your mortgage would result in immediate monthly savings (mortgage premium would be less then the monthly utility savings). Can’t do that by buying a hybrid the savings in gas will never offset the premiums (at least current models) Begining 2010 all new multifamily dwelling in Vancouver must be at least Leed Gold. This is what we should be doing, the car industry is controlled by the feds let them deal with it, and they are, just slowly.
  The one thing everyone can get behind is saving money, and that’s why the carbon tax as hated as it is will be somewhat succesful.

• 58 gmgw // Jun 1, 2009 at 6:22 pm

  CK sez:
  “Regarding going to the beach from Surrey, note I pointed out one possible alternative for a family, which involved exactly zero pedal strokes.”

  I wanted to respond to some of the stuff you’ve said at greater length, CK, but (evidently) unlike the rest of you my employer takes a dim view of spending the entire afternoon making posts on the BulaBlog. So you’ll have to wait for a while longer. But in regards to your response quoted above, if you place it in context you *should* (I won’t say “will”) perceive that I was hardly endorsing the hypothetical journey of my hypothetical Surrey family by car to thye shores of English Bay for the fireworks. I can’t tall you enough how much I and everyone else I know who lives near English Bay dread the startup of the g.d. fireworks each year because of the insane amount of car traffic it brings into our neighbourhoods. Let’s talk about the fireworks some more; it makes for an interesting case study of an extreme traffic situation.

  As an example of one way of responding to horrendous (event-related) traffic problems, let’s take Kits Point. It was only after screaming loud and long that the residents of Kits Point were able to convince City Hall to barricade their neighbourhood against car traffic on fireworks nights. Kits Point has an exceptionally active and vocal community association, which has frequently lobbied against the car (and tour bus) traffic which is prolific in their neighbourhood, thanks to the exceptional number of attractions Kits Point has in such a small area: Kits Beach and its park, Vanier Park (including the boat launch), the Museum/Planetarium, the Maritime Museum, Bard On the Beach, the Children’s Festival, and so on… not to mention the fireworks; Vanier Park is second only to English Bay Beach for the crowds it attracts on fireworks nights. Naturally, for trying to gain themselves some peace and quiet, Kits Point residents have frequently been assailed as “elitists” and worse.

  I’ve only been in the West End once on a fireworks night– on foot– and it was a horrendous experience, even with the traffic restrictions. But I had no idea just how much traffic the fireworks attract to Kitsilano until a few years ago, when we had dinner at a friend’s house on a fireworks night. She had a lovely old house (since sold, dammit) on Yew near 7th. Walking up there at about 6:30 PM, we were astonished at the sheer volume of traffic everywhere– Burrard, 4th, and the side streets were in a state of near total gridlock. Hours later, post-dinner, we were sitting out on her deck, working on a bottle of wine, making lazy conversation in the gathering dusk; when the fireworks started we could hear them but of course couldn’t see them. However, as soon as they ended, cars started passing the house, southbound, in ever-increasing numbers. Evidently the drivers were trying to get up to Broadway, out of the neighbourhood, from the vicinity of the beach, by what they hoped would be a sneaky alternative route. Guess again. In a few minutes Yew was bumper-to-bumper, with cars inching along, and that section of Yew is not wide. Roaring engines, shouting drivers, honking horns, pounding car stereos, headlights, headlights, headlights– and oh yeah, drivers and bicyclists yelling at each other. It was crazy. And it went on for over forty-five minutes. Our friend wearily assured us that it was like that every fireworks night. It was a while before we felt safe in venturing home.

  So, back to our case study: Our imaginary Surrey family, who could easily have been in one of those cars gridlocked on Yew that night: I believe your suggested alternative consisted largely of Skytrain. I don’t know if you have kids, CK, or how often you’ve ridden the Skytrain to and/or from Surrey (or even just New West) at peak times (and the sheer volume of Skytrain passengers on fireworks nights often dwarfs that seen during rush hour on any normal day), but I can tell you that even if I was a parent of three kids who was crazy/stupid enough to put them through an arduous all-day ordeal for a half-hour fireworks display, there is no way on god’s green earth I would take those kids, my spouse, and all the gear necessary for a long day at the beach– and back again, late in the evening– on Skytrain. It would simply not be doable, and could even endanger my children, thanks to Skytain’s enormous and– shall we say– boisterous fireworks crowds. So what are Mr. and Mrs. Surrey going to do? You’re damned right they’re going to take the car. Too bad, but there it is. You gonna be the one to tell them they shouldn’t? Be nice if someone did, but it ain’t gonna be me. Be my guest, CK. I’ll be there to comfort you when Mr. Surrey tells you to fuck right off.

  And that’s the crux of the matter. What the likes of you and McGee have to do is deceptively simple: You don’t have to convince *me* that the scenario I’ve outlined– thouands and thousands of cars streaming in from the burbs to downtown for a majorpublic event– is a bad idea from the get-go, for any number of reasons, not least of which is the environmental aspect. I don’t want the damn streets where I live choked with cars and ozone any more than you do. No, what you have to do is persuade Mr. & Mrs. Surrey, and all their friends and neighbours in all the Surreys of the world, to leave their damn cars at home– better yet, just stay home, period. And while they’re at it, ditch the car. *And* to change their whole attitude toward transportation and temporary self-gratification. Or, at the very least, if they still insist on coming, find them a viable, practical, efficient, maybe even pleasant, way of making the journey.

  The “war” McGee moronically speaks of won’t be fought, much less won, on the streets of Kitsilano, where “green” culture leaps out at you from every doorway. It needs to be fought among what Orwell called the “proles”. And unless you can get them– in all their vast numbers– onside, you’ll have lost before you’ve even started. Go to Kamloops or Williams Lake or Fort St. John. Try to convince the cowboys and rednecks lowriding through town on a Saturday night to give up their pickups and take up mountain biking instead. Hell, if you want a supreme challenge, I’ll give you one. Stop yelling at people like me and Tsukamis. We’re small fry. In fact, forget North America and Europe, where the tide is slowly swinging toward green. The fight here is too easy. Instead, form a bicycle army. Make McGee its general and get him a cool uniform with a lot of medals and maybe a gun that shoots nerf balls— he’d like that. And then take your crusade to China and India, whose vast and increasingly affluent populations are buying cars in ever-increasing numbers. It’s in China and India– and in other rapidly-developing countries, but China and India most of all, because of their enormous populations– that the *real* battle to save the planet will and must be fought. The former third world sees our enormous wealth and prosperity and wants a piece of it. They resent the hell out of us for telling them that they shouldn’t have what we’ve had for generations– material prosperity. And they’ve been conditioned by Western lifestyle marketing propaganda to believe that the passenger car is the supreme symbol of that– and they’re going to be acquiring them by the millions soon, unless reason can prevail. And if they do, we’re all fucked, no matter how many people here in Vancouver or any other North American city take up bicycling.

