66 responses so far ↓

• 1 mezzanine // Sep 9, 2010 at 10:20 pm

  I would like to think of 2010 as a watershed in bringing cycling to the forefront in metro vancouver. I’d like to see how the completed bike network’ functions, of course, and go on from there….

  “At first, of course, there was an outcry. In the neighborhood of Montparnasse on the Left Bank, the locals held a funeral procession for the neighborhood and flew flags that read, “Le Mort de Montparnasse” (“The Death of Montparnasse”). The owner of the famous Café Select worried that the loss of parking space would kill his business. Now most of his employees have a reliable bus to get them to work, and it’s nicer to sit at a sidewalk café on a street that isn’t choked with traffic. “We’ve come to love it,” he said.”

  -on the removal of parking lanes in Paris for separated bus-only lanes (which allow bikes…)

  http://postcarboncities.net/node/2810

• 2 spartikus // Sep 9, 2010 at 10:41 pm

  The Morven makes sense.

• 3 Tiktaalik // Sep 9, 2010 at 11:55 pm

  A consultation by an independent entity would certainly be better.

  However, a lot of folks have heavily criticized the city’s lack of consultation but I think its a large exaggeration. I think the city has done a pretty good job on the Hornby bike lane issue. From this Vancouver Sun article (http://www.vancouversun.com/story_print.html?id=3448941&sponsor=), and from the plans on the city website we can see that there’s been a large amount of listening and the plan shows that parking in the area is unchanged and loading zones are still present. This is a commendable effort considering that the concept that the businesses are presenting, that they’ll suffer due to the bike lanes, is highly dubious.

  Gordon Price has been covering this well. Here’s a good post with some nice data http://pricetags.wordpress.com/2010/09/08/bikes-and-business-2/ and he also linked to this great NYTimes article about the successful transformation of NY’s Broadway from a major car road to a pedestrian and bike path. http://www.nytimes.com/2010/09/06/nyregion/06broadway.html?_r=2&pagewanted=1&sq=sadik-khan&st=Search&scp=1

• 4 Brenton // Sep 10, 2010 at 8:22 am

  I imagine that the Toronto example is driven partly by their ward system. If a councillor voted to implement and contentious bike lane without extensive consultation, they could very well face a local revolt come election time. Here in Vancouver, people that don’t live in an area but still use its amenities, including bike lanes, can vote to support a council that isn’t so tied down by parochial interests.

• 5 Richard // Sep 10, 2010 at 10:45 am

  The Burrard Bridge bike lanes process took over 18 years and likely cost several million dollars in staff and consultant time. The Mayor and the majority of council members ran on a platform that included a five lane trial. Even after all this public consultation, the reaction to the Burrard Bridge Trial was even more vocal than the Hornby Bike Lane. Even after it has been in for a year and has proven to be successful and not cause the traffic chaos some predicted, there are still those who oppose it.

  While it is always easy to criticize the process, there are some who oppose bike lanes regardless of what the process has been. Toronto is a good example of this. The level of opposition to bike lanes there has been similar to here. In fact, it is hard to tell what city one is in when looking at the on-line comments in Toronto, Portland, Sydney or Vancouver.

• 6 Bill McCreery // Sep 10, 2010 at 12:31 pm

  @ tick tock, 3.

  Agreed, a more independent process could be better but as I’ve said, can be expensive. A middle ground solution might better, especially if it is more affordable &, therefore, lasting.

  The criticism of the process is not a “large exaggeration”. If they had were not attempting to mainline this project, had started the process sooner & perceptibly not after the fact, considered more options, added more selection criteria, especially the financial impact on businesses &, actually invited consultation from the public & included that input in the public info sessions the reaction would be considerably more constructive. The processes the planning & engineering departments are currently using are clearly not working. Some is due to the processes themselves but, some of the disconnect is political.

  It’s interesting that the business people, many of whom have not been contacted by the City, contrary to the City’s claim, do not think a “large amount of listening” has occurred.

  The “parking in the area is” drastically “changed and loading zones are” are reduced & in several cases doubled & tripled up for the buildings they serve. More than 100 parking spaces & $1M in City revenue annually are being lost on Hornby. They are not being replaced. The spaces on Howe & Seymour, 3 blocks away, have nothing to do with the Hornby Bike Lanes. That is a separate matter. The Howe spaces will be of some, limited use to Hornby residents & businesses but the Seymour are not.

  In the Pacific to Drake block 5 condo buildings & an additional outrageous proposed spot rezoning 196 condo unit, 31 storey, 300′+, 12,44 FSR in a 5.0 FSR neighbourhood have / will if approved ALL have only 75% parking [3 spaces for every 4 units] & no on-site guest parking. On-street parking & loading is being reduced to half of what it was. &, oh by the way, there’s a single lane of traffic on Hornby which has 5 lanes feeding into it @ 2 intersections [3 of them highly used - read already backed up most of the day] – brilliant transportation planning!

  The Smythe to Robson block also removes the entire row of parking on the east side of that block. This is going to seriously affect people trying to access the Courthouse which has no public u.g. parking & the businesses, especially the Wedgewood which also has no u.g. parking. Howe parking will be heavily used by the Entertainment District crowd so that parking is of little help to Hornby businesses.

  How do you know that the businesses will not “suffer due to the bike lanes”. There has been no financial impact assessment done!

  I do appreciate Gordon’s often rational input & especially his factual info. However, in this case his comparison is off-base. The NYC Broadway conversion is somewhat similar to our Granville Mall, not the Hornby Bike Lanes. Broadway has the additional justification of being off-grid & consequently actually reducing traffic flow efficiencies. Please note, NYC planners are not trying to do 2 N/S malls, just the one. We already have one & the toll on the overall CBD grid with a 2nd @ Hornby will not be good if the it proceeds.

  Having said all this, I still think there are solutions, just not these & in this way. To bad, the process could be constructive, exciting & actually bring people together rather than balkanize them.

• 7 Chris // Sep 10, 2010 at 12:55 pm

  Bill – you need to do more research into what is happening in NYC. Protected bike lanes have been installed on First, Second, Eighth, and Ninth Avenues (all N/S routes) (http://www.streetsblog.org/2010/06/07/eighth-avenue-protected-bike-lane-slated-for-11-block-extension/ ). In addition, Park Avenue was turned into a Summer Streets car-free zone on Saturdays.

