Vancouver’s first bike counter is up and registering.
Ken Ohrn sends this pic of the counter at Science World on the new bike path west of the old shared Quebec Street path.
.
Ken would like to see year- and monthy-to-date, but this is a start. And what will it be at the end of 2012? Over 500? Over a thousand? Five thousand?
We’ll see.
There actually is a scrolling counter closer to Science World that has the grand total and yesterday’s total, but you can’t easily see it from the bike lane. One concern I have about this bike lane is that the two portions (north and south of the path to the Science World entrance) don’t line up. This is especially problematic in the dark. You can notice the new grass destroyed on the south side where cyclists missed the path entrance.
The bike path across the walkway in front of Science World isn’t delineated nor is it indicated to pedestrians crossing it. It’s really hard to distinguish the asphalt path from the puddle/grass because of the poor lighting. The misalignment either pushes the cyclist onto the grass or into making an unnecessarily sharp turn to avoid going into the path of oncoming cyclists.
The intention of all these things might be to force cyclists to slow down, but it’s more likely just the usual recreation-oriented design of cycling infrastructure in Vancouver.
With transportation not being an objective of cycling projects in Vancouver, including the Comox-Helmcken/Davie greenway, there’s no reason to expect any better in the years to come.
Mike makes a fantastic point about the recreation-orientated design of bicycle infrastructure in Vancouver. And it’s my biggest criticism of the new Comox-Helmcken Greenway. City hall is spending $5.5 million and additional political capital on a bikeway that serves as a handy route between Yaletown and Stanley Park for recreational cyclists, but does very little to connect utility cyclists with the businesses (restaurants, shops and theatres) they want to visit. It’s the subject of an article I wrote recently for Hush Magazine: http://www.hushmagazine.ca/on+sidewalk+cycling+and+the+democratization+of+our+streets/blog/570/14/.
Secondly, on the point of biking/walking data: http://dc.streetsblog.org/2012/12/13/finally-getting-serious-about-determining-how-many-people-bike-and-walk/. This article makes a great point about cities lacking good numbers on biking and walking, which would justify fair and equivalent spending on infrastructure projects. It actually came up last week when discussing the Burrard Bridge bike lanes on Twitter. Someone was arguing, based on their own anecdotal observations, that they barely get used. I had to dig up an obscure, 5-month-old Tweet from @GreenestCity announcing the 3 million trip milestone. These facts and figures should be far more widespread and accessible to the general public, and touted by the city to sell these projects to businesses and organizations who oppose them.
For future reference – Burrard bike lane stats (and a lot of other stuff) can be found on the City’s open data website: http://vancouver.ca/your-government/open-data-catalogue.aspx
Maybe I should clarify because my concerns are a little bit different. The City of Vancouver listed three objectives for the Comox-Helmcken/Drake Greenway on its open house display boards, none about improving transportation for cyclists. Apparently, there are concerns that introducing transportation as an objective might bring out the mamils. They could, however, qualify an objective for improving cycling as transportation with “for people of all ages and abilities” as C1.2 of the Transportation plan states.
Basically, the greenway is circuitous for most trips. A person of typical fitness might commute in the range of 5 to 8 km in street clothes on a utility bicycle without sweating. The greenway via Drake adds almost 1 km over a greenway on Helmcken for trips from the West End to most of the rest of the city. It is also less legible, with more turns.
The intersection at Hornby and Helmcken is unusual, just like the one at Hornby and Drake. The staffer at the open house told me that one of the engineers knew of a way to make a turn in it legally, but she wasn’t able to explain it to me. More likely, it’s an open question whether it is legal to make a turn in such an intersection. Cities that build cycling infrastructure for mobility don’t ask cyclists to consult the engineer to figure out how to go through an intersection. The city shouldn’t ask cyclists to do a right-hand hook turn against oncoming vehicles making right-hand turns. The paths collide.
I have a question about the misalignment of this path. I rode on this on Sunday – it is a pretty frequent route for me – and I didn’t notice any misalignment. I had read this post already, so I was really looking for the misalignment. After the path crossed the pedestrian walkway it started up again on the other side pretty much where I expected it. (What I didn’t expect was the driveway between the two parking lots that now crosses the main walkway to the Terminal intersection.)
