@ Richard – We shouldn’t be making infrastructure that bows to people who can’t follow rules. That’s what enforcement is about.

Also, even if some people would use the bike lane in the wrong way, I’d much rather see potential conflicts between two bikes (which inherently would result in way less injuries) over a car/bike situation.

I’m very used to running into this argument that the contra-direction method “won’t work”, however I submit to you that the 2-way cycle track isn’t working either. So it’s time to let the other side have a go for a little while.

Keep in mind cities around the world have embraced the contra-direction lane system. Most notably Sydney, Australia.

@Spartikus 53

“Fast-track” was the term used in the NPA press release.

The bike lanes also had a lot of studies done back to the 90s. Didn’t seem to matter though.

Yes Paul, I know the Streetcar has been studied.

I like streetcars. I hope the project works out, but I’m of the view it’s a bit airy-fairy at this point.

It’s not a commuter line (the studies describe it as a “complementary” commuter line), it’s at heart for tourists. That’s fine, but we have pressing commuter challenges in this city.

I don’t like P3s, especially how they’re implemented in BC. There’s a real lack of transparency here that’s mandated in other jurisdictions (interestingly those same jurisdictions are moving away from that funding model). Governments can always borrow at a lower interest rate than corporations.

I have my doubts that in today’s and the foreseeable future’s economic climate that a private partner will step up. Unless the private partner has the cash in hand – and who the might be I don’t know – they will have to borrow and credit, which once flowed like water, is now harder to come by.

so what you’re saying is, in jurisdictions that DON’T do P3s like BC does they are moving away from them because they don’t work.

Yes, the UK mandates an objective “public sector comparator” study for each P3 project to see if there actually are savings. This isn’t the case in BC. Such is their dogmatic faith the BC Liberals have mandated this funding mode’s use (for Provincial projects) regardless. You seem to feel this is strike against the UK. I think others might disagree.

We’ve figured out how to do them and for the most part they go very well.

ReallY? BC’s P3 projects are also navigating rough seas. The contracts for both the Canada Line and the Golden Ears bridge stipulate that if ridership/use falls below a certain level, the taxpayer is on the hook. We’ve guaranteed a private company’s profits in other words. For this to work, ridership/use projections need to be really accurate. For the Canada Line, this is working out. Not so much for Golden Ears.

And of course this doesn’t negate the fact the global economy is teetering on the edge of the abyss and lenders are far more reluctant to get involved with these sorts of things…

Thomas Ross, a senior associate dean at the University of B.C. with an extensive knowledge of P3 projects, said the current economic crisis — and the higher cost of borrowing that accompanies it — should spark a rethinking of how big public projects are financed.

“What’s kind of happened is a concern for some existing deals that might come unravelled because everybody thought the banks that were lending the money were fine, and now it turns out the banks that were lending the money aren’t fine,” he said, citing the Port Mann Bridge as a possible example.

“It may be that some of them are difficult to finance in these times, and it may be that the only people that can really borrow are governments, and so we go back to the more traditional model of procurement until financial markets settle down.”

Spartikus…. I think you’re an intelligent individual and I really enjoy our back and forth on here and twitter. But seriously man, listen to what you just said.

P3s may work, but they may leave the taxpayer on the hook.

Exactly where’s the risk? With P3s we MAY have to pay, but the other way we DEFINITELY have to pay.

Again, I appreciate the perils of doing ANY public project (no matter the funding scheme). And in other jurisdictions they have tinkered with the P3 system so poorly that it actually ends up being worse for the taxpayer than in a publicly funded scenario.

As for the Golden Ears bridge, as long as the free Port Mann is around, it will not be used to it’s full extend. That was poor planning.

Here’s a list of completed P3 projects. Almost all were completed with significant benefits to the public, with the exception of the lack of traffic on the Golden Ears.