  If you think the city should be maintaining parking and road space dedicated to cars downtown, you’re living in the past. If we want a growing, vibrant downtown we need to encourage people to visit without their cars – using bikes and public transit.

• 8 Bill McCreery // Sep 10, 2010 at 2:20 pm

  Chris. We agree! We need to encourage pedestrian, bike & transit use. But, we need to do so wisely. I was referring to the article cited by Gordon & his comparison of Hornby bikes to Broadway. I did not say it was not possible to better integrate bikes into the equation. I did say: “there are solutions, just not these & in this way. To bad, the process could be constructive, exciting & actually bring people together rather than balkanize them.”

• 9 Chris // Sep 10, 2010 at 2:42 pm

  You keep saying you agree and you support bike lanes, but it doesn’t jive with the rest of your statements.

  “NYC planners are not trying to do 2 N/S malls, just the one. We already have one & the toll on the overall CBD grid with a 2nd @ Hornby will not be good if the it proceeds.” – The NYC part is simply wrong.

  “Howe parking will be heavily used by the Entertainment District crowd so that parking is of little help to Hornby businesses.” – seriously? the bar crowd is going to take all the spaces that Hornby customers might use? What happened to shifting people to bike and transit use?

  You’re trying to have it both ways. Trying to appear pro-bike while opposing the process and arguing for more study. It reminds me a lot of when George W. Bush finally admitted that climate change was a problem, but argued we needed “more study” before we could do anything.

  Unfortunately bike lanes will always be slightly controversial. I challenge you to find one example of a city that installed bike lanes with a process that was “constructive, exciting & actually brought people together”. You hang out at citycaucus.com. The vocal commenters there will never be excited about bike lanes.

• 10 Chris Keam // Sep 10, 2010 at 2:48 pm

  “the process could be constructive, exciting & actually bring people together rather than balkanize them.”

  To reiterate what Richard said up thread, similar examples of the current controversies surrounding Vancouver’s cycling infrastructure improvements can be seen anywhere they are undertaken. Are city councils the world over incapable of effective public consultation regarding separated bike lanes in general, or is the hue and cry to be expected as a normal part of the process, esp. when the changes involve removing road space from cars? My money is on the latter.

• 11 Bill McCreery // Sep 10, 2010 at 3:09 pm

  Well Chisey, you’ve certainly revealed you own narrow mindedness. It is possible to separate in one’s mind & in the execution the process from the result, including negative impacts. @ least people I deal with regularly can do so. You did get me though – sorry for not taking the time to completely & thoroughly deal with each & every aspect of this complex issue. Forgive me for focussing on a few specific problem areas.

  I don’t believe I “hang out @ citycaucus.com” any more than you do, less in fact. I have supported bike lanes there & here &, remind you I was one of the people who felt strongly enough in 1972 to get elected to stop freeways in Vancouver &, among many other environmentally related initiatives, installed Vancouver’s 1st separated bike lane on the Stanley Park Seawall. Those commitments remain. One of the differences between us seems to be your single issue focus as opposed to my inclination to seek solutions which will satisfy a broader spectrum of needs & people.

  I suggest if you feel as strongly as you seem to that you get yourself nominated to run for Council next year, you could make a difference. That’s what I did.

• 12 Chris Keam // Sep 10, 2010 at 3:21 pm

  Just to be clear, there’s two people named Chris posting in this thread. I’m wondering if that’s creating some confusion over who said what?

• 13 Chris Keam // Sep 10, 2010 at 3:27 pm

  “Vancouver’s 1st separated bike lane on the Stanley Park Seawall”

  It’s a multi-use path for pedestrians and cyclists for most of its length. And, while an enjoyable and much-treasured amenity, I think it’s pretty hard to suggest it serves the same purpose as a downtown bike lane, or that it might generate the same kind of criticism that re-allocating road space tends to bring.

• 14 Tiktaalik // Sep 10, 2010 at 3:35 pm

  Is it actually significant that parking is being removed directly in front of businesses? Does it matter that the parking spots being added are a block or two away?

  Look to Gastown with Water and Cordova street. Water street has lots of thriving businesses and very, very little parking spots. Cordova street a block away has a huge amount of parking. Folks simply park a block away and walk.

  It’s examples like this that make me question if removing parking from a single street is actually significant. Drivers city wide are lucky to find available parking exactly next to their destination. I’m already used to walking a block to get to whatever store I’m going to.

• 15 Chris Porter // Sep 10, 2010 at 3:46 pm

  Sorry, I’ll use my last name.

  @Bill – I appreciate the work you did in the 70s. Much of Vancouver’s livability is due to the lack of freeway and the Seawall. I’m also confident that in 20 years, we’ll look back at the work done by the current city council and say the same thing. As Gordon Price has pointed out (http://pricetags.wordpress.com/2010/08/14/perspective/ ), the bike lanes today are just as controversial as the now cherished changes of the past.

  I read through your comments on citycaucus.com and alexgtsakumis.com and I don’t see a lot of support for bike lanes. The commenters on their have a lot of vitrol toward cyclists and will never be excited about bike lanes, no matter what the process. And not once did I see you stand up for bike lanes or cyclist rights.

• 16 Richard // Sep 10, 2010 at 4:19 pm

  I’m not so sure I would look to Toronto as an example of a good process around bike lanes. Sure, they have done lots of expensive studies but the bike lanes still have had encountered just as much opposition as they have had here.

  “Toronto’s slow progress building a bicycle network has only worsened tensions between cars and bikes, says mayoral candidate Sarah Thomson.”
  http://www.thestar.com/news/gta/article/859379–downtown-needs-bike-lanes-mayoral-candidate-says

  Other candidate are actually opposed to bike lanes on major roads so it is really hard to argue that the process in TO has been effective at all.

  @Bill
  Regarding your call for a “financial impact assessment”, I doubt that people could agree on the results of such an assessment as the impact would depend on the level of increase in cycling traffic and increases in business due to the increased numbers of cyclists. This would also vary with the type of business and the actions of the businesses to attract cyclists. There are simply too many unknowns to get an accurate result.

  Broadly speaking, there is little evidence to suggest that bike lanes are bad for business in general. Typically, some businesses benefit while others don’t.

