This I believe is the crux of the resistance.

This is my take. There are 3 groups.

The first are the businesses and residents of Hornby who are genuinely concerned. Much of that concern stems from a fear of change, which is natural. But a lot of concern is practical. They also can provide a great deal of useful feedback.

The second group is the political opposition. They share the same policy as the party in power, and are thus reduced to criticizing the process.

The third group is that section of conservadom identified by Mitch Berg. They see liberal plots everywhere and in everything. Much of this stems from the perception that they are losing their status within society.

@Richard,

I’m not debating. I’m just pointing to the facts (which, I admit, are poor tools to overcome someone else’s beliefs).

No matter what I say or do, or what the facts are, I’m no more likely to convince Spartikus that there’s been a 7% increase in bike usage on the bridge since the bike lane was put in than I would be to convince Tsakumis of the same fact.

And, in any event, I already gave Spartikus the last word and he won.

My thanks to Ms. Bula and the contributers. This string may have been far more informative than the city run consultations.
-30-

Spartikus….I’m sorry, where was the independent study that was conducted around the proposed bike lanes that I’m ignoring? I completely missed that. I’ve seen lots of links to Copenhagen, Sydney, etc. I have yet to see a damn thing this city has done that isn’t just touting bike lanes.

As for my goal posting shifting…I just went back through my comments and think you either have me confused with another person, or you’re simply trying to belittle my comments by claiming I’m unreasonable. You’ve done that with quite a few others on here, so I guess that’s your “go to” defense. I’m asking questions, and bringing up concerns with the process and with the actions of city hall.

Do I think the game is rigged? Yes, I do. I think that this city council and mayor want the bike lanes, and plan on putting them in come hell or high water. Thus the lack of public consultation, the lack of buy in, or at least discussion with the businesses they will affect. I do believe the decision has already been made. That’s not a belief in a “liberal conspiracy”, that’s based on city councils actions so far.

I’m sorry that I didn’t post the detailed comment I put on the cities website. It was never posted and I didn’t save a copy. Would you feel better if I wasted my time and did it again? I’m stating what happened to me…and asked others to try to see if they had the same outcome. If the city is heavily censoring the board to weigh the comments in their favor, I think people have a right to know. That’s not an unsubstantiated accusation, it’s my experience so far. If you don’t believe me…so be it.

As far as demonizing people, huh? Go back and read what I’ve said….and then go back and read what you said…you go after individuals who don’t agree with you or question what the cities doing with absolute zeal…the ONLY people I’ve questioned are the mayor and city hall, who I believe deserve to be questioned.

I’m sorry I don’t have an agenda or fit neatly into your “3 groups” theory. I also don’t hide behind handles so I can lash out anonymously….but that’s just me.

MB:

US specs, but here you go:

minimum motor vehicle land width – 3.66m
recommended bike lane width – 1.5m

So a bike lane is 40% as wide as a vehicle lane. To properly reflect mode share there would be a marked bike lane for roughly every 10 vehicle lanes according to my calculations. You’re right, we are nowhere near a representative allocation of road space if we look at current road markings.

On a related note, there was an interesting article in today’s Vancouver Sun regarding bike use in Paris. According to the article, bike use really got a jump start due to a transit strike a few years ago. Maybe that’s what Vancouver needs. 😉

Another point of note was that the bike share program in Paris had to replace the bulk of the fleet after a couple of years, due to vandalism and theft. I would hope that, when a similar program is started in Vancouver, the organizers will take note and follow whatever steps they took in Paris to avoid having that occur again.

@Chris,

Did they take any steps to reduce or eliminate the theft / vandalism which they claimed occurred during the initial period?

@Ian:

“Did they take any steps to reduce or eliminate the theft / vandalism which they claimed occurred during the initial period?”

Sorry Ian, I haven’t been following the issue very closely and couldn’t comment.

Here’s some background:

“Paris resident Eric Britton is a regular Vélib user and managing director of transport think tank New Mobility Partnerships – as well as being a Ph.D. level economist. He believes Vélib’s own figures on theft and vandalism should be seen in the context of the incredible amount of usage the system gets and the health-enhancing benefits it brings; “The figures mean an average of around 15 thefts a day out of 80,000 daily uses. It’s like skinning a knee.” ”

http://www.bikeradar.com/news/article/is-vlibs-provider-crying-wolf-20416

@MB
Not a very good method of allocating street space as the percentage of people using a form of transportation varies with the percentage of space allocated to it. As the percentage of road space allocated to cycling increases, the percentage of people cycling will increase. If 100% of the road space were allocated to bikes, then around 100% of people would cycle.

Although that might be a good argument to convert parking spaces to bicycle lanes as I suspect that more people per day would use that space on the road if it were a bike lane than if it were parking that would only be used by a few people per day.

Also, much of the street space is really only needed by cars for one or two hours a day. The rest of the time, many lanes of traffic around the city simply are not needed. If these lanes are converted to separated bike lanes, they would be used by people all day. As a result, more people might actually benefit from the space if it was converted to bike lanes.

