Frances Bula header image 2

Former NPA councillor Peter Ladner: Bikes lanes are working

February 13th, 2011 · 189 Comments

We heard the anti-bike lane case from Rob Macdonald last week. In fairness, here’s the counter-argument from Peter Ladner. This column appeared in Business in Vancouver.

“What do you think of the new bike lanes on Hornby Street?” asked my Aunt Glo over dinner a few weeks ago.

She’s in her 80s and uses a walker.

“I hate them,” she said. “Last week I had to go downtown for a lunch and my taxi was backed up along Hornby. Do you know how many bikes there were in the bike lanes?”

Nope.
“Not one! The taxi drivers hate the bike lanes. Why did the city decide to force them on us? They want everyone to become a cyclist. I’m never going to ride a bike.”
“Nobody is expecting you to ride a bike, Glo,” I insisted, not mentioning my mother-in-law, turning 90 next month, who is back on her bike in Victoria after a bike fall that broke her hip four years ago.
Scene 2: “What do you think of the new bike lanes on Hornby Street?” my friend Dean asked me.
He’s in this 60s, president of a downtown investment firm.
“I love them,” he said. “I’ve started riding to work [from Dunbar], and I’m getting exercise. I feel better when I arrive at work, and I never have to worry about how long the trip is going to take. Riding in the rain really isn’t a big deal.”
His thoughts about exercise and health are echoed in a recent review of the scientific literature that found that the slight increase in risk from bicycle crashes is more than offset by vast improvements in overall health and lifespan when you ride a bicycle for transportation.
The health benefits of bicycling are nine times greater than the safety gains from driving instead.
The transition to a less auto-dependent city isn’t going to be easy, but it isn’t going to stop. Compared with New York City, we’ve just begun. As part of Mayor Michael Bloomberg’s environmental initiative, not only has Times Square been pedestrianized, the city is set to have 1,800 miles of bike lanes by 2030, with 10,000 public bikes added to the streets in a bike-share program by 2012. Bike use went up 13% last year, double what it was five years ago.
There, the conversation has been about saving lives. The police have handed out 29,000 tickets to cyclists disobeying the law during a “Don’t be a jerk” campaign. Cycling injuries are down 50% with the introduction of separated bike lanes, and all traffic injuries are down 40% because of pedestrian refuge islands built into the bike lane barriers.
Jan Gehl, the Danish architect who inspired New York’s changes, was in Vancouver last month sharing his message: “People are starting to stand up and recognize that we have lost something which was always very important, and now we have time to recover from the first wave of automobile pressure, and rethink a better balance where you like to go out and sit and have meals and watch your fellow citizens, talk with them in spaces which are not completely filled with noise and pollution from cars.” Think of downtown and the 2010 Winter Olympics.
In New York, the new pedestrians are paying off for businesses. In Times Square and Herald Square, retail rents have gone up 71% because of new business generated by the new car-free public spaces.
In Vancouver, the “new pedestrians” are rallying to support businesses along the bike route with a Facebook group called Pedestrians Supporting Hornby Business, organizing social gatherings at restaurants along Hornby. The Vancouver Area Cycling Coalition now has a Business for Bikes program to help businesses along bike routes adjust and market to cyclists.
Vancouver will be hosting major international conferences on both cycling and walkability over the next two years. While the owner of the Wedgewood Hotel was speaking out against the Hornby bike lane outside her front door, her employees were bidding to be the host hotel for the cycling conference.
The shift is here and, with patience, it will work – as long as there is always a way for Aunt Glo to get downtown as conveniently as the cyclists.
Peter Ladner ( This e-mail address is being protected from spambots, you need JavaScript enabled to view it ) is a founder of Business in Vancouver and a former Vancouver city councillor.

This article from Business in Vancouver February 15-21, 2011; issue 1112

Categories: Uncategorized

  • Mark Allerton

    @Agustin

    I actually agree with you about allocation based on *desired* proportion of trips over current, but decided not to fight Ian over that particular hill today. Baby steps 🙂

    It believe it’s well established that car traffic into downtown has been decreasing over time, so if we believe that drivers are currently adequately catered for* you can make a case for reducing their proportion of the road purely based on forecast demand, let alone the desirability of having fewer cars downtown.

    (* this will of course be hotly disputed.)

  • Mark Allerton

    “*I* believe it’s well established…”

  • boohoo

    Interesting article re: Golden Ears Bridge.

    Actual number of users nowhere near projected numbers. Taxpayers on the hook for another 33 million.

    Should we get the picks and crow bars out right away?

    http://www.vancouversun.com/Taxpayers+take+million+fewer+drivers+than+expected+Golden+Ears+Bridge/4291146/story.html

  • Paul

    Really boo? You’d want to tear it down? I mean the lack of vehicle traffic must mean people are using their bikes. You’d really want to tear down a wonderful new pedestrian and cycling corridor?