Abbotsford Regional Hospital and Cancer Centre, Britannia Mine Water Treatment Plant, Canada Line, Charles Jago Northern Sport Centre, Golden Ears Bridge, Gordon and Leslie Diamond Health Care Centre, Jim Pattison Outpatient Care and Surgery Centre, Kicking Horse Canyon (Phase 2), Pitt River Bridge & Mary Hill Interchange, Royal Jubilee Hospital Patient Care Centre, Sierra Yoyo Desan Road, Sea-to-Sky Highway, Vancouver Island Health Authority (VIHA) Residential Care & Assisted Living Capacity Initiative, William R. Bennett Bridge.

Agustin…. What a very interesting way to look at things… A good analogy indeed. However it is flawed, because in your analogy you’ve already got the camera/house and you’re now insuring it from loss/damage/defect.

With P3s the public DOESN’T already have the camera/house, we’re going out to buy it. It’s actually more akin to a Home Builder who also provides loans.

You own the land. You will be the one to pay for the new house.

You go to one Developer who says it’ll cost X amount but you have to find the money yourself AND if costs go up, you’re responsible. He also only uses his own in-house trades, he’s not allowed to shop around for cheaper. (Public System)

You go to another Developer who also loans money. You sign a contract that gives the developer permission to build the house to your specifications and in return you pay them back an interest bearing loan. Then you begin paying them monthly as they construct your new home. In addition, the agreement stipulates you are insulated from additional costs. AND since he’s free to use any trade he likes, the initial cost X is lower than the first developer. (P3 System)

Where things go sideways with P3s is when contracts are poorly negotiated and overly favour the private side of the partnership.

I don’t have a problem with well-constructed P3s. There are lots of examples of bad P3s, but also for bad public infrastructure projects (like the edinburugh tram project, due to poorly negotiated contracts).

If anything, Portland’s streetcar system relies on private funding, for the capital portion at least, for its existence.

However, IMO a stronger bike lane network and other infrastructure like a bike share would provide more wide-spread mobility improvements for more of vancouver. I would choose that over expansion of the streetcar, plus for a whole bunch of other reasons.

^ to clarify, the private capital funding is only partial. That being said, one can call it a P3. I like the results of it, although one can argue it puts infrastructure in places where areas are able to pay for it.

http://www.midtowncommunityworks.org/PortlandStreetcars.htm

BTW what happened to lewis villiegas? he’d have something to say about trams in vancouver…

@ Paul T.: I also raised some of the drawbacks of P3 systems 😉

Here’s one of my main worries about P3 systems: we get stuck on the name. Some people are thrown off by the “public” P, some people are thrown off by the “private” P. The “partnership” P is there to make it all sound very nice and friendly. But the reality is that it’s just a label that has been applied to a number of different arrangements.

To me, P3 is shorthand for “No money down, no payments for three years! Hurry down to the Brick this weekend and pick up your brand-new big-screen TV! (Some exceptions may apply. See in store for details.)”

Richard, I think you didn’t read my suggestion through. You mention a contra-flow cycle track on one side and a painted lane on the other. I made no mention of a painted lane in addition to the cycle track.

Hornby would have a South Bound contraflow cycle track, the design of which would need to smooth out the weaving back and forth lane configurations currently needed.

Another route would need to be picked for the N/B lane. Burrard would be optimal, but because of the busses I would suggest Howe Street instead.

Another CRAZY idea is to get busses off Granville again and put in North-South lanes there. I’m not sure I support that idea. Entertainment District/Bike Route sounds like a recipe for disaster, but I’d certainly like to see a concept if it COULD work.

@Paul: I’ve been quite interested in the discussion on P3s, but I wanted to ask about financing. Public financing almost always, especially with BC’s credit rating, means lower interest rates than a private company can do. This is why, when the province gave up on doing a P3 for the new Port Mann Bridge, the cost of the project actually dropped $200,000 (that’s what Partnership BC’s Larry Blain said at the time, can’t find the article, only references to it). In that case, the government entered into a fixed-price contract to build the bridge, despite dropping the P3 aspect, to safeguard against cost increases. So I don’t see any benefit from traditional P3 projects at all, especially if as with Golden Ears the taxpayer has to subsidize a corporation if estimates turn out to be lower than initially planned.

