77 responses so far ↓

• 1 Michael Geller // Oct 4, 2010 at 1:06 pm

  I have missed much of this discussion, but wonder how much attention was given to establishing Granville Mall as the bike lane. While it seems an obvious choice, why was it not selected. Perhaps someone who has been involved in the planning, or to the Open House can respond

• 2 Richard // Oct 4, 2010 at 1:23 pm

  @Michael Geller
  Granville is too far away to serve many trips in the Burrard corridor and serve as an effective access route to the Burrard Bridge.

  Definitely improvements for cyclists are needed in the Granville corridor as well. The 1999 Bicycle Plan identified bike lanes on Howe and Seymour to be the bicycle routes in the Granville corridor. The Downtown Transportation Plan committed to examining the use of the bus lanes for sustainable transportation when the suburban buses no longer required the bus lanes on Seymour and Howe as the result of the Canada Line opening.

  Unfortunately, the decision was made years ago not to include bike lanes on the Granville Mall redesign. Staff stated these were not needed as bicycles would be accommodated on Seymour and Howe. This makes it impossible for bikes and buses to safely and conveniently share the mall.

  As TransLink provided a significant amount of funds for Granville redesign, they wanted the buses back on Granville.

  While I think the long term solution could be to place the buses back on Seymour and Howe and have Granville as a bicycle route, I suspect this will have to wait for the new Transportation and Bike Plans to be completed.

• 3 Tiktaalik // Oct 4, 2010 at 1:37 pm

  I’m not sure a real reason was given. The city has an FAQ page where they have a chart of how they compared three options.[1] All three end near to the Burrard St Bridge bike lane, so it may simply be that they only wanted to examine roads that would closely link to the bridge.

  If we’re going further afield than those three, I would say that Granville has some issues that make it not as good of a choice as the surrounding streets. Chiefly it is impassable during several evenings of the week due to the street being closed due to to an excessive amount of night club revelers. As well there has been an on and off desire for the street to be a pedestrian only street and for example during the Olympics and during the summer cars and buses weren’t allowed. Planners may have wanted to keep the door open for more experimenting.

  If we’re going to devote part of one downtown street for bicycles it should be one that’s always available.

  Seymour is maybe a good alternative. I’m not sure if there’s any reasons why it would be a bad choice other than it being furthest away from the Burrard Street bridge. The Dunsmuir bike lane ends at Burrard, close to Hornby, so it seems like a better link up.

  [1] http://vancouver.ca/engsvcs/transport/cycling/separated/faq.htm

• 4 IanS // Oct 4, 2010 at 1:43 pm

  My guess, which I posed in discussion shortly after the decision to put a bike lane on Hornby Street was first made public, is that Granville Street is simply too far away from Burrard Street. Once the political decision was made to put the bike lane on Burrard Street, Granville Street was no longer a potential “beneficiary” of a separated bike lane.

• 5 Wendy // Oct 4, 2010 at 1:52 pm

  If proximity to Burrard is so important, why not use Thurlow?

• 6 Richard // Oct 4, 2010 at 1:57 pm

  While I understand people’s concerns regarding the impact of the Hornby Bike Lane, there is evidence to suggest that bicycle facilities will have a positive impact on property values and businesses in general. In fact, I have not been able to find any indication that there has been negative impacts elsewhere.

  In London, for example, they have found a significant positive impact. From http://www.thisislondon.co.uk/standard/article-23876011-how-to-find-a-property-hotspot-look-out-for-a-line-of-boris-bikes.do “Demand for properties for rent around docking stations and cycle routes has gone up by about a third in the past year, and has been soaring since the launch of the cycle hire scheme.”

  While this article focuses on the bike share stations, it does mention cycle routes as being important as well. As the quality of the proposed Hornby Bike Lane is much better than many of the bicycle routes in London and as it serves as a great connection to the very popular Seaside Path, one would expect that the positive impact of the Hornby Bike Lane will be even greater than that of the routes in London. It would be also reasonable to expect that streets with separated bike lanes would be prime candidates for shared bicycle stations if and when we get such a system in Vancouver.

• 7 Richard // Oct 4, 2010 at 2:12 pm

  @Wendy
  The hill coming up from Pacific and the Seaside Path on Thurlow is much steeper than Hornby. As well, Hornby provides a much better connection to the Central Business District and the Dunsmuir bike lane. Bute Street, which is one block east of Thurlow is a good bicycle route as well.

• 8 IanS // Oct 4, 2010 at 2:34 pm

  @Wendy,

  I don’t know if this was a factor in the decision making, but Thurlow is already backed up a bit coming up to Pacific as a result of the congestion leading on to the Burrard Bridge from west on Pacific.

• 9 spartikus // Oct 4, 2010 at 2:47 pm

  1. I don’t mind the realtor withholding their name – the email stands on it’s own merits – but this: He/she is concerned with reprisals that may arise if his/her identity is disclosed. is ridiculous fearmongering. Who has actually been the subject of “reprisal” in the real world for opposition to bike lanes? Cite an example of actual actions. Comments on the internet – of which you could take any subject on any site in the world (from the War in Iraq to episodes of Glee) and find a few overheated ones – don’t count.

  2. 14,000 is not a conservative estimate. It’s the optimal. The realtor may, and let’s be clear it’s just a guesstimate, be right about the turnover of cars for parking on Hornby. But he/she makes makes the assumption these are all customers of the approximately 62 (“approximately 62?) storefront businesses. Oh yes, they try to have their cake and eat it too by labelling it “potential” customers.

  The DVBIA and co. would do us all a world of service if they would help those 62 businesses survey their clientele to find out exactly what percentage of people drive to them.