  I admit, such an assessment would be great for business if your business is consulting on such matters. I doubt, however, that it would be a good use of taxpayers money though nor resolve the debate amongst the most passionate on either side.

• 17 Bill Lee // Sep 10, 2010 at 5:35 pm

  And what is Mendacious Meggs talking about, quoted by CKNW today that
  More than one way to read numbers
  VANCOUVER/CKNW(AM980)
  Marcella Bernardo 9/9/2010

  …” As for concerns about the loss nearly 160-parking spaces along Hornby, Meggs says there’s ten thousand spots within a block of that street so that shouldn’t be an issue.”

  10,000 !! within 150 metres!!!

  Rather hidden then.

• 18 Bill Lee // Sep 10, 2010 at 5:46 pm

  In a blog on his own news story, Andy Riga brings attention to another El-Geneidy study on the substitution effect or rather lack thereof, of bikes for cars with the red-ink Bixi concept in Montreal. .
  Most links here : http://communities.canada.com/montrealgazette/blogs/metropolitannews/archive/2010/09/09/bixi-bike-cycling-public-transit-transit-research-at-mcgill.aspx

  The paper was for the TRB meeting “Paper Prepared for Presentation and Publication at the Transportation Research Board 42 90th Annual Meeting” titled “The much anticipated marriage of cycling and transit: But how will it work?” posted as a Scribd document for the moment.
  May be revised and put into a journal article.

  Dan Egan, formerly of this parish, is trying to get Bixi into Toronto, but weak response (at those prices, yes!) according to : http://www.cbc.ca/canada/toronto/story/2010/08/19/bixi-toronto-subscribers549.html

  I wonder which ‘Vision friend” will put in a bid to have the bike rental agency downtown?

  Hurrah, the MEC Co-op brought in rain capes for the comng monsoons.

• 19 Richard // Sep 10, 2010 at 5:55 pm

  @Bill Lee
  Underground even.

• 20 Agustin // Sep 10, 2010 at 5:56 pm

  How do we know if a consultation has gone well? If the metric is how many people walk away with a sour taste, surely the Toronto experience is not one to strive for.

  I think the Hornby lane consultation has been fantastic. There are detailed designs for everyone to see on the City’s web site; there have been public open houses for people to attend and make comments; councilors and staff have spoken to media a lot; there are numerous channels to voice opinions; data from existing separated bike lanes are readily available to the public; etc. etc.

  The designs show that concerns have been heard. Changes were made for access to businesses; the number of parking spaces was maintained; etc.

  I’m sorry – the more I hear it, the less I buy the argument that the consultation process was broken. It really does just sound like a way to argue against the bike lane without coming out and saying you are against the bike lane.

• 21 Julien // Sep 10, 2010 at 6:33 pm

  I’m still scratching my head over how much more the consultation could be improved and still be reasonable.

  From my perspective the engineering department has done a decent job of looking at the alternatives, presenting the best choice and addressing concerns.

  The fact is that there is currently no reasonable southbound bicycle route from the CBD to the Burrard bridge. Although Burrard St does have a painted lane, this is located between an active bus lane and traffic lane. It is not uncommon, as a cyclist, to be found riding in the lane being bordered by articulated buses on either side.

  This route wasn’t planned in the last 30 days, this route has been made public on the vancouver.ca website for the past year. Engineering did their job in addressing traffic and parking and safety concerns, selecting Hornby street as the option. They ran an effective and well publicized consultation, and addressed constructive concerns. As mentioned in the Vancouver Sun article, “No bike lane on Hornby” was not a constructive comment.

  The poll done by the CFIB seems opportunistic at best. If the CFIB was truly effective, they would have identified the “risk” of a north/south separated bike lane a year ago, and would have advocated for businesses since then. Rather, we have an organization that would normally not deal with an isolated city engineering issue, conducting surveys late in the consultation process, and not proposing reasonable solutions.
  These are issues that the DVBIA would normally deal with. If I was a small business, I would certainly be questioning how much the CFIB is spending on running bike lanes consultation polls across Canada.

  When I hear people complain about the consultation process in this instance I have to wonder if what they really wanted was that everyone would hold onto the marker like a Ouija board and map the route to their liking. I suspect that based on some areas of the blogosphere, the route would be quite similar to the seawall, as far from vehicle traffic as possible.

• 22 Richard // Sep 10, 2010 at 7:01 pm

  The CFIB “survey” is flawed in several ways:
  - It was started before the city consulted with many of the businesses
  - It was started before the city released the plans last week that address many of the concerns of the businesses
  - Laura Jones issued very negative statements on the bike lane which likely influenced the survey results
  - The survey only asked if businesses what their losses might be. It did not ask what the gains might be
  - They did not approach all the businesses along Hornby so the results are likely skewed towards businesses that do not like the lanes

  An organization with the resources of CFIB could have and should have done research before making public statements on the bike lane. If they would have, they would have realized that the experience in cities around the world has been relatively positive. In San Francisco, for example, businesses were surveyed four years after a bike lane went in any the majority of businesses were supportive of the bike lane.

  In Montreal, hotels are marketing packages including rental of the shared bikes there. With the proposed Hornby Separated Bike Lane being a direct, safe connection with the Seaside Path and Stanley Park, you would think that hotels and other businesses would be excited about this opportunity.

  It is a shame organizations like CFIB chose not to work with the city and the businesses to ensure issues were addressed and that businesses had the information they needed to take advantage of the new bike lane and the customers it could attract.

• 23 Dan Cooper // Sep 10, 2010 at 7:17 pm

  Slightly off kilter as usual, here goes:

  I got a good laugh this last week out of the Courier article (http://www.vancourier.com/travel/Dunsmuir+Street+bike+lane+receives+mixed+reviews/3494601/story.html) that cited a businessman who blames the Dunsmuir bike lane for putting his art gallery out of business. He opened the gallery, showing multi-thousand dollar art, back in January but never sold a single painting, even before the bike lane opened in June. Obviously, sez he, the bike lane is at fault for him going out of business! Sounds to me more like the error lies not in the stars but in his business plan and research, if any. *heh* Could the Courier really not find anyone more credible, or are they perhaps…conspiracy theory here…TRYING to make the bicycle opponents look bad, for nefarious reasons of their own?

