Frances Bula header image 2

City engineer: “You are welcome to come and check our data on bike lanes”

February 17th, 2011 · 108 Comments

I called the long-suffering guy in charge of bike lanes, Jerry Dobrovolny, earlier this week to get more information about how the bike-lane statistics are gathered, since there have been allegations by some people (and not just anonymous ones on this blog) that the engineering department is faking data.

“We do need to be able to stand by the accuracy of these numbers,” said Jerry, who has been on the front lines of this for the last two years. For those who haven’t seen him at meetings in person or watched on your laptops, he’s your classic engineering guy: quiet, doesn’t do anything without checking the numbers ten times, thoughtful. He’s been with the city forever (not a recent draftee from Cortes, as the critics might suspect) and was trusted enough by the previous NPA/Rogers administration to be the spokesperson for the city during the strike. “If somebody wants to do a check, we have data on an hourly basis and they can look at our numbers.”

He said if anyone has video or any other count they have done for a particular time period, he will get his staff to pull the data they have for that hour to see if it matches. He does request that people come in with hard evidence, not anecdotal reports, so he’s not going off on wild goose chases.

Since anyone can come in with any random hour from any time in the last several months, it would be impossible for the engineering staff to know which hour might be requested and to “adjust” the numbers to match.

(For all the conspiratorial types who are still in hot pursuit of a smoking gun, if my wording is unclear, his intent is to provide the information in whatever way it takes to ensure that anyone who wants to check the data will be able to do so in a way that makes them confident that they are seeing the numbers recorded at the time.)

 The department does regular checks on whether its counting equipment (wire and hoses on the road) is working properly. So staff will be assigned to monitor either a video camera trained on a particular counter (apparently there are several that are trained on particular spots along the bike lane) or to go out to the street for an hour and do a count, then compare it to the numbers the city is getting through those hoses and wires to make sure the equipment is working right.

“We collect the data continuously,” he said. “There’s nothing we can do to fiddle those numbers.”

I said I’d heard that some people have claimed they’ve seen city workers stamping on the counter hoses. Others at the city have told me that might be workers testing a line to see if it’s registering properly.

Jerry said he’d have to check into whether they test by stepping on the line, but he was categorical in saying that it’s crazy to suggest that workers would be sent out to jump on the lines to push the counts up. Okay, he didn’t say “crazy.” He’s far too circumspect to ever use that word. But he was adamant that that would never happen.

I know that some of you are wondering why I’m bothering with this and thinking to yourselves, “What’s next? Is she going to start trying to provide evidence for people who think the world is flat? Who think Elvis is still alive? Just give up already, these people are hopeless.”

But I am hearing this allegation steadily and, as I said, from more than just anonymous posters. So go ahead, why doesn’t some civic-minded type go out and video-tape a particular block for a couple of hours (make sure there’s some way to guarantee the time and day) and go pay the engineering department a visit to see how the numbers match up. I’ll come along to see what happens if you’re willing.

Categories: Uncategorized

  • Max

    Tweets coming in;

    RT @coleensdish: Are the bike lanes here to stay? Wait until you hear what the city has to say. See you at 5.

    *****

    RT @ctvethanfaber: City says lots of people using #bikelanes but drivers not convinced. Numbers fudged? Debate at six @ctvbc

  • grounded

    @Paul:

    1) Which studies “show that separation via concrete or other methods actually does not have a noticeable decrease in overall injury statistics”? Please post a link to them as I’d like to give them a read.

    I did a quick search and found a couple of studies signaling the opposite may be at play. For example, a recent study looking at painted lanes in the UK found that:

    “where there is a bike lane, motorists tend to give less room to cyclists when they overtake.”

    (Source: ‘Cars and cycle lanes – too close for comfort’, Guardian UK, 11.09.09)

    While a study from Copenhagen points out that:

    “segregated bike lanes has resulted in three gains in road safety: fewer accidents in which cars hit or ran over cyclists from the rear, fewer accidents with cyclists turning left and fewer accidents in which cyclists rode into a parked car. These gains were outweighed by new safety problems: more accidents in which cyclists rode into other cyclists often when overtaking, more accidents with cars turning right, more accidents in which cars turning left drove into cyclists as well as more accidents between cyclists/ pedestrians and exiting or entering bus passengers.”
    (Source: http://www.ottawasun.com/news/ottawa/SBLDraftReportResponse.pdf)

    I’d imagine you’ll acknowledge that painted lanes don’t prevent cars from hitting or running over cyclists from the rear or cyclists from running into parked cars.

