Vancouver City council has unanimously approved a staff report on 12 planned new bike lanes and related skateboard rule changes, Emily Jackson writes in Vancouver Metro. Other media coverage HERE.
The staff report is here: transport.dec.2015
Both Ms. Jackson and CBC News find opposition from local businesses to the bike lane(s) proposed for Commercial Drive. This happens everywhere, and over every bike lane. Both the relentless search for opposition and controversy; and the beliefs that create fear in business owners (parking, parking, parking).
There is another side to the story, though, as discussed HERE and HERE, that strongly suggest Vancouver’s experience is otherwise (combining quotes here from both sources):
“We’re less opposed to them than we were in the past, and we do see the value in terms of getting people to shift the way they come into downtown,” Charles Gauthier of the Downtown Vancouver Business Association, who originally opposed Hornby Street’s bike lane, told CKNW. There were the usual suggestions, Gauthier said, of how people usually get into downtown. But as the study was being conducted, it was learned that cyclists are a more influential demographic than presumed, economically-speaking. . . .
. . . He says the one study that was done on the Hornby lane found . . . that the street seems to be thriving with a low vacancy rate. . . .
“A lot of our businesses on Hornby Street thought that everyone drove down,” Gauthier told reporters. “But when the bike study was done, the interest rep survey showed that the people in the vicinity of that area had got there by bike, by transit and by walking. There’s often a disconnect between how businesses think their customers get to their store and what their reality is.” [Ed. emphasis mine]
Vancouver-area cycling advocates, notably, are among those who say that Fuoco’s issues with the bike lanes aren’t shared by all businesses.
“We have over 20 businesses on Commercial Drive who are in support of having a bike lane on the Drive,” said Alex Thumm with Streets for Everyone, one of the bike lane project’s principal proponents and lobbyists, “and recognize that cyclists have money to spend. People don’t just commute back and forth between where they live and downtown. People are actually shopping.”
“A lot of our businesses on Hornby Street thought that everyone drove down… But when the bike study was done, the interest rep survey showed that the people in the vicinity of that area had got there by bike, by transit, and by walking. There’s often a disconnect between how businesses think their customers get to their store and what the reality is.”
Many of us have been saying for years, that most of these businesses customers aren’t driving there. I suspect this holds true for The Drive as well. I hate driving there, but don’t mind cycling, although the way it is configured, is not for the faint of heart.
I still find it astounding that businesses don’t understand their customers and how they get there? Businesses can make better decisions, if they know who their customers are.
Far too many people who run businesses think that cyclists ride because they are poor, whereas the reality is that they often have more disposable income, as they either don’t own a car (thus saving ~$10,000 per year – CAA stat) or they drive less, so spend less on their cars and have more money to spend in local businesses.
When I first moved to Vancouver in 1992, I often got ignored or treated badly in stores when they realized I was a cyclist. Fortunately, this has changed, as some businesses are clueing in or at least their staff have.
Some people who cycle are of low income but are living less poorly and more independently because they have personal mobility within their means.
In regards to the media coverage of Commercial Drive, of course they’re going to track down the one guy who’s against it. That’s what the media does. Even if 90% of people support something they’ve make it appear to be a 50-50 split to try to give the illusion that they’re unbiased. (Then they’ll cut to a car commercial when we can see what’s really behind them…)
Remember the 200 block of Union? All were for it but one guy was against it. The media made it look like they all were against it. Now that it’s done, that one guy has changed his mind and is glad it happened. All of those businesses are doing really well. I suspect that they would not be doing so well if it had not been for the bike lane. Partly from people finding it an attractive destination because they can bike to it but also the separation from motor traffic noise makes the sidewalk nicer.
I remember the proprietor of Brascia’s Tailors on Hornby ranting on TV about the loss of two or three parking stalls in front of his store while right next store and only a couple of metres off camera was a multi-storey above-ground parkade with a capacity of several hundred cars.
This tempest in a teapot was made to look like a typhoon of opposition by TV news. meanwhile, Vancouver’s experiment with separated bike lanes demarcated by a bright green colour atv iontersections has spread to other cities in the Metro and other provinces (e.g. Calgary).