  The other article I thought interesting (http://www.vancourier.com/news/Cycling+councillor+promotes+education+discourages+changes+traffic/3478228/story.html) was about Geoff Meggs opposing a law change allowing bicyclists to slow but then roll on through a stop sign without actually putting their foot on the ground, if they look and no one else is coming. This, of course, because M. Meggs did not see a stop sign at all and got whalloped. Somehow I miss the connection myself. The thing that gets me (aside from the fact that it’s Idaho – Idaho! – is the progressive place that led the way on this concept) is that, with the possible exception of M. Meggs, there is probably not a single cyclist over the age of eight in this or any other city on the planet who actually follows the law as written. At least I’ve never seen one, and I’ve seen a lot. Cops could sit around all day writing tickets on this, and it would not change that fact. (What I do is just avoid bike routes such as 10th Ave. between Cambie and Main where the city has unaccountably installed a stop sign at every intersection, and where the cops are likely to be more likely lying in wait. Other streets work just as well….)

• 24 Chris Keam // Sep 10, 2010 at 8:52 pm

  “where the city has unaccountably installed a stop sign at every intersection, ”

  I’m neither condoning or condemning the rationale, but my understanding is that the stop sign prevalence is a strategy to keep automobile speeds down on bike routes.

• 25 Richard // Sep 10, 2010 at 9:07 pm

  @Dan Cooper

  I believe the headline is a misinterpretation of his comments which were in respect to his UBCM motion. He said of the motion “I’m not advocating changes in the law,” said Meggs.

  That does not mean he is against changes to the law, he just is not pushing for them.

• 26 Morven // Sep 10, 2010 at 9:48 pm

  I am grateful to the contributors to this string for their well reasoned arguments.

  I was encouraged that some thought the consultation process was great, was well publicised and took place over a long period. I am not convinced that this assertion is correct.

  The flaw in the process is that this Hornby problem has been approached as a traffic issue with safety and accessibility for cyclists as one key objective. We really have two issues. One is traffic flow management and the second is economic impact on a linear (and very expensive) retail and business district. The same consultation model may not apply in both cases. Traffic planners often, and not only in Vancouver, have some difficulty in addressing the impact issue.

  But it is not only a traffic management issue, this is a clash of two polar opposites. On one side, is the cycle lobby who react as if bike lanes are their own property. On the other side are the businesses who most certainly do have various types of property rights and vigorously assert these rights. Unless at an early stage the traditional traffic/safety consultation is matched with attempts to bridge (no pun intended) the perception gap, the process goes into overdrive and there is little opportunity for redress.

  Without beating on my drum for using external consultants , I will point out that traffic/safety issues are ones that municipal engineering departments generally excel at. My point is that the same traffic planners are not necessarily equipped to address complex social and economic impact issues and may miss the opportunity to broach the economic impact question.

  As an aside, if you really want to see how to approach the issue of bike traffic planning you could do worse than look at this Australian example

  http://www.sydneymedia.com.au/asset/2/upload/AECOM_Report_April_2010.pdf

  -30-

• 27 Bill McCreery // Sep 10, 2010 at 9:59 pm

  @ Chris, 12. Thxs for clarification, it’s important.

• 28 Bill McCreery // Sep 10, 2010 at 10:06 pm

  @ CK, 13. Boy, you’re hard to pls. Unfortunately you missed the point.

• 29 Bill McCreery // Sep 10, 2010 at 10:12 pm

  Tick Tock ,14. There are parking garages [owned by the City] in Gastown. There are few & in some locations none on Hornby.

  It’s not just parking, it’s the auto repair garage who requires access to his facility or he goes broke. It’s the restaurant with a passenger zone now but sharing with 2 condo buildings + other businesses – they’ll go broke.

• 30 Bill McCreery // Sep 10, 2010 at 10:16 pm

  @ Chrisey, 15. I’m plsed CK clarified he’s not you. I guess you & I have just got to not understand what the other is saying. To bad.

• 31 Bill McCreery // Sep 10, 2010 at 10:20 pm

  Rick, 16. Great, so you want to continue the blind leading the blind. Be my guest. I know the outcome.

  I don’t benefit in any way from bike lane consultations I assure you. Do you?

• 32 Bill McCreery // Sep 10, 2010 at 10:32 pm

  @ Morven, 26. extremely well said. Finally, someone with a balanced, rational view.

• 33 gasp // Sep 10, 2010 at 11:06 pm

  I see that the bike lobby is out in full force on this issue – pushing their perspective that everyone should go downtown via bike or transit.

  I can hardly wait until you boys get a little older and find out that Vancouver is a city that is becoming increasingly inaccessible for the elderly and for people with disabilities. A two-block walk is nothing for a young, healthy person, but can be a marathon for someone with a bad back, or hip or knee. Only a small percentage of persons with disabilities use wheelchairs – many disabilities are invisible.

  The B.C. Government’s own research shows that one in six persons acquires a disability at some point in their life (including 1 in 12 who are born with a disability). Based on Vancouver’s aging demographics and current population of approximately 650, 000, this means about 1 in 10 (at least 65,000) persons currently living in Vancouver are disabled. A large number of persons with disabilities cannot travel by public transit, and therefore must travel by car, taxi or handidart.

  And how has the City been treating the disabled? Not by ensuring it’s constitutional obligation to reasonably accommodate persons with disabilities. Instead, the City is making the downtown core into an expensive obstacle course for those who need to use a vehicle to get around – not to mention the safety hazard its become because of the many cyclists who disobey traffic signals.

  So cyclists, while making your “I’m greener than you” arguments, maybe you can also think of the needs of those in our City who are dependent upon vehicles through no fault of their own.

• 34 Mark Allerton // Sep 10, 2010 at 11:31 pm

  I can’t speak for all bike lane advocates, but I believe that the position of most is not that everyone *should* use a bike or transit – but that if better facilities are provided, more people who are interested will do so.

  This in turn would result in less cars travelling downtown, which means that there would be more space for cars used by people who really need them.

  So I would say to you that you are arguing against your own interests.

  It’s worth noting that the city’s plan for Hornby still provides parking on every block.

  Am somewhat amused by the idea that cyclists disobeying traffic signals is a safety hazard for the people in cars. The cyclists, surely – but the drivers are wearing a bit more than just a helmet.