    2) How can you call the study “fatally flawed” when, in the words of the researchers, “Each cycle track was compared with one or two reference streets without bicycle facilities that were considered alternative bicycling routes”? I realize it is not comparing painted vs separated but it is still comparing streets used for cycling.

    3) Painted lanes don’t give those of us who aren’t hardcore cyclists the same sense of safety as separated lanes which is so critical in encouraging more people to commute by bike.

    4) The city’s ongoing installation of left turn bays along Knight Street are averaging between $3.5 million and $4.5 million; both of which are more expensive than the Hornby bike lane. To this end, this quote from Gordon Price puts things into perspective:

    “Why is there such insistence for measuring the impacts of a bike lane costing $3 million when hardly anyone cares about the metrics of a $3 billion highway expenditure? Huh?”

  • Sean

    @Morven #50

    “But if the Vancouver lanes for whatever reason are only catering to dedicated commuter cyclists, then some enhanced communication programs are called for before the wrong policy decision is taken.”

    I’m not following you. The purpose of the lanes is to encourage and increase the number of cyclists. If it increases the number of commuter cyclists, how is that different than if it increases the number of shopping cyclists or recreational cyclists?

    “And non-commuter cyclists are far more inclined to be influenced by weather than the commuters, making numbers and variability substantial.”

    That will be borne out by the statistics themselves. You don’t need to categorize the cyclists as recreational and therefore likely not to ride in bad weather, you just have to measure the number of cyclists who show up in bad weather. Trying to extrapolate numbers based on the type of cyclist is never going to be as accurate as measuring the number of cyclists who actually show up.

  • Declan

    It seems like Dobrovolny was basically saying ‘put up or shut up’.

    So far the ‘put up’ count is at 0 by my reckoning.


    As for the usage of the lanes, I’m not sure what people were expecting, they seem busy enough to me (I work on Dunsmuir St.), and the bike racks are always pretty full, although certainly I’d expect the volumes to grow over the years as cycling infrastructure improves and the city continues to densify.

    Certainly you see far more women, older and younger, and more regular joe types on their bikes now, whereas a couple of years ago, you’d only see couriers and commuters who were mostly ‘serious cyclists’ in spandex from head to toe.

  • pacpost

    @ Paul

    There’s one very important difference between Copenhagen and North America that you’re ignoring when you point to the Copenhagen bike lane/bike track study: vulnerable user laws.

    Denmark has very strict vulnerable user laws, as does the Netherlands. These laws put the onus on car drivers to avoid accidents, whether with cyclists or pedestrians. This may explain why they actually respect cyclists riding on roads with painted bike lanes more than North American drivers do, and why the statistics show less of a difference between the different types of infrastructure (although the Copenhagen study showed that a difference is there, despite your protestations).

    As the Dutch say in their own official literature: “The Dutch philosophy is: Cyclists are not dangerous; cars and car drivers are: so car drivers should take the responsibility for avoiding collisions with cyclists. This implies that car drivers are almost always liable when a collision with a bicycle occurs and should adapt their speed when bicycles share the roads with cyclists.”

    http://www.fietsberaad.nl/index.cfm?lang=en&repository=Cycling+in+the+Netherlands

    Imagine if the road laws were changed here in BC along these lines. Oh, the howls of protest…

  • Mark Allerton

    @Morven 28

    You are moving the goalposts.

    In your comment 24 you said this:

    “All they have to do is to tell us what consistent procedures are used”

    …insinuating that the City has not been transparent about it’s methodology. But when pressed to give an example of how they have failed to do this, your response is instead to point out what you see failings in the methodology.

    So I take it you now accept that your original insinuation was baseless and have moved on to insinuating that the City’s data collection efforts are insufficient instead.

