In today’s Globe, Fabula provides an analysis of why “Vancouver bike lanes incite outrage …” that puts some pressure on the NPÀ:
Bike lanes are a thorny issue that the current Non-Partisan Association (NPA) team, in its fight with Vision, is going to have to navigate in the civic-election campaign of the next 10 weeks. … So far, NPA mayoral candidate Kirk LaPointe has been steering a cautious line, saying there are better ways to create bike infrastructure than Vision’s approach – details on his new ideas to come. …
Former NPA councillor and cycling advocate Gordon Price believes the emotional response is a factor of two conditions.
One: Bike lanes are easy for everyone to have an opinion on. “It’s not a very complex issue and it’s relatively insignificant, so it’s safe to have an extreme opinion,” he said.
Two: He thinks there’s something deeper at work. Cyclists and their efforts to promote cycling make non-cyclists feel judged and inadequate.
“Cycling is a personal initiative that allows people to keep fit, pollute less, and save money. Those are all related to difficult issues that provoke anxiety,” said Mr. Price. Bike lanes are a visible finger-wagging reprimand that “you’re not keeping fit, you’re not polluting less, you’re not saving money.”
That particularly seems to enrage older men, he said. Public-opinion polls bear that out. In the last poll Mario Canseco did on the issue for Insights West, men were more likely than women to oppose bike lanes (38 per cent vs. 28 per cent) and the highest level of opposition came from people over 55 (41 per cent of people over 55 were negative about bike lanes, compared to 33 per cent in the general population).
Both Mr. Price and Mr. Canseco believe that it’s a losing proposition, based on those numbers, for the NPA to make bike lanes an election issue.
“They certainly want to take advantage of that animosity,” said Mr. Price. But he has been warning the NPA that they’d be making a mistake if they did something like, for instance, committing to take out the Point Grey Road bike route that was built over the past year.
“You don’t want to do that,” said Mr. Price, “or you will end up with another set of people in front of your bulldozers.”
.
The NPA’s problem is what Councillor George Affleck committed them to at the height of the controversy over Point Grey Road:
CBC News: Non-Partisan Association Coun. George Affleck told reporters an NPA council would look at reopening the street.
.
It’s usually not a good move to commit to an action in the future in the heat of the moment when emotions are high. Once the changes have been made, the worst predictions rarely materialize. And after people have adapted, proposing to open the controversy again only antagonizes those who will more easily be able to defend the new status quo.
Does the NPA really want to be the party that proposes to bulldoze some green space, spend a lot of money to move the curbs and infrastructure yet again, advocate for speeding cars next to kids on training wheels … well, you get the idea. They look they’re advocating for the angry old men – exactly the image they don’t want now.
Already Vision is exploiting the opportunity. Here’s a quote from Vision councillor Geoff Meggs’s most recent fund-raising email:
With a safer walking and cycling connection along Point Grey Road, the missing link in the seawall network is now complete.
Too bad Kirk LaPointe and the NPA have promised to rip out the Pt Grey bike lane if elected. It’s an example of how an out-of-touch NPA would drag Vancouver backwards.
We can’t let that happen. Can you kick in $10 to our election campaign today?
Actually, NPA mayoral nominee Kirk LaPointe has proved adept at framing issues with skill, honing in on Vision’s vulnerabilities while providing thoughtful responses and alternatives. On Point Grey Road – and cycling issues generally – he has a chance to reposition the NPA, negating some of the contempt that exuded from their last campaign, acknowledging the need for a more conciliatory process, yet still promising to proceed with the transportation priorities set out by previous NPA councils.
But to do that, he needs to step back from Affleck’s commitment to restore Point Grey Road as a through arterial.
Well stated Gord.
While I generally disagree with many of Vision’s socialist view on Vancouver and its generally anti-business attitude bought by too low a property tax assessment on residential homes and condos, and too high a business tax on similar condos (4-5 times as much in fact) I agree that we need MORE bike lanes and MORE pedestrian friendly areas with LESS CARS.
The NPA better realize that a car friendly city is not the goal of many urban dwellers. We need far more residential traffic calming, slower streets, far more expensive parking and road tolling making the use of cars more miserable and expensive in Vancouver while we expand high speed buses or better, subways. Car use in Vancouver is still too convenient and cheap and Mayor Gregor is on the right path here, too slow even in my opinion.
You know they used to be pretty modern but some of the stuff that NPA people have said the past few years just makes them look opportunistic instead of providing a real alternative for voters to choose? It’s one thing to be for something and it’s a very different thing to just be anti-whoever’s in power. I don’t agree with some of Vision’s policies but I have to admit that what they said they were going to do and what they did do matched up for the most part.
People in this city are pretty smart and politically savvy. Also it’s a big bike town. Most people have cycled and while they might not see the value for themselves in having a nice cycle network, they all know someone who cycle-commutes.
I personally don’t care who gets elected as long as the needs of the people living here are met. People didn’t move to a metropolis to be forced to drive everywhere. They want several transportation choices.
In order for people to move to a metropolis, it has to be affordable. For me the greatest strike against Vision Vancouver is the failure to do anything about middle class affordability.
I think that has nothing to do with Vision. Vancouver has no more land left. That is the core issue. If Vancouver annexed or merged with Burnaby, W-Van, N-Van, Surrey, Delta and Richmond the new “Vancouver” would be more affordable on the fringes.
What specifically do you think Vancouver, besides creating more land or even higher density, should have done to make it “affordable” ?
And how would Vision do anything about this? This is a Federal and provincial issue driven by foreign investment speculation and taxation.
Has the city even asked those levels of government for any action? No. Has the city brought in policies to discourage the demolition of older, more affordable homes that are being replaced with McMansions? No.
Bob, suggest you read this months Vancouver magazine, good articles on Heritage homes and development.
It’s time to stop letting people treat housing as an investment. If it’s not your primary residence then commercial property tax rates should apply. Maybe then people would think twice about buying a house and letting it sit empty for years.
Wouldn’t that make all rental properties more expensive? They aren’t occupied by owners.
Exactly. The ONLY way to improve affordability is to reduce demand, and since this is unlikely, increase supply: higher density, smaller units, more land being created (in tidal flats), laneway houses, add’l stories, slammer lots etc.
Any attempt by anyone to undo traffic-calmed Point Grey Road will be met with unimaginable opposition that will end his/her/their political aspirations.
Indeed. We ought to have more of these traffic calming measures everywhere in the Lower Mainland. Too many residential neighborhoods are still full of through traffic.