Pete McMartin has written the most insightful comment on meaning of the election for Vancouver’s once-ruling party (disclosure: it was once mine too) – right from the opening image.
(Here’s my version of it, substituting the Vancouver Club for the Hotel Vancouver.)
.
On going into the Non-Partisan Association’s election night party at the Fairmont Hotel Vancouver — and as parties go, I’ve had more people in my bathroom — I could not help but note that outside on the street, bordering either side of the hotel, were bike lanes.
Look out, reader, there’s a bad metaphor heading your way, and it would be:
The city’s new landscape was right there at curbside for the NPA and its supporters to read.
This, they either chose not to do, or if they did, they misread it completely. For this, they got to spend their election night staring into their drinks. …
The NPA will have to do better. If it is to grow, it will have to attract a younger base. It will have to start looking forward rather than back, and realize that the centre, which it once believed it represented, has shifted.
The city changed. The NPA didn’t. For that, it got kicked to the curb. Guess what it found there.
.
The NPA have now lost the last two elections – in 2011, when it ridiculed bike lanes and green initiatives; in 2014, when it more subtly dog-whistled the issue – by requiring ‘community backing’ as a way of ensuring no more separated bike routes. (I even heard that by the end of the campaign, LaPointe was saying that Point Grey Road would be opened up.)
So NPA, what do you do now? Here’s my suggestion.
You have to get over a begrudging recognition that, gee, maybe people don’t actually object to bike lanes, despite the rage expressed by some of your older members and financial backers. (Yup, Rob Macdonald, thinking of you.)
You have to embrace not only bike lanes but the whole strategy of active transportation – and have actual proposals to make it better and expand its reach.
And you have the opportunity.
The NPA now has control of the Park Board, a traditional place for the next generation of municipal leaders to get their start. And it’s the place that will have to finally figure out how it will design and build bike routes through its parks, primarily Stanley, and connect to the network that surrounds and joins up its entire system.
The situation in Stanley Park is appalling, as I and others have documented before, and no Park Board has provided the political will and funding to resolve it. Of course, there’s the outstanding question of what to do about Hadden Park and connections to the Seaside Bikeway.
(Speaking of which, there was no response from NPA Park Board candidates to the question I raised last week: “Are bike lanes okay in parks?” It will now be a test of what the party actually believes.)
The NPA Park Board can now provide leadership; it can demonstrate how it more effectively works with the community – the cyclists, the residents, the park users of every kind – to resolve conflict; it can provide vision for the future; it can change its image and back it up with real projects and commitments.
Or it can be the party of the past, and get kicked to curb again.
.
Chris and Melissa Bruntlett over at VanCity Buzz have written a great summary piece, bringing together many of the facts and arguments about cycling over the last few years: “What’s Needed to Build Bicycle Culture in Vancouver.”
So with the electorate’s rejection of revisiting years of hard work by our politicians and planners, let’s now consider these bike lanes a permanent part of Vancouver’s transportation network. With the third consecutive mandate given to them, let’s urge Robertson and the Vision-led council to move forward with even bolder steps, such as the implementation of a bike-sharing scheme, and the installation of similar facilities on busy retail corridors like Main Street, Commercial Drive, and 4th Ave.
And hopefully, politicians in surrounding municipalities – who have been cautiously watching for any political ramifications in Vancouver – will be emboldened to make similarly brave moves. Building a better city requires our leaders to lead – and as our experience here shows – those risk-takers will be rewarded for their courage.
There’s also a poll at the end which asks whether the Vision council should continue building improved cycling infrastructure. (Last I checked, 75 percent said yes.)
Our two cents on how bicycles were “front and centre” when Vancouverites went to the polls on Saturday: http://www.vancitybuzz.com/2014/11/whats-needed-to-build-bicycle-culture-in-vancouver/
I watched Heidi on Vancouver a few evenings ago. She did touch on bikes but mostly she talked to Old Chinatown, a very brief glimpse of new Richmond’s Chinatown, little different to Metro town, the obligatory Granville Island, and a run up Grouse Grind.
I’m all for bikes. I’ll never forget peddling up 10th from Alma on my way to SCARP. It toughened me up much to Brahm’s satisfaction!