    And as for usage stats, just give it a few years. Once the Port Mann is tolled, usage of Golden Ears by vehicles will quickly increase.

  • cgwyl

    Ouch, on to 154, only time for the 10 min scan, cyclist should have heard the truck braking or gearing down. The trucker on the other hand should have know better and will be held to at least 70% fault in the matter. Bottom line, urban bike paths rule the times and, ALWAYS DRIVE DEFENSIVELY.

  • boohoo

    Give it a few years? But Paul, if when the stats come out for the bike lanes and there aren’t as many users as predicted, will you say the same thing?

  • Chris Keam

    “You’d really want to tear down a wonderful new pedestrian and cycling corridor?”

    What are the destinations on either side of the 2 km long bridge that are likely to attract pedestrians and cyclists?

    The bottom line is that taxpayers are spending pretty much more per month in payments for this bridge than the the total installed costs for any one of the downtown separated lanes. I think it puts things into perspective.

  • Paul

    Yup. And I’ll be the first one to offer up solutions to the problem. I think you really don’t understand what I’m proposing boohoo. Yes I think the Hornby lane should never have been altered, but it’s done now. When the accident statistics show how dangerous they are I would like to see it returned to a single direction slimmer lane that still has some kind of separation. As mentioned it should flow contra direction.

    The rubbermaid plastic planters are eyesores. Those need to be replaced with something better.

    This lane sucks. It’s poorly thought out. But no I don’t want it completely removed. Why would I want to get rid of Gregor’s tombstone? Much like the fast ferries, I want them clearly visible so this gang of horrible leaders never come back into power.

  • Chris Keam

    Actually Paul, I think we all understand perfectly well what you are suggesting. Coupled with your clearly partisan reasons for posting, and erroneous claims regarding things like the number of painted bike lanes in the city, speaking for myself, I’d prefer someone with some expertise at the helm of the good ship SS Bike Lanes.

  • IanS

    @Agustin #149,

    Heh. As so often happens in these discussions, I’m beginning to feel like the hapless lecturer in the “turtles all the way down” story.

    If the data showed that the bike use relative to car use on the Burrard Bridge was increasing, you would argue (with, I would agree, some factual justification), that it made sense to allocate another lane for bike use.

    If the data shows that the bike use relative to car use on the Burrard Bridge was decreasing, from a peak of 9.5% to the latest figure of 2.8% (as it does), you argue that it makes sense to allocate another bike lane, on the hope that it might increase bike use.

    I’m tempted to ask what your position would be if the percentage of bike use to car use on the Burrard Bridge remained steady, but I’m pretty certain I know the answer to that.

    At the end of the day, I guess, it comes down to a question of belief and I’m just not prepared to make the leap of faith necessary to agree with your conclusions.

  • Agustin

    @ Mark Allerton – I hear ya.

    @ IanS – what I’m saying is that looking at data gives you an excellent indication (as long as the data are good quality) of what has already happened. If you want to make changes, you have to rely on modeling. Certainly, data would seed that modeling, but it’s not a 1:1 predictor.

    I admit to having as much bias as the next guy (nobody approaches anything without bias; it’s the human condition) but I am not talking about a leap of faith. I’m talking about looking backward versus looking forward. Data is useful for looking backward; modeling (seeded with data) is useful for looking forward.

  • Paul

    @Chris Keam 158… Dude you are not one to talk about being partisan. You and boohoo are the biggest pro-Vision commenters in the city. You (much like Vision) are incapable of taking criticism and perhaps even using that criticism to make better decisions.

    I appreciate that Gregor is a big backer of cycling, including riding in the monthly Critical Mass bike protest. That does not give him expertise in the field of designing cycle friendly facilities.

    When his own engineers told him that two way separated bike lanes were not an ideal situation he overruled them and pushed them to go ahead with it anyway.

    At the sham public hearing on this, Gordon Price made the argument for two-way instead of one way. His argument was that even if it was constructed as one-way, people would still use it as two-way.

    I’m sorry, that’s not a good enough reason.

    I’m still shocked that the VACC stands behind this man when he has polarized the populous so much. He has single-handedly taken an uncomfortable situation and made it into an all out war. And for what? A few million in concrete, asphalt and plastic planters??? What a waste of a good opportunity.

  • Chris Keam

    Paul:

    I’m not pro-Vision or any party. I’m registering my support for cycling infrastructure. The politics behind it is irrelevant to me, as my posts (which rarely address politics) can attest. Your comments speak clearly to your biases however.

    I invite you to check out my latest blog post. You’ll find it decidedly non-Vision-boosterish.

    cheers,
    CK

  • boohoo

    oh god paul, give it a rest. How many bloody times are you going to just dismiss people as ‘pro-vision’ when it’s just a bs excuse to get out of an argument. I’m pro sanity which you lack.