@Chris / Richard,

Thanks for the info. I’m not suggesting that theft / vandalism will be a big problem when the system is established in Vancouver. It just occurred to me that, if someone else had experienced and addressed the problem, that experience should be taken advantage of here.

Hanging over this whole issue is one of credibility.

Some of us poor citizens who are neither passionate cycle lane advocates or vitriolic defenders of motor vehicles are really puzzled how our elected representatives can generate a transportation civil war over something this clear cut.

I, for one would be impressed if the elected representatives had the strategic sense to pay regard to regulatory impact, develop real alternative options for design and delivery, minimise negative impacts and engage with stakeholders in a meaningful manner throughout the process.

I, for one, am not impressed.

So why do they have a delivery model for this proposal that, in my view, is nearly inflammatory in its impact.

Culture change please.
-30-

Thanks Chris K and Richard for the clarification on bike lanes : roadspace.

My point was about principles. Roads have always been undervalued, mainly because the land beneath them is rarely accounted for. Yet roads consume a tremendous quantity of this valuable commodity.

To me, this whole debate would take on a greater meaning if one thought of the infrastructure as land rather than as roads or lanes for cars, bikes or pedestrians. It’s a public resource that consumes thousands of hectares within the city

What is the most efficient use of the public land base devoted to transportation on a per capita basis, to transport human beings by bike or cars?

I’m happy to see progress on the bike network for our city. I agree with Bill McCreery that the consultation process is a bit of a sham… “Here’s what we’ve decided, whadayou thnink??”.

However, we can glean some principles in the presentation:

– Hornby already has a one-way bike lane;

– there is high bicycle and medium vehicle use of Hornby; and,

– It is not a transit or designated truck route.

The principle that is not mentioned, that applies to both Dunsmuir and Hornby is that these are still one-way streets. Is that a better context for bike lanes, with the rest of the traffic all traveling in one direction? I wonder.

Piggy backing onto Richards (168) comments to MB, my input to a “good” consultation process would be to ask that the design of the separated bike lane also go to make the street work better for pedestrians.

As Richard points out, heavy traffic use occurs during the relatively brief peak periods, and for the rest of the day and the night all that underused capacity and space blights neighbourhoods and makes dangerous conditions for pedestrians.

Hornby along the Courthouse has the double row of tightly spaced trees—if I can remember when I measured them, as tight as 12 feet, maybe 18 feet. Imagine shooting the bike line through the tree alleé, then giving pedestrians sidewalks on the other side, perhaps with just two lanes to cross.

Of course, I would like to see Hornby returned to two-way traffic.

There seem to be basically two contentious issues regarding the Hornby separated bicycle lanes: process and parking.

Clearly the process needs to be improved, even if it is a case of the City clearly stating that what is being provided to the public is simply information about an upcoming project that will be moving ahead, as opposed to a discussion of first principles. In either instance if there is a public open house there must an avenue to provide meaningful feedback and in this case the online survey and paper feedback form were much too narrow in their focus.

With regards to the issue of lost parking spaces for automobiles, I just do not think that is a sufficient reason not to proceed with the separated bike lane. Yes, the curb lane of the street will be converted from automobile parking spots to a bi-directional separated bike lane and those automobile parking spots will no longer exist. However bicycle parking spots will be added, and if Dunsmuir is any guide there will be more bicycle parking spots added then there would be automobile parking spots removed. Thus the separated bike lane will provide a net increase in the number of places on the street where people can park and shop.

Another important factor to consider is that the mobility utility of Horny Street will be increased due to the addition of a southbound bicycle lane. Currently Hornby is one-way and all wheeled vehicles must travel north. The businesses that are concerned about the effects of the separated bicycle lane should consider the value of having people being able to pass by their premises in both directions by bicycle and at slower speeds than an automobile. The slower speeds allow people on bicycles to be more observant about their surroundings. They have time to read more signs, observe window displays, and get a sense of the ambiance of a business in a way that is just impossible if one is driving an automobile.

I also suspect that residents along the street will quickly come to appreciate the aesthetics of the bicycle lane with its planters, flowers and grasses over a row of cars. Plus with fewer automobiles parked on their street there will be fewer midnight car-alarms, blaring stereos, slamming doors, and gunning engines.

When we consider the geometry of Hornby street we find that the automobile carrying capacity will not be reduced with the addition of separated bicycle lanes and the hourly throughout-put capacity for automobiles will increase as the rightmost travel lane will no longer experience delays caused by people stopping to parallel park. The City has committed to ensuring that all parking access off of the east side of Hornby will be maintained and with “yield to bicycles” right turn bays, like those on Dunsmuir east of Richards, or bicycle and automobile right turn signalization at intersections people in automobiles will continue to have access to the principal east-bound streets in the downtown core.