But if Vancouver wants to be more than one of Heidi’s 45 minute curiosities it’s going to have to grow beyond this infantile obsession with “how bicycles were “front and centre” when Vancouverites went to the polls” and . . .
http://members.shaw.ca/webmaster-nonpareil/Thu%20Horror/thu.horror.html
. . . store bought heroes!
Yes, I’m very interested to see what the new Park Board will do at Kits Beach, if anything.
In the “bike lanes in parks” mega threads the other week, the “Save Kits Beach” crew kept insisting that it was not the existence of a bike lane they opposed, just that it was poorly planned.
If NPA parks commissioners actually come through with a bike route plan that addresses these concerns and get it built I’ll stand up and applaud, and perhaps go in to the next election with a more open mind towards the NPA. The cynic in me anticipates a 4 year consultation process, though.
You have forgotten the ballot resolutions, which do not require further consultation.
Susan, you clearly don’t understand the ballot resolutions. They say nothing of the sort. It was strictly about borrowing money.
David F: “Are you in favour of Council having the authority, without further assent of the electors, to pass bylaws between January 1, 2015 and December 31, 2018 to borrow an aggregate $58,200,000 for the following purposes?”
“A. Parks
To provide for major maintenance, upgrading or replacement of existing parks and features within parks, such as pathways, playgrounds and playfields that are beyond economical repair or no longer meet operational requirements.”
Often the phrase “I was never against it, just against the process/planning”. That’s fair enough but it can often be a way to avoid what’s really going on.
I do not believe that the opposition in Kits Beach was purely locals and their picnic spots. I, and many others suspect there’s another force behind it. Who knows who it is; opposition parties, the auto industry, the oil industry, the Illuminati… take your pick but something just doesn’t add up.
But I could be wrong. It’s entirely possible that people just didn’t think logically and got caught up in hysteria.
Still, there’s room for improvement in how new plans are approached. I hope the people at the city change their approach to how they relate to neighbourhoods. I like what’s happening around The Drive with the Streets for Everyone movement. Truly grass roots stuff going on there. We can look forward to how the media is going to spin that in a few years and make it seem like it’s imposed from the outside on the poor locals.
Yes, my expectation is that either the new PB does nothing, or if they do try they’ll run up against the same opposition as before but with slightly different complaints. Hope to be proven wrong though!
Janda, being involved with the opposition myself, I find it so funny, and amazing, the oft repeated (well, here anyway) conspiracy theories about the secret agenda behind the Kits Beach bike path opposition. It is, I assure you, ludicrous. Myself and the others were simply people who felt that this particular bike bath would harm the value of the park and that another option should be considered. There was a plan for the Park Board to work with a community to review the options. Not to stop the path, but to review how it could be done in a way which does not disrupt the green space as was planned. Most of us live locally, but not at Kits Point, so there was no vested interest in property values either.
None of us work for “the auto industry, the oil industry”. That really is hilarious. Still, I appreciate you saying, “…there’s room for improvement in how new plans are approached. I hope the people at the city change their approach to how they relate to neighbourhoods.” I couldn’t agree with you more on that.
David F.: Who elected you spokesperson for “Save Kits Park” or the “Hadden Park Defence League?”
Vancouver’s voters have spoken out loudly and clearly — again. We like bike lanes. At least enough of us do so that anti-bike rhetoric is a loser.
I suggest that anti-bike is a symbolic stance in many ways, and it signals a continued appeal to those who think that the pinnacle of success for both an individual and a society is seeing two Buicks in every driveway — and don’t bother me with this green stuff. This too is an all-too-transparent and a losing appeal.
It seems to me that the solution for the NPA is to get out of the back rooms and boardrooms and – yes — talk to people. Consultation. Community involvement. And when done, create and hone a new platform to reflect a new era in dear old Soggyville. The old stuff really isn’t working.
Not just talk to some people. They need to engage the whole city. Kits Beach is enjoyed by people from all over Vancouver. For many, cycling is how they choose to get to Kits Beach. They also choose to enjoy Kits Beach by bicycle.
Wow, Richard, I couldn’t agree with you more about this statement: “Kits Beach is enjoyed by people from all over Vancouver. ” What you have to realise though, is that by far, people who come from afar, get to Kits Beach by car or bus. This notion that people are routinely cycling there from Richmond and Surrey and Kerrisdale and Marine Drive really is just absurd.