• 10 Talia // Oct 4, 2010 at 3:15 pm

  By citing as an example, the bad implementation of the Burrard Bridge lane in 1996 by the NPA, you seem to suggest that this is relevant and proves that Hornby will also fail.
  I wonder though, why you wouldn’t choose a more recent example, like the 2009 successful implementation of the Burrard Bridge Lane Trial, under the current administration, and “prove” that Hornby will succeed? So many different ways to spin it…

• 11 IanS // Oct 4, 2010 at 3:21 pm

  @Spartikus,

  You write “Comments on the internet… don’t count.”

  Why not? If I was a business person, I would not want my store to be the subject of boycotts by any group. Would you? You might be right, the comments on blogs such as this one, about boycotting businesses that oppose bike lanes, may be no more than intemperate statements by immature blowhards, but why take that risk?

  You also write “The DVBIA and co. would do us all a world of service if they would help those 62 businesses survey their clientele to find out exactly what percentage of people drive to them.”

  Certainly, I can see how an advocate such as yourself would like to see their efforts focused in that direction. However, IMO, the most effective action anyone could take, the business owners, the City or the bike advocates, would be to undertake a survey of the businesses affected by the bike lane on Dunsmuir. It’s been around long enough that a little work in that area to measure the effects of the bike lane would go a long way to dispelling, or confirming, the concerns expressed by businesses on Hornby.

• 12 Aiden // Oct 4, 2010 at 3:28 pm

  @Spartikus – I guess if “comments on the internet… don’t count” – then neither does yours. Thanks for eliminating yourself.

• 13 spartikus // Oct 4, 2010 at 3:58 pm

  @IanS

  You feel comments on websites constitute real and tangible “reprisals”?

  I’ve seen comments left by alleged cycling advocates calling for boycotts but this has not, to my knowledge, ever been put in to effect.

  I’ve seen comments left by alleged drivers physically threatening to run over the next cyclist they see. But I am not aware of any actual follow through on this crime.

  And so on.

  Again, if you have evidence otherwise….please share. Because in the world outside the comment boards of the internet, groups like the VACC are engaging in business outreach.

  But let’s follow the logic through: You say “why run the risk of a boycott” – which would indicate you feel the cycling lobby has economic clout. Which means, counter to the arguments of many here, they aren’t some small special interest group, but a significant slice of the population.

  Maybe his realtor is engaging in fear-mongering. Maybe they are genuinely concerned. If the latter, their fears are not born out by the facts.

• 14 Tessa // Oct 4, 2010 at 4:12 pm

  @Wendy: for a full comparison of Thurlow, Burrard and Hornby in criteria the city used to choose Hornby, see the city’s webiste here: http://vancouver.ca/engsvcs/transport/cycling/separated/why.htm

  There’s a bunch more information behind the decision there as well.

  As for this e-mail, it’s lazy to say the least. The assumption that only people who park on that block shop at stores on Hornby, and the assumption that all people on that block are potential customers who would shop at stores on Hornby and aren’t, say, going to the law courts or Robson Street, are both obviously false. Also, it doesn’t even attempt to guess at how many customers to stores on Hornby take transit, walk, or cycle to their destination. The e-mail also assumes that there will be no affect in the number of cyclists or pedestrians using Hornby, and I expect both of those are incorrect assumptions as well. And finally, it relies too much on anecdotal data from a single day’s walk down the street. There are plenty more assumptions I can poke holes in.

  You could argue every citizen this side of Hope is a “potential customer” for a store on Hornby. “Potential customer” doesn’t say anything.

  Unimpressive, to say the least.

• 15 IanS // Oct 4, 2010 at 4:14 pm

  @Spartikus,

  You write “You feel comments on websites constitute real and tangible “reprisals”?”

  Read what I wrote.

  You write “I’ve seen comments left by alleged cycling advocates calling for boycotts but this has not, to my knowledge, ever been put in to effect.”

  I’m not aware of it being put into effect either. I never suggested otherwise. Read what I wrote.

  You write “Again, if you have evidence otherwise….please share.”

  Again, read what I wrote.

  You write “But let’s follow the logic through: You say “why run the risk of a boycott” – which would indicate you feel the cycling lobby has economic clout.”

  IMO, I think the cycling lobby is a small, very successful lobbying group. And I think an organized byocot by such a lobbying group, if it were to occur, would be a matter of concern to any business owner.

  In any event, as you will see from my reply, most of your post bears little connection to what I wrote. I understand, as an advocate, why you would want to characterize my comments as you have, but I don’t think it makes for a very productive discussion.

  IMO, of course.

• 16 IanS // Oct 4, 2010 at 4:15 pm

  Errata: That should read “.. an organized boycott…”

• 17 Richard // Oct 4, 2010 at 4:25 pm

  An organized boycott would just be a silly idea. Why on earth would anyone who supports cycling want this issue to drag out longer.

  What is more likely is some people deciding on their own to go to businesses that support bike lanes instead of businesses that don’t. However, for someone to think that this would have an impact on a business, they would first have to believe that a significant number of people use bicycles to get to their business. If this is the case, then I don’t understand why they think the bike lanes will be a problem.

• 18 spartikus // Oct 4, 2010 at 4:53 pm

  And I can see how you, as a skeptic, would like to imply an economic threat…but not to the point where you would have to back it up with evidence. The cycling lobbby – the great phantom menace.

  Of course we are both putting words in the realtor’s mouth. Neither of us has any idea if an economic boycott was what they meant. Or if they meant violence.

  Per: However, IMO, the most effective action anyone could take, the business owners, the City or the bike advocates, would be to undertake a survey of the businesses affected by the bike lane on Dunsmuir.

  Or…both?

  The skeptics have been very vocal that Hornby in particular depends on cars and street parking for the survival of [approximately] 62 businesses. You might not think so, but it would very helpful to find out what the percentage of customers come by car for those businesses. I’m actually very surprised that someone who feels so strongly about the collection and analysis of statistics would not be strongly in favour of this.

  As many others have pointed out on different threads, bike lanes have been constructed in other cities over decades. If evidence existed they hurt business it would be easily available.