The separated bicycle lanes on Hornby will not be the detriment to businesses along the street that many are asserting. There are ample examples in North America, let alone northern Europe, of separated bicycle lanes becoming a vital part of the fabric of the city and they have not spelled ruin for its citizens and businesses. Bicycle use increases as infrastructure and policy change to support them. Just think about how the use of electric scooters and wheelchairs has grown as the City rebuilds intersections with curb letdowns. Without that change to how we build out street infrastructure the users of electric scooter and wheelchair are relegated to being second-class citizens from a mobility perspective.

We build sidewalks because it is unsafe for people to walk among or adjacent to cars without some form of separation. We build highway medians because it is unsafe to have automobiles travelling at high speed in opposition directions in such close proximity. It’s no different for bicycles on main streets and in the downtown core. Separated bicycle lanes are just another part on the mobility continuum and, like sidewalks and the Seawall, once we have them it will seem incomprehensible that they were ever absent.

@Morven
The city spent 18 years on planning and public consultation on Burrard Bridge and some people were still not happy.

Regarding the process here, people are being asked what the issues are before the design work has been started. There was the public meeting last week and the city is meeting with businesses private to understand and address their concerns. The design then will be presented to those concerned for comment before it is implemented.

@Lewis,
As far as possibly placing the bike lane between the trees, we can look at the experience in Montreal, where the Plateau burough is removing the bike lane that ran under the trees between the sidewalk and Park Lafountaine and replacing it alongside the street, therefore reducing pedestrian-cyclist interaction. Such beautified bike lanes are nice, but often suffer from too many pedestrian-cyclist conflicts as pedestrians often want to enjoy that space. Secondly, the cyclists are placed too far out of the vision of motorists, increasing the risk of conflict between turning motorists and cyclists.

@ Lewis, 174. Yes those items are all there but, in addition to the flawed, rushed public process, the other vital assessment which the City has not done is an economic impact study of how the different businesses will be affected along the PROPOSED ROUTE & also along other routes such as Howe & Granville. Surely you would think it advisable to include this information in the planning data bank so intelligent decisions can be made.

It is clear from the info presented by the City that only the extremely limited factors noted on their little spread sheet are being used in their decision making. Not good enough Vision &, I think the affected business will be letting you know they agree with me.

We are not alone.

Very recently, the Charlotte, North Carolina Observer had to shut down it’s blog related to an article on August 12th on bicycle lanes. The reason – vituperative responses.

A quote from the original article says it all

” Jerks can be found behind the wheel, pedaling cycles, even in wheelchairs and on foot. You can be a jerk anywhere. So while that means motorists shouldn’t honk at cyclists or swerve at them, it also means bicyclists have no more right to deliberately clog travel lanes than SUVs or tractor-trailers do.”

Even being even-handed in the story did not prevent a flame war on bicycle lanes. We are neither better or worse than anywhere else it seems.
-30-

Re: David Godin
Utter nonsense!
The Vision gang should consider who contributes the most taxes to City coffers. Businesses…. of course!
Ruining any business by taking away their front door access/valet parking and/or short term parking is really stupid. Who will fund $25 million paths !! Yikes!!
Here is a scenario…….
Businesses suffer, less income, less taxes, vital businesses move, no income, taxes increase, downturn of communities, City is deserted because who wants to do business when this Vision gang want to screw anyone who wants to make a profit?
These are the reasons many of us think beyond our personal interests or gains. We Care!!
Bike paths are great but a separated bike lanes will kill too many wonderful community supporters/families and huge supporters of our tax base.
Wake up you 4% cyclists. The city is not just for you and a few extra friends!!
We all live here. Get over your selfish demands.

> Ruining any business by taking away their front door access/valet
> parking and/or short term parking is really stupid.

Where is your evidence that says that this will ruin any business on Hornby?

Where is the city taking away Valet parking?

Mein gott I get so tired os stupid comments sometimes.

Cyclists shop too. It’s easier to stop at a store and shop on a bike than on a car.

Remember Art Knapp’s predictions of doom and gloom and the end of the business because of a restricted right turn? Still there. Still in business (though I’ll never shop there again, thanks to the whining.)

PS: Yes, I can spell, but I can’t type.

There’s also the assumption the old registry paid for itself, as would a new one would. Which isn’t, to my understanding, the position the police take.

ok…i voted for all the current members of council (with the exception of 2) and the mayor. but i strongly feel that the continuing expansion of bike-friendly options being put in place is going to be their achille’s heel.
every day i see bikes barreling along the sidewalks with a lot of the drivers not wearing the mandatory helmets. in spite of hearing that the police are cracking down on the offenders i find very hard to believe. i have NEVER seen any biker being ticketed. and i suggest that if there really was ticketing going on, that word would get around in the two-wheeling community and they would cease and dissist their rule-breaking ways.
mayor robertson and the vision councillors might want to take a hard, long look at their plans. it seems that construction is underway before the consultation process is even completed.
i still believe that in order to make the biking public accountable and responsible, they all should be licensed.
the pedestrians, car, truck and transit drivers, small business people and many others opposed to further expansion must ALL be heard.
we have heard more than enough from the biking public.