Sort of a twinned tweet thing, as two views of the world of active transportation bounce around in my ever-dimming mind. Be aware, the first item is a big rigorous scientific study — so there’s little material there for cheap shots. For that, you need to look at the second item.
First, the results of a major study on transportation mode and its effect on population health. The results around bike riding are startling in their magnitude. And cast a brighter light on Bike to Work Week, a Vancouver institution, and just what it means. Plus a response from Kay Teschke, prominent UBC professor in the field of population health.
Second, a noisy attempt to reverse, delete, remove and expunge Vancouver’s bike lanes (Burrard Bridge especially), since according to the proponent, usage is low and, you know, cars cars cars.
Here We Go
FIRST: a summary of the study, written by the principals, in reader-friendly prose. The British Medical Journal long-form article is HERE.
To get a better understanding of what the UK could be missing, we looked at 263,450 people with an average age of 53 who were either in paid employment or self-employed, and didn’t always work at home. . . .
We followed people for around five years, counting the incidences of heart disease, cancers and death. Importantly, we adjusted for other health influences including sex, age, deprivation, ethnicity, smoking, body mass index, other types of physical activity, time spent sitting down and diet. Any potential differences in risk associated with road accidents is also accounted for in our analysis, while we excluded participants who had heart disease or cancer already.
We found that cycling to work was associated with a 41% lower risk of dying overall compared to commuting by car or public transport. Cycle commuters had a 52% lower risk of dying from heart disease and a 40% lower risk of dying from cancer. They also had 46% lower risk of developing heart disease and a 45% lower risk of developing cancer at all. . . . . [Emphasis by Ed.]
Some countries are well ahead of the UK in encouraging cyclists. In Copenhagen and Amsterdam, for instance, people cycle because it is the easiest way to get around town.
It was not always this way – both cities pursued clear strategies to improve cycle infrastructure first. Ways to achieve this include increasing provision for cycle lanes, city bike hire schemes, subsidised bike purchase schemes, secure cycle parking and more facilities for bicycles on public transport.
For the UK and other countries that have lagged behind, the new findings suggest there is a clear opportunity. If decision makers are bold enough to rise to the challenge, the long-term benefits are potentially transformative.
SECOND: a petition, with accompanying social media chatter, urging the City of Vancouver to tear out the bike lanes on Burrard and Pacific Avenue because they don’t get much use. Figures say otherwise, of course, with the bike counters tallying 157,000 Burrard crossings by bike in June, 2017, and a total of 1,285,000 in 2016.
Bike lanes, asserts the petition’s organizer, are an arbitrary attempt to “… force citizens to give up their cars . . ” . And no referendum either, or consent by the majority of citizens — although I dimly recollect the 2011 civic election, with bike lanes as a prominent issue, and 2014, when bike lanes were visible, if not so prominent. And the results were pretty clear, it seems to me.
But apparently this petition is raised in the name of democracy, and protecting freedom-loving motorists from vile predations ” . . reminiscent of public decisions made in underdeveloped Third World countries and dictatorships.”
No mention, by the way, of any benefits of bike riding — health or otherwise.
Best of luck with the petition, I say. I won’t be signing it.
The petition also says 85% of commuters to work drive to work. lol I believe the actual stat is 47% or something like that.
Within the city of Vancouver it’s 47%. For the Vancouver metropolitan area it’s 72%.
To my fellow cyclists who have read everything on the subject, and to those who are starting to see the light – a recent book: ‘Just Ride’, manages to add to the field – worth picking up.
What hilarious wording in this ridiculous petition. I’ll paraphrase, it says that mobility is a “fundamental constitutional right” and no one has the right to restrict motorists. I googled the Canadian constitution on mobility. I’m no lawyer, but this section doesn’t mention driving at all.
http://publications.gc.ca/Collection-R/LoPBdP/CIR/904-e.htm
If mobility is a fundamental right, wouldn’t that mean the city has to provide bike lanes?
No of course not. Bike’s are toys and not used to get from A to B. Only car drivers are upstanding citizens that have rights.
Entitlement dies screaming.
I knew it was simply a matter of time before this showed up here. This has shown up in my FB feed a few times. I post a rebuttal, stating that while mobility is a right, driving is a privilege and not a right, and they don’t get that driving may be curtailing the mobility of others that choose not to drive a car. Then I point out that the cyclists and the pedestrians are much more likely to be Vancouver Taxpayers than the drivers, who in all likelihood are commuting and don’t live in the COV. Burrard Bridge will still be four frigging lanes for cars FFS! After all this, my post gets deleted.
I have debated in my mind if I should call out this petition as fake news to people who share it
Also there are those who are not able to have or drive a car. They pay taxes too and deserve mobility just as much as anyone else. For some people it’s not a choice.
Mr Ileman is sadly misinformed.
He claims that there is only one lane of traffic eastbound on Pacific, while his accompanying photo shows two lanes. He is objecting to the construction traffic restrictions, which have more to do with water and sewer updates, and much needed bridge rehabilitation, than bike lanes.
