NPA’s Hector (“I Like Fossil Fuels”) Bremner wins with 3% of eligible voters (13372/442792). Q: does he continue to push for massive SFH rezoning, and drag the NPA, kicking and screaming, with him? Or does this get buried behind a surge of BC Liberal-directed right wing initiatives. Will his by-election victory momentum be sustained by subsequent performance as a Councillor? Will it support a Mayoral bid in 2018? Watch the inevitable Council spark-fests with Councillor Reimer, a possible 2018 Vision mayoral candidate. Or should I term those “quasi Mayoral debates”.
Jean Swanson comes second — “Tax the Rich”. Despite it being difficult (if not impossible) for the City to do this, it’s still quite a message for traditional parties about what brings people to the polls in 2017. Probably 2018, too.
Green’s Pete Fry places third. Name recognition can’t overcome soft messaging and obvious lack of serious interest in rezoning, due to nimby-friendly policies.
Vision’s Diego Cardona places a distant 5th, as voters do what they normally do in by-elections: smack the powers-that-be. Cardona’s focus on renters fails to outweigh this. Neither does youthful charm and energy. The progressive vote-split doesn’t explain it completely, either.
Low turnout (11%), 4-way split on the progressive side, means special interests and energised minority positions are very evident. Note that Swanson/Graves combined would have won, as would either of them with Fry. Remember, your Complaint Coupons carry real-world weight, so let’s not have a whole lot of complaining about Hector.
School Board final composition a mixed bag party-wise. Final-final may change when official count released Oct 18. As of now, 3 Greens, 3 Visions, 2 NPA, 1 OneCity.
Is the NPA winning only 1/4 of the votes in a 1 candidate 1 vote election actually a win? Given turnout at 11%, I would think that is a worrying result for them, especially when you take into account the results for School Board. Of course for Vision, its an apocalyptic result.
Maybe we will have a very mixed Council in 2018.
Clearly, Vision got trounced and is past it’s prime http://www.vancouverisawesome.com/2017/10/14/vision-vancouver-got-trounced-in-the-byelection/
Clearly, Vision got trounced because it’s too much like the NPA. Different story for the school trustees however…
May be the voters wanted to say that the vision ideologized view on transportation, as epitomized below, has to stop:
https://voony.files.wordpress.com/2017/02/bikelanefalsecreek.jpg
https://voony.files.wordpress.com/2017/02/bus41stuckatknight.jpg
..A bike and more generally a city transportation policy, not done at the expense of the bus system is possible, but so far it looks Vision has shown no interest in that: may that change!
Priceless photos Voony!
The first photo is the Seawall. The (then) NPA dominated Park Board governs that. Why does the NPA hate pedestrians? Why???
Vancouver has always done a bad job with clearing snow and ice. Why would it be any different now?
This is a bit unfair. City only has a few of the bike paths on the snow clearing priority list while all Transit roads are very high priority as are all arterials. The city got caught by a good weather forecast on a holiday weekend and let their workers have some deserved reset. Unfortunately, mother nature had other ideas. To be fully prepared for these events would probably cost about 1000x what is spent on keeping some bike routes passable. I believe I was snow locked for about 2 days because equipment was working hard on arterials and ignoring the residential bike routes. We should encourage more cycling, and trashing the city for this is not going to help anyone. Cities like Denver, Colorado and most cities in the Netherlands do way more to keep people cycling in the winter and we should follow their fine example. Lets not lower ourselves to pitting one mode against another.
That’s right. Last winter I saw many places where the cycle path was iced over and next to it was a cleared sidewalk.
I don’t think politicizing City snow clearing policies is particularly helpful. If we want to pay more for more snow clearing and more snow clearing equipment, fine. That is an economic and service level discussion. It isn’t a political one, unless someone has copies of memos from a political party instructing staff to make sure roads aren’t cleared.
And I believe the seawall section in the photo is under City Engineering, not Park Board.
But if you look at the second photo, you see a road that isn’t in such bad condition, but with stalled transit buses. Transit buses equipped with all season tires (for good reasons…) won’t do well in that slush. They can’t use chains, it would cost a lot to use a full winter tire for the occasional snow event, and so we are where we are.
And what would posters do if we couldn’t blame a political party we didn’t like for all of our pet issues?
https://www.translink.ca/en/About-Us/Media/2017/February/Why-does-CMBC-use-a-snow-rated-all-season-tire.aspx
Good point. If city spent more on snow clearing, then Thomas would rant about high paid city workers sucking the lifeblood out of the city.