• 19 IanS // Oct 4, 2010 at 5:09 pm

  @Spartikus,

  You write: “And I can see how you, as a skeptic, would like to imply an economic threat…but not to the point where you would have to back it up with evidence. ”

  Honestly, is this a reading comprehension issue? Read what I wrote. All I said was, you might be right, but why take the risk? The rest is all you.

  You write: “Of course we are both putting words in the realtor’s mouth. Neither of us has any idea if an economic boycott was what they meant. Or if they meant violence.”

  Fair enough. I inferred that the fear of reprisal related to a boycott because of the comments I’d read on this blog. I really have no idea as to what “reprisals” the realtor is concerned about.

  You write: “Or…both?”

  That one may need context.

  Sure. I think there should be as much data as possible. That’s why I have looked for actual data reflecting cycle use (available for Burrard Bridge and now available for Dunsmuir), congestion (not available) and accident rates (not available). Let’s put the facts on the table and judge the separated bike lanes on their merits.

  However, I remain of the view that a study looking at what has actually happened as a result of the Dunsmuir Street bike lane would be a more effective tool to gauge concerns on Hornby Street or other possible separated bike lanes, for that matter. If a survey turned up no harmful effects in businesses affected by the bike lane, I think that would go along way to showing that the lane on Hornby won’t be problematic.

• 20 Chris Porter // Oct 4, 2010 at 5:11 pm

  I’m having a tough time following the realtor’s logic.

  First he/she says:
  “A ‘convenience’ retailer rely on frequent customer trips, facilitated by easy, close and accessible parking. Hornby is filled with such convenience retailers that lease space on that street because it offers convenient, and ample parking.”

  Then he/she goes on to say:
  “Mid morning, every one of Hornby’s metered stalls was occupied!”

  If I was one of these “convenience” shoppers that only shops at stores with ample parking in front, I wouldn’t be shopping on Hornby. Every stall is already occupied!

  Why aren’t retailers on Hornby demanding higher parking meter fees? They must be losing millions of dollars from customers who aren’t shopping because they know they likely won’t find a parking spot within a block of their destination when they arrive.

  Hornby is not a strip mall. I find it hard to believe that people who are concerned about finding cheap abundant parking are shopping there to begin with.

• 21 Chris Keam // Oct 4, 2010 at 5:15 pm

  1) An individual’s access to public space shouldn’t be commensurate with their perceived value as a consumer.

  2) What other road users are expected to justify safety improvements by virtue of their contribution to the economy through retail shopping?

• 22 spartikus // Oct 4, 2010 at 5:24 pm

  All I said was, you might be right, but why take the risk?

  Other things you said: And I think an organized byocot by such a lobbying group, if it were to occur, would be a matter of concern to any business owner.

  Remember, this conversation is taking place in the context of discussing the position of an individual – the realtor – who feels sincerely or for effect that they are at risk of retaliation.

  I remain of the view that a study looking at what has actually happened as a result of the Dunsmuir Street bike lane would be a more effective tool to gauge concerns on Hornby Street

  Don’t you need the “before” data before measuring the effects of the “after”? Have the Dunsmuir merchants already collected a pre-lane snapshot of their clientele?

  We seem to have that opportunity with Hornby.

• 23 Reverend Twowheeler // Oct 4, 2010 at 5:28 pm

  The infrastructure that I like to call “paint, planters and parking” is the solution to this. It also has several other advantages, such as greenery and cost savings.

  https://spreadsheets.google.com/pub?key=0AufCS6E3wDmsdGtxaVoyd1JCOWNpWFBZdGJMXzJJOVE&output=html&gridlines=false

  Please share your thoughts in these comments, or on the Church’s facebook page.

  JT

• 24 Agustin // Oct 4, 2010 at 5:31 pm

  Separated bike lanes represent a paradigm shift in Vancouver (and in North America as a whole). It’s natural that some people will be worried about the outcome. We currently live in the paradigm of the automobile as king. It seems to me that the writer of that email has not considered that cyclists are also “potential customers”. After all, for a long time, the majority of people have gotten around by car.

  This situation looks to me an awful lot like what happened when smoking was banned in bars. At first, bar owners said that it would destroy them — after all, look at how many people were smoking in bars! If you got rid of them, the bars would be practically empty! Then one city tried it, and bar owners in the other cities claimed that their situation was different — “sure, it worked over there, but it would never work over here!” Then another city tried it, and it worked. Then another. Now I can’t think of the last time I went to a bar that permitted smoking. And revenues went up! Smokers decided to smoke some other time (or go outside) and non-smokers decided that it was a lot more pleasant to go to bars if they didn’t come home smelling like an ashtray.

  The same thing seems to be happening here. “Sure, cycling infrastructure works in [Denmark / Netherlands / Paris / wherever] but it will never work in Vancouver! Things are fundamentally different here!”

  My prediction: after a year, there will be more cyclists on the roads, and businesses on Hornby will have more customers wearing helmets and funny-looking shorts. Motorists will continue to shop on Hornby Street, and the sky won’t have fallen.

• 25 IanS // Oct 4, 2010 at 5:45 pm

  @Spartikus,

  (Last post on this)

  You write: “Other things you said: And I think an organized byocot by such a lobbying group, if it were to occur, would be a matter of concern to any business owner.”

  Note the use of the word “if”. Is my statement in any way incorrect? Hence, the “why take the risk”. As I said, the rest is all you.

  You write: “Don’t you need the “before” data before measuring the effects of the “after”? Have the Dunsmuir merchants already collected a pre-lane snapshot of their clientele?”

  All businesses will have the before data in hand as business records. I wouldn’t think it would make any difference as to the nature of the clientele. The important point is whether the business is suffering. Isn’t one of the claims being made by you and by others that increased presence of cyclists as a result of the separated lane will result in an increase in business?