He wants it put back how it was. Wait until he finds out that the number of vehicle lanes is being increased as part of this work. There were two lanes eastbound on Pacific; after construction there will be three, with two turn lanes to the bridge instead of one.
Northbound on the bridge, there was one turn lane to Pacific. After construction there will be two.
These changes have to do with the new phase protection at the intersection. This has been the second worst intersection in Vancouver for motor vehicle crashes. The City is addressing that, and rightly so.
But Mr Ileman wants the former situation to continue? He should be ashamed.
Intersection details here:
http://vancouver.ca/files/cov/detailed-map-of-proposed-upgrades-at-burrard-pacific-intersection.pdf
Yes, it’s a bit weird. Most of the comments are complaining about lack of consultation and then they keep bitching about horrible traffic at that intersection while there is a major reconfiguration happening.
I think people just are frustrated by the general traffic and lash out at any opportunity they get. I’d be frustrated too if I’d be driving in the city all the time, that’s why I bike mostly.
People from as far away as Kamloops and Prince George are signing it and at least half of the people must be so angry they cannot even spell correctly, much less use correct grammar.
Also, based on my statistics, 188.5% of all the people in the Westend commute by Jetpack.
It is pretty obvious that any form of exercise is better than sitting. Walking and/or biking thus beats taking the car or walking a bit more and taking the bus.
The bigger question is: is it practical in a hilly city where it rains quite a bit ? Or asked another way: where is is practical AND WHERE IS IT NOT ? It’s one thing to live in Kits and bike to work downtown. It’s quite another to work as a plumber or landscaper or framer when living in Surrey and having 5 different projects in a given month !
Specifically, therefore, is it good policy to close down Marine Drive from Granville to 41st ALL SUMMER LONG for the very few bike riders along Marine Drive (i.e. South Vancouver or Richmond) that go to UBC ? Or is this merely to annoy car users and stick it to them as no viable alternatives such as a subway to UBC along 41st or Boradway are offered when one lives jn Richmond, for example. Is a daily 20 to 25km km commute reasonable by bike ? Is it reasonable by e-bike, even in the rain ? If it is reasonable by e-bike, why are so few using them ?
Love to see some blog posts on e-bikes, btw .. and perhaps the psychology of use or non-use as an e-bike is doable from N-Van to downtown or from Richmond to UBC or from Burnaby to E-Van .. yet so few use it. Why ?
“…is it good policy to close down Marine Drive from Granville to 41st ALL SUMMER LONG for the very few bike riders along Marine Drive (i.e. South Vancouver or Richmond) that go to UBC ? Or is this merely to annoy car users and stick it to them as no viable alternatives”
This is nonsensical. Marine Drive is currently closed to people on bikes as well as to cars.
It is for water and sewer construction. Were you of the mistaken belief that it was to build a bike lane? That sounds a lot like the fallacy that Mr Ileman is operating under.
The real question on SW Marine isn’t about whether the City should be maintaining utilities like water and sewer lines. That is a given. It is whether the painted bike lanes that were rehabilitated and improved should be upgraded to be protected, given the higher vehicle speeds seen post construction, and the two bike crashes with injuries after the first phase of improvements.
Rain is easy to deal with – just get some good wet-weather gear. But we live in a city where complaining about the rain and making excuses not to ride a bike is something one seems expected to do. Nobody is expecting plumbers to do their job by bike. (Awesome when one does though.) Those kinds of statements are a deliberate attempt to make it appear unreasonable to ever ride for transportation. Why repeat them, Thomas?
Metro Vancouver isn’t all that hilly. It has a few hilly areas that will deter some. It also has huge areas of pancake flat. Why avoid that fact?
It’s great to ride in protected or off-road lanes when the weather is great. But I’d rather ride in those places in the rain than one a road with lots of traffic in the sunshine. Its not the rain that deters – but combined with MVs it can be brutal.
We shouldn’t encourage people to do stupidly-long commutes. It may be unavoidable for some. So why don’t the rest give ours and their health and well being a break and make smarter choices? Why make excuses for all those people who choose to make their lives miserable? If they love their picket fence so much, stop whining about the commute. It’s only reasonable that governments would encourage those things that bring the most benefit with the least cost. That ain’t big roads.
Seems to me there are several arterials that get you to UBC. What’s the issue on Marine? I haven’t been there lately.
The issue with Marine is that it is heavily traveled in both directions from UBC via 41st to Granville, to go to airport or Richmond or Burnaby, and it now being closed diverts traffic onto Kerrisdale & south neighborhoods and clogs Granville.
Bike lanes are not used much there and as soon as one car turns left it backs up cars for several blocks, as every commuter to UBC can tell you.
The issue is the lack of RAPID transit. It is all fine and dandy to add housing and bikelanes but no alternatives are provided. Ditto in N Van or Richmond away from Canada Line. It is poor urban planning and an insult to citizens & tax payers !
What does it have to do with bikes?
Would you ignore replacing the sewers for the 80 years it would take to get rapid transit along Marine? Should all utility work stop while the city figures out how to build all of Thomas’s transit proposals first?