Hornby Street has plenty of nearby offstreet parking, Commercial does not. If Commercial loses parking I an tell you 100% that I will not be patronizing the businesses there, it won’t be worth the hassle. I guess they’ll find out if they can get by with just the local market.
Fortunately the current proposed design by Streets for Everyone (which isn’t the city I realize but might influence the city’s design) retains parking.
You have to laugh..I mean come on. The cover of the paper this morning, with the business guy on Commercial saying the ‘bike highway’ will ruin everything.
You just have to laugh.
Businesses really don’t get it. I simply won’t drive downtown because of the difficulty and cost of parking. I have the same attitude towards other parking-challenged areas such as UBC, VGH, YVR, etc. If there wasn’t an alternative way for me to access those areas I simply wouldn’t patronize those businesses. Bike lanes don’t PREVENT people from coming, they provide a NEW WAY for customers to get there. Businesses are simply crazy if they think that’s a bad thing.
It highly depends on location and other options. Downtown or UBC has decent public transit options, many areas do not.
Do not project your own preferences and abilities to others far older, less able, less fit, less willing to walk or less willing to share a wobbly bus with dozens, often smelly unpleasant people in tight spaces in less than ideal weather (too hot in summer or too humid in rain). If we had more subways, LRTs or elevated mag lev pods (like here http://www.skytran.us ) then some folks would also chose that as a reasonably fast, non-wobbly transit vehicle removed from the weather.
What we need is more pedestrian friendly shopping experiences, say on Robson, S-Granville, Davie, Main, Commercial, Hamilton, Mainland or Denman, where plenty of parking garages are nearby or accessible by rapid public transit. That is why Park Royale, Oakridge, Pacific center Mall or the new airport mall are so popular, and S-Granville, Davie, Main, Commercial or Denman still have cars and parking stalls on the street. Not so clear why Robson is not closed in its entirety from stadium to at least Thurlow or Bute and made into a pedestrian zone, or some Yaletown streets like Hamilton or Mainland ?
Maybe if the Commercial High street transformation is successful they will do the same for Robson.
“dozens, often smelly unpleasant people in tight spaces in less than ideal weather”
Generally speaking I’ve found the above characterization is the kind of nonsense people who don’t use transit use as a justification for driving. Nothing else. The reality is that for the most part our bus service is used by people who are exceptionally average in odor and other characteristics.
All these NEW routes are listed as part of the long term plan that was drawn up a few years ago. Now we can clearly see that although the referendum/plebiscite was claimed to be necessary to fund new bike lanes, it wasn’t. Without missing a beat the new bike lanes are coming, just as planned and the money will be taken from the Operating Budget.
“Report Date: November 5, 2015 Financial – The projects referenced in this report will be funded through the approved 2015 Capital Plan. The projects scheduled for 2016 have been identified in the 2016 Capital Budget for consideration by Council on December 9th, 2015 and final approval on December 15th, 2015. The remaining projects will be approved as part of the annual budget process.”
There could not be a clearer demonstration that the bike lobby holds enormous sway at City Hall. The plebiscite failed but they soldiered on regardless. Long reports and planning proceeded and the money shall be found. All those panic cries for more and more money were nothing but drama, as we knew.
The reason that the City is doing cycling stuff is because that’s what people want. Vancouver citizens have been asking for this for decades. Should they ignore the will of the people? And when people get together and support something collectively, should their opinion and needs then no longer count?
Having a place at the table is not the same thing as holding enormous sway.
No, a small and very vocal lobby wants it. Just as during the NPA years a small and very local lobby on Kits Point was able to dictate policy. Look at the transport mode share of cycling, this is not a huge section of the populace.
60% of the population is not small.
Bob you know that this was passed unanimously which includes 2 NPA councillors. Bike lanes are accepted as a good thing by almost everyone in Vancouver.
My mistake, just read another comment, I would prefer to delete this comment ^ It was passed unanimously on a information only basis.
Eric, the plebiscite was for a new funding source for TransLink and would have provided funds to improve transit, cycling and some road projects. This would have helped municipalities to roll out more cycling projects through cost sharing arrangements. Unfortunately, municipalities now have to pretty much go it alone.