No, David, it is not “absurd”; it is a fact.
I live in Kerrisdale and actually do cycle to Kits Beach regularly. I’ve got commitments nearby, I don’t have consistent access to a car, and the bus options are indirect and almost always take longer than cycling. I know riding a bike for transportation isn’t everyone’s cup of tea, but for some of us it’s a pragmatic choice rather than an absurd notion.
Many get there by car as one can see clearly by looking at the parking lots. Some walk, and some take the bus, and perhaps one day, a subway. Cycling is not a majority transportation method, especially not for families or seniors.
Once you leave Vancouver you see that owning a car is a necessity in MetroVan except for those living close to SkyTrain. Only those (outside of Vancouver) that cannot afford a car have none.
and because it’s not a majority transportation method, you believe there’s no room for a bike lane anywhere in the whole park? I guess we should rip up the seawall bike lane because “cycling is not a majority transportation method.” I guess we should rip out bus lanes because transit is also not a “majority transportation method”, and apparently getting any space at all requires majority status.
“Once you leave Vancouver you see that owning a car is a necessity in MetroVan except for those living close to SkyTrain.”
I’m sure that biking into Vancouver from Surrey or Coquitlam is a pretty tiny percentage of riders. But the relatively new Central Valley Greenway and the bike/pedestrian path over the Canada Line Bridge have opened up a whole new cadre of riders from Burnaby/New West and Richmond. Sure, they’re not the majority – but neither are pedestrians or wheelchairs/scooters and yet we do our best to accommodate them.
The economy doesn’t run on bikes. Vision conveniently chose to ignore this. We need bike lanes AND a vibrant economy. Vancouver lacks the latter as commercial property taxes are sky high and every industrial project is vehemently opposed.
Jobs do not appear out of nowhere, except for civil servants.
If you want a clear and unambigiuous answer of support for cycling, then money spent on cycling infrastructure should be broken out as a separate capital plan question to be voted on.
I think the last two civic elections have done all that needs to be done to separate the pro-cycling and anti-cycling crowds and count them.
If we wanted to get a sense of community support for increased cycling infrastructure, we could look at the development of the 2015-2018 Capital Plan. In the presentation to council from July 2014, there is a summary of the public consultation that was done. Stakeholder meetings, a couple of open houses, online surveys. You know, that consultation that people like to say is never done. When it is done we could at least look at it.
50% rated cycling infrastructure as very important for the larger community, beating out pools. Cycling had a similar number to police stations and cultural facilities.
For the category the city called The City of Tomorrow, meaning investment in new infrastructure as compared to renewal, Walking and Cycling had 49% of respondents asking for increased investment, and 32% saying the same as today (data collection was in May 2014). That sounds like support for active transportation. I suppose one could argue that all of that support was for walking, but that sounds like a stretch, given that the items listed in the detail for new infrastructure largely relate to cycling.
The NPA Council and Park Board showed great leadership back in the nineties with the path at English Bay. It would be great if the new NPA lead Park Board would do the same.
I think politicians sometimes make the mistake of assuming the sentiments represented in newspapers read primarily by suburban voters are representative of the views held by the actual voters of Vancouver.
I think that newspapers make the mistake of thinking that the views of their editors and their boss and the one and only boss at PostMedia represent voters views, and that PostMedia’s boss’ view can be foisted onto these voters like in the good old days.
People are getting a lot savvier, and they have lots more easily accessible sources for developing and sharpening their views.
Ken, thank goodness they are getting savvier, and I hope it continues. One should never under-estimate one’s audience or fail to know who that audience is and what it wants. This was the failure of LaPointe and the NPA.
Most cities vote left, even in conservative Alberta, as this is where young people live as a higher % of population, plus a far higher % of welfare recipients.
Democracy is the great equalizer as it allows you to vote yourself benefits at the expense of the more affluent. That is why western democracies have such horrendous deficits as politicians cater to the votes and promise to spend, spend, spend
If you’re 20 and you are not a socialist you have no heart – if you are 40 and are still a socialist you have no brain.
Ahh, Thomas – speaking as a senior citizen, it sounds like you have lost your heart.