  Go for it, CK. I’ll be rooting for you all the way.
  gmgw

  If you and General McGee can go to China and India and convince their respective populaces to veer off the hellbound path they’re on, I will personally nominate you both for the Nobel Peace Prize. If instead you’d rather just lob shells into your neighbour’s backyards, I suggest you stock up on SPF 1000 sunscreen, ’cause in a decade or two we’re all going to need a lot of it.

• 59 gmgw // Jun 1, 2009 at 6:26 pm

  Sorry about the slightly disarranged text at the end of my previous post. That final paragraph should, of course, have gone above my signature. It ain’t easy to write this many words in such a small box.
  gmgw

• 60 A. G. Tsakumis // Jun 1, 2009 at 6:58 pm

  rf should be nominated for most excellent poster on the fraud of global warming alarmism. And, no, “global warming” has not been expunged from our lexicon at all. It’s only been quietly put away because there is too much evidence that has been presented which proves a great deal of that thesis as the political bafflegab it is.

• 61 Darcy McGee // Jun 1, 2009 at 8:51 pm

  gmgw:

  China and India are indeed the bigger of the problems. China had an opportunity to build a 21st century society, and instead it has chosen to simply repeat the mistakes of our (supposedly) affluent 20th century. A true shame.

  People are ecstatic about the Tata Nano. I don’t get it. It’s just a crappy econo box with few emissions controls and non of the luxuries North America demands (such as stereos radical features like “AM/FM tuning”.) It’s not a solution to anything, it’s a problem.

  I’m reminded of the situation with cell phones and the “third world.” Much of that third world just skipped over the land line phase and went straight to wireless. China has not done this with it’s economy and fuel. Neither has India.

  Of course fueling China’s rampant desires are ours: the incessant appetite for wobbly headed dolls in the shape of celebrities (Tiger Woods), dogs or politicians (Larry Campbell?) at ever lower prices has led to the rise of those polluting factories and those driving cars to them.

  Dolls made of plastic (oil) shipped thousands of kilometers (burning oil) sold at Wal Mart (which people drive to from kilometres around to save a buck, burning oil the whole time) bought cheaply from staff making minimum wage so the money can be sent back to Bentonville, not even staying in Canada overnight.

  As always, you just need to follow the money. In this case the money is a think black liquid, but it’s still money. All of this oil so we can have…our wobbly headed dolls, and disposable sweaters from Old Navy made from synthetic fibres…oil.

  Oil is economic heroin: the fastest way to jump start your economy is to just mainline it. We can always fix the problems later right? Wrong. As has been said before the problems we’re fixing today are 20 to 30 years old at least. We got addicted to a lifestyle, and we didn’t care what we lost in the process, or what the long term prospects are. We decided not too look. It was easier that way. Heroin indeed. Until North America goes clean, why would anybody else bother?

  Aspiring to the standards of western civilization is indeed the source of many problems. The least of them is the bizarre attachment to automobiles.

  I laughed when I read this:
  > Make McGee its general and get him a cool uniform with a lot of medals > and maybe a gun that shoots nerf balls— he’d like that.
  because often as I watch yet another car blissfully ignore and speed through a red light (“But officer…when I looked it was still yellow”) I wish that I had something in my pocket to toss out. I always think SuperBalls would be good…solid thunk on the windshield, but low likelihood of damage. It might teach some driver that yellow means stop, and perhaps save Alex’s kids life one day.

  I’m sure it’s illegal, so I’ve never really pursued it. Sure would be fun though.

• 62 Chris Keam // Jun 1, 2009 at 10:22 pm

  GMGW:

  I find it hard to feel too bad for the residents of Kits Point having to deal with beach goers when I have drug dealers shooting it out a few hundred feet from my back door here in Mt. Unpleasant, but having lived at Burrard and Broadway, I certainly have experienced and understand the post-fireworks carmageddon. It was not pleasant to have to close my windows on a hot summer night because of exhaust fumes. But, fireworks are only four or five nights of the year and if you choose to live in Disneyland you’re going to have to expect to deal with the Mickey Mouse parade, simple as that. You could make the same argument about the PNE, or the Dragon Boat Festival, the Jazz Festival, or any other large scale event. They do inconvenience neighbourhoods on a temporary basis. Contrast that with those of us who have to deal with the soot, noise, and pollution from the constant traffic on Twelfth Ave and I’m sure you’ll understand that any tears I might conjure for the fine people of Kits Point would be purely of the crocodile variety.

  As to the ‘proles’ well, they are rapidly being priced out of the car usage game, despite the best efforts of gov’t to prop up this failing industry. So, I’m not so sure it will be too hard to convince people to attempt cheaper, more effective solutions. Of course when nabobs of negativity feel compelled to preach doom and gloom it makes it harder to communicate positive messages and proffer solutions. It would be nice to see the wealthy lead by example IMO and demonstrate that you can still lead a normal, productive life without an auto, but frankly, the lovely old tradition of noblesse oblige seems to have fallen out of favour. As a prole myself in terms of income, I take exception to your contention that ‘we’ are incapable of change or rational decisions. As with most social issues, education can work wonders.

  There’s little doubt the problems we face are complex and multi-faceted. I think we make the solutions easier to find if we first start with the easy, cheap fixes, like providing better alternatives to the car. I would surmise curing our society of its addiction to mega-events is a far greater challenge, as all cultures seem to have had large group events in some form or another, but many don’t/didn’t rely on the car for transportation. I’ll leave no-fun zealotry to someone else. I’m going to stick to pimping low-cost, healthy, fun travel on two wheels.

• 63 Chris Keam // Jun 1, 2009 at 10:32 pm

  “If you and General McGee can go to China and India and convince their respective populaces to veer off the hellbound path they’re on, I will personally nominate you both for the Nobel Peace Prize. If instead you’d rather just lob shells into your neighbour’s backyards, ”

  I believe the expression is ‘think globally, act locally.’ Who am I to go somewhere far away and tell people how to live if I can’t make an attempt to deal with my own home first? Do as I say, not as I do is a crummy way to advocate for change.