• 35 Mark Allerton // Sep 10, 2010 at 11:36 pm

  And as a thought experiment… do you really think the outraged business owners of Hornby Street would be any happier about a plan to convert a significant percentage of existing parking to handicapped-only?

• 36 Richard // Sep 11, 2010 at 2:43 am

  @Morven
  Agreed, the Sydney study is well done and worthwhile. Don’t, however, expect that if a similar study was done here, that there would be necessarily smoother sailing with all bike routes.

  Check out:
  http://www.streetcorner.com.au/news/showPost.cfm?bid=16351&mycomm=SC

  Seems like no one is happy with this bike route in Sydney. At least here, cyclists and some businesses like the separated lanes.

  Especially compared to this example, I’d say the City of Vancouver has done a very good job. The Dunsmuir and Horby Bike Lanes seem well designed and do not have the safety issues that the Burke Road Cycleway in Sydney is alleged to have.

  Regarding economic issues, it is much easier to do a macro economic study of a region showing the benefits of cycling infrastructure than a study of a street estimating the benefits (and costs) for the individual businesses on the street.

  Also:
  From:
  http://www.smh.com.au/national/the-diary/moores-told-on-your-bike-20100131-n6n1.html
  “The green-tinged lord mayor of Sydney, Clover Moore, is involved in a nasty tiff with some of her constituents over plans to build a bicycle path along Bourke Street in Surry Hills. With construction about to begin on the path, a residents’ action group has seized upon a development application submitted by Moore’s architect husband, Peter Moore, to the council. The residents’ complaint is that the bike path will wipe out dozens of parking spaces, forcing them to park their cars on nearby side streets, including on Moore’s own street, where parking is already at a premium.”

• 37 IanS // Sep 11, 2010 at 6:09 am

  “Optimism bias”.

  I think that’s a good way to describe it. However, IMO, that bias damages the credibility of the process more at the assessment stage than at the consultation stage. As many posters have pointed out, there has been general consultation about bike lanes ongoing for some time now and I can’t imagine that many people would really expect the City to accept any significant input once the decision to proceed had been made.

  IMO, the “optimism bias” really calls into the question the credibility of the process when it comes to assessing the various bike lane “trials”.

  When the Burrard bike lane went ahead, I was skeptical about it, but willing to withhold judgment until some data was available to judge the results. I expected that there would be data collected, made available and then used as the basis for determining the success of the trial. Unfortunately, that’s not what happened.

  Instead, we were provided with almost instant declarations of “success” and statements that the bike lane had increased cycling over the bridge 30% almost overnight. To anyone who looked at the data with any kind of objectivity, it was obvious that that wasn’t true. That was the point, IMO, when optimism bias began to really derail the assessment process.

  The Burrard Bridge bike lane has now been in place for over a year. The data which has been made available shows an increase in cycle use of just under 14% for the period before / after the lane, which I think is a significant increase. However, there is no real data concerning safety issues (do we know whether there has been an increase or decrease in the amount or severity of accidents for cars, bikes or pedestrians since installation of the lane?), increased congestion (at one point, there was data showing some increase in congestion, but it was removed from the City website) or the effect on local businesses or residents (I know that cycle advocates like to ridicule people who claim that their businesses have suffered as a result of the bike lane, but is the City even looking at whether this is the case?).

  With the Dunsmuir bike lane, has there been any data published at all?

  So, well over a year into the process and after installation of second separated bike lane (Dunsmuir), soon to be followed by a third (Hornby), I remain skeptical and, I think, any objective, open minded person considering the issue would reach the same conclusion. IMO, no one looking at the assessment objectively could reach any kind of conclusion as to whether the bike lanes are worth the time or money it takes to plan and install them. That, rather than the consultation stage, is where the optimism bias undermines the process.

  In saying that, I recognize that, to a large extent, the facts are irrelevant to the debate. Many, if not most, of the people who post here, and elsewhere, on this issue made up their mind long before the Burrard Bridge bike lane was ever installed and will never change them. There is no data which will ever convince Alex Tsakumis that separated bike lanes are a good idea, just as there is no data which will ever convince Chris Keam or Spartikus that they are not a good idea.

  IMO, though, for those of us who do not share the faith of those who made up their minds long ago, the lack of a comprehensive and fair minded assessment of the results of the trials greatly undermines the credibility of the whole endeavor.

• 38 Agustin // Sep 11, 2010 at 6:56 am

  IanS, #36.

  Take a look at this: http://vancouver.ca/projects/burrard/statistics.htm

  This web page contains information on cycling, pedestrian, and motor vehicle traffic on the Burrard Bridge. It even includes a link to a spreadsheet showing *daily data* from the trial.

  And, in the case that you still have questions, take a look at this page: http://vancouver.ca/projects/burrard/about_faqs.htm

  Your argument holds absolutely no water. The City has been nothing but open and sharing with information about the Burrard Bridge bike lane.

• 39 Agustin // Sep 11, 2010 at 7:05 am

  @ gasp, #33

  There are a large number of seniors in this city who would really take umbrage with your assertion that cycling is not for them. I’ve been passed by them, cycling up hill, not even breathing hard.

  As for the argument about disabled people: as Mark says, you are largely arguing against yourself. Studies have repeatedly shown that increased motor vehicle capacity *does not* reduce congestion. Other studies have shown that roads that include bike lanes are safer for pedestrian than those without. A reduced reliance on motor vehicles also helps reduce trip lengths – another benefit for disabled people. Reduced motorized vehicle traffic also improves public health.

  But, I’ve heard other people bring up the concern that disabled car drivers will have farther to go from their cars to their destinations. So I would encourage the city to reserve some proportion of on-street parking spots for disabled users.

• 40 Chris Keam // Sep 11, 2010 at 8:25 am

  I’d rather you didn’t speak my mind for me Ian. I used to think that it was possible for cyclists and drivers to ‘share the road’ and it would be all good, but increasingly I have come to see how separated facilities have benefits that can’t be achieved with sharrows and supposedly ‘traffic-calmed’ routes. I would love for you to share the information you’ve collected with all of us however. Informed people are better able to make good decisions and my understanding is that you’ve been following all this rather closely.