  If the cycle lane has caused the business’s financial harm, they should be able to point to the before / after records as showing a decrease in business. Alternatively, if they can’t, that would go a long way to disproving any such claims.

• 26 spartikus // Oct 4, 2010 at 6:19 pm

  Note the use of the word “if”. Is my statement in any way incorrect?

  As I said, you want to imply a threat, without actually standing by it.

  My point, such as it was, was the realtor’s rhetoric raised the temperature.

  All businesses will have the before data in hand as business records.

  My sandwich shop on Dunsmuir keeps records on who comes by car?

  I can tell you straight up, no. In 15 years of patronage, I’ve never been asked how I arrived. Nor did they ask at the Railway Club, or the 7-11 or any of the other business on Dunsmuir I’ve spent money in.

  Or, in fact, any business I’ve ever patronized.

  But…we could on Hornby.

  The important point is whether the business is suffering.

  The important point is to determine the mode of transportation their clientele takes. Because there are other factors at work. The introduction of the HST looms large, for example, as does the global recession, etc. Do you think that might have affected Dunsmuir businesses? Also, while we’ve been blessed up to now, BC consumer spending has recently taken a significant hit.

  No, I really think it would be crucial to know the % of consumer-drivers of convienence.

• 27 IanS // Oct 4, 2010 at 6:51 pm

  @Spartikus,

  You write: “As I said, you want to imply a threat, without actually standing by it.”

  Well, if that’s what you inferred , that’s what you inferred. That’s certainly not what I said, though. As I indicated, that’s all you.

  As for that rest, I remain of the view that an assessment of whether the separated bike lane has hurt businesses (or helped them) would be more to the point, but you’re entitled to disagree.

  The humourous thing (or maybe it’s sad? I don’t know) is that the assessment I propose puts far more onus on the very people who claim to be suffering as a result of the bike lane to prove their case. In the absence of such proof, I’m skeptical of any claims that the bike lane is harmful to business.

  However I guess this… “Because there are other factors at work.. ” really goes to the heart of your concerns, doesn’t it? You think such a survey would result in a conclusion contrary to your beliefs.

  Who knows? You might be right.

• 28 spartikus // Oct 4, 2010 at 7:03 pm

  You think such a survey would result in a conclusion contrary to your beliefs.

  I have no idea whether it does or it doesn’t.

  What I do know, from statistics gathered by authoritative sources, is that consumer spending is down in Canada generally, and in British Columbia particularly. This is general knowledge, I understand.

  It would not be useful in terms of evaluating the effect of the bike lane, IMO, to simply ask a Dunsmuir business “how’s sales lately’.

  You want to do it right, then do it right. I’ll support you in that.

  And it will have to start with Hornby.

• 29 IanS // Oct 4, 2010 at 7:09 pm

  @Spartikus,

  I guess we’ve argued ourselves into a corner again and will have to agree to disagree. I’d point out that any general decline in consumer spending generally could easily be taken into account in factoring the effect of any possible decline in business since installation of the Dunsmuir bike lane, but I think you already know that, so it’s kind of pointless.

  However, as long as I’m trying to make a practice of correcting your misstatements of my position, I will note that I did not suggest that anyone ask a Dunsmuir business “how’s sales lately”. That’s all you.

• 30 spartikus // Oct 4, 2010 at 7:25 pm

  I will note that I did not suggest that anyone ask a Dunsmuir business “how’s sales lately”. That’s all you.

  Contrast with: “The important point is whether the business is suffering.”

  Sorry, IanS, you’ve made some good points in the past, but you’ve lost me on this one.

• 31 grumbelschmoll // Oct 4, 2010 at 7:28 pm

  Mr. Gauthier’s letter takes me back to the sixties and seventies in Europe, when pedestrianisation was the thing to do to downtown shopping streets, and the business owners were up in arms over the irreparable harm to their fortunes if drivers were no longer able to park in front of the store.

  I suspect that, again, business owners greatly overestimate the impact that street parking has on their business.

  It is clear to me, however, that any store that wants to be successful in a downtown should seriously look at making alternative transportation work for them. Time to learn new tricks.

• 32 Frances Bula // Oct 4, 2010 at 7:52 pm

  @ Talia. But that was exactly the point I was making. The Burrard Bridge trial in 96 was a disaster, because of bad implementation. The current trial has been successful because of a much better planning process.

  So the city needs to be careful that it is doing the best possible job of choosing and planning a bike route for downtown because, if it screws up, that could mean public resistance to downtown bike lanes for a long time to come.

• 33 Dan Cooper // Oct 4, 2010 at 8:34 pm

  So….would the DVBIA commit to not opposing a lane if it were proposed for a street other than Hornby? They seem to be proposing “Howe, Seymour and Richards” as prime candidates. Or would they find a reason to oppose lanes there just as vehemently, while still claiming not to be opposed to lanes overall, or cyclists?

  As others, I also noticed that there are two conflicting assumptions made by The Mystery Pundit: a) people shop at stores on Hornby only because there is immediately available parking, but b) all the parking is continuously full. (And, of course, every single person who parks on Hornby is shopping at a store on Hornby, not walking to something a few blocks away where there is less parking, as identified by the same writer….)

  @Reverend Twowheeler: The ideas in your link look good.

  @Frances, who writes, “If the city can find a solution that a majority (it will never be everyone) can support…”

  They seem to have already found one that is supported by a majority. The DVBIA doesn’t like it, but residents generally do. Just saying.

  Finally, a link from CTV, who sent an intern out to count people on the Dunsmuir lane and found that – at least at present – the city’s 2000 riders/day number holds up. They also, albeit with a deep sneer (throughout the article, actually), say they think the lanes are “here to stay.” Interesting.

  http://watch.ctv.ca/news/clip351150#clip351150

• 34 Janice // Oct 4, 2010 at 9:13 pm

  It is not well-known that Hornby is not the only route that will see changes.