In other words, that means the city won’t be able to roll out as many bike lanes as they would if more TransLink funds were available.
“The plebiscite failed but they soldiered on regardless”
Are you suggesting that the referendum only lost because of the inclusion of bike lanes? This was a referendum on a very specific tax, and it’s largely agreed to have been defeated due to the reputation of Translink, which will not be implementing these new on-street bike lanes. Any connection between the two is imaginary.
On the other hand, Vancouver has now had two elections, both of which were fought largely on the issue of bike lanes, and both of which were won by bike-lane party, if you can call it that. I’d say that’s a pretty clear democratic mandate for more bike lanes.
“Look at the transport mode share of cycling, this is not a huge section of the populace.”
The clear majority of Vancouverites get around without a car, and yet the vast majority of street space is dedicated to cars. This is an imbalance that needs correcting for all modes of transportation – not just to improve bike access. Unfortunately, the provincial government has not been forthcoming about plans to improve transit – a provincial responsibility – but that shouldn’t stop the city from going ahead with plans to improve cycling, rather, as Mr. Gauthier says, it makes those cycling even more urgent.
I should also point out that cycling mode share looks at regular commuters. If you asked people if they had used the bike to get around sometime in the last year, I’m sure you’d get a different answer.
Tessa, thanks for your feedback. I was not suggesting that bike lanes were a big issue in the plebiscite but simply that since the plebiscite failed, there is now less funding available for bike infrastructure in Metro Vancouver. Also, I would not suggest that Vision is a one trick party or that they got elected simply on their support for cycling, though this certainly helped. Some detractors of Vision seem to make a big fuss about their support for cycling.
Results of a survey commissioned by the BC Cycling Coalition last year show that almost 70% of adults in BC ride a bicycle at least once a year, 42% at least once a month and 25% at least once a week. The levels must be much higher in Vancouver.
Council did not unanimously approve the staff report and add all these new bike lanes, as reported in much of the press.
The staff report had three sections. A and B were simply information updates referring to the five year plans. Council simply voted to receive the report. Using Commercial as an example, it has been on the plan for years. There was no change. It is still there. When it gets moved ahead, there will be further consultation (beyond the Citizen’s Assembly that has been done), design reviews, and a request for Council to approve the plans. That is all off in the future. All staff voted for sections A and B was to receive the update report from staff.
For section C, there was a decision required from Council, having to do with skateboards in some bike lanes. Council voted to go ahead with the one year trial, but not unanimously as two councillors voted no.
Author
Thanks, Jeff. Improved clarity is always a good thing.
Tessa; what is suggested is that after the convincingly failed referendum the public was told that new buses could not be purchased and many routes are to now be cut or shortened. A public press release and public consultations are being held in this regard. Yet, these bike lanes are proceeding.
The Mayor’s Council, before, told us:
“As the authorities responsible for most streets and roads in the region, municipalities play the primary role constructing bikeways and walkways.
TransLink plays an important catalytic and coordination role in helping to plan and FUND facilities and programs across the region, including bicycle parking, local bikeways, development of a Major Bikeway Network, and walking and cycling connections to transit.
For cycling investments, the priority will be on cost-sharing traffic-protected facilities in Urban Centres, Frequent Transit Development Areas and other high cycling potential areas.
PROGRAM SCOPE
This program would augment the existing Bicycle Infrastructure Capital-Cost Sharing (BICCS) program to provide cost-share funding to support an additional 300 km of traffic-protected bikeways and 2,400 of designated bikeways throughout the region, as identified by municipal transportation and cycling plans.
Facilities would generally be constructed on a cost share basis with municipalities, but the cost share amount may vary depending on facility type and regional priority.
• Cost share funding would be ramped up over the first 5 years of the plan to ensure sufficient time to build matching funds into municipal capital plans.
• TransLink-owned assets would be funded at 100%.
• Regional priorities such as traffic-protected bikeways in Urban Centres and key links on the MBN would be cost-shared at up to 75%.
• All other municipal bikeways would be eligible for cost-sharing at 50%.”
The question therefore is obvious.:
TransLink is clearly an integral contributor to the funding of cycling facilities across the region, is TransLink continuing to fund the announced expansion of the cycling infrastructure in Vancouver while telling the public that bus route services shall be cut due to a lack of funds, or is this entirely now being financed by the City of Vancouver?