• 41 Chris Keam // Sep 11, 2010 at 9:18 am

  Regarding disabled people, obviously no one wants to see people’s mobility negatively impacted when they are already facing challenges in this regard. Perhaps the DVBIA could work with the various levels of government and business to enhance the downtown pedicab service? Pedicabs are an ideal transport system for trips in the 1 – 10 block range and would provide an ideal way to bridge the distance between parking and retail locations and also offer the convenience of being able to carry small to medium sized packages. Given the statistics cited up thread, and the fact that there’s only a few areas where the bike lanes are causing issues I would suggest that it might only take a half-dozen pedicabs at most to meet the need to offer car door-to-business-door service to those who have problems walking short distances. Perhaps a small cohort of the red-jacket downtown ambassadors could be utilized as the pedicab operators?

• 42 weaver // Sep 11, 2010 at 9:42 am

  As a retired woman with a knee brace for her arthritis (gasp’s ‘bad knee’), who finds walking painful, I feel I have to say something here. So nice of gasp to be thinking of me, but he’s wrong.

  I bike everywhere for everything, year round, in Vancouver, including all my grocery shopping. As a rudimentary search online will tell, biking is excellent exercise for bad knees/hips/backs, as it’s non-weight bearing and aerobic. If you don’t believe me, then ask the large numbers of seniors I see biking downtown along Dunsmuir midmorning, midweek.

  Presumably gasp would have me buy a car so I can get heavier and more sedentary with the resulting health benefits that will bring?

• 43 weaver // Sep 11, 2010 at 9:44 am

  By the way, biking gets you way closer to the stores/theatres/libraries you want to visit than driving ever could.

• 44 IanS // Sep 11, 2010 at 10:02 am

  @Chris,

  “I’d rather you didn’t speak my mind for me Ian.”

  Apologies if I misstated your position. I recall very early on in this discussion, you indicated that you considered the bike trial to be a success by the very fact it was happening. Am I misremembering?

  “I would love for you to share the information you’ve collected with all of us however. ”

  I have. See my earlier post.

  “Informed people are better able to make good decisions…”

  Absolutely. Which is my point.

• 45 Bill McCreery // Sep 11, 2010 at 10:43 am

  @ Ian, 37. Well said. I for one have been trying to suggest a similar reason based process which in my experience results in superior solutions. I take exception to those overly zealous individuals who attempt to characterize ANY criticism as opposition. It’s silly, childish & in the end, harms their cause.

• 46 Bill McCreery // Sep 11, 2010 at 10:52 am

  @ gasp, 33. You are articulating an important point. Seniors do live downtown. More will be because of demographics. In addition to the aspects you raised, what happens to their quality of life if service providers & family can’t park nearby?

  What you are speaking to here in the broader context is that mature, well thought out planning decisions incorporate the multi-faceted needs & requirements of all users / stakeholders. Bikers are only 1 [well 2 if you consider the Harley boys].

• 47 IanS // Sep 11, 2010 at 2:37 pm

  @Chris,

  I was a little flip in my earlier post, in responding to your statement “I would love for you to share the information you’ve collected”. My apologies for that.

  To provide a fuller response, here’s the information I’ve collected in following the bike lane issue (dealing with the Burrard Bridge and Dunsmuir lanes separately):

  BURRARD BRIDGE

  - the separated bike lane trial apparently cost around $1.5 million

  - for a nine week period in the summer of 2008, 3 cyclists suffered injuries requiring attendance at a hospital emergency room. for the same nine week period in the summer of 2009, only 1 cyclist suffered injuries sufficient to require a visit to the emergency ward

  - we have no other information as to whether car, bike or pedestrian accidents/injuries have increased or decreased since installation of the bike lane

  - the only before / after data we have indicates an increase in cycle use of 13.8% from before / after installation of the bike lane. AFAIK, we don’t know how much of that increase represents additional cycle trips, as opposed to cyclists using the Burrard Street Bridge rather than the Granville Street Bridge

  - we don’t know the extent of additional congestion caused by the bike lane, if any. At one point, the City had released data which demonstrated some delay, but that data was removed and, AFAIK, has not been replaced

  - AFAIK, there has been no investigation into whether the bike lane has resulted in economic hardship, or economic benefit, to businesses in the area.

  DUNSMUIR STREET

  - the bike lane trial apparently cost approximately $800,000

  - the City has claimed a 400% increase in cycle use, but AFAIK no data has been provided

  - we have no information or data indicating whether the bike lane case caused additional congestion and, if so, the extent of such congestion

  - we have no information or data indicating whether car, bike or pedestrian accidents/injuries have increased or decreased since installation of the bike lane

  - AFAIK, there has been no investigation into whether the bike lane has resulted in economic hardship, or economic benefit to businesses in the area.

  I think that about sums up what I know at this point.

• 48 IanS // Sep 11, 2010 at 2:51 pm

  Relating more to the Hornby Street bike lane, did anyone attend the presentation last week at Pacific Centre? I took a look and thought that the proposed design looked pretty good, at least from Davie Street northward. IMO, there’s the potential for some significant delay on Hornby south of Davie.

  Apart from that, the only major problem I could see was the restriction on right turns from Burrard to Pacific, going north. Given that the City has also restricted right turns off Thurlow onto Pacific, that just leaves Denman as the only real through road connecting Pacific from the north. IMO, if they are going to stop right turns off Burrard onto Pacific, which makes sense given the way they have connected the bike lanes, they should allow them again on Thurlow.

• 49 Chris Keam // Sep 11, 2010 at 3:40 pm

  @Ian

  “you (I) considered the bike trial to be a success by the very fact it was happening. ”

  is a way, way different mindset from:

  “there is no data which will ever convince Chris Keam or Spartikus that they are not a good idea.”

  The data I’ve seen to date suggest to me they are a good idea. When data that suggests otherwise (to me) comes to light I will change my opinion accordingly.

  thx

  CK

• 50 Richard // Sep 11, 2010 at 3:42 pm

  The separated bike lanes on Dunsmuir are used by people in electric wheelchairs, in-line skaters scooters and skateboarders. They also make the sidewalks better for pedestrians by getting people in wheeled contraptions off the sidewalks.

  In New York City, they found that added bike lanes to a street reduces pedestrian injuries by 40% by calming the traffic on the street.

  The banning of right turns and right on reds at some intersections will also make the street safer for pedestrians as well as cyclists.