Not really, Sean. I just learned money does not grow on trees. Someone ALWAYS pays i.e. in many cases “the other guy”. The Achilles heel of democracy: vote yourself benefits at someone else’s dime !
I think a handful of people on a blog make the mistake of assuming their sentiments are representative of the actual 2.3 million people in Metro Vancouver.
Ha! So true.
Funny, I actually agree with Bob on that, but I’m thinking of the handful here who think that the majority of people in Vancouver cycle and want more and more cycle paths. You only have to look at PGR to see that it is barely being used. If there ever was an expensive survey to show that, PGR is it.
Maybe, since I’m guessing you won’t be convinced by stats that show cycling in Vancouver is steadily increasing as a transportation option year round as more infrastructure is built, or photos of PGR that can attest to its extensive use, you should look at the election results and see that the majority of Vancouverites, at least those who bother to vote, support bike lanes.
That’s what this thread is about: and that seems to be what opponents are forgetting, or ignoring, election after election.
David F: You could not be more wrong. Do you even know where PGR is? Have you ever been on it? It appears not; otherwise, you are a liar extreme.
Whether or not many people are out riding on Pt Grey Road at 8:00 AM on a Tuesday in November is not the point. The point is that this is now a road which has been upgraded to allow for safe and comfortable walking and cycling of all ages and abilities. Also it fills in one of the last remaining gaps in our amazing seawall greenway. This allows people of all ages and abilities to cycle from the Convention Centre, around Stanley Park and all the way to Spanish Banks. So sure, it is not busy at 8:00 AM on a Tuesday, but it is quite busy on the weekends. How many people are playing on tennis courts at 8:00 AM on Tuesday. How many people are swimming in Kits Pool? Point Grey Road and the entire Seawall Greenway is a great amenity for the people of Vancouver and for tourists from around the world and it will be seen as a great legacy of those who had the courage to make it happen. How many people remember the mayor who turned Pt Grey Road from a residential street to an arterial road back in the 1970s. And yes, there was huge opposition to this at the time. Every time I ride on Point Grey Road, I find it difficult to understand why this was ever allowed to become an arterial in the first place.
Arnoschort, you are exactly right when you point out that PGR bike route is like other amenities which are only seasonally used. I totally agree. If the city said this was the plan, that it was a bike route for people to enjoy on sunny summer days, like tennis courts or the beach, then say so. Instead, we have the green washing thing about this being a vital bike infrastructure change to get people out of cars, save the planet, greenest city, etc… And, further, that it will be used by bike commuters who are considerable and growing. That is just not proving to be the truth.
I’ve already posted a link to the pictures which show how much of a ghost town the PGR is at 8:30 on a lovely weekday morning, but it seems that your point is not disputing that, but saying that it’s okay, like a tennis court not being used at 8am. Well, if a tennis court was going to be built because it was said that there was high demand for it and a though street had to be closed to accommodate it, but then it was barely used, people might question the justification for the move.
Here are those PGR pics again, because I know everyone loves to look at them: http://imgur.com/a/xlEgj
I look at it like wheelchair ramps on every corner. When there was the push to put those in everywhere there were a lot of complaints. People saying that the disabled don’t deserve them, there are not enough disabled people to justify the cost, etc. Now it’s just a normal thing and not only has it benefitted people in wheelchairs, they benefit others. People with shopping carts, delivery people with hand carts, people who’s knees hurt and shouldn’t do steps.
And for the people in wheelchairs, they now are no longer stuck at home dependent on the Handy Dart. They can go out on their own.
The same with cycling. Much of this continent is off limits to people who cannot get a drivers license, yet they still pay taxes for roads they cannot use. They’re dependent on where buses happen to go. You could tell them, just like we once told people in wheelchairs, to stay at home because the higher functioning people are more important than them.
I prefer a situation where there is accommodation in street design for independent mobility. A side effect is that people who can get a drivers license also now have somewhere to cycle when they are interested in that.
David, here is the first image I got when I used Google Streetview of Point Grey road. Nice sunny day. Where are the cars.
Oops, here is the link to the Streetview image https://docs.google.com/document/d/1LvD97OAiDD1rOC6p-uyvQAtIgXr6v8nb0-elubQrHXc/edit?usp=sharing
You are certainly guilty of that.