  BTW, can we stop calling this piffling debate a war and using it as a metaphor for the antagonism on both sides? Real people with real families get killed every day because of wars. Let’s not diminish the horror of armed conflict by calling every argument over road space a ‘war’. Words lose their power when uttered too often. Let’s let ‘war’ remain a word with significance, so that we may better abhor it.

• 64 gmgw // Jun 1, 2009 at 11:19 pm

  D. McGee sez:
  “…often as I watch yet another car blissfully ignore and speed through a red light (”But officer…when I looked it was still yellow”) I wish that I had something in my pocket to toss out. I always think SuperBalls would be good…solid thunk on the windshield, but low likelihood of damage. It might teach some driver that yellow means stop…

  I’m sure it’s illegal, so I’ve never really pursued it. Sure would be fun though.”

  That reminds me of three stories.

  1) Back in the 70s one of my closest friends, who had (and still has) a rather dry yet surreal sense of humour, had a beat-up ’63 Chev which could be quite an adventure to ride in (I was with him once when the steering wheel literally fell off the column into his lap just after he’d parked the car. We’d just exited the Upper Levels Highway after an extended run at 70 MPH…). One time when we were in the Vancouver-bound rush hour lineup for the Lions Gate Bridge he told me he was thinking of filling a bucket with rocks, keeping it in the car and pitching them at drivers who cut him off in lineups. His only problem, he said, was figuring out a way to throw accurately with his left hand. I don’t know why, but the image, with the addition of certain cartoon conventions, cracks me up to this day. Maybe you have to know him. He now lives on 10 acres of bush outside Parksville– fled the big city traffic decades ago.

  2) In the late 70s, my two closest friends, who had recently (and conveniently for me) married each other, were living on the top floor of that big old apartment building on the northwest corner of Thurlow and Burnaby in the West End. I was visiting one night and noticed a large and rather dubious-looking watermelon sitting ominously in the kitchen. I should say that W, the male half of the couple, is rather noise-sensitive. He told me that noise from the traffic on Thurlow was driving him nuts– it was summer and they had to keep all the windows open. When the light at Davie turned green, he said, the drivers would shoot down Thurlow like it was a drag race en masse, with a similar level of noise. Anyway, he had a plan in mind. He’d precisely timed how long it took the lead cars to pass their kitchen window, and also how long it would take a hurled watermelon to fall five stories. He was working, he said, on a simple mathematical formula which would enable him to nail offending cars with a rotten watermelon, with perfect accuracy every time. I’m not sure what he hoped to accomplish by doing this, apart from scaring the hell out of a few irresponsible drivers, but he was just waiting, he said, for the melon to reach the right state of rottenness. I sympathetically wished him luck.

  A week or so later I happened to ask him if he’d put his plan into action yet. He told me dejectedly that his wife had ordered him to throw out that “disgusting” melon. Damn! I was almost as disappointed as he was.

  3) Some years later we were living on the 7th floor of a building whose balconies overlooked a street which was heavy with traffic during the day, yet curiously quiet at night. One night some idiots in a hot-rod pickup truck decided to use our street as their own personal drag strip. They made three incredibly noisy high-speed passes, performance mufflers roaring, by the time I could get to the kitchen and arm myself with the nearest non-lethal weapon at hand: An unopened 750-gram container of yogurt. I can pitch small heavy objects with surprising accuracy sometimes, especially in a good cause, and when you’re seven stories up, momentum is on your side. They started coming back for another run and I drew back my throwing arm. Suddenly they screeched to a halt right in front of our building. A guy on the sidewalk had been waving at them. I thought I was about to witness a potentially sanguinary argument, but it seemed he was a buddy of theirs–! He leaned against the truck with his hands resting atop the door and they started talking.

  I was seriously torn. On the one hand I was aching to carry out my plan of punishment. On the other hand, the point I was trying to make would be severely blunted if the perps were stationary at the time of impact. Suddenly I was hit by a blinding flash of inspiration. If I could throw the yogurt with superb accuracy and nail their friend directly in the back of the head, the container would burst, he would slump to the ground unconscious, dropping from their sight instantly, and they would suddenly find the entire interior of their truck cab– and themselves– coated in fresh, dripping 2% plain. The theatrical possibilities were colossal. If I could pull it off just right, it would be as if their buddy’s head had suddenly exploded and it had been filled with– with– man, what *is* this shit??– YOGURT?! The level of cognitive dissonance engendered would be of terrifying proportion. It would be a punishment of an absolutely superior kind.

  Nothing ventured, nothing gained, I figured; I began preparing myself– pull back the arm– slow intake of breath— suddenly, to my intense and lasting disappointment, the conversation below was abruptly terminated; the truck “rubbered out”, as we used to say as kids, and disappeared around the corner. And that was the last I saw of them.

  I still kick myself about that one. The fact that a blow to the head from a tub of yogurt thrown from seven stories up could potentially be fatal in no ways detracts from the warm fuzzy feeling I get when I contemplate the visual possibilities had I succeeded. To loosely paraphrase Emma Goldman: If your war isn’t fun, Darcy McG., I wouldn’t want to be part of it.

  By the way, if you ever decide to follow through on your SuperBall plan, I demand the right to put a similar plan into action, perhaps incorporating a different form of artillery, for bicyclists who run red lights and stop signs— they’re legion in my neighbourhood (and just about everywhere else in this town), so I’ll have my work cut out for me.
  gmgw

• 65 gmgw // Jun 2, 2009 at 12:41 am

  CK:
  I like the use of the term “war” in this context possibly a lot less than even you, but it was Darcy who said “we”– whoever he meant my that pronoun– “are at war against cars”. I thought it was a stupid and needlessly inflammatory choice of of phrase, but given Darcy’s expressed willingness (in a previous thread) to physically assault pedestrians who inadvertently stray into his path, I suspect he sees himself as a guerrilla in his own private insurrection and people like me as war criminals. I don’t know if you know him personally, but if you do, I suggest you advise him that his bike-Rambo stance ain’t gonna win his cause many converts.