• 51 Tessa // Sep 11, 2010 at 4:13 pm

  Out of curiosity, does anyone here know of any studies by the province on the economic impact on small community business of widening the highway? I don’t think so. A decision like that obviously supports some businesses, large scale and car oriented businesses, over others, such as local community based businesses that people tend to walk to.

  I’m not aware of any government studies on how the new street vendors will affect local businesses, either. Nor am I aware of any government studies on how road work and construction affects each business in the area that it’s being done on. Last I heard there’s also no studies on how moving the buses from Seymour and Howe to Granville Street affects businesses on those streets that are now without the same level of transit service. Bus service is constantly being changed in little bits – no studies there, either.

  In fact, I’m not aware of any city anywhere that does such wide ranging and comprehensive studies on the impact their policies have on every single local business, and you would have to look at each individual business, as these policies affect each business differently: some a lot, some not at all, some positively and some negatively.

  So why is government expected to study specifically this issue given limited resources? And if we’ll study business effects here, why not everywhere else? How much is that going to cost? What impact will that have on taxes? What impact will those added taxes then have on business? You can see where this is going.

  If bike lanes had the effect of transforming Dunsmuir into a business dead zone full of vacant storefronts then sure, I could see an argument that we should be considering business impacts here. That isn’t the case, however. So why is such a study necessary? It’s not the responsibility of government to make sure every single business can get cars right to their front door with plenty of on-street parking in front – that’s a completely unrealistic expectation in any part of the city, let alone downtown. It’s never been a realistic expectation, and those businesses clinging to that need will go under sooner or later regardless of a bike lane.

• 52 Mark Allerton // Sep 11, 2010 at 4:23 pm

  Ian: I notice a couple of times that you’ve described the Dunsmuir lane as a “trial”. While the Burrard lane was a “trial”, the city has consistently described the Dunsmuir lane as a “pilot”.

  There’s a reason for the difference. The Burrard lane is a temporary structure intended to help evaluate the right permanent solution for the bridge – and eventually will be replaced with a permanent solution, which may or may not involve structural alterations to the bridge. More likely not, given the apparent outcome of the trial.

  The Dunsmuir lane is not a temporary structure, in fact it is a permanent one (insofar as any street furniture is permanent) and the nature of the pilot is to evaluate the different types of lane separation, not to evaluate whether there should be a separated bike lane at all.

  As someone careful of their words as you are, I’m a little surprised you’ve missed this subtlety.

• 53 IanS // Sep 11, 2010 at 5:35 pm

  @Mark,

  You are correct, the Dunsmuir lane is a pilot, while the Burrard Bridge bike lane is a trial.

  And, while I thank you for asserting that I’m careful of my words, I think my misstatement of Chris’s position and my overlooking the trial / pilot distinction proves you wrong on that point.

• 54 Gord Price // Sep 11, 2010 at 6:19 pm

  Every day, accoding to city statistics, more than 3,500 cyclists come downtown in the morning. What’s that look like?

  This morning, 4,000 cyclists started off on Georgia Street for the GranFondo to Whistler. This is what that looks like:
  http://pricetags.wordpress.com/2010/09/11/7166/

  Every day, 60,000 cycling trips in the city, and growing. I’d say that within half decade, more or less, the core of Vancouver will seem more like Copenhagen than other North American downtowns.

  For some, that is clearly a problem. I’m not sure why.

• 55 Morven // Sep 12, 2010 at 12:39 am

  @ Gord Price 54

  The development of downtown commuting bicycle paths is a bit like the HST. Both, in theory and in the long run, are sound policies except that in the short run, the process of consultation, implementation and citizen trust in the process is a bit strained.

  Also since downtown Vancouver has an urban form and an economic structure in my view, unlike any other major North American city, the possibility of resembling a European city in cycle use is at least possible.

  But there may be other differences that make Vancouver bike conflicts unusual.

  Five days ago there was a cycling and society symposium in England. One paper, by a Dutch economist compared the bike culture of Amsterdam and Portland, Oregon. While this was an abstract of the paper and I do not have access to the full paper, the economist came to the conclusion that in Portland, cycling was a way to resist against the dominant American car culture, whereas in Amsterdam cycling was perceived as an ordinary means of transportation and part of the Dutch culture.

  I found this a fascinating conclusion because Portland is similar in sustainability outlook to Vancouver and Portland, like Vancouver largely grew in the era of the automobile. Amsterdam, on the other hand originated well before the automobile era and its basic spatial structure is different

  If we are ever to have any consensus building in Vancouver, the consultation style might have to change to accommodate this idea. The concept that Vancouver attitudes to cycling might be based less on cycling as an ordinary mode of transport and more on ingrained resistance to the automobile might be one explanation of the visceral reactions on both sides.

  Armed with that knowledge, we should perhaps look for new ways of interaction.

  So, is the city listening?
  -30-

• 56 Mark Allerton // Sep 12, 2010 at 9:05 am

  @Morven 54

  Your HST comparison is an interesting one – in particular because unlike the Province’s introduction of the HST, the City’s introduction of bike lanes was a large and obvious part of a campaign platform on which the population actually got to vote.

  At first glance some of your suggestions about consultation sound sensible, but I have a feeling that for many of the consulted parties, the only kind of acceptable consultation would involve giving them the ability to veto policies on which the wider population has clearly expressed a preference.

• 57 mikef0123 // Sep 12, 2010 at 10:44 am

  It’s obvious to anyone who’s biked southbound on Burrard, stuck between a bus and a taxi passing on the right, that biking has not been given adequate consideration as an ordinary means of transportation. It’s something someone else might do, maybe to act out some ingrained resistance to the automobile.

  There can be no consultation to build ordinary bicycle infrastructure that is predicated on the idea that bicycle infrastructure is not ordinary.