I have put the winter picture to illustrates the city priorities, not to discuss the city snow plowing efficiency and bus equipment (I have already answered that here…and all around the world, including Whistler, or Geneva, city buses use all season tire for good reason exposed by Translink and more).
one can also report to this tweet to see what the manager of the city transportation planning department was busy at, when the Transit network was on its knees:
https://twitter.com/Dale_Bracewell/status/807354109435097088/
Voony, why are you so anti cycling? Surely motor vehicle traffic has an enormous impact on transit. The pic you show is probably a one-off where someone made a mistake in not leaving a gap in the barrier. And how often do buses interfere with cycling? Why pit one good transportation mode against another? Why not rejoice that the city is providing mobility options for all and has increased cycling to the point where it is a form of mass transit? Isn’t this good for transit in that there is less crowding on buses and more space on the roads? Isn’t this something we should encourage?
Arno, why a post pointing the neglect of Transit (and pedestrian), make you conclude that that is “anti cycling”?
You infer that Vision improved Transit. may you provide me one example where Vision has improved the situation?
I have put a laundry list of “attack” on our transit system by the current council.
Also, you could be aware, I maintain a spreadsheet of all the bus schedule since 2007: the average speed of the buses in the city has decreased by 10 to 20% in the last 10 years. That is also confirmed by Translink numbers, and if there is one lever the city has on bus operation, it is traffic (bus lane, signal priority…): what the city has done to keep transit attractive and competitive?
As mentioned by Keith, Vision has focused on a very narrow demographic (the exclusive cyclist), at the expense of everything and everyone else. it could have been good to make a political statement in 2009 but now it looks people start to be tired of that single horse policy.
Don’t make mistake I am not the one pitting one transportation against another one, I am the one proposing that bikes supplement transit and not oppose it, and that is the reason I am supporting designs as below:
https://voony.files.wordpress.com/2014/11/scene5boctmorning.jpg
I just regret that too many bike zealots don’t share this view and worse, don’t see a difference between a bus and a car (what is certainly the case of CarFreeDay vancouver and Viva Vancouver), and dismiss transit on this ground.
You can continue to call me “bike lane hater” if that makes you feel good, but as others have suggested I believe your somewhat irrational worshipping of the bike make you missing the point.
I could have instead put the below picture to illustrate the city policy when it comes bike lane and bus:
https://voony.files.wordpress.com/2013/10/bus22burrardpacific.jpg
That + the closure of Robson to buses + …many other transit hostile policy leads by Vision…including the temporary ones leaded by the infamous Viva Vancouver, which main raison d’etre seems to be to disrupt bus service.
2 weeks ago, it was “car free” day in Paris, the whole city was closed to sov but…without hindering bus service (quite the opposite in fact!): unthinkable in Vancouver.
In Paris bike lane are not built at the expense of transit (quite the opposite too) or green space (like Vision was wanting to do in Kits), so that the bike lane policy doesn’t alienate so many people which could otherwise be naturally favourable to better bike infrastructure.
so Paris can move forward at much better speed than Vancouver, while increasing the passenger throughput of its arterials as below (under construction now):
http://paris.carpediem.cd/data/afisha/o/88/f6/88f6d0884b.jpg
Fantastic result. Videos from Gregor, Andrea Reimer, even Mary Ellen Turpel Lafond (shot in Montreal), George Chow, Raymond Louis. Endorsement advertising from Dawn Black and Tsepora Berman,. It goes on and on. The whole machine was behind the Vision candidate in money and endorsements but he only got 1% of the eligible vote. Oops.
I expected this. 8 progressives vs one conservative – the conservative has to win. Also, people tend not to support the party in power in a by-election. This is no reflection on the good work that the Vision team has accomplished during their terms of office.
Interesting to look at the VSB pattern voting. It’s clear that Carrie Bercic of OneCity benefitted from having a name starting with “B”. People voted their slate and then went back up to the top of the ballot and picked the first “other”.
I was interested that the top 3 vote getters for VSB were all Green Party candidates. IMO, after that slate won the top spots, three slates fought it out for the rest.
Yes, the refusal to randomize the name order is absurd – huge advantage to having a last name starting with something close to the top of the alphabet. Easy to see in every election.