  Other streets getting separated Bike Lanes are DRAKE ST. from Hornby to Burrard, and BURRARD ST. from Drake St to Pacific St. (Parking removed in both cases).

  To exacerbate the impact those lanes will have on our community…you might be surprised to learn that the Right Turn from Burrard St, at Pacific St will be ELIMINATED.

  I feel sorry for the unaware tourists who arrive here to find the only option is to head over the Burrard Bridge while figuring out how to return to the West End!

  Check out this link for the design details of Hornby, Drake, Burrard Streets and others too
  http://vancouver.ca/engsvcs/transport/cycling/separated/effect.htm

  There is more to come – Helmcken from Mainland to St Paul’s Hospital will soon sport a separated bike lane. City planners – much more consideration and consultation is needed!

• 35 pacpost // Oct 4, 2010 at 10:36 pm

  It’s refreshing to see a relatively respectful, rational debate on cycling-related issues on a Vancouver-based blog. I’m also heartened by the excellent comments being made by a range of pro-cycling commenters, both on this post and previous ones (quick shout-out to Chris Keam, Mark Allerton, Agustin, Chris Porter, and several others, you know who you are).

  Just as the cycling accommodation process in Copenhagen, Amsterdam and elsewhere has taken several decades, Vancouver will require at least a decade before it has something even remotely comparable. And with much public debate now being carried out on blogs such as this one, it’s good to see pro-cycling citizens being well represented.

  @grumbelschmoll: I imagine the debate was similar when it came to installing cycling infrastructure in the 70s and 80s in Groningen, Amsterdam, Copenhagen, Muenster, etc. As to your last point, with crude oil prices where they are today and likely going higher into next year, you’d think businesses would indeed be looking at ways to attract users of non-car transportation.

  @ Rev. 2-wheeler: First, thanks for the kind word back on Don Cayo’s blog last week. Big fan of your “church” (found via Copenhagenize)… Good suggestions for different bike lane design. I wonder, though: would North American drivers respect a painted parking line as those Danish drivers are doing in the picture? Or would they need a physical barrier as well?

  @Dan Cooper: really, could Ms. Paterson put any more sneer into her report? And what a lead-in by Pamela Martin…shameful.

  Anyway, looking forward to following the discussion on this and future posts. I’d say you’ve got a good thing going here, Ms. Bula.

• 36 Lewis N. Villegas // Oct 4, 2010 at 11:07 pm

  I support the initiative of building a safe cycling network in Vancouver, as elsewhere in the metro region.

  I believe that there are many more in the city who will ride to work, and to get around. We can expect a growing population of Vancouverites that simply own a bike, and possibly a transit pass, as their primary means of transportation.

  The challenge is that in order to have a bike network succeed… you have to build it!

  I heard a representative from the Hornby merchants in the news and on the Bill Goode radio talk show 30 September suggesting the merchants feel that it is possible to achieve a win-win scenario.

  OK, let’s make it urban design time at the Bulablog again… Let’s call it “The Hornby Street Neighbourhood Mall”, and try to design in such a way as to get most people behind it, and no one against it.

  What elements would the win-win scenario incorporate?

  1. Street width (Hornby between Helmcken & Nelson): 66-foot ROW; 42-foot curb-to-curb distance.

  2. Length of the street: 6,100 feet (W. Cordova to Beach); 12 city blocks. A 30 minute walk, or three quartiers long.

  3. Connection to the Burrard Bridge bike lanes is a key determinant.

  4. Laning

  12 feet = 2 Bike Lanes
  22 feet = 2 Travel Lanes (two-way traffic)
  16 feet = 1 back-in angle parking apron with trees & street lighting (i.e. On one side only)
  16 feet = 2 sidewalks

  Total = 66 feet

  Notes on parking:

  – Back-in angle parking on alternate sides of the street changes from one block to the next.

  – Parking capacity remains unchanged—one row of angled parking parks the same number of cars as two rows of parallel parking.

  – Back-in angle parking is 50% easier than parallel parking pulling in, and 10x easier pulling out.

  5. Resulting quality of the urban space: The Hornby Street Neighbourhood Mall creates a pedestrian priority zone.

  – Bikes and cars travel at a maximum speed limit of 30 km/h.

  – Pedestrians can cross the Hornby Street Neighbourhood Mall with impunity since the quality of the urban space is like Granville Island or Granville Mall.

  – Traffic pattern will migrate from block to block due to the alternating pattern of curb-side, back-in angle parking.

  – In sites that have implemented this approach, the deviation in the direction of travel lanes automatically generates traffic calming.

  6. The remaining 16 feet of R.O.W. parcelled out as two eight foot sidewalks will feel meager. However, consider a few points:

  – The typical 12.5-foot Vancouver sidewalk has street trees planted at the curbside effectively reducing sidewalk width by 5 feet.

  – On the Hornby Neighbourhood Mall the tree planting, street lighting, etc. would be in the parking apron.

  – New set-back guidelines would reclaim 5 to 10-feet of frontage from redeveloping properties.

  – On special neighbourhood days or nights, the parking could be stripped away creating 25-foot-wide treed ramblas for street markets and seasonal fairs.

  I believe this is yet another test for our city and its ubanism:

  (a) Can we use the cycling network to bring back balance to our public right of ways that have been too long over-run by automobiles?

  I believe there are many ways to achieve this, and building streets with dedicated bike lanes is only one example among many.

  (b) Can our merchants do business with fewer cars driving by their front door?

  After two or three thousand vehicles per day, the next 20 to 40-thousand cars that drive by the front door or window of an establishment hardly represent an enhanced business opportunity.

  Clearly, there are problems for businesses associated with too much traffic volume. The noise, the fumes, and the threat to life all present difficulties to fronting merchants.