  Incidentally, CK, for the record, I didn’t learn to drive until I was 22 (and I didn’t learn to ride a bike until I was 20– I was terrified as a kid that I’d fall and hurt myself if I tried to ride one) and I was 26 before I got my first vehicle– a Toyota pickup, which my father left to me when he died. I haven’t owned a car in sixteen years. I usually walk or take transit if I need to get somewhere in the city. My wife drives a Toyota Echo. She works in an area hard to access by transit and her bicycling days are long over. I borrow her car when I need to run an errand that requires wheeled transportation, and we use it for weekenders out of town and so on. I know that the passenger car as a viable mode of transport is a doomed concept, and that if allowed to spread unchecked, could very well destroy the planet. OK? I thought you ought to know all that so you can go after me with more precise targeting, should you choose to.

  I’ve not made it sufficiently clear, I guess, that I’m primarily advocating here on behalf of pedestrian rights and pedestrian safety. If I have an axe to grind in this and other bike-related threads, it’s what I perceive as the serious lack of courtesy shown pedestrians by bicyclists. Bicyclists all too often are to pedestrians as cars are to bicyclists (and of course I know peds. are endangered far more by cars). I think if you and I–and maybe even McGee– could have a conversation within those parameters, we might even achieve some form of communication rather than bashing away at each other all the time.

  I think that peds and bikers have more in common than a lot of bikers are willing to admit. I’d like to think that the two groupd are in some ways united by a common cause– finding a way of getting around on the planet that won’t destroy it. But… last Friday, coincidentally, I was walking south across the Granville Bridge when the Critical Mass ride went by. I’d not heard that it was going to happen and it was an astonishing sight, I must admit. I’ve seen CM rallies before, but nothing on this scale. I was on the east side of the bridge. On the west side, at the crosswalk at the start of the Fir/4th exit ramp, there was a small group of pedestrians waiting to cross. I stopped to see what would happen. What I wanted to happen, I guess, was for a “Potemkin”-style moment– that the crowd of bikes would suddenly stop, a cry of “Brothers!” would go up, and the pedestrians would be allowed to cross in safety, with embraces and cheers from the bikers, brothers and sisters united in a common cause.

  Ha! What a dreamer. They stood there for five minutes or more, like frightened deer trying to build up the courage to cross a river. Finally the crowd of bikes thinned out enough for them to dash across. Not *one* damn bicyclist had stopped for them. So much for green solidarity. In that moment, there was absolutely no difference in effect between the oh-so green bike brigade and the 50,000 cars that roar across that bridge every day. Each phenomenon equally represents a hazardous challenge to pedestrians.

  I was also wondering how many transit riders, most of who probably don’t even own cars, were stuck in immobilized buses downtown while the Massers had their let’s-rub-those-war-criminals’/drivers’-faces-in-it several minutes’ celebratory halt in mid-span, which only extended the period in which all other forms of transportation on that corridor were also halted. How many innocent folks who just wanted to go home after a hard day’s work and have dinner, hug their partners, play with the kids, whatever, had to wait, jammed into hot, crowded buses, while the Critical Massers revelled in their freedom and the high that comes from a heady mixture of adrenaline and moral correctness? Just asking.

  I have enough of a challenge every day trying to walk across that bridge in safety, CK, because of those damn crosswalks. They are a potentially lethal hazard and I don’t know how many of us take our lives in our hands crossing that bridge every day. Eventually someone will get killed and Engineering will commission a report. I have been trying for five years, off and on, to get Engineering to look at those crosswalks and come up with a plan to enhance the safety of the pedestrians who use them. I’ve suggested ped.-activated flashing lights. They won’t even look at the idea. I guess we need someone to volunteer to be killed so they’ll take the problem seriously. I’ve nearly been struck myself a number of times.

  Yet now the city proposes, seemingly at the drop of a hat, to block off miles of some of the busiest streets in the city, every Sunday, so bicyclists can pedal up and down to their heart’s content. Hello? What’s wrong with this picture?? Yeah, I’m jealous of the clout you guys seem to have, and I’m just a bit bitter. Would that the city might give a tenth of the attention they devote to meeting the needs of bicyclists to enhancing pedestrian safety. You may think that an outrageous statement, as long as bikers can’t go everywhere in this city in perfect comfort and safety, but I can assure you that as bad as you think you may have it, we walkers have it bad too. If and when Cornwall is closed on Sundays and full of ecstatic bikers, by the way, do you suppose any of them will stop without being ordered to, and allow pedestrians to simply cross the street? And if one stops, will all the others? And if some uppity pedestrian activates a red light in a desperate attempt to get across, will any riders obey it without a cop there to enforce it? Just asking.

  On another note: On Sunday night, CK, my wife and I went to a movie downtown. We walked there north across the Granville Bridge and walked home south across the Burrard Bridge, on the east side– out of our way, but I like the view from the east side and it will soon be denied to me, as a pedestrian, for an indefinite time, so I wanted one more look. While walking down the long south slope, I was next to the railing. I held my arm tight around my wife’s waist so she wouldn’t stray into the bike path inadvertently, and frequently looked behind us. My reasons for doing so are obvious, but I admit I was also thinking of Darcy’s “brushback” threat; and I was genuinely afraid that someone as irresponsible as him, who might want to “liberate” the bridge for bikers a few weeks early, might try a tactic like that and possibly injure my loved one, maybe even severely. I’ve had the brushback done to me by bikers on the Granville bridge a number of times but had always assumed they were just clumsy riders until Darcy made his brag. As it happened, it was near midnight and the only riders we encountered were coming the other way, but you take my point. I hope.

  My point is that I shouldn’t have to feel afraid like that. Bicyclists should show the same proper bloody respect they demand from drivers for people on foot they may encounter. And that, for the most part, is *not* happening in this town. You want more examples? I can provide them. But essentially what I’m trying to say is that, while you and your tribe and me and mine should be on the same side, “united in common cause”, instead, the tactics and riding practises far too many of you bike folks routinely employ scare the living shit out of me, as a pedestrian, all too often. And like the Roling Stones said in that great song (which they stole from the also-great Reverend Robert Wilkins, who did it better), “That’s no way for us to get along”.
  gmgw

• 66 Darcy McGee // Jun 2, 2009 at 5:12 am

  > given Darcy’s expressed willingness (in a previous thread) to physically
  > assault pedestrians who inadvertently stray into his path

  I have NEVER physically assaulted anyone, least of all “assault pedestrians who inadvertently stray into his path,”

  I have, after having a warning ignored, passed very closely to pedestrians. I always warn first with voice and/or a bell. Pedestrians ignore bells, btw.