There is not evidence that TransLink is funding these cycling projects. And why would it be wrong if they did? Cycling is the least cost way of providing mobility in an urban setting. With inadequate funding levels, TransLink should be focusing more attention to the cycling network.
Eric: “The question therefore is obvious…”
So, it would seem, is the answer. Your post describes the additional funding as an augmentation. It would have allowed municipalities to do more, or to do the same more quickly. The new funding didn’t pass, so the existing funding carries on. Just like the existing transit funding carries on. The failure of the plebiscite did not cancel all buses. It meant that as the funding is fixed, as population and demand grew, service levels will drop. Just like the bike lane cost sharing program. It doesn’t expand, but it carries on. And since cycling demand is growing faster than any other mode (lots of studies, if you would like a link) it means cycling infrastructure service levels will drop. But there still be new bike lanes. Just not as many, and/or not as quickly.
The SW Marine bike lanes just discussed at council include a cost sharing component. Less than 50%. All described in the staff report. The route is part of the Translink Major Road Network. I suspect that means that the road rehabilitation for vehicles will benefit from cost sharing for that component as well, but I haven’t read that report.
Bus routes are being removed or cancelled to allow more buses on other higher demand routes. Not because of bike lane investments.
But now think about what should happen. Since bike lanes are the lowest cost way of moving people, Translink should fund more of them. They should take the funds from road rehab budgets. It doesn’t matter if you or any other single driver chooses not to use the cycling infrastructure. Lots of drivers have good reasons why they can’t, or don’t want to, cycle. That is fine. They will have more space on the existing roads as other drivers shift to cycling (or transit, for that matter). They benefit, whether or not they ever pedal themselves. Drivers should logically be supporting bike lane infrastructure investment out of self interest.
.
Jeff, You’re confirming that TransLink is partially funding these new bike lanes. Thank you.
But that does not mean that the TransLink cycling budget has increased recently. It is now at 10 year low and will not increase anytime soon.
No, I confirmed that Translink is partly funding one of the lanes, the one that is currently before council (SW Marine). According to the CoV staff report.
You seem to think of Translink solely as a transit operator, forgetting that their mandate includes issues beyond transit.
Where did you confirm it?
You are now confirming that TransLink is not funding these announced bike lanes?
We all know know what TransLink’s mandate is.
That’s super-groovy Arno. Yes, cycling is tres cool. The point is Arno, there are many people than cannot hop on a bike and we, and TransLink, have to remember they too exist.
Did TransLink shift funding from other areas to continue their stated traditional and anticipated level of funding cycle infrastructure? Is this why bus routes are being reduced or cancelled? If so, is it right that those that rely on, or are completely dependent upon, bus services be deprived of transit services to just enlarge the infrastructure of one mode of transportation in just one municipality, that serves less than 2% of the citizenry in the region?
If TransLink is not a contributing funder of the just announced expansion of the Vancouver bike infrastructure, then why would Vancouver forge ahead spending its own taxpayers’ funds when the call for new funding was recently so dire and desperate and this expansion only means that the entire expenditure has to come from the Vancouver city budget?
If the answers to these questions are unclear then it seems highly likely that Jordan Bateman, of the Candian Taxpayers’ Federation, was absolutely correct when he said that funding as laid out the Mayors’ Plan could easily be found within existing budgets.
“there are many people than cannot hop on a bike and we, and TransLink, have to remember they too exist.”
Good point. The current funding model of 100% for bike infrastructure and 0% for other modes must be revised.
I know it’s ambitious, but we should be calling for 15% of streets to have physically separated car and walking lanes. We also need to start targeting budget towards a minimum of five bus lines, with an eye towards at least 1 km of rapid transit in the next two years.
There are people who prefer to drive, people who prefer to walk, people who prefer to take transit and people who prefer to cycle. And we shouldn’t forget skateboards, wheelchairs and mobility scooters. Just because some people are not able to or do not want to use one of these modes does that mean we should not fund it? Following your argument, we should not fund sidewalks because dome people cannot walk or maybe we should not fund roads because some people do not have driving licences.