I know a politician who changed her last name to her maiden name in order to be closer to the top in an alphabetical list.
There’s no question the council defeat is a disaster for Vision. To come in second when you were expected to win is a defeat, to come in 5th is a calamity. Could it be voters have tired of the bike lane bread and circuses and actually are more concerned about having a roof over their head?
Bike lanes and roofs over heads are mutually exclusive?
No matter the cost in taxpayer dollars?
The cost of cycling infrastructure is very low compared to car infrastructure however the return on investment is huge. We now have 10% of vancouver residents commuting to work by bike. Imagine if all these people used cars or transit – congestion and costs would be enormous. The city is very wise to provide mobility choices. What’s not to like about this. It is a win for everybody.
We absolutely do not have 10% of all Vancouver residents commuting by bike. You really believe 65,000 people commute by bike every day? I would be very interested to see how this claim can be made.
Tin, you have expressed the same sentiment previously. But you didn’t respond when you were supplied the data. Here we go again 😉
See this recent thread: https://pricetags.wordpress.com/2017/10/12/the-cost-of-not-pricing-roads/
There, you expressed disbelief over the claim of 25% walking to work, and asked for data. You were given a link to it in the next comment. Check it out. You kept posting in that thread, but never responded to the post with the link to the data. Maybe you missed it. So if you are in fact interested, as you claim, perhaps you could check it out, and then keep reading that link, because it also has the data on the 10% of residents cycling to work.
Arguing from incredulity essentially means you can’t imagine how it can be true. That doesn’t mean it isn’t true, it may just be a lack of imagination. Especially when there is data supporting the opposing position.
The study methodology is in the report.
Tin, to encourage you to read the study, I will point out that it is 10% of trips, not 10% of residents. We don’t have 100% of our residents commuting to work every day, either. See the report.
Tin Robot:
http://council.vancouver.ca/20160504/documents/pspc2-presentation.pdf
See 6th page.
Statistics Canada 20121 census data shows that up to almost 15% of residents in some areas around the downtown core commute to work. The 2016 commute mode census data should come out next month.
Build it and they will come.
Jeff, good point – what I wrote could be read two ways. To be clear, of Vancouver residents who commute to work, 10% make the commute trip by bike.
Sorry for not responding, Jeff. You rightly assume that I didn’t see the response on the other thread, but I have now. These threads can be a bit of a spider web.
I am glad we agree that the claim of 10% of all Vancouverites biking to work is false. That was my point and you have clarified, but it is interesting how one stat can accidentally be twisted into another, far more dramatic claim.
As regards 10% of all trips, this is based on the same panel report which I take issue with elsewhere due to it’s very small sample size of people (2,500 out of a population of 650,000) who have to agree to track their travel and as such, may be predisposed to a view. That is, it is effectively not very random or demographically accurate. I don’t see any info about the make up as it pertains to income, ethnic background, education or political views. Only age, sex and geographic location.
The one who inserted the word “all” in the stat relating to the number of people riding to work was you, Tin, not Arno. Arno referred to 10% of people, and I clarified for you that it is share of people commuting, a mode share stat, not a population stat. It is equally important to clarify that it isn’t just under half of Vancouver residents who use a car to get to work, it is only a bit less than half of those who actually commute to work.
You could also look at the stats for total trips (not just to work) as that only misses those who didn’t take any trips at all.
I think you need to spend some more time looking at the study methodology, and also the methodology of the Translink trip survey, since the two studies show very similar results.
Tin posted: “As regards 10% of all trips, this is based on the same panel report which I take issue with elsewhere due to it’s very small sample size of people (2,500 out of a population of 650,000)….”
Firstly, the report only focuses on adults, not children, so your population needs an adjustment. That is detailed in the report methodology.
When you say very small sample size, is that an opinion? Do you have an opinion on the number of samples based on the published 95% Confidence Interval, and the calculated statistical significance? Still think it is very small?
Since you seem to be suggesting a potential bias based on political views, did you not see the calculation of reported “Usual Mode of Travel?” That would allow you to weed out all those pesky bike riders (just as an example). If there are concerns with exaggerated reporting, and 10% report cycling, wouldn’t there be much more of a concern with the 50% who report driving? I wouldn’t look to the smallest population to sway the results, I would look to the largest.
We’ve seen, and paid for, these studies before. They are overwhelmingly biased with people over the age of 55. So remember, many of the respondents are retired!