  I have never made contact with a pedestrian.

  I have NEVER physically assaulted a pedestrian.

  Good on you, however, for staying close to the railing. You should not be across that line.

  > I’ve had the brushback done to me by bikers on the Granville bridge a
  > number of times but had always assumed they were just clumsy riders
  > until Darcy made his brag

  Cycling on the sidewalk on the Granville Bridge is illegal. It violates a Vancouver bylaw, and any cyclist you encounter should be ticketed. You will never see me on that sidewalk, though I do use the Granville Bridge to cross False Creek occasionally.

  Don’t dare call me an irresponsible cyclist. I am a responsible cyclists, a responsible driver and a responsible motorcycle rider. I have more hours of driver training than all but professional drivers. I stop, sir, at stop signs. I don’t glide through them until I blissfully realize that someone’s coming from the other direction. I stop.

  My declaration of war was thus:
  > Because, frankly, we are at war against cars. It’s the reality.
  the “we” is everybody. Alex may not realize is, but his car is surely killing his children. If not his children, then his children’s children. We need to build a society that is less dependent on the personal automobile.

  Our cities are screwed, because we’ve built them around isolated travel in automobiles.

  It has nothing to do with pedestrians. The city belongs to people, not to sheet metal.

• 67 Chris Keam // Jun 2, 2009 at 5:53 am

  GMGW:

  On Sunday as I was riding to the beach a woman stepped off the curb at 8th and Macdonald to jaywallk diagonally across the street. She didn’t look both ways and I had to swerve and brake to avoid her. If I had been a silent-running electric car she would have been injured or dead as there would have been no way to stop in time. The point being we can swap anecdotes about ‘the other guys’ until every drop of oil is burned and all we do is increase the divide. If the car has taught us anything it’s that we must design to deal with humans making poor choices. Separating bikes, peds, and cars can help with that.

  Regarding Ciclovia, it’s not just a bikes thing. The streets will also be open to pedestrians and utilized for a number of different activities that are completely unrelated to cycling.

• 68 Chris Keam // Jun 2, 2009 at 6:40 am

  “I think that peds and bikers have more in common than a lot of bikers are willing to admit”

  You will find IMO that anyone involved in cycle advocacy completely understands how peds/bikers have common cause and supports pedestrian safety improvements. The non-involved may see an opponent, but not anyone who is working for better infrastructure.

  One might just as well point out how the some drivers don’t understand that a bike often means ‘one less car’ on the road and reduced traffic congestion. It couldn’t possibly be more straightforward, yet some folks have a hard time grasping the concept that supporting better bike/ped facilities improves automobile traffic flow.

  Whaddya gonna do? Gabriel could descend from on high with a chorus of angels singing hosannas in praise of self-propulsion and folks like Len and Alex would still stubbornly stick to their position. They’ve both said as much. There’s no cure for wilful disregard of the facts.

• 69 spartikus // Jun 2, 2009 at 8:12 am

  rf: I really encourage everyone to read it and perhaps step back from the brink of global doom.

  I agree with other commentators that “climate-change” is not the overriding issue whether Vancouver builds infrastructure for bicycles.

  But I will make the following, hopefully brief, point: Time magazine is not an academic journal. It’s not peer-reviewed. This article has been circulating in climate-change denialist circles for awhile. So, an actual climate scientist went back to check the validity of the claim that in the 1970′s climate scientists were predicting an ice age.. What did he find?

  It turns our that there is not a single peer-reviewed original scientific study that argued this to be the case. The only paper that came close was one written by NASA scientists Ichtiaque Rasool and Stephen Schneider in 1971. A throwaway sentence at the end of their abstract noted:

  “An increase by only a factor of 4 in global aerosol background concentration may be sufficient to reduce the surface temperature by as much as 3.5° K. If sustained over a period of several years, such a temperature decrease over the whole globe is believed to be sufficient to trigger an ice age.”

  Of course this statement is riddled with weasel words, assumptions and the hypothetical. Nevertheless, its scientific shelf life was only a few months before the assumptions underpinning the study were shown to be questionable.

  The peer review process worked, and “global cooling” never became a broadly-held, credible theory, despite the insinuations of the Time article. The simple fact is that today that same rigorous peer review process has examined and reexamined the evidence and concluded, in the consensus of the global scientific community, that climate change is real and will affect how we live.

• 70 Darcy McGee // Jun 2, 2009 at 8:13 am

  > I demand the right to put a similar plan
  > into action, perhaps incorporating a
  > different form of artillery, for bicyclists
  > who run red lights and stop signs— they’re
  > legion in my neighbourhood (and just
  > about everywhere else in this town)

  I fully support this plan, but yes the Super Balls would probably hurt.

  In particular, if you DO see a cyclist on the Granville Street bridge sidewalk you should feel free to tell them to get the hell off. Cambie & Burrard are both fine crossings with well marked bike routes…there’s no need.

  That does not, on the other hand, give anybody the right to should a cyslist into traffic. Some guy tried to do that to a friend and I when we were 15, literally leaning into us with his shoulder. It didn’t end well for him.

  Ah, youth and brashness. They go well together.

• 71 Chris Keam // Jun 2, 2009 at 8:17 am

  Regarding tickets, it’s my opinion that all infractions should always be ticketed, be they traffic violations, a Duderino smoking a fatty at an outdoor concert, or someone littering by throwing a cigarette butt on the ground. I have a big problem with the current practice of letting police officers use their ‘discretion’ in who gets a ticket or not. Police conduct of late suggests good judgement is not a universal trait of the law enforcement community. Their job is not to act as a judge and that’s exactly the result when a police officer can pick and choose who will be subject to the country’s laws and who gets a free pass.

• 72 spartikus // Jun 2, 2009 at 8:25 am

  On bicycles and Vancouver:

  1. Vancouver is, by way of it’s unique (and beautiful) geography, a city where population density is higher than the North American median. Encouraging density is the stated policy of major Vancouver municipal parties. Car use, as we know it now, will not be sustainable as Vancouver grows.