Supposed “facts” keep being bandied around here. Cycling is indeed on the rise, but even “on the rise” still means a tiny little portion, which presently is 1.8% for all of Vancouver, but typically around 4% in some areas. That’s like 96% not cycling. Cycle routes are great and we should have them, but we should not be implementing them as if it is a major mode of transport when it really is not.
In terms of Susan asking if I have been to PGR, yes, many times. It is a ghost town most of the time, including during prime commuter times. Here is a link to a set of photos which show that. http://imgur.com/a/xlEgj
I would be very interested in hearing how you can explain the near total empty PGR at 8:30am on a lovely weekday. Can you show me some pictures of the PGR outside of peak lovely summer days? A Tuesday morning in October, or something like that, because I have been there a number of times and it’s the same every time. Empty.
David F – I’m not sure how many times people need to correct your misinterpretation of statistics before you finally clue in, but I thought I’d give it one last try:
http://canadianveggie.wordpress.com/2014/10/27/data-nerd-maps-of-biking-mode-share-in-vancouver/
Veggie, sorry, but looking at your site, we seem to agree on a number of points, but for some reason you are focusing solely on my reference to the 1.8%, which I even clarify as not being accurate, even though the NHS gives us that number. I go on to say that it’s likely more like about 4%. You say, “it’s safe to say at least 4.3% of Vancouverites commute by bike”. I have said elsewhere that the NHS numbers lack important detail. You go on to explain why the NHS figures are not clear and lack important detail. We are both saying the same thing in that regard. Biggest difference is that you make the assumption that the NHS numbers under represent cycling when there is no basis for that.
There is also no indication as to what constitutes “a trip”, so a 10km car drive potentially becomes equally weighted to a 1km bike ride to pick up groceries. Safe to say, the NHS numbers can only be so useful without more info about what they mean.
What we see in these boards is the routine cherry picking of the stats from the NHS that sound good for cycling while dismissing others and making assumptions that the numbers must be higher when they don’t meet the prescribed thinking. You can’t do that with stats.
One of the higher numbers is in Point Grey. I think about 12%. It should follow that the PGR would be a kind of super highway for all those commuting cyclists, yet if we look at the PGR, it is largely empty during typical commuter times. Veggie, can you explain why we can see that the PGR bike route is barely used?
David F, I agree. How unfair of canadianveggie to call you out on a number that you used in your argument! Low blow, I say.
Also, I agree that your photos and anecdotes are conclusive evidence of how much PGR gets used. For crying out loud, if we can’t create transportation policy by extrapolating from the anecdotes and personal photos of a guy commenting on a blog, what has the world come to?
12% of 4000 commuters is only 480 cyclists. Space those out throughout the day (normally distributed around the peak of rush hours) and it will be easy to take a picture without any cyclists on the road.
480 cars you would notice, but 480 cyclists are nearly invisible.
https://twitter.com/BikeMilton/status/466028462642192385
I heard the same argument about the Dunsmuir lane after it opened. I don’t think anyone would be foolish enough to claim that it is unused today. It’s relatively easy to take a picture of an empty road in Vancouver. It doesn’t prove anything.
For the record I took issue with this comment: “presently 1.8% for all of Vancouver, but typically around 4% in some areas” – I think you know by now that it is 4.3% for Vancouver and up to 15% in some areas. And that is just for usual commuters, ignoring recreational cyclists. IIRC, you yourself are a self-professed cyclist who would not be captured in the NHS numbers.
David F
Why do you keep bring up the figure for Greater Vancouver (Metro) when we are discussing the city of Vancouver? Of course your figure of 1.8% is inaccurate, as it applies to a different geographic zone. The NHS understands those geographies. Metro Vancouver includes Vancouver, but is not Vancouver.
The NHS figure represents those who answered Bicycle to the question “How do you normally commute to work”. All people who said “bicycle” ride bicycles. And of those who don’t commute by bicycle some (like you and I, based on previous posts) have bicycles and ride them, just not to commute to work. The NHS data is the best figure we have for those who commute to work by bicycle. But by definition, the 4% is low for a count of all people who ride bicycles, considering all trips. Your claim that there is no basis for this, shows that you either don’t understand the data, or are choosing to obfuscate.