  • Paul

    And exactly which biases would those be Chris? That I want good, safe cycling facilities? That I want open and honest government that doesn’t hold sham public hearings? That I want a government who listens to their hired experts and gives guidance instead of overruling sound advice?

    If that is my bias, then guilty as charged.

  • Paul

    @boohoo 163. You keep saying you’re not pro-vision, but I have yet to see one thing from you that is critical of the current administration at City Hall.

    I know you say you’re Non-Partisan (not the NPA) but you seem to only comment on stories or conversations that are not favourable to Gregor and Vision. And your comments serve to either prop up their views or deflect the conversation away from the criticism.

    I can play your game as well. Not once have I blatantly supported the NPA or any other party. In fact I’m just as critical of Suzanne Anton as I am of Gregor. Once the NPA has elected all of their nominees I will certainly begin to round down who I support. But I can guarantee you it won’t be any of the people on this current council.

  • boohoo

    If you can’t understand my criticisms, so be it.

  • Richard

    @IanS
    Reallocating a lane of traffic on the east side so pedestrians could be allowed back on the east sidewalk would not increase the space allocated for cyclists, it would increase the space allocated for pedestrians.

    It would significantly decrease travel times for many pedestrians 24 hours a day, seven days a week while only affecting travel times for half the motorists a couple of hours a day. It would also improve pedestrian safety (they wouldn’t have to cross streets nearly as much) and likely motorist safety by encouraging lower speeds that are closer to the legal limit. There might even be space for a cable barrier in the middle to prevent deadly head on collisions. This could be a win-win for everyone.

  • IanS

    @Richard #167,

    That’s a good point and one I hadn’t thought of before. I’m primarily a pedestrian and have no objection to additional allocations being made for pedestrians. The issue IMO, is how best to achieve that goal.

    At present, given the available data for bike and care usage on the bridge, I remain of the view that the better way to provide the additional allocation for pedestrians would be to make the existing bike lane into a two way lane for cyclists.

  • Everyman

    So I’ve been away for a couple days and I notice none of those who would be considered the “pro-cyclists” here have answered my question: Do you support the NYC “Don’t Be A Jerk” campaign that Ladner referenced?

    And Richard, I disagree that voters chose Robertson over Ladner because of his support of bike infrastructure. Like me, I suspect they looked at them as Tweedle Dee and Tweedle Dum, and chose the Tweedle not associated (at that time) with the unfolding Olympic Village fiasco.

  • Mark Allerton

    @Everyman

    Missed your mention of it before, but yes I think that campaign in NYC is a good idea and I would support campaigns to encourage good cycling behavior in Vancouver too.

  • Richard

    @IanS
    Only problem is for two-way bike path to safely accommodate the volumes of bicycles on the Bridge would have to be at least 4.5m wide. Maybe even wider considering the speed on the long downhill sections and the passing on the long uphill sections. This would require another lane of traffic to be reallocated anyway. Note that the only serious injury that I am aware of during the trial was due to a cyclist cycling the wrong way near the beginning of the trial. It is pretty obvious that the current path on the west side would not be safe for two-way bicycle traffic.

  • Richard

    @Everyman

    Regardless, they promised separated bike lanes during their campaign and then they delivered on their promises.

    Even after all the misinformation spread by the media and opponents of the bike lanes, the percentage of Vancouver residents that support the Hornby bike lanes is the same as the percent who are against them.

  • Sean

    @Everyman #170

    I think there should be a bicycle education course for all high school students, possibly through the Physical Education curriculum. This would ensure that EVERYONE – future cyclists, pedestrians and motorists – ALL understand the rights and responsibilities of cyclists.

  • IanS

    @Richard #173,

    I was not aware of that. I thought I’d read somewhere that 1.5 m was the standard minimum width for bike lanes, but I’m sure I must be wrong on that.

    In any event, I still have trouble agreeing with any solution which allocates 33% of the road to a mode of transportation which, by last count, represented 2.8% of the usage.

  • IanS

    @Richard #173,

    I agree that Vision did campaign on the promise that it would be adding bike lanes.

    I respect that and hope that, in the run up to this November’s election, they do so again, indicating whether they intend to install new bike lanes and, if so, where.

  • Chris Keam

    “In any event, I still have trouble agreeing with any solution which allocates 33% of the road to a mode of transportation which, by last count, represented 2.8% of the usage.”

    Here’s a different perspective. What if we allocate road space equally to all individuals, regardless of mode? It’s public space and theoretically it should be shared on a per capita basis. A child should have as much right to public space as an adult. A cyclist should have as much right as a driver. A pedestrian would have as much right as anyone else. Once you start to calculate based on the presumption that we are NOT our choice of technology, the imbalance in favour of auto users becomes more evident. Why is a driver entitled to monopolize the hundreds of feet of road space required to drive safely at 50 km/h, when that resource is limited? Shouldn’t they be paying a surcharge for the privilege?