The fact that the respondents are also bribed with possible free tickets to city attractions such as the PNE (hot dogs not included), is another guide to just how representative the respondents are.
Few people that actually work in the city are members of the group reporting and none are from Burnaby, Richmond or any other place.
Maybe because the lead company doing the study is from Colorado, USA has something to do with it.
I’m shocked that the survey asks for detailed gender and ethnic information. This is 2017. We are all a mix!
Ian, the results are measured separately by age group, gender, and home location. They are then weighted to match census statistics, the control group.
The study is for residents of the City of Vancouver. It would be quite worrying if in fact people that didn’t live in the City were included in the responses.
Read the methodology. It doesn’t sound like you’ve seen it before.
Repeating what Ian wrote does not explain the reasons.
Why would the results be impure if weighting and readjusting of the data using sexual proclivity and ethnic history were not included?
It raises the question as to who decided on the weight, of the weighting, and what does each ethnic group or sexual identifying group receive as a handicap in the final data.
It is distinctly embarrassing that we pay for this. It reminds us of black armbands.
Jeff, you make good points. I am still suspicious of the methodology, but admittedly, that’s my own subjective view. These kind of studies can be very useful, or wildly inaccurate. We have seen evidence of both. I suspect there were studies before which supported the need for “vital road infrastructure” in Vancouver which, thankfully, never happened. We have seen polling in politics which was way off the reality, especially lately, so my belief is that I would be very surprised to find that 10% of all commuters use bikes in Vancouver. Are they doing that this week, in the heavy rain? If I go to bike routes, I see them largely empty between October and May, when it rains a lot, as it does in Vancouver every year. That suggests to me that 10% feels impossible. If anyone happens to be passing by bike routes this week, please post pictures which show them teeming with commuters in the rain, or not, as the case may be, particularly during the rush hour times.
What’s wrong with asking for ethnic and gender information? For example, a good measure of how safe cycling is in a city can be correlated to the percentage of women among people who cycle. It is also clear that people who identify as oriental are less likely to cycle so it might be useful to find out how this demographic responds to changes in infrastructure, education and encouragement.
Our city is keen on collecting data so that they can measure success or failure and take appropriate action. I believe that CoV is that only municipality in Metro Van that has a permanent survey panel thoughTransLink also has a survey pane. Very prudent and a sign of good stewardship. They do listen to the people of Vancouver.
Tin: I bet you’re right that there are less than 10% of commuters using bike routes in the rain today. And I bet the hard-core cycle commuter uses bike lanes less than the mom who is trying out biking to work for the first time this year.
Does this single point observation mean the stat is wrong? Sure doesnt. Those cyclists are everywhere, filtering through backstreets and alleys and bikelanes. Just like the rest of vancouver traffic. If you take a picture of the Adanac/Main crossing at 5pm on a sunny wednesday afternoon it’s pretty easy to see where the 10% number comes from. Just because there is a seasonal fluctuation doesn’t mean the data is wrong. There is noticeable drop in traffic during spring break, and a notable increase in cycling when it gets nice in the spring.
Whats the point though? What are you arguing? That the data is flawed because it doesn’t support your limited observations? That we should be using season specific data to do infrastructure planning?
Arno. You say, ” It is also clear that people who identify as oriental are less likely to cycle so it might be useful to find out how this demographic responds to changes in infrastructure, education and encouragement. ”
Social Engineering 101. You have your work set out for you. Good that you have the massive COV budget at your disposal.
https://s-media-cache-ak0.pinimg.com/originals/68/e1/2b/68e12ba9ddeb67d9151226d974f61b93.jpg
Mitch posted: “Why would the results be impure if weighting and readjusting of the data using sexual proclivity and ethnic history were not included?
It raises the question as to who decided on the weight, of the weighting, and what does each ethnic group or sexual identifying group receive as a handicap in the final data.
It is distinctly embarrassing that we pay for this. It reminds us of black armbands.”
Your writing style gives you away. You keep using the same references. How many posting names are you currently using?
Why would you imagine that “sexual proclivity and ethnic history” were included as weighting factors in this survey? Did you just make that up? You were given a link to the survey methodology. So either you didn’t read it, or you are trolling. The weightings are clearly described in the methodology. 6 neighbourhood zones. 3 age bands. 2 genders. 48 total buckets. Weighting by neighbourhood zone, age, and gender, matched census figures.