• 58 Bill Lee // Sep 12, 2010 at 11:02 am

  Morven (comment 55) refers to this :
  7th Cycling and Society Symposium and Workshop
  6 – 7 September 2010, School of Geography and the Environment, Oxford
  http://www.tsu.ox.ac.uk/events/100906/ and Peter Pelzer’s short talk :
  “Bicycling as a Way of Life: A Comparative Case Study of Urban Bike Culture in Amsterdam and Portland, OR ” presented by Peter Pelzer, University of Amsterdam. (Though he is also at U. Utrecht sometimes)

  And to lessen the “roasting times of this 34 pound turkey” earlier Portland studies at http://www.ibpi.usp.pdx.edu/researchdigests.php

• 59 Jean // Sep 12, 2010 at 12:00 pm

  Am only repeating this for the benefit of readers here who don’t read other sources of information. From the City of Vancouver’s web site:

  “In the West End and Yaletown, nearly 40% of households don’t have cars. This compares to other multiple-family, medium density areas across Vancouver where 11% of households are car-free. More people in an area does not automatically mean more cars.”

  http://vancouver.ca/engsvcs/transport/livable/ecodensity.htm

  Meanwhile high-medium density residential population in City of Vancouver is growing because of new buildings. And more slated for construction.

  There are already thousands of new residents in the past decade living in the downtown area –a perfect captive market for downtown retailers.

  It takes time for people to reconfigure their own travel routes and transportation options.

• 60 voony // Sep 12, 2010 at 12:38 pm

  Morven, the economist you mention could be right to say “that in Portland, cycling was a way to resist against the dominant American car culture, whereas in Amsterdam cycling was perceived as an ordinary means of transportation and part of the Dutch culture”,

  but you could be too much on the errand side by explaining it only by building form of the city.

  Some sociology concepts on norm adoption could better explain this dichotomy:

  cycling in Amsterdam is the cultural norm. Arguably be in Portland or Vancouver it is not (yet).

  the cyclist minority want their behavior to become part of a cultural norm.

  Since the current cultural norm doesn’t integrate cycling, more than a marginal if not “deviant” behavior: cyclist minority need to enter in “resistance” against it.

  They even need to create conflict (like critical mass) and this one is eventually necessary to create public awareness and trigger a debate.

  When successful in their acceptation as part of the social norm (the reason for it require lot of consistence in the message, and dedication), the activist movement lost its “raison d’etre” and some other type of “majority” (like early adopter), come in play.

  Serge Moscovici, is a sociologist, among other, who has theorized all of it (one ref: Psychologie des minorités actives, 1976) and go as far as to say, that that is good for society (it opposes conformism to change and innovation)

  That is to say, that the cycling attitudes in Portland and in Amsterdam are different, because cycling usage is at a different degree of adoption in the social norm.

  …and don’t make mistake, Europe in that instance has not been very different than North america: by cycling track, pedestrian street, bus lane…all of them are generated all sort of epic conflict, no consultation process could have resolved…since they were breaking existing social majority norm (under a push of an activist minority : the later in date I have in mind, is all those bus lane which has mushroomed in a mid summer night in Paris, basically without consultation, save for the municipal election, where the bus lanes was part of the platform)

• 61 Morven // Sep 12, 2010 at 1:27 pm

  @ Voony 58

  Thank you for your considered response.

  You actually open a whole new area that potentially might enlighten the torrid bike debates.

  That is the sociology of bike lane consultation.

  Who knows, we might end up with a far more productive way of encounter between the two main (battle) groups.

  Any else want to weigh in on what might be a very important concept?
  -30-

• 62 Bill Lee // Sep 12, 2010 at 5:17 pm

  Mr. Price (comment 54) says “Every day, accoding to city statistics, more than 3,500 cyclists come downtown in the morning.”

  And we’ll never find out how many ever again as that was a Long Form question *22 on the census. So we will never get that number estimate again.

  See pretty maps in http://vancouver.ca/ctyclerk/cclerk/20090217/documents/tt1.pdf and think: to UBC, along Broadway and so on.
  Reverse the numbers and a huge percent drives for various reasons.
  And work outside the city, since the Vision is no more industrial land in this ‘green’ city.

  I keep on thinking that Vancouver should be mashed with Burnaby for better government.

• 63 DW // Sep 12, 2010 at 7:13 pm

  Here are my 2 cents as I have actually worked for a business on Hornby for the last 2 years:

  - Most of our clients are walk-ins who live/work in the area.
  - I would say that 20-30% of our traffic comes from people who drive in.
  - I would say that 10-15% of our traffic comes from people who bike and skate to the store.

  I personally don’t believe it’s going to be the next apocalypse once the lane gets put it. On the other hand, I will admit that this business sells products for which demand is rather inelastic.

  I have followed the debate on here and of course as “newly educated” noted on another thread, it has been the same folks from their ivory towers who are commenting (which is why I decided to comment on this thread since I actually happen to be on the ground.) I don’t know the full background of many of these posters, (particularly those who are opposed), but I would think that instead of using one’s intellectual energy on a blog, wouldn’t that energy be better served on achieving political ends?

• 64 Booge // Sep 12, 2010 at 8:27 pm

  bike lanes are here to stay. it is not really a matter of whether one favours them or not. it is just the way transportation and cities are evolving. the biggest opposition to them come from NA cities where we have the largest number of gas guzzlers and SUVs. NA drivers have lost their credibility and cannot see the future that is staring them in the face. The car culture is diminishing in importance. Gone are the movie drive-ins, Burger Drive-ins etc.. .there exist some drive-through services in the us because they are the slowest to leave their cars.

  In Vancouver cov council with balls are bringing about change. I support them.

  I am a car driver and a cyclist.
  PS 4000 riders in the GranFondo. Cycling is here to stay.

• 65 Morven // Sep 12, 2010 at 11:14 pm

  @DW 63

  I am sure it will come as a great surprise to Ms. Bula and even her critics that the blog posters apparently inhabit ivory towers and endlessly expend intellectual capital on a worthless pursuit.

  Actually, you do the blog posters, both for and against cycle lanes a disservice. What many us are dissatisfied with is the inadequacy of the “official” information.

  You may misunderstand the role of formal and informal media in public policy. The political end is not the uncritical acceptance of a bike policy. The political agenda is ensuring elected representatives recognize they have a duty of care and a duty of public trust not to blindly follow an agenda but serve the public interest by properly weighing up the costs, risks and benefits for Vancouver citizens, not just bike advocates.

  As citizens and as bloggers we are entitled to ask questions. And if the blog questions make bike advocates and elected officials uncomfortable, it is possibly because they are unable to control the agenda.
  -30

• 66 boohoo // Sep 13, 2010 at 11:40 am

  ho hum, more people dying in car crashes on the weekend and it barely registers in the news.

  so it goes.

Leave a Comment