  2. Whether you believe “peak oil” is decades away, a few years away, or has already happened, the era of cheap oil is over. The winter of 2008-2009 was an anomaly, where the global recession greatly reduced demand for oil, which led to the price dropping. Operating a car in the future will be much more expensive, and will likely be beyond the economic reach of many people in a few decades. Governments need to plan for this now. There is no guarantee that whatever form of energy we eventually replace oil with will be cheaper.

  3. I’m glad people here enjoy their Hummers and other SUVs. I’m pretty sure GM, though, rues the day it decided to abandon the EV-1 in favour of the Hummer.

• 73 rf // Jun 2, 2009 at 8:57 am

  They didn’t call it Greenland to be funny.

• 74 spartikus // Jun 2, 2009 at 9:05 am

  They didn’t call it Greenland to be funny.

  From the Saga of Erik the Red: “He named the land Greenland, saying that people would be eager to go there if it had a good name.”

  Bob Rennie didn’t invent real estate marketing out of whole cloth

• 75 rf // Jun 2, 2009 at 10:41 am

  …..And named during the Medieval Warm Period (likely caused by excessive horse ‘emissions’) prior to the Little Ice Age (likely caused by excessive use of hand fans).

• 76 gmgw // Jun 2, 2009 at 10:58 am

  Darcy, my use of the word “assault” was, I admit, deliberately provocative, just as (I’d like to think) your “declaration of war” was. Makes the person you’re debating sit up and pay attention. But– and I said this the last time– if you happen to brush against someone who doesn’t know you’re there, or who is easily startled, has a poor sense of equlibrium, is elderly, has a bad hip or heart, or any other possible factors, and they fall or otherwise suffer an injury as a result of your action, you would in all likelihood and with absolute justification be charged with assault, or even something more serious, if it could be proved that your actions were intentional. Maybe it’s because I’m getting to a certain age, or because I have a wife with neuromuscular problems that could be severely aggravated by a fall or sudden impact, or because we have (increasingly frail) friends in their 70s, 80s and even 90s, or because I have a friend with a teenage daughter who is developmentally disabled as well as afflicted with motor control issues– she can walk well enough, but is given to sudden changes of direction– but I really don’t know if you have any idea just how vulnerable and even frightened some of us feel when a bicyclist zooms by at close range. A 170-pound man on a bicycle traveling at a high rate of speed is a potentially lethal projectile, whether you choose to admit it or not. And even the most skilled biker on the planet may not be able to avoid colliding with someone who lurches unexpectedly into their path– especially if it was the intention of the biker to brush that straying indvidual back. Do you have any understanding of the possible consequences of a broken hip to a 75-year-old with osteoporosis? It doesn’t take much of an impact to cause an elderly or otherwise vulnerable person to lose their balance. I ask you again: Slow down when approaching pedestrians, and accept that people– i.e. pedestrians –are *not* always going to behave as you think they should. Just like car drivers. And a lot of them deserve your understanding, not punishment and warnings.

  In any case, I’m glad you agree that bike riders hould not be on the sidewalk on the Granville Bridge. Unfortunately, scores of them break that bylaw every single day. During the afternoon commute, there are generally many more bikers on the sidewalks than in the traffic lanes. And one of the reasons I get so worked up about this topic is because most of my close-range sidewalk encounters with bikers take place on those narrow sidewalks. And yeah, I’ve tried to speak to bike riders on the bridge about this. Maybe I’m not using the right words, ’cause most of them seem— um– reluctant to hear me on this topic. If you can think of a way I can broach the subject with a bike rider in a way that doesn’t quickly end with him telling me to go piss up a rope, or words to that effect, please let me know what those words are, ’cause after years of “close encounters” and near-misses, it sure would be helpful.
  gmgw

• 77 SV // Jun 2, 2009 at 1:11 pm

  I ride every day and I used to get outraged all the time-bad drivers, tuned-out pedestrians, etc. And then one day I happened to share a few blocks with an older rider. When I began to complain about a bad driver he simply nodded. He went on to add though that we were still riding , that we should try to enjoy it and not let someone else’s poor behaviour ruin our rides and days.
  Every since I’ve relaxed on the bike. I try to be courteous to everyone(not always possible)-if it’s easier for me to stop and wave a car through and intersection I do, and I defer to pedestrians whenever it’s safe. Mostly though I just smile and wave and it’s always suprising how much that helps.
  I’m not sharing this to toot my own horn or because I’m some Pollyanna. I’m usually towing one of my kids so I feel I have to be a good example. I realize there are dicks out there and that they use a variety of ways to get around.And it’s hard to be calm if you feel someone’s just about killed you. But I can’t spend the daily energy being outraged anymore.

  Momentum featured a good article a few issues back that I reccomend to anyone needing to calm down on the bike:

  http://tinyurl.com/92lsln

  And for those interested in perspective/empathy/mindfulness in the everyday world I’d also reccomend this commencement address from David Foster Wallace(R.I.P.):

  http://tinyurl.com/4j3wz5

  Have fun out there.

• 78 jesse // Jun 2, 2009 at 2:24 pm

  Given the number of near-miss cycling incidents some of the commenters on this blog are experiencing, I would suggest slowing down. There are too many areas of interference on the swath cut on a typical bike route to zip along at full speed without being in a risky situation.

• 79 rf // Jun 2, 2009 at 2:53 pm

  I want to know why cyclists think they don’t have to stop for pedestrians at intersections when they are ripping down the cycle route on the West Side. My wife actually got run over by one and had a nasty scrape on her leg for week last year.

• 80 Chris // Jun 2, 2009 at 3:29 pm

  I’m impressed with motions passed today by city council.
  http://www.geoffmeggs.ca/2009/06/02/vision-council-doubles-spending-on-cycling/

• 81 Frothingham // Jun 2, 2009 at 3:44 pm

  @rf ; I assume your wife looked before idly stepping out as I see many pedestrians do… doing this when a car is fast approaching is not as unsafe as doing it in front of cyclist who is barreling along. Look both ways then step off and proceed. A pedestrian then has the right of way. And ALL traffic has to yield to pedestrian in cross walk.

• 82 SV // Jun 2, 2009 at 3:44 pm

  rf-that’s a good question but it’s not all cyclists, just the dicks.
  We’ve got the same problem in Strathcona, at the intersection of Union and Hawkes. Few cyclists stop in either direction and it’s only a matter of time until someone gets hurt or the city decides to put up a barricade that forces a dismount.