  I concede that parking is important just about all the time. However, times when street fairs and festivals are in place are cases where the parking can be given up in exchange for a much higher profile in the community, when public attention and the site’s ability to act as a magnet for pedestrian (and cycling) trips far outweighs the demand for parking.

  (C) Return two-way traffic to Hornby Street.

  What does marketing analysis show vis-a-vis benefits to businesses fronting two-way traffic, rather than one-way streets?

  In the final analysis, improving the quality of the experience of place by regulating traffic volume could benefit merchants, cyclists and residents alike.

  Score one for the Hornby merchants. By pointing out that a win-win solution exists they have reminded us that good urbanism is good for business, good for cycling, and good for everybody else!

• 37 Sean // Oct 5, 2010 at 12:21 am

  @Frances #32
  You are exactly right – the bike lane needs to be “done right”. Far better to spend some extra time and money to minimize the negative impacts now than to garner a bad reputation and try to fix it later.

  Fortunately, the City appears to be doing this. After consulting with the business and other concerned parties the plans have been revised and the city is going to spend almost 50% more on the modifications than were originally budgeted in order to address specific issues that were identified.

  Of course the budget increase itself is a target for criticism, but I believe it will be money well spent, and as a Vancouver taxpayer I fully support it.

• 38 Roger Kemble // Oct 5, 2010 at 5:55 am

  I do not thinq on-line gossiping helps: indeed it irritates the co-conspiritors.

  But facilitating cyclists must be a top priority.

  May I suggest a strategy . . .

  Take time . . . plan, consult and choose the route very carefully . . . a route, with appropriate connections, that is cyclist exclusive . . . period!

  Then await conclusion of the next election and implement: no arguing . . do it!

  There will be outrage and uproar from the usual suspects . . . then as everyone settles into the new routine the advantages will become very apparent.

  Come next election every one will be wondering why it was or put in place decades ago . . .

  . . . and mira just another step cloSer to GREEN.

• 39 IanS // Oct 5, 2010 at 6:03 am

  @Spartikus #30,

  You write: “Sorry, IanS, you’ve made some good points in the past, but you’ve lost me on this one.”

  Well, I will do you the credit of assuming you’re being deliberately disingenuous and leave it at that then.

• 40 Roger Kemble // Oct 5, 2010 at 6:04 am

  This is how Jaime Lerner pulled it off in Curitiba

  http://members.shaw.ca/rogerkemblesnr/curitiba/curitiba.html

• 41 Roger Kemble // Oct 5, 2010 at 7:13 am

  PS Actually pedestrians, á la Curitiba, are top . . . but cyclists are pretty close behind . . .

• 42 Chris Keam // Oct 5, 2010 at 7:51 am

  “Isn’t one of the claims being made by you and by others that increased presence of cyclists as a result of the separated lane will result in an increase in business?”

  I think a more accurate reflection of the remark is that it is expected there will be little to no negative impact. I don’t know of any claim by cycle advocacy groups or the City that more business ‘will result’. Can you provide some indication of where you are getting this claim from Ian?

  Again, what other road user groups are expected to guarantee a positive business impact to justify safety improvements to the transportation network?

• 43 rf // Oct 5, 2010 at 8:01 am

  Another morning, another day of movie trucks blanketing the south side of Hornby street from Smythe to Georgia.
  Where are they all going to go again? Is it really going to be easy to tell that industry to just park on another block? They’ve been operating in that area for decades and probably have a pretty good routine.

• 44 boohoo // Oct 5, 2010 at 8:41 am

  Change can be scary rf…that doesn’t mean we don’t need to do it every now and again.

• 45 IanS // Oct 5, 2010 at 8:48 am

  @Chris @41:

  Here’s my full statement in context:

  “All businesses will have the before data in hand as business records. I wouldn’t think it would make any difference as to the nature of the clientele. The important point is whether the business is suffering. Isn’t one of the claims being made by you and by others that increased presence of cyclists as a result of the separated lane will result in an increase in business?

  If the cycle lane has caused the business’s financial harm, they should be able to point to the before / after records as showing a decrease in business. Alternatively, if they can’t, that would go a long way to disproving any such claims.”

  I have seen posts by some here, and on other boards, which suggest that an increase in cycle use along the separated bike lanes will result in an increase in business. For example:

  “My prediction: after a year, there will be more cyclists on the roads, and businesses on Hornby will have more customers wearing helmets and funny-looking shorts. Motorists will continue to shop on Hornby Street, and the sky won’t have fallen.” [Agustin, #24]

  However, you are correct that, AFAIK, no cycle advocacy groups have taken that position. Fortunately, I didn’t suggest they had.

  You write: “Again, what other road user groups are expected to guarantee a positive business impact to justify safety improvements to the transportation network?”

  None, as far as I know. However, to the extent that you are suggesting that that is my assertion, I urge you to read what I actually wrote, in context. If you do that, you will see that I have suggested nothing of the sort.

• 46 Mark Allerton // Oct 5, 2010 at 8:53 am

  You’d think, with the amount of money at their disposal, the DVBIA would be able to call on a better authority than the unsupported back-of-an-envelope calculations of a “former commercial realtor” (anonymous at that) in support of their position.

  If I was a DVBIA member and against the bike lane, I’d be rather annoyed at how lazy an effort this was.

• 47 Joe Just Joe // Oct 5, 2010 at 9:32 am

  Lewis, your idea seems better thought out much better then what the city has proposed at least in theory.
  I wonder if it could be improved on by narrowing the bike lane width by keeping it oneway thus allowing wider sidewalks, and copying the whole concept on Howe St as well, framing Robson square.

• 48 Jason King // Oct 5, 2010 at 9:35 am

  I actually agree with IanS…I think it’s actually amazing that no one has gone to the Dunsmiur businesses and talked to them about the affect of the bike lane. This does seem to be a very obvious thing to do, very easy, and one that would provide valuable insight. And for the record, I agree that there doesn’t need to be any “positive” financial impact from the bike lane to be justified, just a not a significant negative impact.