What you or anyone else does in their bedroom is of no interest to the people conducting the survey. There are no questions relating to it. But you knew that, since the full questionnaire was attached to the methodology. There are questions on income and ethnicity. They aren’t used for weighting. They are reported on. That is described in the methodology.
Black armbands? Are we in mourning for the loss of truth perhaps?
William, my point is that advocates are using these stats to support their views and I don’t feel they are accurate. I have already said my view is subjective and so you can freely ignore it, but yes, it is based on observation. Is first hand observation such a terrible thing? It’s not perfect, but I would say that neither are these studies perfect.
Said another way, Tin doesn’t like data, doesn’t like that others use data to support their points, does like subjective opinions without data, and suggests that anecdotes have an equivalence with studies that have a defined methodology.
You know people the world over are demanding that their cities install high quality cycling infrastructure. It’s just the times we are in. It was not invented by Vision or by a mayor with a hobby. It comes from the people.
If any other party was in power at this time they too would have to do something about this demand from the people.
Nobody cares about cycling infrastructure right now. It’s not a problem. It’s just trendy.
It’s all about cost of housing. This is the big issue. If you rent or don’t own your own home, you’re taking a living standard hit.
The 20 somethings can afford to find somewhere to put their brooks saddled fixies, let alone replace them when they inevitably get stolen. These voters are starting to vote with their (empty) wallets.
Get back to me when gas is $15 a litre and we’ll see if it’s just a trend.
Maybe you’ve been in some sort of motorist bubble but there’s been a revolution in transportation the past twenty years or so. People throughout the world have discovered that many problems in transportation are a result of the outdated monomodal design of our streets. Wanting to include more travel modes is what people want now.
Of course we could pick any other expense and say that they should be spending money on something else instead. That’s politics. I expect that. Cycling infrastructure is a part of making the city affordable. It’s cheap to build and popular once it is built.
And provides huge benefits to society. I liken it to a money tree. the more you invest, the bigger the return on this investment. What other form of transportation does this so well?
I have an electric car. I’m already laughing all the way to the bank on that one. I don’t care if gas is $15/L. Nobody will either, if it gets to be more than about $2/L.
My spouse reverse commutes from East Van to Langley currently for very very little money in fuel.
I walk to work downtown, when I’m not building massive pieces of infrastructure in the middle of nowhere.
You guys are entirely missing my point. Bike lanes are fine and dandy, but nobody cares in this election. Gregor and company have crapped the bed on a number of issues way up the priority list relative to bike lanes. It’s probably not even in the top 10 issues of the average citizen.
The top 5 issues on most peoples lists are probably all about housing costs, property taxes, schools, etc.
They didn’t make a surpise bike lane announcement just before the election. They did however make an announcement targeting foreign investment. It’s not like the Mayor doesn’t time things for optics.
Well I wish nobody cared. I hope for the day when transportation changes can happen without politics getting involved.
Most forms of public transit also have the same health benefits. Same goes for walking.
Adanac, you must be joking about biking making the city affordable. Recently you could probably establish an inverse correlation. If cycling has made any difference, it’s pretty minor and hasn’t combated the mess that this city’s housing market has formed.
I’m not joking at all. Living in this city would cost much more if we were all forced to pay for a car.
:Likewise for me. I am a senior and am being heavily taxed for living in Vancouver. My property taxes more than doubled over the last 10 years. I save a ton of money by not having a car and by cycling for almost all of my trips.
I guess to clarify, it doesn’t cause rents to lower or price houses to drop but it is one thing that helps to afford to live here.
I agree that more should be done about the cost of housing. I don’t expect developers to be interested. Why would they? In the past there were programs to help co-ops get started. The federal government stopped doing that. They should do it again. It was good.
Here’s the funny thing. Right now, affordability is essentially a zero sum game.
Any thing you can do to make your life cheaper that is local piece of infrastructure seems to directly translate to a higher cost of housing because people are bidding the market up.
If you give a neighbourhood good cheap transit, then rents/sale prices go up. The people living there save money on the car, but they probably don’t saving anything after paying several hundred more in rent.
If you make a neighbourhood really great on a bike, then rents/sale prices go up. The people living their save money by biking, but again their net costs aren’t going to change much.
People right now are purchasing as much as they can afford in large enough numbers, that savings translate to inflated asset prices rather than real savings.