  • Mark Allerton

    “what you see *as* failings”

  • Mark Allerton

    I note also that Max can’t be bothered to answer my #18, presumably because proof of the validity of the City’s data would conflict inconveniently with their belief system.

  • spartikus

    RT @ctvethanfaber: City says lots of people using #bikelanes but drivers not convinced. Numbers fudged? Debate at six @ctvbc

    There are 2 things to be learned from this. The first is the actual nitty-gritty facts, such as the CTV report shows no fudging…

    “What we’ve seen so far is that on average, we’re seeing about 600 cyclists a day during the midweek,” assistant city engineer Jerry Dobrovolny told CTV News…When CTV News counted bikes at Hornby and Georgia streets Friday afternoon, 99 cyclists used the separated lane in about an hour.

    99 cyclists x 8 hour working day = 600 easily. I’m sure CTV is in on the plot.

    The second thing one learns is anything originating from City Caucus is often less than advertised.

    This is your Waterloo, Max.

  • spartikus

    @Morven 28 You are moving the goalposts.

    Indeed. Why is Morven, or anyone for that matter, refusing to take up Dobrovolny’s unprecedented offer.

    It would be a slam dunk. A coup. A triumph.

    Personally, I’m at the point where I would feel quite comfortable dismissing the Morvens and Maxs on the grounds of not having anything substantive to offer. On any subject.

    And so should you.

  • Paul

    @pacpost 55: I completely agree with you about improving legal safeguards for vulnerable road users. However I will say that pedestrians in our province already share that safeguard with the Netherlands. The BC Motor Vehicle Act states “A driver of a vehicle must exercise due care to avoid colliding with a pedestrian who is on the highway.” I’d certainly be happy to see that law broadened to encompass all vulnerable road users. ICBC is already teaching this concept, but you’re right it lacks the bite of a law.

    @grounded 52:

    1) You answered your own question, read the Copenhagen study findings “…These gains were OUTWEIGHED by new safety problems: more accidents in which cyclists rode into other cyclists often when overtaking, more accidents with cars turning right, more accidents in which cars turning left drove into cyclists as well as more accidents between cyclists/ pedestrians and exiting or entering bus passengers.”

    2) It is fatally flawed, they took a couple of streets with no bike facilities and compared them to a street with a cycle track. They did not study other types of cycling infrastructure. So all it has said is that A is better than B, which is correct. But it totally disregarded C, D, E, F, G, etc. As I said, it was far too narrow of a study to be useful.

    3) The painted lanes as we had them did not offer that sense of security, agreed. However, look at some of the painted lanes they are doing in Sydney, Australia. Those are examples of a great way to do painted facilities. They’re safe AND they feel safe. Win win.

    4) It’s not about $3 million dollars, it’s not about $3 billion dollars, it’s about an amount of money that was used when a better, safer, cheaper option was available. Haste makes waste and clearly this council rushed staff to get this done (by their own admission). That’s not how you run any government.

  • Mark Allerton

    @spartikus

    Believe me, I was at that point some time ago…

  • Richard

    @Morven

    I saw a couple of children cycling on Hornby and Dunsmuir today. You can pretty much bet that would have not been the case before.

    If the lanes aren’t attracting a high number of new cyclists, it is likely do the the limited number of safe connections to them. For example, there is really no good way to access them from the West End. The Dunsmuir separated lane ends at Hornby. To the west, there is no eastbound lane and the westbound is only a painted lane.

    Most of the streets between the West End and Hornby have heavy levels of traffic and pretty much no bicycle facilities of any kind.

    On the south end of Burrard Bridge, the options are limited. The Cypress Bikeway is typically clogged with cars and Cornwall is down right scary.

    To the east, the block of the Adanac Bikeway between Gore and Main is also clogged with cars.

    The Seaside Path by the Convention Centre is still blocked by the “temporary” sea plane terminal.

  • Morven

    @ Richard

    Your observation would be an encouraging demographic. And yes, (though an infrequent traveller downtown), I did see several family groups on bikes last Sunday on the Hornby lane so perhaps there is something positive coming out of this project.
    -30-.