    If we allocated public space equitably, driving would quickly become unaffordable for all but the very rich. So, it’s not feasible or reasonable to do so. But, to favour other means of transportation (bus, bike, ped) slightly, isn’t a privilege IMO, but rather a slight adjustment to the pavement scales in favour of equity.

  • Sean

    @Ian # 175

    “In any event, I still have trouble agreeing with any solution which allocates 33% of the road to a mode of transportation which, by last count, represented 2.8% of the usage.”

    To be fair, it’s 33% of THAT bridge, not 33% of ALL bridges crossing false creek. Just as the Dunsmuir bike line is 33% of Dunsmuir, but only a much smaller percentage of all east/west streets in the downtown peninsula.

  • Paul

    @Richard 173… As has been debated here at length, there was misinformation being spread around by the proponents of the project. BTW There is still an FOI request with the city to show which buildings along Hornby were mailed notices and when. I know of 4 strata councils along the street that had no knowledge of the plan until it was reported in the Vancouver Sun, despite the city’s contention that notice was sent.

    @ Sean 174… That’s a great idea. I also think a special section of driver’s licensing should be devoted to cyclists. And driver’s education courses should also have improved sections on being aware of cyclists.

  • Chris Keam

    While I support the idea of better education, I’m not sure it belongs in the P.E. curriculum, but rather, given the amount of time and money we all spend getting around, that there might be good reason to devote time outside of gym class to understanding our transportation system.

    cheers,
    CK

  • IanS

    @Sean #178,

    I take your point. But, of course, if are going to take into account all bridges crossing False Creek, I suppose we should also be taking into account the relative car / bike use for all such crossings.

  • IanS

    @Chris Keam #177,

    You write:

    “What if we allocate road space equally to all individuals, regardless of mode? It’s public space and theoretically it should be shared on a per capita basis.”

    I’m not sure I follow you here. Are you suggesting that road space be allocated equally to everyone, regardless of whether they use it? How would that work? Apologies if I’m missing something here.

    As to this point:

    “Shouldn’t they [car drivers] be paying a surcharge for the privilege?”

    To the extent you are proposing the use of tolls or congestion fees to levy charges to drivers, I’m in agreement, as long as the revenues generated are used to pay for the facilities being used.

  • Mark Allerton

    @IanS

    “I suppose we should also be taking into account the relative car / bike use for all such crossings”

    Agreed, but I wouldn’t be afraid to measure by that metric, Cambie gets pretty good bike traffic (bidirectional and shared with pedestrians on the eastside.) Granville, not so much.

  • Paul

    @ IanS 182… I’d seriously be willing to see some sort of congestion fee implemented as well. That would probably be the single greatest way to get people out of their cars and onto bikes. This would (of course) outrage any business in the downtown area, but that could be mitigated by direct tax benefits to them or improving access to transit or publicity.

    An aside to this is… I remember before our last big transit strike, hardly a soul could be found walking across the Cambie Street Bridge. During the strike, both sidewalks were packed with people. Then (amazingly) after the strike was over, it seems like some people figured out that they didn’t have to rely on public transit to get over that bridge. It always brings a smile to my face when I see the number of people still using it.

    It’s funny how a negative transit strike actually had a positive long term result. I think a congestion tax could have a similar net result, and we wouldn’t have to put people’s lives at risk to do it.

  • Bobbie Bees

    Okay, I’m going to have the final word.
    Bicycles are good.
    Good for your health and good for the environment.
    That’s all that needs to be said.

  • spartikus

    Hornby and updated Dunsmuir stats have been posted on the CoV website here.

  • Max

    @ Bobbie Bees #185

    If a poorly laid out bike lane/plan causes backup and conjestion by vehicles using that same roadway, how does that translate to being ‘good for the environment’?

  • Chris Keam

    “As well, City staff have collected data on vehicle traffic on Hornby Street. Preliminary results indicate vehicle travel times along Hornby Street are unchanged on weekday mornings and have increased by one minute (from 5½ to 6½ minutes) on weekday afternoons. This increase is equivalent to one traffic signal cycle. Travel-time data collection will continue.”

    http://vancouver.ca/city-highlights.htm#bikelanes

  • Craigs

    Paul:
    Let me see… a ‘congestion tax’ you say?
    I do hope you meant to apply it to any bikes coming into downtown too.. since accommodating them causes the loss of entire fast moving lanes of traffic and they generally move slower than cars are able. especially on the uphill grades. That would seem to cause more ‘congestion’ than the equivalent auto dont you think?