Eric: “Where did you confirm it? You are now confirming that TransLink is not funding these announced bike lanes?”
You keep jumping to conclusions. I made no comment on the funding for this list of future bike lanes.
I did point out that the funding for the SW Marine bike lane, which is currently before council, was discussed in the relevant staff report. Read it here:
http://former.vancouver.ca/ctyclerk/cclerk/20151210/documents/ptec8.pdf
You are talking about all of the bike lanes in the 5 year plan referenced and linked to at the top of this thread. There is no discussion of funding in that report, as it is simply an indication of what the City would like to do over the coming years. There are no budgets, detailed plans, or approvals. Translink is not mentioned as a funding source in that report. I presume that the City will look for co funding when the time comes for each project, and it will depend on Translink funding availability. That makes your claim that Translink is funding this long list of future routes look rather speculative.
Translink is only mentioned twice in the 5 year plan report. Once for the trip survey which gives us mode share numbers, and once for the Cambie Bridge, which is part of the major road network (as are other routes in the report).
Jeff,
Thank you for your informative, nuanced, and extremely patient responses on this thread.
Pacpost;
You are most welcome. Thanks to you for your posts on other subjects that I don’t have as much information on, and which I learn a lot from.
Jeff. You don’t seem to understand that this thread is about the Report of November 5, 2015.
“Report Date: November 5, 2015 Financial – The projects referenced in this report will be funded through the approved 2015 Capital Plan. …(etc)”. as I copied and pasted above.
Eric: “You don’t seem to understand that this thread is about the Report of November 5, 2015.”
You don’t seem to understand that this thread is about the CoV staff report of Nov 5th that simply lists 5 year plans, as an update. It doesn’t go into detail.
Each project comes forward for funding and approval when it is designed, consulted on, and ready for a decision. One lane is there now, SW Marine. It is item (i) in the 5 year plan report. I gave you the link with the funding information on that one project. You seem to be bothered by that information. Sorry if it doesn’t support the conclusion you jumped to, namely that the City would be funding 100% and that this proves that the plebiscite funds weren’t necessary.
The plebiscite funds would have been an augmentation (as you posted) and would have impacted the rate of construction, ie km/yr, not the existence of any such construction.
Unless, of course, Translink decides to support the position the DVBIA described, whereby without new transit investment we need to build more bike lanes. This would mean taking the funds from other Translink budgets. You asked if that meant cancelling buses, but I think it would more logically mean not spending money on major road projects.
I did not jump to any conclusions. I simply asked a perfectly valid question, that you continue to skate around and deflect.
We are certain that TransLink can fulfill all of it’s 5 year plans (where have we heard that before?).
Eric: “I did not jump to any conclusions”
Well, you celebrated the release of the 5 year plan by saying that this proved the plebiscite funds weren’t necessary, and the City could just pay for these lanes out of their own budget.
It was pointed out to you (with supporting documentation) that the lane that is currently being reviewed by council (the first one on the 5 year plan) has a cost sharing agreement with Translink.
The issue is that we won’t be able to build as many bike lanes, across Metro, due to shrinking funding (reduced gas tax). But we could always divert funds from Translink’s road budget, since cycling is the fastest growing mode (+16% year over year) and we should support that to maintain service levels the best we can given the limited budget. It is in driver’s best interests to do so, as every bike is another vehicle not competing for road space with motor vehicles.
Jeff; It’s good to know that you are finding ways to live within your means, we, and the vast overwhelming majority of voters didn’t want you to hurt struggling seniors and financially-squeezed families. It’s good to know that the funding is being found in the existing budgets.
We’ll keep an eye on it and look at the financial statements to see just how well you are doing.
Plenty of money in the existing budgets if they tighten the vast number of employees’ belt a little more to bring those salaries & benefits (incl. pension) in line with private sector norms ! Easily the ENTIRE 700M required for transit in a $5B+ budget across 20+ MetroVan municipalities. It is primarily the public sector unions that hold the tax payers, and re-electable politicians, ransom due to their monopoly employer situation. We need some reporting on benefits and pension, usually buried deep in the op budgets, but approaching 25% of a budget item in some instances !