You claim that there is no detail about the “trips”. Well, we know that they are trips to work, for a start. We can filter them by male/female/total. We can sort them by age group. We can sort them by the time people departed for work each day. We can view them in terms of commuting time, ie less than 15 minutes, 15-29 minutes, 30-44 minutes, etc. We can see average commuting duration. We can do combinations of all of the above. And for all other mode shares as well, not just bicycles.
We already know that a trip to pick up groceries is not included (it is commuting, remember?), but if you want to look at short trips for each mode, great. Spoiler alert: trips from 15-29 minutes have a much higher mode share for bicycle than the total, due to the very low number of cyclists commuting for over 60 minutes.
The above should demonstrate to you that the NHS data is far more valuable than you are giving it credit for.
12% of 4000 commuters is only 480 cyclists. Space those out throughout the day (normally distributed around the peak of rush hours) and it will be easy to take a picture without any cyclists on the road.
480 cars you would notice, but 480 cyclists are nearly invisible.
https://twitter.com/BikeMilton/status/466028462642192385
I heard the same argument about the Dunsmuir lane after it opened. I don’t think anyone would be foolish enough to claim that it is unused today.
Jeff, I found the NHS site a little hard to navigate and did not see the detail of specifics you describe. If you have a link, I would love to take a closer look. I was agreeing with Veggie that the stats could be misleading, but perhaps for different reasons.
Veggie, what is the 4000 commuters? There must be far, far more than 4000 people commuting from the west side each day, or just Point Grey even. I would be surprised that it could be so few.
Agustin, I quote the 1.8%, but go on to explain that I know it is not representative of the urban area of Vancouver or specific areas. Above, I am using the number and then accepting the very number that Veggie uses on his blog, which is more like around 4%. In other posts I have used it to illustrate how cherry picking numbers is inappropriate, so kind of the opposite of what you accuse me of.
Janda, good point about the wheelchair ramps, but really, I have never heard one person complain about that. Anyway, I am totally in support of that and, as I have said many time, most bike infrastructure to make cycling safer, but within reason considering the use and the alternatives to consider.
For a short time this past year the NPA started on the theme of “we are also in favour of cycling infrastructure but unlike Vision, we will do a better process of consultation and implementation.” (or something like that.) They should have stayed with that approach.
But in this election I don’t think cycling infrastructure was as big of a deal with people. They’re not a scary unknown anymore. Nobody still believes that someone is out to take away their cars. The old tactics like that don’t work anymore.
McMartin’s is just one view. Barbara Yaffe had another:
http://www.vancouversun.com/news/Barbara+Yaffe+Vancouver+voters+elect+Robertson+send+message/10386311/story.html
What many here seem to ignore is that Vision bled off more of its 2011 support to the NPA than to COPE. Or that LaPointe, with no name recognition, did as well as he did. Or that of the top votegetters on Council, one was adamantly opposed to Vision’s development tactics and the other just as vehemently opposed to their bike lane implementation.
Vision had an impressive get out the vote effort. When you’re a full time political party well-funded by developers you can do that. As LaPointe publicly mused yesterday the NPA cannot continue to be a reunion club that meets every 3 (now 4) years. If they want to win, they have to become a full time political organization. Next time they’ll have a two time councillor with name recognition who has first refusal of the mayoral slot. Will Gregor still be around?
Vision messed up this campaign, but got away with it because of their volunteers.
I look forward to a better campaign from Vision, and the NPA (and other groups) providing a credible alternative to Vision next election.
I also look forward to Vision being more open with their decisions and removing the muzzles from staff.
The biking question, however, has been answered. No use pretending it hasn’t.
As an aside, I love this rhetoric about Vision being the “big developer-funded machine” and NPA being the poor little underdog! I get a chuckle out of it every time.
“What many here seem to ignore is that Vision bled off more of its 2011 support to the NPA than to COPE.”
People ignore it because it’s not true! NPA’s vote share was unchanged from last election. The only difference this time around was COPE ran more candidates and the Greens got a lot more votes. Vote splitting with COPE/Green wasn’t enough to change the mayor results, but did affect the Council/Board races, where all the full slate COPE votes (and extra Green votes) that would have gone Vision in 2011 changed the outcome in some of the races.
