Some candidates in the current civic campaign feel obliged to weigh in on cycling and bike lanes to appeal to those complaining, but aren’t thinking it through. Some are flying ideas – like seasonal use and licensing – that, after a little consideration, have huge flaws that should have been evident to those proposing them . In the event they get elected, what they think is a common-sense approach will prove anything but.
For example:
Ken Charko (NPA candidate for councillor):
First of all, I am in favour of the bike lanes …. [That’s always a warning – GP]
I believe seasonally separated bike lanes would meet more of Vancouverites’ needs. They would be available for cyclists, say from April 1 to September 30, and removed from October 1 to March 31, to make room for metered street parking. …
At the time of year when it’s darkest and dangerous, the separated routes would be taken out. Those cyclists still riding would be back in the traffic, competing for space with the cars that wouldn’t be expecting them. And then, come the spring, it would all be changed back. Imagine how upsetting it would be for everyone to have to adjust twice a year – and how dangerous.
.
Adriane Carr (Greem Party candidate for councillor):
Smarter growth also means more public transit, bike network improvement, and more efficient sharing of roads, including some bike-free routes and bus lanes, to reduce roadway conflicts and congestion.
She tried to clarify her position later – here – suggesting she only meant bike-free zones forbus lanes. But the effect is the same: bikes would have to battle it out on the adjacent lanes in order to get access to businesses and residents on those streets. Once the precedent was established, many would interpret it as a blanket prohibition of cycling on any but designated streets. Once again, increasing conflict by attempting to solve it.
.
Suzanne Anton (NPA candidate for mayor):
“What we can’t fix, we will take out,” said Anton. “Initiating this moratorium and the rapid non-partisan review will be on the agenda of our first NPA-led City Council meeting following this November’s election.”
What does ‘fix’ mean? If the criteria for correction is interpreted as no inconvenience for vehicles, we going back to the transportation policies and business models of the 1960s and 70s. When the world is going in the other direction.
.
Sean Bickerton (NPA candidate for council)
Start a ‘Responsible Rider’ education and enforcement campaign to ensure cyclists are licensed, obey traffic safety regulations, stay off sidewalks and wear helmets.
Twenty seconds on Google, searching for “cost of liciensing bicycles.” The first item two clicks in, from the City of Toronto:
The cost of obtaining a license to drive a motor vehicle is considerable. Much of that cost covers the administrative costs of maintaining an accurate database, and processing licenses. The costs of developing a system for cyclists would be similar. When asked to consider such a move in the past, the Ministry of Transportation has rejected it. If cyclists were asked to cover the cost of licensing, in many cases, the license would be more expensive than the bicycle itself. More here.
This is Red Tape. This is making something administratively complex at significant price to achieve very little. And it isn’t going to happen – so why make it a commitment?
Thank you, Gordon. A voice of sanity.
Carr also defended the viaducts at LCS as not having a traffic study and with no public support for reassessing.
My collection of “fixes” from today’s Spacing Votes:
http://spacingvancouver.ca/2011/11/09/on-transportation-affleck-seems-to-be-best-npa-bet-viaducts-drive-carr-cycling-survey-results-released/
“…the definition of what constitutes a fix or what needs to be fixed varies. In a CBC interview, Klassen criticized the right turn ban on Dunsmuir at Hornby. In a widely shared Georgia Straight op-ed, Ken Charko argued that the lanes should be taken out from October through march and used for car parking – unsurprisingly not popular with cyclists. On Twitter, Lamarche identified the entrance to the Burrard Bridge lane from Pacific as congestion inducing. In speaking with Joe Carangi, and he cited the protected right turns along Hornby as causing traffic to back up for a hyperbolic 50 blocks – but with the disclaimer that he wasn’t an engineer.”
Affleck what the only of the five I collected who didn’t seem to have one off hand, but I was just in the company of Richard Campbell when I asked him. I figure if we collect all 11 we’ll probably have a complaint about every single piece.
Thanks for this summary!
Mr. Price, you’re views on this one have been consistent and patient, albeit a titch of a snooze. You are attempting to dismiss competing ideas for successful implementation of a cycling network in the city, but conveniently forget the most important fact. Ms. Anton is correct, the city implemented over 400 lane kilometres of bike lanes. NEVER was the outcry about cycling facilities so loud.