• 83 Frothingham // Jun 2, 2009 at 3:46 pm

  “. Council approved car-free trials in four neighbourhoods – Collingwood, Gastown, Mount Pleasant and Commercial Drive.”

  ??? what is meant by this item? On certain days? every weekend ? once a month? what?

• 84 gmgw // Jun 2, 2009 at 4:47 pm

  Just to slap my broken record back on the turntable:
  $3.4 million in spending approved by Council today for cycling improvements. Uh-huh. OK… And the sum total of spending approved by Council during the entire past year for enhancement of pedestrian safety is…? (Anyone actually know?)
  gmgw

• 85 Chris Keam // Jun 2, 2009 at 6:15 pm

  Better facilities for bikes will result in fewer timid bikers on sidewalks and other positive spin-offs for pedestrians GMGW. Ciclovia and car-free days are by no means a bike-only celebration, pedestrians will also benefit from more signal activation buttons, and lower speed limits, traffic calming measures, etc, along bike routes will also increase their safety with regard to automobiles.

  Pedestrians (as a special interest group if you will) are actually getting plenty of benefits without having to lobby or expend ‘political capital’. It’s the ‘vocal bike lobby’ (to quote Ms. Anton) that will take the heat from reactionaries over these progressive changes.

  How about a pat on the back to the cyclists working for you instead of a snub of the nose?

  

  Better yet, marshall some forces and work with cycling advocates so that we are stronger in unity.

  cheers,
  CK

• 86 jesse // Jun 2, 2009 at 7:51 pm

  90% of the City’s population won’t go to the car-free street events. I’m betting well over 80% won’t even remember they’re taking place. Not to mention everyone coming into the City from other jurisdictions just trying to do some shopping.

  The no-car events are a great idea not because they advocate pedestrian and bike traffic but because they promote more face-to-face interaction in the communities. It so happens that pedestrians (not necessarily cyclists) are much more interactive with each other because they can actually talk to each other easily. Bikes at such events are a sidebar; park ‘em along the event perimeter and hoof it like everyone else.

  Personally I welcome the “chaos.” It’s part of being in a healthy city.

• 87 Chris // Jun 2, 2009 at 9:44 pm

  The car-free festivals in Collingwood, Gastown, Commercial Drive, and Mount Pleasant will be every Sunday this summer, once they get going.

  I found it really interesting that the car-free festivals in those 4 neighbourhoods were supported by community groups and local business improvements associations.

• 88 Rand Chatterjee // Jun 3, 2009 at 11:45 am

  “I don’t imagine a Vancouver ciclovia would be as tranquil. The car-free seawall is about as relaxing as the Long March in China on sunny days, with hordes of cyclists, pedestrians and skateboarders all competing for space.”

  Check out these photos from Ottawa’s FOUR ciclovias: http://walkandbikeforlife.org/ottawa.html. Tranquil is exactly the word that comes to mind.

  The problem with the English Bay seawall is that IT IS OVERUSED by people desperate for more recreational space, but either excluded from or fearful of the streets just above.

  If you were to stretch out these people AND all of their friends and family along 6 kms of city streets for just one morning a week, you might have 50 people per block quietly cycling, rollerblading, or strolling with their kids, in peace and quiet, and with significant benefits to air quality, personal health, and community spirit. This density is based on a 15,000 person participation over 5 hours, as is the average for ciclovias in San Francisco or Portland.

  No one in Vancouver appears to believe life here can get any better.

  Well, it can.

• 89 Rob Wynen // Jun 3, 2009 at 12:30 pm

  Wow, very enjoyable reading the back and forth. I would love to see how the pro car faction would react if the shoe was on the other foot. Breathing in exhaust, being forced to drive in the gutter, the constant misinformation about how they don’t pay road taxes while they know very well they do. I think many cyclist in Vancouver have been overly passive for far too long and this is why the situation for cyclists and anyone who doesn’t encase themselves in two tonnes of metal has not improved. Yes, I am sure the Len’s and A G s of the world want non motorists to just shut up, if I had virtually the entire transportation network dedicated to my needs I might just do the same. I do find it sad that so many of the nay sayers feel very comfortable putting their own comfort ahead of genuine safety concerns put forward by other citizens.

• 90 gmgw // Jun 3, 2009 at 12:51 pm

  It’s not just the English Bay seawall that gets crowded. Taking a walk on a sunny weekend along the False Creek South seawalk/seawall between the Marina at the end of First Avenue and the Cambie Bridge is often like promenading through the middle of the Tour de France. As I’ve said before, it would be nice if some of the adrenalin-crazed, speeding morons who repeatedly swoop past you, in both directions, on both sides, in groups of five or more, with no warning– a frightening experience– would slow down, but I don’t expect it to happen. Among the walkers out there are kids, babies in strollers, dogs, and elderly couples, but this seems to make no impact on their walnut-sized brains.

  And some of the slower, inexperienced riders can be even more dangerous, weaving all over the place and sometimes forcing walkers to quickly do a sidestep– a dangerous maneuver in itself, as it could inadvertently bring you into the path of one of the kamikaze. The local neighbourhood association has been labouriously working toward bringing forwward a proposal for a bicycle strategy for the seawall for some some years, but in the meantime the situation will likely worsen once Southeast False Creek is fully open post-Olympics, and the FCS route unoficially becomes a major crosstown route for bikes. It’s already being promoted as a prime bike route by the city (and it’s not hard to see why; it’s certainly scenic), who demonstrate no awareness of the problems of encouraging even heavier bike traffic along there. Something’s gotta give…
  gmgw

• 91 gmgw // Jun 3, 2009 at 12:57 pm

  Rand Chatterjee says:
  “No one in Vancouver appears to believe life here can get any better. ”

  Well, I for one, spend a lot of time praying (in a purely secular sense) that it doesn’t get any worse…
  gmgw

• 92 Darcy McGee // Jun 3, 2009 at 1:25 pm

  > We’ve got the same problem in
  > Strathcona, at the intersection of Union
  > and Hawkes.

  That is a particuarly bad corner, as a T intersection where cyclists can go through strait to a very short “bike only” path to the continuation of Union St. I see any number of cyclists who just blow through the stop sign. I think the “problem” is that it seems like a straight through road for cyclists, when in reality it’s not.

  (Of course the real problem is that cyclists are blind to the sign, I’m just suggesting that’s the cause.)