It would be nice to have some bicycle freeways around town that use the most optimal route. My current fantasy is to have a covered route through the redeveloped Flats, through the Grandview Cut to avoid the escarpment, and on to the Central Valley Trail. At its fullest extent, the fantasy includes a covered ramp up the future shortened stub of the viaduct and on to Georgia to Stanley Park. The canopy would be composed of two lines of trees, a la the double set along the law courts on Hornby, with a glass canopy between them. There would be on both sides of the street and would be wide enough for both cyclists and pedestrians. It would also require the removal of two vehicle lanes on Georgia. The covered bike route could really make hay in this town because it alleviates one of the big downers – the rain. And covered bike routes could be gangbusters in Richmond because the second big downer, hills, isn’t there to start with.
But in the real world we have bike routes on a less optimal alignment in order to preserve the most optimal alignment for vehicle lanes. I do however find the bike routes and greenways useful. I didn’t always think I would, but I have found that the safety issue is compelling, and I will go out of my way for it. There are also some places in that cannot accommodate any sort of freeway. Beach at Davie is one of those spots where pedestrians rule and the vehicles just have to chill. There’s really only a problem out in front of Cactus if you expect to be able to drive your bike the way Rob Ford would drive his Escalade.
The misalignment is there, but is not that obvious. I think we are so used to it, that we just adjust. However, it is a problem for people not familiar with the area and possibly for others at night. Going north it is hardly noticeable, but try going south when it is dark, it is not obvious where the other side of the path is, hence the grass has been run over numerous times on the south side. It is quite dangerous, as the lighting isn’t that great and somebody could fall if they hit the soft grass not expecting it.
Lighting is another indication of Vancouver’s recreation-oriented cycling infrastructure. The parks board turns off the lights on the Sunset Beach/False Creek seawall at night. The city doesn’t turn off street lights when it thinks drivers should be in bed, and it shouldn’t do it for cyclists. Most of the seawall is just plain dangerous at night with its invisible curbs.
The path at Science World also seems misaligned going north. The first time I went there in the evening (dark) after the construction fence was removed I couldn’t see where the path continues. Also, the path is not clearly marked as a bike path and people walk on it all the time. Lastly, the path is bumpy, just like the section to the south, while by the Olympic Village the seawall is nice and smooth. I would say overall it’s an improvement to the Science World area from a cycling perspective, but the implementation could have been better.
I have looked at this area on numerous occaisions, as I live nearby, so cycle through there twice daily and walk through often. The alignment isn’t off by much, but the southern section angles to the east before it reaches the junction, so that may be a contributing factor as to why it is confusing when dark. From looking at tire tracks and watching others, we aren’t the only ones who have had problems.
As for the pavement, I agree that it is very poor quality, which is horrible for a new installation. Also, the concourse area between the two sections has peaks and valleys, so puddles are created whenever it rains, instead of draining away. That is either poor planning or poor quality work.
I hope that the problem of peds walking on the cycling portion will be resolved (for the most part), when all the work is completed and hopefully additional signage added. I have noticed that some of the cycling symbols near the gazibo are poorly placed, instead of being aligned with the cycling parts.
Why do the cyclists often ride through the parking lot? We often have to turn our vehicle into this lot and do a U turn, in order to go southbound onto Quebec Street (since there’s a boulevard along this Quebec stretch). Once the Science World construction is complete, will the cyclists ride only on a proper bike path? It’s very dangerous to have cyclists whipping through the parking lot (going north) while cars are entering the lot to park.
Many cyclists come from Adanac or Quebec St. The existing connection from there is circuitous, windy, poorly signed and poorly lite. So that is why many prefer to cycle though the parking lot.
I imagine that cycle paths have standardized designs in cities where cycling is a common mode of transportation. The predictability and consistency of Dutch cycle paths, for example, left me with the sense that they were pulled out of a guide. I don’t see any evidence that there is a standard guide for cycling infrastructure within the Parks Board let alone Vancouver or BC, with standardized markings, curve radii, lighting uniformity, intersection geometries, etc.
Simple things like line indicators aren’t even consistent, and there are only two of them: the mode separation line – between cars and cyclists and again between cyclist and pedestrians – and the centre line. The dashed white line, solid white line, and solid yellow line are used to indicate both mode separation and the centre of the cycling path in different places. This, and so much of the way cycle paths are designed here, makes it unclear where the cyclist is supposed to be on the path or road.
Poor sightlines on bikeways and adverse camber on paths are also common. The new path between Science World and the Olympic Village has an unnecessarily small turning radius combined with an adverse camber, which is especially dangerous when its icy.
You are right Colin, going north it’s not the alignment but the angle of the path. Just before the asphalt ends and the concrete plaza starts, the path curves to the east while the path north of the plaza continues more to the west. Either the angle of the path south of the plaza should be adjusted or the path continuation should be outlined across the plaza (and lit at night).