We’ll see what happens when the RE price asset bubble pops, but I see most affordability initiatives as ridiculous in the current RE environment. People are getting use to amenities and quality going down at the same time as prices increase. It’s a race to the bottom in terms of who can plow the most money into a bidding war for a grossly inflated asset.
The thing that all levels of our government have failed to do is calm people’s perception of a housing shortage.
Also Arno, if your property taxes have gone up so much why are you paying them?
Just defer them. The interest rate on it doesn’t even match inflation right now. You essentially get a reverse mortgage at government bond rates.
Utterly undiscussed in this context is its high immigration, about to be increased 50% from a goal of 300,000 to 450,000 a year.
Perhaps we will get a Trump-like moment too where Canadians say “enough is enough” or “Canadians first” .. as we hand out free ESL, free education, free healthcare, free policing etc like candy yet do not even ask them to pay income taxes here as $s get wired in for high end homes and incomes declared abroad. This stupidity has to come to an end.
At least we are now starting to enforce drug laws http://www.scmp.com/news/world/united-states-canada/article/2113889/china-linked-crime-probe-vancouver-student-his but CRA and real estate flipping laws widely abused still. Time to get tough and hand out some major fines and jail time !
Middle class non-house owning BCers have been screwed big time. Of course voting Green or NDP now does not help anymore as the train of high house prices forever has left the station 30 years ago .. the best we can do is force more rental construction thus lower rents per sq ft in 3-4 years as that is how long it takes to get supply up.
Justin (Sept.25. 2017 Toronto Star: “At a flashy Toronto conference hosted by Chinese e-commerce giant Alibaba Group Holding Inc., Trudeau took the stage in front of 3,600 Canadian business owners to urge them to “think big, think beyond our borders” as “much of the world is looking inwards, closing off, going protectionist every now and then.”
and Gregor (September 8. 2017 BDStar Nav, etc.) were both in China recently wooing more investment, which is good, but it also means more immigration and more buyers of property. Maybe they will bring their bikes.
On Saturday night Vision reminded us all of Hillary Clinton on her election night. They both just went home in quiet and hid.
No gracious congratulations to the winner or thanks to the team, just silence. Why? Because they don’t want any media running anything negative. No tears. No regrets. No recognition of failure. No praise to the winner.
With an 11% voter participation any fringe group could win actually .. and the second place guy “tax the rich” that almost won proves that. What does a 5th place for Vision tell us though ?
You can see why Vision lost with all the hysterical “thumbs downing” for the bike lobby here. Bike lanes must be defended to the bitter end, at the expense of all else. The electorate is tired of nothing being accomplished on housing affordability. Bike lanes may be great, but they’re not practical in connecting neighbourhoods people can actually afford with employment centres like downtown and UBC. Sooner or later even the hippest of hipsters gets tired of renting a basement suite in Grandview.
Why is it that some people are so anti cycling? No one criticizes the city for upgrading sewers, watermains, roads, transit. One can suggest that they did not do enough to improve affordability but why associate this with their efforts to improve mobility for everyone? I would really like to know where this hysterical hatred towards all things cycling comes from. Why is it that cycling attracts so much negativity given that it improves mobility, reduces congestion, improves transit and offers many other significant benefits to society?
Arno, they hate bike lanes because it reminds them how lazy they are. They used to have an excuse. “Cycling is dangerous!!!” Now that 5 year old girls can ride safely on some of our new infrastructure they no longer have the excuse. It drives them crazy.
Arno and Ron, examples a) and b) why Vision will lose the next civic election, just totally clueless as to the average voters priorities and perceptions. Gregor should be angling for a senate seat right about now.
I still don’t understand the hatred of all things cycling that we often see in pricetags commenters. Cycling is NOT a huge priority for the city. City is simply taking reasonable steps to provide a range of safe mobility options for us all. For some reasons that I don’t understand, some people blow this out of proportion and make all sorts of exaggerated claims about a city council fixated on only on issue. This is a lot of nonsense.
What is it about the reasonable improvements that are made to get more people to cycle in Vancouver are so objectionable? We should be lauding our council in this regard since we are now near the top among North American cities in moving cycling forward. What is it about the benefits to society that cycling offers that you reject? I just don’t get it.