The cycling lobby’s failure to allow for compromise has damaged the city’s appetite for future cycle tracks. You’re a former city councilor. You, above all people, should know you can’t rule a city with an iron fist. When local residents and businesses scream at the top of their lungs that you’re doing the wrong thing, you must stop and reassess the situation.
As a property owner on Hornby and the President of my strata council, I have NEVER in my life felt so belittled by my civic leaders. When elected representatives ram something through with little respect for true community consultation, one must start questioning if the ends justify the means.
Are cycle tracks a superior form of infrastructure? Yes
Are the Hornby/Dunsmuir cycle tracks a superior form of infrastructure? NO!
The confusing intersections, the uncontrolled accesses to alleyways, the frequent need for pedestrian areas, the lack of enforcement, the confusing signals….. I could list the problems for a long time. There were better ways of routing the lane, there were better designs, but the cycling lobby was not willing to compromise.
You also shocked me by your appearance at council where you dismissed the idea of a one-way bike track because people would use it as two-ways anyway. I’m sorry Mister Price but we don’t design good infrastructure around those who would flaunt the laws. We build infrastructure so it is best used by the most users.
So Mister Price, with all due respect to your knowledge on the topic, I must respectfully tell you that your persistent advocacy of these lanes, with no regard for compromise is only adding to the increasingly negative views on dedicated cycling facilities. That will only succeed in putting the needs of all cyclists on the back burner. That is a shame.
I am very skeptical of the claim that the NPA implemented over 400 lane kilometers of bike lanes. There are no where near 400 kilometers of bikes lanes in Vancouver even today. My suspicion is that the 400 kilometer figure quoted includes on-street bike routes such as Ontario Street, recreational routes such as the seawall, and shared bike/bus lanes like the one on Pender Street. It is disturbing to me that the NPA and its supporters don’t seem to realize that not all cycling facilities are equally useful and not all of them fulfill the same set of needs.
That’s exactly what it includes – 65% are neighbourhood streets. The actual lanes would only make a two-way loop along the city boundaries.
And if I can just jump one step back up the thread, this idea that “the cycling lobby” designed Hornby is insane (or am I just not being invited to the smoke-filled-rooms part of being a cycling advocate – sounds like fun).
“The confusing intersections” – which are supposedly confusing to drive? Drake, Pacific, Hastings, and Canada are ridiculous to bike.
“The uncontrolled accesses to alleyways” – do you want to close the access? Sign me up.
“Frequent need for pedestrian areas” – only to access the parking, which was on that side of the street as a concession to neighbours.
“The lack of enforcement” – boy would I love it if the right turns were enforced. Just got pushed off course today by an illegal movement.
“The confusing signals” – I assume you’re referring to Nelson, which is merely what a left turn signal looks like in reverse. Nowhere near as bad as trying to figure out where the bike signals are turning from Burrard to Hastings.
None of these things, from the weird jogs at intersections, to letting traffic go into alleys, to ignoring scofflaws, to weird signals, to parking on the bike lane side of the street, are preferred by cyclists. They are virtually without exception compromises to business and residents, right down to using the west side of Burrard instead of the east (which would have lined up with the path around the convention centre anyway). Many are unique to Hornby precisely because they were concessions versus what was put in on Dunsmuir.
And, surprise, surprise, whenever anyone wants to discuss “fixes,” it always gets worse for cyclists. How about we talk about the lack of connections to the West End for once? It’s only a block away.
Actually, Mr. Paul T., we do “design good infrastructure around those who would flaunt the law”. Just look at the freeway, or the bridges, or really any street in town, and count the cars disobeying the speed limit, even in the construction and school zones.
Mr. Price, your views on this one have been consistent and patient, albeit a titch of a snooze. You are attempting to dismiss competing ideas for successful implementation of a cycling network in the city, but conveniently forget the most important fact. Ms. Anton is correct, the city implemented over 400 lane kilometres of bike lanes. NEVER was the outcry about cycling facilities so loud.
The cycling lobby’s failure to allow for compromise has damaged the city’s appetite for future cycle tracks. You’re a former city councilor. You, above all people, should know you can’t rule a city with an iron fist. When local residents and businesses scream at the top of their lungs that you’re doing the wrong thing, you must stop and reassess the situation.