  • Richard

    @Morven

    Basic demographic data like gender mix and number of children would be useful. In Copenhagen, 55% of cyclists are women. In the City of Vancouver according to the 2006 Census around 30% of bike commuters were women (and likely still are). They did do manual counts including gender on the Burrard Bridge and found a greater increase in women than in men. Hopefully, the city will do similar counts on Hornby and Dunsmuir.

  • Max

    From CTV’s web site article:

    ‘Packing bikes and cars together in close proximity has other consequences, too. Surveillance cameras at the St. Regis Hotel on Dunsmuir Street hotel have captured footage of five collisions since June.’

  • Richard

    @Max

    The collisions are most likely a result of drivers making illegal turns by not yielding to cyclists. Unfortunately these types of collisions happen where there are painted bike lanes as well. It is not an issue specific to separated bike lanes. Drivers have to learn to obey the law and yield to cyclists. The police should be ticketing drivers who don’t follow the rules of the road.

  • Paul

    Richard your generalization of any driver who is involved in an accident with a cyclist is about as rich as people who generalize all cyclists as law-breaking. Of course some drivers will be guilty of being careless, I’d argue the vast majority of drivers do their best to avoid collisions with cyclists. As the Copenhagen study has shown, putting cyclists behind a barrier has two very negative effects on accident statistics where car/bike interfaces occur.

    1. Cyclists are lulled into a false sense of security and may not accurately be able to judge the risk that lies ahead.

    And 2. Vehicle drivers also get a sense of security or at least a lack of attention that a cyclist will always be in that lane. This will of course be mitigated by increased ridership. But increased ridership improves safety no matter what the infrastructure. “Out of sight Out of mind” is I believe the best way to describe the effect.

  • Richard

    @Paul

    It was not a generalization. I was not implying anything about drivers in general as the large majority of them are careful around cyclists. It was a response to collisions at a specific location. On the Dunsmuir bike lane where Mr. MacDonald video taped collisions, cyclists have the right-of-way over turning vehicles. In the collision shown on Global, it was pretty clear that the driver should have waited for the cyclist to pass and instead, illegally turning into the path of the cyclist causing the collision. Regardless of whether cyclists are paying more or less attention, these types of collisions where drivers fail to yield are still the fault of the driver.

    And for the 19,000th time, these types of collisions are as big a problem on painted lanes down in Portland and Seattle.

    Bicycle ridership is increased by separated lanes. A much larger portion of the population is willing to ride in separated lanes. There will not be significant increases in cycling with only painted bike lanes.

    In fact, if you look back at the bike counts years ago on Hornby and Burrard, the numbers really didn’t increase significantly after the painted lanes where installed.

  • Paul

    Richard, I love how the bicycle lobby sits there and tries to spew study after study at anyone who disagrees with their position. But when finally someone actually pushes stats and figures back at them they start whining how people will only use separated lanes. That’s despite the numerous studies that show a very minimal difference between the two.

    So for the 19,000th time please listen carefully. A well designed painted lane is a happy medium between expensive concrete and ineffective bike paths that we’re used to. Go look at Sydney’s design for painted lanes. Please. Before you discount the usefulness.

  • Richard

    @Paul

    Sydney is building 55km of separated bike lanes because they work.

    Cities all around the world are building separated bike lanes because that is what people want to use. The numbers from Dunsmuir show a dramatic increase in usage.

    Show me a city that has has a high bicycle mode share that does not have a network of separated bike lanes or separated paths.

  • Richard

    @Paul

    Looks like even LA is planning separated bike lanes:
    http://www.good.is/post/better-designed-streets-for-walkers-and-bikers-are-coming-to-l-a/

  • Paul

    Thank you for not looking at Sydney carefully Richard. The painted bike lanes I speak of are considered separated because they use parked cars as the separation. Not concrete and rubbermaid containers. Cheaper, more effective, yet not even considered here. Why is the cycle lobby in this city so intent on giving us an inferior system?!?

  • Jason

    Richard…I believe a previous poster on here also pointed out that the sydney separated lanes (which, as Paul points out, are not separated as ours are) are also shared with transit….also something that appears to be a non starter here in Vancouver.

