Frances Bula header image 2
← →

Vancouver bike lanes an election wedge issue? Sort of

October 19th, 2010 · 104 Comments

Remember back in 2005 when the Non-Partisan Association made killing the Burrard Bridge bike lane one of its major campaign planks?

It loooked last week as though NPA councillor Suzanne Anton was gearing up for a repeat of that, when she rescinded her vote on the Hornby bike lane. But is that really what’s happening? It’s not that clear, as I found out when I talked to Suzanne and others about this issue. She’s not going to be heading up the party of anti-bike people, she says. Peter Ladner isn’t so sure.

Categories: Uncategorized

←  Older Comments
 →
  • IanS

    I come bearing facts. 😉

    The September numbers are now available for the Burrard Bridge bike lane. Unless my math is off (always possible), they show a 7.1% decrease from bike use on the bridge in 2009.

    To put this in context, here is my assessment of the numbers for cycle use on the Burrard Bridge (again, subject to being corrected on the math):

    JUNE 16 – JULY 10
    2009 (pre-separated lane): 3775 / day
    2010 (post separated lane): 4296 / day
    – increase of 521 cyclists / day (13.8% increase)

    All other figures are post installation:

    JULY 13 – 31
    2009 – 5536 / day
    2010 – 5617
    – increase of 81 cyclists / day (1.4% increase)

    AUGUST 1 – 31
    2009 – 4207 / day
    2010 – 4494 / day
    – increase of 287 cyclists / day (6.8% increase)

    SEPTEMBER 1 – 30
    2009 – 3576 / day
    2010 – 3322 / day
    – decrease of 254 cyclists / day (7.1% decrease)

    Of course it’s not possible to tell how much of this is weather related. Just as the higher increase in August 2009/2010 might be related to better weather in August 2010, the lower figures in September 2009 / 2010 may be related to a worse weather in September 2010.

  • spartikus

    I, too, come bearing facts. Or at least to inform you the Courier has more information about the spike of car accidents in July and August of 2009.

    The gist: Rear-end fender benders, from the post-bike lane merge lane is the culprit. A redesign is underway.

  • IanS

    @Spartikus,

    So it’s pretty much what we discussed when the ICBC statistics first became available (albeit in a rather sensationalized form in the Province), ie. the alteration in traffic patterns to accommodate the bike lane on the bridge resulted in a spike in vehicle accidents for a couple of months, but the accident rates have since gone more or less back to their pre-bike lane levels.

    So, as far as the available data shows, the separated bike lane only resulted in an increase in accidents for a couple of months.

  • Lewis N. Villegas

    “Buses and cyclists sharing the same lane is just a bad idea. Just try cycling or taking a bus on Pender Street and see what I mean.

    Buses are faster than cyclists between stops so having cyclists in the same lane slows cyclists down. At the stops, cyclists must wait behind the bus, which is a pain, or they have to pull into a lane of traffic to pass the bus. Then repeat for every bus stop. Cyclists and buses “playing” leapfrog down a street is inconvenient and not very safe.”

    Richard 90

    OK I’m an infrequent visitor here. I agree Richard, mixing is not a good option.

    However, what we were saying, without looking at the space, walking, biking, and talking to bus drivers, was that for one block a bike lane might take on special characteristics without it becoming a safety issue.

    Interesting to see others see flexibility as an option as well.

    If we are going to have a bike network, we better be ready to embrace complexity and invention at key points along the way. Not suggesting it’s the solution every time. Suggesting it is a tool in the kit.

←  Older Comments
 →