  While I’m still one of those that’s not convinced that the Hornby lane makes sense, I did think this was a fairly good, balanced article in the Vancouver Sun today:

  http://www.vancouversun.com/travel/Hornby+fracas+shows+bike+lanes+need+better/3624335/story.html

• 49 rf // Oct 5, 2010 at 9:35 am

  Change works both ways boohoo. Like moving the business to Toronto and Montreal.

• 50 Roger Kemble // Oct 5, 2010 at 9:36 am

  @ IanS 44

  “suggest that an increase in cycle use along the separated bike lanes will result in an increase in business.”

  I do not believe separate is the answer . . . choose carefully a one route and designate it cyclist only . . . pedestrians on the sidewalk . . . period.

  It will turn out to be very good for business . . .

• 51 Roger Kemble // Oct 5, 2010 at 9:41 am

  PS . . . Burrard Bridge cyclists only . . . pedestrian on the sidewalk. . . .

  The auto has had the run of the city, to no one’s particular advantage . . .

  Now it is time to try something else . . .

• 52 Roger Kemble // Oct 5, 2010 at 9:42 am

  PPS . . . stop gossiping and ORGANIZE

• 53 IanS // Oct 5, 2010 at 9:54 am

  @Mark Allerton #45,

  I agree completely. The Dunsmuir bike lane has been in place for months. IMO, the DVBIA should be canvassing its members in that area and, to the extent it is able to do so, assembling data to support its assertion. In the absence of such data, or even such efforts, I think it’s reasonable to infer that the Dunsmuir Bike lane has not had a detrimental effect on those businesses.

• 54 Chris Porter // Oct 5, 2010 at 10:34 am

  Global TV interviewed some of the small business owners on Dunsmuir last night (http://www.globaltvbc.com/video/index.html?releasePID=udlEKdwcB3UM_LfObZDOnx_OC3eaQ5H3 7:50 mark) and they said business has gone up since the bike lane has been installed.

• 55 Chris Porter // Oct 5, 2010 at 10:34 am

  Hat tip to Average Joe Cyclist for mentioning the Global TV bit:
  http://averagejoecyclist.com/?p=955

• 56 Bill McCreery // Oct 5, 2010 at 10:43 am

  @ Michael 1. I thought Granville would be an obvious candidate but then, after looking @ it, it’s not. The buses are to frequent & there are frequently to many @ once so there is not the length for a ‘separated’ lane. As well because of the placement of the bus lanes & street lighting, etc. there is a width problem. There are other options however. The City, unfortunately has not looked @ them.

• 57 boohoo // Oct 5, 2010 at 11:54 am

  that sounds nice and scary rf, but I’m quite sure it’s pure speculation

• 58 spartikus // Oct 5, 2010 at 11:57 am

  For the interested, the Sun’s Jeff Lee and Chris Keam are live tweeting the Hornby debate in Council:

  http://twitter.com/Chris_Keam

  And for Jeff’s feed, replace Chris_Keam with SunCivicLee

• 59 spartikus // Oct 5, 2010 at 11:59 am

  Like moving the business to Toronto and Montreal.

  Where bike lanes are being constructed at the same rate as they are in Vancouver.

  Vancouver also has that lower tax burden.

• 60 Lewis N. Villegas // Oct 5, 2010 at 12:09 pm

  “Framing Robson Square”
  Joe Just Joe 46

  Your sentiments capture the concept beautifully.

  I have not read the staff report—link anyone—and going to another street will inevitably open more cans of worms.

  However, what you have envisioned is a civic gesture of noble proportions.

• 61 Wayne // Oct 5, 2010 at 12:28 pm

  Francis, I usually agree with your reasoning but I don’t agree with you on the Burrard Bike Lane. That project failed miserably not because the city made the wrong choice for a bike route. It failed because west side motorists raised a hew and cry and the councillors of the day buckled almost immediately. I suspect, but don’t specifically recall, that the DVBIA was just as vehemently opposed to it in ’96 as they were prior to the recent trial. Who can say how far bicycling in Vancouver was set back as a result of that scuttled experiment.

  I’m not impressed by, and neither should city council or planners be, by the opinion of an anonymous paranoid who may or may not be a realtor who may or may not have taken a mid-morning stroll up and down Howe and Hornby Sts. and who has dubious math skills.

• 62 mike // Oct 5, 2010 at 12:55 pm

  What about all the INCREASE in buying power with the influx of bikers. Bikers shop too; these businesses should be spending their energy on how to best accomodate their new two-wheeled customers.

• 63 ThinkOutsideABox // Oct 5, 2010 at 1:07 pm

  rf: Change works both ways boohoo. Like moving the business to Toronto and Montreal.

  boohoo: that sounds nice and scary rf, but I’m quite sure it’s pure speculation

  spartikus: Vancouver also has that lower tax burden.

  Actually @boohoo, @spartikus, Vancouver has been bleeding productions to Toronto and Montreal for about a year now since both Quebec and Ontario introduced aggressive tax incentives that are enough to tip a modestly budgeted project to flee.

  Vancouver has the lower property tax burden on the individual, but that’s irrelevant to production flight to Ontario and Quebec where productions have a lower tax burden there.

  Vancouver on the other hand had raised location permits while there is a further incentive by the province to shoot outside the studio zone which is why Langley had been made such a popular location, where Vancouver crew must drive much farther to.

• 64 spartikus // Oct 5, 2010 at 1:19 pm

  You’re right, TOAB.

• 65 IanS // Oct 5, 2010 at 1:26 pm

  This is a bit of a tangent, but I used to represent a company in the movie industry, and my client told me that one of the big problems facing productions wanting to work in Vancouver was the lack of parking. According to my client, productions were choosing to film outside downtown where possible because of this problem. Just to be clear, he wasn’t speaking about bike lanes or anything like that.. this was a couple of years ago… just about problems caused by a lack of parking in general.