    “the numbers from Dunsmuir show a dramatic increase in usage”

    Richard, could also do me a favor and post the report that shows this? I don’t remember seeing a year on year comparison on Dunsmuir that show a “dramatic increase”

  • PGH

    @Richard

    Please stop using Sydney, Australia as an example of a city that uses separated bike lanes to justify the mess the COV has made on Hornby St. and the Burrard St. Bridge. I am an active Sydney cyclist who rides almost everyday. Sydney uses painted bike lanes in most areas and uses dedicated shared lanes (Bikes and Buses) in the Central Business District. This system works just fine and doesn’t require a separate lane for bikes. On the Sydney Harbour Bridge they have separated cyclists and pedestrians. The sidewalk on one side of the bridge is for pedestrians. The side walk on the other side of the bridge is for Cyclists. Makes sense and works just fine. As a cyclist the only thing missing for me, in Sydney, is Bike Rack equipped buses.

  • Bobbie Bees

    The only thing I need to remind any private business that is actively filming the public at large is that they need to be in full compliance with the BC PIPA ACT.

    Reminds me, I’ve got a complaint to forward off to the commission.

  • Bobbie Bees

    PGH in Austrailia they have detention camps for refugees. Anymore bright ideas you wanna bring to Canada from the land down under?

  • Max

    @ Bobbie Bees #76

    A short while ago, Pivot Legal got a hold of a video tape which resulted in a rather high profile case against a VPD officer. You may have seen it.

    It involved a VPD officer who pushed a woman – DTES. She had a medical condition. This tape was optained through a private business who had video surviellance surrounding their business that shot actions on the street – and protected that business.

    So tell me, where do your bounderies lie? Are they one sided as long as it benefits something your support, or, is it even across the board??

    You seem to be up in the air about the fact the Regis hotel shot videos which may or may not be damning against the ‘trial’ bike lane, yet, I can’t help but wonder if you were in the same frenzy when the video I’ve noted above came to light? Any peep out of you, anywhere????

    File any law suits then???

    And what about those private persons that may include ‘you’ while they are out snapping pics when they are out and about. Going after them as well??

    Holy crap, people post more damning pics and info on Facebook, yet you want to condemn businesses for protecting their clientele, their employees, and their premises by having ‘surveillance cameras’ watching over their property.

    Criminals LOVE people like you.

  • Jason

    “PGH in Austrailia they have detention camps for refugees. Anymore bright ideas you wanna bring to Canada from the land down under?”

    Let me get this straight…Richard uses Sydney as an example of “separated lanes”…a person who actual cycles in sydney corrects him by stating that the lanes there are not like ours…and in response to that you make a derogatory comment about the entire country of Australia?

    Yup, seems reasonable….very balanced.

  • PGH

    @ Bobbie Bees

    I’m not sure what Australia’s policy for dealing with the 134 boat loads of 6,880 Refugees, Asylum-seekers, Internally displaced persons and Illegal Immigrants (2010 Govt Stats) has anything to do with bike lanes in Vancouver, Canada … but thanks for staying on topic …. I’m sure everyone appreciated the relevance of your posts.

  • Gerry McGuire

    I know someone personally who received a serious head injury during the Burrard lanes “trial” which was not included in the statistics that Jerry Dobrovolny presented to council in the report that was used to pronounce that trial “an unqualified success”. Before the vote, Geoff Meggs crowed like a rooster against those who dared “impugn staff’s integrity”. Which came first-the chickens or the yeggs?

  • Max

    @ Gerry McGuire #81

    The stats used to push the Burrard Street bike lane included 8 accidents prior to the lane being built.

    5 of those included pedestrians being hit by cyclists.

    According to an article posted on the CTV web site, there have been 5 recorded (video covering one area of the lane) accidents on the new Hornby lane . They did not go into specifics.

    Perhaps they provide a false sense of security?

  • Paul

    Jason and PGH. I won’t paint all of the pro-cycle trackers with the same brush, but this is a prime example of how heated this debate is on both sides. If you can’t win by good debate you get childish and throw a tantrum.

    This is how Meggs, Reimer and Robertson pushed their pro-cycle track position through the backrooms of city hall. If no one believes you, talk louder.

    Well the taxpayers will see what a waste of time and money this was. We may not see Dunsmuir or Burrard Bridge dismantled but at the very least we can use Hornby as an example of how to effectively use alternate forms of separation.