You ask the wrong question because you assume there is a “hatred of all things cycling”. This is patently false. Many who oppose Vision cycling policies are cyclists. I’m one of them. It just isn’t black and white. I can be a driver, but not support a highway through Vancouver. The more you perpetuate this black and white position, the more you perpetuate a misunderstanding of the issues. It’s about the implementation of policy and the cities relative priorities and, in some cases, plain stupid decisions. Arbutus corridor is great for cycling. The plan to put a cycle route on Commercial when there is one a block away, is less smart. The PGR cycle route had all kinds of issues attached to it, principally millions spent to beautify the most expensive postal code in Canada. Is it a horrible bike route? No, but is it priority to spend millions on what is already a street of multi millionaires? Maybe some people don’t feel that’s an appropriate spend, especially when Vision promised to end homelessness and yet we have record numbers. It’s politics and priorities, not a hatred of all things cycling.
If you assume that bicycles are toys and that cyclists do not use them to do all the same things that motorists do, then a cycle route on Commercial is a bad idea.
Please explain to us why six lanes for motor vehicles and zero lanes for bikes make sense. After all, there are car lanes just a block away.
You feel that bike lanes should be on every single street, everywhere? Broadway, 12th, Granville, etc. I mean, if bikes do all the same things as cars, then I guess that’s your view, but I think that would have a devastating impact on the movement of vehicles in this city. We do need to have cars as well as bikes and they need to move and park and they are bigger than bikes, so they take up more space, but I’m sure you know that.
Good one Bob. Remember the NPA tried to make bike lanes an election issue last time round. How’d that work out for them?
You go Ron. Get out there with a big banner promoting Bike Lanes #1 and Vision.
It’s a winner!
Bob, I get it that some voters may not like seeing any tax dollars invested in cycling. They see change and they have an irrational fear that the change may affect them adversely. I believe that the city needs to so more to explain to residents why cycling is so essential to continue to provide safe mobility options for a growing city.
However Pricetags commenters are a group of intelligent people who are passionate about urban issues. I would like to hear from you and from those opposed to cycling why making a few improvements to cycling is so bad?
Arno in my cynical moments I believe that Gregor made great progress on bike lanes, backyard chickens and front yard wheat fields. On homelessness, later revised to street homelessness, his promised elimination of the problem failed so badly it is actually worse than when he took office.
Improving bike lanes doesn’t butter any parsnips with people affected by housing affordability (pretty much the entire population). So when the city is so successful at it’s program of cycling infrastructure, its failures are thrown into sharp relief. Why did the cyclists get so much successful attention? You are absolutely right in the value of cycling improvements, unfortunately you are up against the cruel political realities of public perception – a bunch of green dilettantes got exactly what they asked for, but bread and butter issues became an even bigger problem than they already were. It just looks like the focus of the city was not where it was most needed.
10/10. Keith gets it.
Keith, thanks for your feedback.
The city has numerous programs. They work on zoning changes, redevelopment proposals and work on any number of issues. Lots of work on transit, the transportation referendum, broadway subway, road improvements etc. Should they stop fixing roads, sewers and water mains and put all their focus on affordability? I’m sure that the city worked harder on homelessness and affordability than they did on bike lanes. Unfortunately, these issues require cooperation from higher levels of government which was not forthcoming. Maybe keeping the level of homelessness the same is a major accomplishment. Ditto for the empty homes tax. I just don’t understand why there is such an unnatural focus on one small aspect of what they do and what they were fairly successful in delivering. Why is this a lightning rod that draws in so much negativity? Especially among some of our fellow commenters
My sense is that we are now at a turning point where there is huge support for cycling city wide (with the exception of a few naysayers on Commercial Drive and among Pricetag commenters). Even Hector Bremner shared that he would be supportive of an increase in the city’s cycling budget.
Oh that old chestnut again! I commute from East Van to UBC every day by bike. It’s faster and cheaper than by bus or car, and it’s door to door service. Even today when it was windy and rainy, I still choose the bike over car or bus.
Congrats. While the other 99% chose a car or bus. Long distance commute is not the norm nor can it be expected in a hilly terrain by all in all weather conditions. The bike lobby cheers as Marine Drive SW from UBC to Granville St is now nicely repaved while 99% of car commuters to UBC (from Richomd, Burnaby, S-Van, Surrey ..) fume at the single car turning left blocking traffic for 4-5 blocks in the am and pm .. all the while the UBC Broadway line will get built in the mid 2020s to at most Arbutus. Perhaps Gregor Robertson will get his Nenshi moment next year, although I doubt it. Maybe 5 years from now.