Yaffe’s article is just typical media ignoring the facts (the vote split was more left wing in 2014 than in 2011) to project their own wishes onto things, mixed in with a healthy dose of sour sour grapes in that particular article. Look at all the articles telling us how great Lapointe did when he did exactly the same as the last NPA candidate for Mayor, under much more favourable circumstances. With the media you’re lucky if you get one article out of 10 on a given topic that approximates reality, so let’s join our host in applauding Pete McMartin for taking the prize this time around.
I agree re: Barbara Yaffe. Her “analysis” lack things like thought, reflection and facts, especially compared to other Sun colleagues McMartin and actual data from Chad Skelton as mentioned by Declan.
Yaffe is not even afraid to contradict herself. I really put little weight to any analysis she has.
http://pricetags.wordpress.com/2014/10/30/lets-play-another-round-of-the-no-win-game-city-heritage-version/.
No. According to Mario Canseco from Insights “the exit poll revealed Robertson lost a third of the vote he received in 2011 to LaPointe (22 per cent) and Coalition of Progressive Electors’ Meena Wong (11 per cent). But almost half of “new” municipal supporters chose him over LaPointe”
Read more: http://www.vancouversun.com/news/Vancouver+Mayor+Gregor+Robertson+policies+ideas+exit+poll/10386965/story.html#ixzz3JUHRgoIf
So those who followed municipal issues and had voted previously didn’t like where Vision was headed. The young and naive bought the Vision image.
” The young and naive bought the Vision image.” ..
Indeed !
If you’re 20 and you are not a socialist you have no heart – if you are 40 and are still a socialist you have no brain.
From Pete McMartin’s article:
“I had thought the race was going to be closer, and had even believed LaPointe had a good chance of squeaking in a win if COPE mayoral candidate Meena Wong could steal enough votes from Robertson to make a difference.
She didn’t. For all the press she received for her idea of a surtax on empty homes — an unworkable idea, by the way — Wong was clearly out of her depth. But by getting almost 17,000 votes, all she succeeded in doing was making LaPointe’s loss look respectably close. If she hadn’t run, and those COPE voters had drifted toward what for them would have been the more ideologically palatable Vision, there wouldn’t have been talk of it being a close result between Robertson and Lapointe but of it being an ol-fashioned ass-kicking.”
Read more: http://www.vancouversun.com/news/Pete+McMartin+Vancouver+voters+chose+party+with+Vision+future/10386297/story.html#ixzz3JUUZMZBj“
Sorry Bob, there will always be movement of voters from party to party in each election (you didn’t expect every last person who voted for Vision (or the NPA) last time to vote for them this time did you?), and the NPA gets lots more votes than COPE so it is only natural that more votes move from Vision to the NPA than to COPE. But voters moving from party to party happens every election – it is nothing new and doesn’t account for the drop in the Vision share of the vote.
What was new in 2014, is that in 2011, Vision didn’t lose any (mayoral) votes to COPE because COPE didn’t run, returning to my point that the only thing that changed in 2014 was that COPE ran more candidates this time. How do we know that it wasn’t increased movement of votes to the NPA that reduced Vision’s vote percentage this time around? – Because the NPA’s share of the vote was unchanged from 2011.
Think of it this way, in 2011 out of the people who moved their vote away from Vision, almost 100% of them went to the NPA, this time around, it was only 2/3 who went to the NPA. Does this tell us that in 2011 Vision should have moved to be more like the NPA (since 100% of the people who shifted their vote away from Vision shifted it to the NPA)? No, it doesn’t really tell us much of anything – but then that’s the media for you.
David F: There is more than ample evidence just on this website alone (photographic, video, statistical, anecdotal, etc.) that PGR is anything but “a ghost town” and that it is an extremely well-used cycle route in all types of weather and at all times of the day and night. For you to deny these facts is absurd. Further, the election is over, and PGR will remain a local residential road and bike route. Further enhancements of this route that include increasing park space and making walkways safer and more accessible for pedestrians and the disabled will take place as scheduled in 2015. PGR will be a model for other shared road spaces to come in the city. I am also happy to see that BCAA has just launched an advertising campaign promoting “sharing the road.” This is a concept we must all embrace.