Tessa 76. The difference between cities and the Province is that cities can’t borrow for capital expenses unless it’s in a Capital Plan. So comparing the Port Mann to the Streetcar is not comparable. Vision is not including any money in their Capital Plan for the Streetcar project. The NPA proposal gets it going without further delay.

And if the saving in the Port Mann was $200k, that would amount to +/-.001% of the total cost. It’s widely agreed this is a transportation service which will nor only enhance the tourist industry but will be an important part of the Cities transportation services.

@Paul #74

“Hornby would have a South Bound contraflow cycle track, the design of which would need to smooth out the weaving back and forth lane configurations currently needed.

Another route would need to be picked for the N/B lane. Burrard would be optimal, but because of the busses I would suggest Howe Street instead.”

I personally would have preferred two single direction bikes lanes to the two-direction lane on Hornby. The practical challenge is that there would be twice as many businesses, driveways, and turn lanes to deal with, those on Hornby and those on Howe (or where ever the second lane is put). And making the existing lane one direction doesn’t reduce the width sufficiently to get back a travel or parking lane. The weaving that is required isn’t due to the bike lane, as that lane is continuous. It is due to the turn lanes, put back in to improve access.

The design of the Hornby Lane doesn’t have to be perfect IMO. It was reasonable for the first stage. I think that over time, traffic will increase in the bike lane to the point that it isn’t big enough. When that happens, the next step would be to revert to single direction, and add a second single direction lane a block over. Reuse the signals that were purchased. Not sure how long this will take to be needed, but it will be interesting to watch and see.

@ MA #81 – Because technically the village construction is not a P3. It missed the biggest benefit of a P3 which is transferring risk associated with the construction to the private sector instead of taxpayers. Because of that, it isn’t a Public Private Partnership.

@ Jeff L. #80 – I’m not sure if you read the entire comments, but I live at Hornby and Nelson. I’m not looking for perfection, but I’m also not willing to accept that this lane was the only way to go. It’s too confusing for all road users. I’ve already seen more car/car accidents than usual at the intersection where I live.

I also love being risen from my sleep early in the morning by car drivers laying on their horns because a cyclist blows through the red bike light, cutting off the car turning right.

Good point Chris. And certainly there may be other reasons. However, you don’t live here, so you haven’t noticed the difference.

Prior to the bike lane, Hornby was a relatively quiet street up to 7:30am – 8:00am when traffic started flowing into the office buildings.

Now with the bike lane, almost every morning I hear honking as early as 6am. I usually eat breakfast between 6:30 – 7:30am and can see the intersection as I eat. The honking cars are indeed warning cyclists that they are crossing through on a red light.

So while I admit, perhaps those honks prior to 6:30am could be related to something else, it would only make sense that they are honking for the same reason as those after 6:30am.

Even if they aren’t, it points to a problem with confusion, creating dangerous situations.

Thanks for pointing out the errors in the text of #78 Agustin. I ate something I shouldn’t have a couple of days ago and am paying the price. A sentence seems to have mysteriously disappeared once again. See if this makes more sense (I mean as prose, not opinion) for comment #78:

“Tessa 76. The difference between cities and the Province is that cities can’t borrow for capital expenses unless it’s in a Capital Plan. So comparing the Port Mann to the Streetcar is not comparable. And, if the saving in the Port Mann was $200k, that would amount to +/-.001% of the total cost. That would not be a deal breaker with respect to that project’s end-user affordability.

“Vision is not including any money in their Capital Plan for the Streetcar project. The NPA proposal gets it going without further delay.