  I have no idea as to whether bike lanes will add to this problem or whether the lack of parking continues to be a concern, but, based on that information, I believe that available parking is an issue which film companies take into account in deciding where to work.

• 66 boohoo // Oct 5, 2010 at 1:36 pm

  Businesses will always whine about not enough parking. They all want to have enough parking spots so that on the single busiest day of the year everyone can have a spot. And the other 364 days who cares.

  Is that the model we should aim for?

• 67 Roger Kemble // Oct 5, 2010 at 1:37 pm

  I am not sure whether to be amused or cry at our penchant for shallow gossip.

  We, and I include myself, flit from one diverting conversation to another. We announce with deep convictions our solutions to, DTES, Marine Gateway, OV bicycles and on and on and on.

  Do important issues slip our radar because we have satisfactorily dealt them? Is our attention span so utterly capricious?

  The bicycle issue is far too pivotal for a GREEN VACOUVER than obsequiously awaiting the pleasure of DVBIA: they have no more power than we abjure to them.

  All the surveys in the world are only as good as responders’ imaginations and awareness of alternatives.

  Are we willing to settle for half measures that blow the whole thing at the first accident?

  No!

  There is an alternative:

  An excusive, well mapped, continuous, interconnected route dedicated to cyclists only. One step beyond the WOONERF.

  There is no reason why a carefully planned, for bicycle, on the right-of-way, and pedestrians, on the sidewalk, cannot work. I include in this vision a dedicated Burrard Bridge.

  For autos approaching from the east Granville Bridge is more convenient: from west it is a minor detour.

  Accordingly, an ambulatory and cycling public will be closer to the street side stores, enhancing their business, and other amenities.

  Autos will have their own designated place so we know where they are, relegating fumes and noise away from crowded streets.

  To settle for half measure guarantees endless complaining.

  Now I understand the concept is radical but, clearly, this blog demonstrates a critical mass.

  If well organized a dedicated route could be a potent force if we have a clear vision. Many Hall-istas are on side and no doubt many others if we give them the confidence to speak up.

  I am not suggesting more interminable pubic hearings, surveys and reports. We all know the score. Is there an aspiring leader out there?

  Just do it!

  And when the dust settles the city will be a more peaceful and cleaner place to be.

• 68 Chris Keam // Oct 5, 2010 at 1:56 pm

  The meeting heard from three speakers and is now adjourned until 7:30pm tonight. Unfortunately, I can’t be there, but if anyone else will be the resident Twit, I’d love to be able to follow along at home. If you’re looking for a rundown of the morning’s proceedings you can ref. the link Spartikus provided upthread as well as my other Twitter Account Pacific Pedicabs, where I had to switch after I exceeded the Twitter daily limit of updates. I didn’t even know there was such a limit, so I apologize for seemingly ending the updates in mid-session.

• 69 Chris Keam // Oct 5, 2010 at 1:58 pm

  @IanS “However, to the extent that you are suggesting that that is my assertion, I urge you to read what I actually wrote, in context. If you do that, you will see that I have suggested nothing of the sort.”

  Sorry Ian. It wasn’t my intent to make that suggestion of a link. Two separate thoughts.

• 70 IanS // Oct 5, 2010 at 2:00 pm

  @Chris:

  You write: “Sorry Ian. It wasn’t my intent to make that suggestion of a link. Two separate thoughts.”

  To the extent that you are suggesting that I have ever had two separate thoughts in my life, I deny that that is the case.

  

• 71 mezzanine // Oct 5, 2010 at 2:46 pm

  @ Thinkoutsideabox @62,

  if anything, the HST will really help film production here in BC, as things like costumes and props were charged PST. Even used goods bought in BC, or props brought up from the USA were due PST, which was not recoverable.

  http://www.sbr.gov.bc.ca/documents_library/bulletins/sst_076.pdf

  ON and Quebec do have higher tax rebates for productions (~30% there versus 14% here).

  [/tangent]

• 72 ThinkOutsideABox // Oct 5, 2010 at 4:10 pm

  (Sorry all for the topic creep…)

  @mezzanine, yes the HST directly helps production budget line items by removing applicable PST. However the largest chunk of the budget by far is labour to which PST never applied. And given Ontario also has the HST, BC doesn’t have a competitive advantage in this regard.

• 73 solitary man // Oct 5, 2010 at 7:12 pm

  I don’t think the issue is whether Hornby is a go or nogo or if whether Howe or Granville might be better alternatives …

  The real question or debate should be do we have a dedicated bike lane every 3rd or 4th street right across the downtown core.

• 74 Bill Smolick // Oct 6, 2010 at 8:18 am

  Where do they get these numbers? Their driven by ideology! These people don’t vote and they shouldn’t be supporting them! They’re crazy. I don’t think they know how to count1

  Whoops…sorry…I’m channeling George Puil from his appearance on Stephen Quinn’s show yesterday.

  George Puil, in case you were uncertain, is a complete effing idiot. So is whoever did this study.

• 75 Suzanne // Oct 6, 2010 at 11:14 pm

  I’m neutral-to-positive on the bike lane and don’t buy into the idea that it will kill streetside business, but here’s my question.

  How much meter parking revenue do you think this costs the city?

• 76 Frances Bula // Oct 6, 2010 at 11:27 pm

  @Suzanne. I did hear an estimate at one point, but when I went just now and looked at the city report that council voted on yesterday, it says there will be loss of revenue from the Hornby meters but they expect to make up much of that from meters on other nearby streets that will get more heavily used.

• 77 Simoniz // Oct 8, 2010 at 11:12 am

  Am I not allowed to patronize businesses on Hornby because I ride my bike? I still don’t understand why businesses think their customers only drive cars.

Leave a Comment