    Tear it up, return it to the useful one-way lane it was. Reposition it next to the curb for safety and get rid of the eye-sore. It’s a win-win. Anti-cycle trackers will be silenced because it’s foot-print isn’t nearly as large as this stupid bi-directional lane. Pro-cycle trackers will also be happy because there is separation.

  • Mark Allerton

    @Gerry

    “I know someone personally who received a serious head injury during the Burrard lanes “trial” which was not included in the statistics that Jerry Dobrovolny presented to council in the report that was used to pronounce that trial “an unqualified success”.

    I have two words for you: prove it.

    If you are saying that the City is lying about this, please give names, dates and times and a description of the accident.

  • Jean

    This data geek did some separated bike lane analysis on his own…for fun.

    http://canadianveggie.wordpress.com/2011/02/20/dunsmuir-bike-lane-anlaysis-numbers/

  • IanS

    @Mark Allerton #84,

    I share your concerns about the use of anectodal evidence and unsubstantiated assertions (albeit from the other side of the fence), but your statement:

    “I have two words for you: prove it.

    If you are saying that the City is lying about this, please give names, dates and times and a description of the accident.”

    … makes me wonder how he can “prove it”. Suppose Mr. McQuire comes back and provides the name, date, time and description of the accident. Would that “prove it”?

    Likely not, as he could be making it up and, even if he is not, the fact that the accident occurred doesn’t prove that it wasn’t taken into account in the “statistics” in question.

    So, I’m curious. How does he “prove it”?

  • spartikus

    If it was a “serious head injury” there would probably be a police/ambulance report.

    I was able to request a copy for my cycling accident.

  • spartikus

    “If there…”

    I need an editor.

  • Mark Allerton

    @Ian

    Gerry seems quite convinced that the accident was not accounted for, so presumably he has access to some information that has at least convinced him.

    So it would be a start if they were to simply elaborate on why it is they are convinced that this is true. Perhaps we will be convinced too.

  • westcoaster

    Apologies if someone else has already suggested this, but why doesn’t the city hook up a couple of digital cameras along Dunsmuir and Hornby aimed at the bike lanes and stream the video on to the city’s website so we can all see how well busy those lanes are?

  • Everyman

    @westcoaster #90 – That makes too much sense!

  • doug

    I’m a 55 year old male, and I used to ride a bike everywhere before I moved downtown. But there is no way I’m taking my life in my hand based on the fantasy that a line on the street will protect me from Vancouver drivers.
    With the implementation of separated bike lanes I’ve purchased a bike recently, in the hopes of taking up biking again as a means of transportation around downtown. A perception of my personal safety is completely the reason for this.

    I’d bet that most of those opposed to bike lanes are older people who will never be on a bike again in this lifetime. They simply don’t want money spent on something they will get no benefit from.

    one last thing….-30- for Morvan, what a pretentious sign off.

  • Paul

    doug.. thank you for your views, and there is something to be said about perceived safety you’re absolutely right. But when the perception of safety is leading to an increased number of injuries we have to step back and make sure the positives outweigh the negatives.

    I think the more sensible anti-concrete crew here will agree with you that simply painting a line on the road is not safe enough. A painted bike lane has to be sensibly designed. And there are cities in the world where a good balance has been struck. Vancouver chose Copenhagen to model it’s cycle tracks on. Trouble is Copenhagen’s own studies have shown their shortfalls and Vancouver did next to NOTHING to compensate for them.

    I’m glad at age 55 you are taking up cycling again doug, but with only one north-south and one east-west route, I highly doubt it will encourage you to ride more on any particular day. However, if (for the same money) we got 3 or 4 north-south routes and 3 or 4 east-west routes, it might have a more pronounced benefit.

  • Sean

    @Paul #93

    “However, if (for the same money) we got 3 or 4 north-south routes and 3 or 4 east-west routes, it might have a more pronounced benefit.”

    Money is the least of the obstacles toward getting that much cycling infrastructure downtown.