If you want more rapid transit you need more density. If you have more density (done well) you have less reason to drive. Too many people driving isn’t a good reason to build it. It just encourages people to commute farther.
Fair enough. Utilities need road closures.
Visible are new bike lanes. And no or severely impacted left turns clogging traffic. Drivers there are furious.
Yet few if any e-bikers from Richmond to UBC, albeit feasible, even in the rain in January.
You do realize that left hand turns without a dedicated turn lane are often the reason for backlog on major roads (e.g. Broadway).
So the city removing them on arterial routes where they cannot put in a dedicated left hand lane is actually good for traffic flow. That it also benefits cyclists not getting taken out by inattentive car drivers is a benefit you may not see, but people on bikes will.
If drivers are furious, then why on earth are you misdirecting them from the reasons for the delay (there are too many of them competing for limited road space during water and sewer rehab work) to bike lanes which (as you appear to agree), have nothing to do with their delays? You make the same mistake as Mr Ileman made with Pacific at Burrard. This is where you apologize, BTW.
If there are fewer than expected people cycling along SWM, look to the data. The City has reported that only 20% of people cycling along SW Marine are female. That is a very strong indication of people on bikes not feeling safe there. There is a solution for this problem, it is called a separated bike lane.
Marine ought to be three lanes with counterflow lanes like Lionsgate bridge until a subway arrives at UBC. The flow reduction is an insult to frequent commuters from S Vancouver or Richmond to UBC as no realistic rapid alternatives exist.
The discussion is about how all the problems are blamed on bike lanes, whether or not the bike lanes have impacted vehicle lanes. You are off topic.
But since you want to argue for more lanes out to UBC, have you not been following all of the discussion about induced demand and how you can’t build your way out of congestion?
First thing to do is for MOTI to ban vehicle parking along SW Marine at the entrance to the endowment lands. That will take all of those vehicle commuters who get free parking, and then ride the bus the last stretch to UBC, off the roads. That will reduce traffic on the rest of SW Marine from Granville. It will make the bike lanes along SW Marine that they are parking in safer as well.
During the public hearing and council presentations for SW Marine improvements, the last thing the residents would have supported is more traffic lanes. The goal now is to slow the traffic, as it has increased vehicle speeds dangerously since repaving of phase 1.
Indeed free parking along Marine Drive, on 16th Ave and in Point Grey is a problem. The bigger issue is lack of alternatives though. It is poor planning to merely make car use more miserable to the second largest concentration of jobs in the Lower Mainland. Not having a subway or LRT and only buses is a real issue here. SW Marine road narrowing just aggravates the issue.
Again, where are the e-bikers from Richmond ?
SW Marine was widened, not narrowed. It was to accommodate larger buses as the route is part of the Translink major road network. It seems to have had the effect of raising median vehicle speeds, although the link between lane width and vehicle speeds has been disputed by the engineers. Maybe the vehicles are just driving faster (a greater percentage over the posted limit) because they want to.
Why would you think SW Marine had been narrowed? Tilting at windmills (bike lanes) again?
Why would we think the commenter is basing his remarks on verifiable facts given his posting history?
The problem with bike lanes is that they are so efficient. A large number of cyclists can navigate a bike lane without it looking “full” so these lanes always seem so empty. For amusement I googled images of “bicycles in Copenhagen”. One typical photo shows 17 bikes crossing an intersection at the same time in the same direction. As they cross, cars are waiting to turn right. Imagine the same number, 17 cars, waiting. At 20 feet or so per car, that’s a line 340 feet long — in other words, a whole block of cars waiting. Now, that line of cars looks far more impressive, but with most cars carrying one person, it’s pretty much the same number of people.
The capacity of one traffic lane-Cars: 2000 to 2200 per hour, Bikes: 14,000 per hour.
This morning I biked across the Burrard Bridge on the north bound quarter construction lane. There was 14 bikes ahead of me. By the time we reached the crest of the bridge there was more behind me. In the case of travelling cars I would allow at least 30 feet at a speed of 30 to 40 kph.
On day I was looking down on West Hasting between Burrard and Hornby. There was nine cars waiting for the Hornby light. A few minutes later there was two articulated buses that each could carry at least 50 to 70 passengers.
http://www.nsnews.com/opinion/letters/letter-entitled-cyclists-annoy-with-a-never-enough-attitude-1.21720928
Interestingly the letter writer does not “begrudge the hundreds of thousands of dollars spent on bike lanes”.
This has been a summer of cycling and swimming – used the car three times. For the past month it has served as a shelf for shoes.
Having been at the pool so often, and having lost ten pounds – still a bit to go to reach ideal weight – I’ve become sensitized to overweight. At the pool, fat has nowhere to hide. It’s shocking how many paunches, jiggle bellies, muffin tops, and man titties there are. More shocking is the number of boy titties. If parents do not provide their children with adequate sustenance, that is neglect. Yet overfeeding is also abuse. They are shortening the lives of their progeny and creating a variety of serious health issues.
It doesn’t take Sherlock to track down who has been at the concession stand, or who has driven to the pool. Maybe we can’t convince people to use more healthful locomotion, but we can certainly stop serving garbage at concessions.