As a property owner on Hornby and the President of my strata council, I have NEVER in my life felt so belittled by my civic leaders. When elected representatives ram something through with little respect for true community consultation, one must start questioning if the ends justify the means.
Are cycle tracks a superior form of infrastructure? Yes
Are the Hornby/Dunsmuir cycle tracks a superior form of infrastructure? NO!
The confusing intersections, the uncontrolled accesses to alleyways, the frequent need for pedestrian areas, the lack of enforcement, the confusing signals….. I could list the problems for a long time. There were better ways of routing the lane, there were better designs, but the cycling lobby was not willing to compromise.
You also shocked me by your appearance at council where you dismissed the idea of a one-way bike track because people would use it as two-ways anyway. I’m sorry Mister Price but we don’t design good infrastructure around those who would flaunt the laws. We build infrastructure so it is best used by the most users.
So Mister Price, with all due respect to your knowledge on the topic, I must respectfully tell you that your persistent advocacy of these lanes, with no regard for compromise is only adding to the increasingly negative views on dedicated cycling facilities. That will only succeed in putting the needs of all cyclists on the back burner. That is a shame.
YOUR not you’re
Paul T – I would suggest that there was little outcry about the “installation” of 400km of bike lanes because the vast majority of them were actually just streets that were “designated” as bike routes, with some minor traffic calming. Who could possibly get upset about that? It barely changed anything for drivers.
It’s a nice first step, but is hardly creating a cycling network that will appeal to 8 and 80 year olds (unless they like the threat of being doored constantly).
There are soooo many streets in Vancouver – WHY don’t the bicycle run on streets with NO (or less) cars. Loop the bike routes on ONE street over from the main road.
Or – what I think should happen – LIMIT commercial traffic on main routes to specific times that do not include the morning or afternoon rush – build parkades along Clark and have shuttles with drop-offs at major intersections throughout the downtown and limit personal use single occupancy vehicles.
Walking and cycling were the form of transportation before the motor. They do not add any toxins to the air, water or drain our pocket book. What NEEDS to change is not the bicycle and pedestrian use of our streets – it is the management of our communities that allows BIG centers in ‘what they call’ central locations, when they should be building smaller centers where people can live, work and play without having to depend on the vehicle to get to.
The car has been the major source of air pollution in every major center around the world. WE KNOW THAT Doesn’t it make more sense to change our direction BEFORE we join the list of cities with POOR air quality and move towards transportation that is more natural.
Nothing in the world supports this point of view more than the snake of single ocuppant vehicles hustling in or out of the CITY.
If the corporations expect to continue being anywhere as profitable as they have been they are going to have to start being responsible about WHERE they are situated and WHERE their employees are commuting from to get there.
KEEP IT LOCAL
For better or worse Hornby /is/ one street over from the main street, Burrard, and Dunsmuir /is/ one street over from the main street, Georgia. The parallel side street approach works great outside of downtown (aside from generally slower speeds, keeping cyclists off shopping streets, and the zig-zagging needed at grid seams), and is the status quo. The problem is that there are no side streets in downtown that have not been co-opted for drivers.
Actually, Thurlow /is/ a perfect alternative. Few business, residential, calm traffic for the most part. But that’s too out of the way isn’t it? Riiiiiiiiiight they really compromised.
I would have been okay with looking at Thurlow, but I live in the West End. I would disagree with your characterization of it as “calm.” Bulb-outs along the route would have had to come out, many more frequent alleys would have been trouble given the grid orientation, and it also doesn’t address the issue of crossing the Burrard grid seam, which makes it problematic as a downtown bike route. Thurlow’s also a good deal farther from Burrard than Hornby is.
Oh, and West Enders can just use Bute to get between different E-W routes, but there’s no Hornby alternative through Downtown.
Brian Gould, the bike lane does not have weird jogs in it, it’s vehicle traffic that does. In council’s haste to make a political statement, they forgot that bicycles are far more manoeuvrable than a car and infinitely more manoeuvrable than a big delivery truck. There has been no compromise on the design of the lanes themselves. They run directly beside the east side-walk for the whole distance. The only area that is a possible exception is the pedestrian zones. And those were not created for parking, they were created for passenger pick up zones at high activity locations.