  • Chris Keam

    @Paul:

    I don’t know if you didn’t review the map link I posted when you claimed there were painted bike lanes all over Vancouver, or maybe you simply don’t ride much, but the reality is that there are a number of bike routes outside of the downtown core already. They can definitely use expansion and improvement, but the black hole in Vancouver cycling infrastructure was a downtown core that even people like myself, with forty years of cycling under their belt and tens of thousands of kms of distance covered, still found a frightening and intimidating place to ride.

    Until those separated lanes went in, I carefully considered where I had to go downtown and at what time before I chose to take my bike or rely on transit. Now it’s usually always by bike, with the bigger issue being whether or not there will be some semblance of secure parking if I’m going to be leaving my bike for more than an hour or two. Outside of downtown, it is generally only ever a question of which route was the most convenient for cycling.

    Now imagine I’m a person who hasn’t been cycling for most of their life and you might start to get an inkling of why something as simple and inexpensive as a row of planters is having a positive impact overall on our transportation network. Your continued focus on one type of cycling facility, suitable for only a small sub-set of the population, shows a disheartening lack of consideration for the big picture and how we get from our current auto-reliant situation, where vast areas of land sit empty waiting for cars to fill them up, to a place where we can unpave our city to some extent, and replace that under-used land with homes, parks, and agriculture… all three of which we need far more than another lane of asphalt sitting empty for 22 hours a day.

    cheers,
    CK

  • Paul

    Come on Chris, you’re being as unreasonable as people who don’t want to see any cycling infrastructure at all. The painted routes I’m proposing feel just as safe as the rubbermaid bin route involved with the “trial” bike lanes.

    And not only do they FEEL safe, they are proven to actually BE safer than the two-way, concrete divided cycle track. And they cost A LOT LESS.

    They also have the ability to quickly and cheaply be implemented or taken away if they aren’t living up to their expectations.

    So please stop spewing the drivel that the concrete and rubbermaid bins were our only option. They were not. There were better, safer, cheaper options… but Gregor wanted his concrete.

  • Chris Keam

    “The painted routes I’m proposing feel just as safe as the rubbermaid bin route involved with the “trial” bike lanes.”

    No. They. Don’t. You don’t get to invoke science and studies and then spout nonsense. Separated lanes feel safer. People are afraid of being run over from behind, or doored into traffic and having their head squashed like a grape. Bouncing off a quarter panel onto the sidewalk in a separated lane intersection is a day in the park by comparison.

  • Max

    @ Chris Keam and other VCCA advocates;

    Why is it that the VCCA was putting out information to the Hornby Street businesses on how to market to ‘cyclists’ prior to the time that City Council voted to pass the Hornby St. trial initiative?

    The ‘trial’ lanes were passed in October (5th) yet according to a post by Jill Bennett, a marketing piece from the VCCA was sent to Horby retailers on or about Sept. 28.

    ***

    Give Cyclists a Discount? Are You Kidding Me? Posted 10/3/2010 8:57:00 AM

    Earlier this week CKNW reporter Jordan Armstrong was talking to businesses on Hornby Street, asking about the “proposed” separated bike lane, when he came across a flyer that had been handed out by the Vancouver Area Cycling Coalition

    It’s called the ‘VACC Business for Bikes Program’.

    The initiative officially launched on September 28th.

    It includes a marketing guide and Consumer Outreach program where businesses are encouraged to be bike-friendly. Umm…excuse me but when did that become as issue? The businesses are bike friendly. That’s never been an issue. It’s having an unnecessary concrete barrier and bike lane rammed down their throats they aren’t too pleased with.

    ***

    Did the VCCA have an ‘in’?

    Did they know in advance that this was a done deal?

    Comments?

  • Chris Keam

    You should ask the VCCA whoever they are.

    Seriously Max, since when is it wrong to speak to businesses and/or the public in advance of a council decision? Would it have been wrong for VANOC to offer businesses 2010 advice before the city won the bid? Of course not.

    I don’t claim to speak for the VACC on the matter, but I will defend common sense when it takes a beating from people on a mission to tear down a local gov’t. You’re looking for subterfuge and conspiracy where there is simply some forward-thinking marketing.

  • Paul

    No one needs to try to tear down a local gov’t CK. Gregor and friends are doing a perfect job of that on their own.