“Equally importantly, the NPA Streetcar proposal is a transportation service which will not only enhance the tourist industry but will be an important part of the Cities transportation services.”

@ Mark 81. The “debt appearing on the Cities books” was not a consideration in my saying:

“The difference between cities and the Province is that CITIES CAN’T BORROW FOR CAPITAL EXPENSES UNLESS IT’S IN A CAPITAL PLAN. So comparing the Port Mann to the Streetcar is not comparable. Vision is not including any money in their Capital Plan for the Streetcar project. THE NPA PROPOSAL GETS IT GOING WITHOUT FURTHER DELAY.”

Vancouverites have said loud and clear we want more transit and we will use it. The NPA Streetcar proposal is an initiative the City can achieve via a P3 to help satisfy the demand NOW not in some distant future.

It is obvious there are those in this conversation who are philosophically opposed to P3s and/or are rightly concerned about their shortcomings. I share those concerns also. However, I am aware there are also success stories. As a Councillor, and having had 40 years of experience preparing construction contracts, including P3s, I will be very vigilant to ensure this contract eliminates the flaws and will be a net benefit to City taxpayers.

@Bill 86

You seem to be proving my point for me.

“CITIES CAN’T BORROW FOR CAPITAL EXPENSES UNLESS IT’S IN A CAPITAL PLAN. … THE NPA PROPOSAL GETS IT GOING WITHOUT FURTHER DELAY”

I take that to mean that the NPA does not propose to put the capital expenses for the streetcar plan into a Capital Plan, and instead have the private partner take on those capital expenses, so allowing work to go ahead right away.

Please correct me if I am wrong here – and if I am perhaps you could fill in the missing details.

But if I am correct in my statement above, well… QED.

@ Mark Allerton #85:

“This is clearly an utterly joyless individual.”

I take particular offence to this sir. We’ve been having a productive conversation about many issues in this thread. It’s comments like yours that serve to needlessly inflame the banter that goes back and forth about these issues.

Just because you don’t like what some of us have to say, doesn’t mean we should be ignored. Ignoring us has caused the needless friction between residents/businesses on Hornby and city council. It’s time to move away from the divisive politics of Vision Vancouver and start doing what’s best for all of the residents of the city, not just special interests.

Paul, I think you should be commended for your thoughtful comments and well-reasoned arguments, which have added a lot to these blog discussions (even if I don’t always agree with you).

“It’s time to move away from the divisive politics of Vision Vancouver and start doing what’s best for all of the residents of the city, not just special interests.”

Here is one instance I don’t agree, as both you and Sean Bickerton have said this, referencing the bike lanes. Surely, CityCaucus has been the chief agent of creating the hyperbole and divisive politics around what are relatively benign policies like bike lanes, beehives and backyard chickens?!

Rob Macdonald’s NPA fundraising pitch rehashes this tired ground, too, trying to make political hay out of these policies, and inferring the NPA would change course dramatically on these things, when, in fact, it appears that is not the case at all.

Actually you are going to gain 1.5 metres immediately and another 1 metre by squeezing lane widths.

If you read the American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials guidelines for a single direction contra-flow cycle track separated by parking, you can see that you don’t need 2.5m for such a lane. You only need 1.5m.

My point on this is, the fight over the cycle lane has become so heated that I doubt any city council will want to approach the topic again any time soon. Even the VACC’s own leadership was at council yesterday complaining that the city needs to do more in their capital plan. The complaint fell on deaf ears.

I honestly think this was a missed opportunity to try an innovative way of doing bike lanes that increases safety AND makes cycling more attractive.

My suggestion to the next council would be to implement this kind of lane on Burrard (to replace the S/B bike lane). BUT prior to doing that, monitor traffic S/B on Hornby and Burrard for a full year. Then make the change on Burrard and see how many riders are satisfied with the change to use it.

The money saved doing it that way would open the door to ACTUALLY making our commitment to make cycling more accessible for everyone.

Thanks for your attention.