LB, your assumption that the new Hornby Bike lanes can be used by “8 and 80 year olds” is completely bunk. Any parent who would allow their child to use the new Hornby or Dunsmuir bike lanes should really give their head a shake. They are not safe. There’s a myriad of rules that need to be followed by drivers, riders and pedestrians. The average 8 year old is at great risk on those lanes. The Hornby Bike Lane is NOT the sea wall. There are intersections every few hundred metres. Dangerous ones.
And finally to Mister Gould’s last point about the lack of a good option to get into the West End. I COULDN’T AGREE MORE. The Helmcken/Comox Greenway was approved in principle over a decade ago. The majority of the routing had been completed. Ask any building owner or manager on Helmcken who has had plans to upgrade their area. They are all on hold because this plan has been stuck on the back burner. Why did Vision not proceed with the plan that the public already knew about? It’s there, it’s costed, it’s READY TO GO.
This is what happens when you have a council more interested in making political statements and less interested in sound facility planning. It’s that misrepresentation that has cost the cycling lobby much support by the general public. It’s now an us vs. them mentality and nobody wins in that game. We’re all road users (pedestrians included). There’s a delicate balance between safety and the need to get around that must be struck. These balances can only be achieved through rigorous consultation. This council did not do that.
I do suggest you ride the lanes in their entirety before making that declaration. Here is how the jogs work, since it’s difficult to ride for the first time without a guide:
From the Burrard Bridge, stay on what used to be the sidewalk (ignore the gap in the barrier that heads up Burrard) until you’re past the alley, then jump into the street. Wait for a red light to use the bike box (get in front of traffic to make a safe left turn) and get yelled at by drivers who don’t understand how bike boxes work, or make a right turn onto Hornby and a quick U-turn to wait for the NB lights.
From the end of the Hornby segment, follow the green bike light across Hastings and make an immediate sharp left turn behind the barriers (if you don’t find yourself in the plaza). Wonder if you’re supposed to yield to pedestrians crossing the west crosswalk (is this still a left or am I now going straight?). At Burrard, avoid being right-hooked by illegal car turns as you somehow cross the crosswalk diagonally to get to the other side of the street. Then dodge a few weird curves created by the bulbouts and swing sharply back to the right across Canada Place.
In reverse, somehow figure out that you’re intended to turn onto Hastings rather than Burrard and locate the bicycle signals that are to the left and behind you if you’re stopped at the crosswalk. Determine that they’re telling you to make a left turn (across that crosswalk diagonally and right turning cars) to get to the bike lane. At Hornby, decide whether you think you can proceed on a red (because the bike signal to cross Hornby is green) or have to wait another cycle.
At Drake, wait for a green, then make a left turn followed by a quick U to put yourself pointed the wrong way at the left curb in the designated box of posts designed for this purpose. Wait for another green, then ride on the left hand side of traffic and arrive at the Burrard intersection on the left hand side. Press the ped button and then cross from the left of Drake to the right of Burrard, trying to figure out if you have the right of way over right turning traffic from the alley opposite.
As for Helmcken/Comox, sadly it’s now become Helmcken/Comox/Drake and is probably the worst possible connection after
1) extending Dunsmuir to at least Bute
2) making a proper Cambie Bridge connection along Smithe (or hey, even to Hornby)
3) using Drake connected to a WE alley or the WE alley just north connected through the Pattison development to get to Hornby
“They run directly beside the east side-walk for the whole distance.” I’m curious as to what you would suggest as an alternative.
Wow Brian. Sounds like you’d agree that the lanes are too confusing and need fixing. I hope you support Suzanne Anton, since that’s all she’s saying. They aren’t showing the benefit when you compare them to the negatives. Thanks for the added ideas on where things need to be improved.
But it’s not what the NPA are saying at all. I’ve yet to hear a single proposal that would make things better for cyclists, just proposals to move backwards (removing all protection during the “off season,” removing signal protection, removing turn protections, removing the Burrard Bridge lane).
The lanes are great – and are greatly beneficial or negligible on any before-after measure – but the idea that compromises weren’t made is laughable since cyclists see them every time they ride.
@Paul T.
You really need to do some research. In Montreal, they have found that these style of bike lanes are much safer. I have a friend who is a personal injury lawyer who says injuries are way down on Hornby since the separated lanes have been installed. The city found that all collisions are also down on Hornby.