  I often wind up on the “wrong” sidewalk (there are three entrances) and curse the lack of signage, but that’s a small problem (I creep slowly around the bend then drop to the road.)

  > who demonstrate no awareness of the
  > problems of encouraging even heavier
  > bike traffic along there. Something’s
  > gotta give…

  In Stanley Park the solution was two paths, one for pedestrians and one for cyclists. One of the big problems is that pedestrians don’t respect that: they routinely walk on the cycling path, despite having their own dedicated one.

  In False Creek, I’m not sure it would be any different. Bikes kind of get screwed either way.

  (The Stanley Park path is one way, and about two weeks ago I was almost hit head on by a girl doing the wrong way on her bicycle. I commented to her with an appropriate level of vigour.)

  > but this seems to make no impact on
  > their walnut-sized brains.

  Really uncalled for.

• 93 Frothingham // Jun 3, 2009 at 1:59 pm

  I cycle around the park and walk the seawall two – three times a week. ( I cycle on the roadway) I know of what i speak when i say that :
  1) I would like to see the seawall for Pedestrians only.
  2) I would like to see the skateboarders and cyclists use the roadway. (I would favour one lane for cars and one lane for cyclists skateboards etc)

  This is the only solution that makes sense. Why?

  Because a majority of both cyclists and skakeboarders travel too fast. And because i constantly see both skakeboarders riding the wrong way.. Bad. esp the cyclists.

  And I don’t understand cyclist that feel that they can speed along as fast as they can.. .if they are so gung-ho at going fast , why don’t the USE the DAMN road!

• 94 Frothingham // Jun 3, 2009 at 2:20 pm

  @gmgw … as an avid cyclist i totally agree. Those cycle lanes which are mixed in with pedestrians of all ages should not be cycled high speeds. Max 10km/h and that can still cause problems. if you are a cyclist wanting to get places. Stay on the roads. If you want to saunter down cycling lanes with young kids or grandma … fine … but the others should get on the roads. Of course we have to get motorists to drive much more intelligently than they do at present. Example 1 ; what’s with doing 8okm > across Burrard bridge? or ditto for Pacific avenue on a sunday morning? or … i could go on. We have cyclists who are boorish and we have motorists who should have their licensees taken away.

  Vancouverites need to mature and think more.

• 95 Frothingham // Jun 3, 2009 at 2:22 pm

  PS. hats off day on East Hastings in burnaby tomorrow (Saturday) … no cars! lots of food.. street festival! http://www.urbanvancouver.com/tag/hats-off-day

• 96 jesse // Jun 3, 2009 at 2:49 pm

  What gets me are these “car-free” festivals are just a partisan spin on what hundreds of other similarly sized cities do as par without the need of the guise of “green transportation”. They are “street festivals” and the intent should not be on green initiatives, (though there is that benefit) it should be on making the city more community-minded. And, hey, a greater community likely comes with more pedestrian traffic.

• 97 gmgw // Jun 3, 2009 at 4:46 pm

  Frothingham: The False Creek South neighbourhood association, whose membership includes a number of cyclists, has for some years been trying to persuade the city to build a cycling path along the streetcar right-of-way (the old rail line), so that would-be high-speed bike riders would have an alternative route to the crowded seawall when traveling through False Creek South. Engineering has consistently refused to consider the idea. Their reasons for doing so have varied, but they have consistently stonewalled on this. Now they’re spending $8.5 million to upgrade the streetcar line and are being loaned two near state-of-the-art Bombardier streetcars cars by the Belgian(!?) government, for a period of two months, in order to impress the hell out of the Olympics visitors (they hope…). The line has been double-tracked in places and the whole rebuild has given Engineering a convenient excuse for not putting in a bikeway: Not enough room; the rail right-of-way is now not wide enough for the rail line and a bikeway. And so it goes…

  Darcy: Nowadays I don’t walk around Stanley Park more than once a year or so– there was time when I ran it five times a week– but when I do I have very seldom seen anyone walking on the bike path, which is very clearly marked. I think the people who do must be clueless out-of-towners. Anyone who visits the park seawall regularly knows of the arrangement , and speaking personally, I would not dare venture onto that bike path under any circumstances; to do so could be very dangerous. I think the two-path arrangement (including the height difference seen on the Stanley Park seawall)– or some variation on it– will ultimately have to be adopted in False Creek South, barring some stroke of design genius on somebody’s part. Unfortunately there are many areas of the seawall where there is insuffcient room to create a divided path; condo properties border it in a number of places. In other parts of the seawall any widening would mean encroaching on greenspace or actual parkland, and there is understandable resistance to that as well.

  I don’t know what the solution is to the traffic problems on the False Creek South seawall; but I do know that one has to be found, and soon. The situation is becoming more untenable all the time.

  As regards the “walnut-sized brain” comment, I think it’s now widely accepted that there is a direct correlation between excessive amounts of testosterone and brain shrinkage.
  gmgw

• 98 Darcy McGee // Jun 4, 2009 at 6:49 am

  > why don’t the USE the DAMN road!

  Roads are great, but as long as road infrastructure is designed primarily for cars and the culture of the car dominates, they aren’t always safe for cyclists.

  Bike lanes with moving traffic on the left and parked cars on the right are incredibly dangerous for bikes. I use them, but if there’s an alternative route I’ll take it instead.

  I’ve been fortunate to never be doorprized by a car, but I’ve come awfully close more than once when I’ve been in a lane like that. Car pulls over and parks, and flings their door open acting blissfully unaware of the bike lane.

• 99 Michael Geller // Jun 4, 2009 at 1:51 pm

  I have not read most of the above exchange, and therefore do not know if this matter has been covered. However, for those interested in cycling safety, I can recommend a study being undertaken at UBC and funded in part by the Heart and Stroke Foundation on Cycling in Cities, and bicycle safety. It can be found at http://www.cher.ubc.ca/cyclingincities/

  It includes some very interesting information on what makes desirable and undesirable routes as well as motivators and deterrents to cycling. I am particularly interested in the implications for planning.

• 100 Joe Just Joe // Jun 4, 2009 at 10:29 pm

  I don’t have anything to add I just tried of seeing this stuck at 99 posts.
  Yippee I’m #100.

• 101 spartikus // Jun 6, 2009 at 1:23 pm

  More statistics that suggest an increase in cycling ridership leads to a decrease in cycling accidents.

Leave a Comment