You are complaining about what you claim is a lack of consultation regarding the design on Hornby yet you want the Helmcken/Comox Greenway to be implemented without any consultation on the design. Please start making sense.
@Paul T
You claim “There’s a delicate balance between safety and the need to get around that must be struck.”
People’s lives and safety is far more important.
Even from an economic point of view, your statement makes no sense. The AAA found that the cost of crashes in cities in the states is three times that of congestion. There are similar results for Canada. The AAA is even proposing that the US federal government set a target of zero fatalities. Also, crashes cause around 20% of congestion so risking people’s safety doesn’t even really help ” need to get around”.
I agree with Brian G. There were many “compromises” made in the design of Hornby to accommodate them. And besides, it shouldn’t be a competition between the different modes. There needs to be room for all and protocols in how things are to be done.
Those who primarily cycle as transpiration have been compromising for way too long and rightfully demand a place at the table.
I do find that most people have figured out how the lights works. It’s essentially an advance left turn but on the right side.
There’s always room for improvements and let’s hear suggestions on them.
So, those who have complaints against the process should sit down and state what they would like so that in the future, the city can avoid these kinds of criticisms.
I meant “cycle as transportation” not “cycle as transpiration”.
(I hate this OS X Lion auto-correct even if it makes for some funny stuff sometimes.)
I just saw Adriane Carr out canvassing in the street! So I asked her about why she had such a mixed message on the bike lanes, and she immediately started going on about better transit. I said I absolutely support better transit with dedicated lanes, but I’d asked her about bikes. She said she talked to bus drivers and they had identified bicycles as major impediments to them driving their routes. I said I was skeptical that bikes really cause more disruption than cars, and that it wasn’t right to frame the debate in terms of bikes vs mass transit, that both should (and could) be favoured over private cars. But she repeated that bus drivers say that bikes are the problem and not cars (while saying that Vancouver’s bike network should be “completed”). And then I continued on my dog walk, a little bit clearer on my vote next week.
Not that I disagree with your report, but sometimes Carr will limit her bike-free idea to busy bus lanes when she talks about it. She gave me Hastings and Broadway as examples, but interestingly enough both of these have rapid transit projects at various stages that will work this out one way (by creating room for bike lanes) or another (by shifting bus lanes to the middle and leaving cyclists to the wolves).
Honestly, if she had just said that cyclists and bus drivers are happier when they aren’t slowing each other down and putting lives at risk, she wouldn’t be taking nearly as much (deserved) flak.
I agree. People are tired of being pitted against each other. She thought she could win some votes by being anti-bike when all she had to say was that there could be some bus-only lanes. She didn’t need to go further than that.
Great post Gordon, the lack of common sense is baffling and scary considering these individuals are seeking public office.
I disagree with licensing for cyclists, but I would love what they do in Holland. They have cycling as part of their education for children. And this facility in the video is awesome!
http://www.copenhagenize.com/2011/11/traffic-garden-in-utrecht.html
Denmark has cycling education for grade 2 and grade 9 mandatory.
“Ms. Anton is correct, the city implemented over 400 lane kilometres of bike lanes”
Will this false meme never die? Paul T. trots it out at every opportunity, despite having been corrected numerous times as to its inaccuracy. Relying on falsehoods to prop up an argument is a clear sign there’s problems with the original premise
As for 8 to 80 streets, it’s unrealistic to think an eight year old could head downtown the way the streets are now, but as we change our road network it will become more and more possible. I find this is the most baffling part of the resistance to improving cycling infrastructure. It seems that not only must our efforts towards improved cycling facilities be perfect on the first pass, the impact must be immediate. I can think of no other transportation initiative which is expected to meet the same unrealistic criteria.
This is tangentially related to my previous comments, so I’ll just slide it in here.
Apparently when they finished the recent construction work at Hornby and Hastings, they decided to slide the concrete barriers to the east so that they block the bike crossing – I’m not sure if it’s ignorance, some weird way of pushing us into the sidewalk, or a misguided attempt to make the turn smoother (there’s no reason why the turn can’t be made on a nice wide curve/diagonal, but they really need to move some lights and paint).
Bottom line, watch yourself if you’re doing this for the first time in a while, especially if it’s dark.
Reblogged this on metrobabel and commented:
Gordon is always spot on with his observations. He looks at some of the candidates attempts to improve the cycling-driving road space debate.