Despite the recent efforts by NPA Councilors DeGenova and Affleck on twitter to rile up opposition to the proposed Cambie Bridge bike lane, the public has responded in the same way they did in 2011 and 2014.
- We like bike lanes
- Yawn
It’s a handy barometer of public opinion going in to the 2018 civic election.
That post by De Genova is pretty gross from a sitting Councillor. The random yelling notwithstanding, if she has opinions on the bike lane surely she can explain them and tell us why she thinks it’s a bad idea rather than this ridiculous angst baiting tweet.
She probably doesn’t even oppose the bike lane it’s just partisan bs. No wonder people tune these people out.
Watching the Council meeting now…these people are all children.
‘Point of order, these people don’t like what I like’
‘Point of order, which order are you referring to?’
‘Point of order, let me reference point 5.4.4.73..87.34..7.4.7.4.’
‘Point of order, the NPA said that…’
‘Point of order, how dare he talk about my political party’
‘Point of order, are you saying your party all the thinks the same’
‘Point of order, why do you hate safety’
‘Point of order, this is stunning’
‘Point of order, some Councillors make this issue divisive’
‘Point of order, this is going to be too expensive’
‘Point of order, these facts are facts’
‘Point of order, your facts don’t match my facts, it’s your emotion’
blah. blah. blah. Councillor Reimer could not sound more disinterested.
It is even more striking when you attend in person. I was one of the three speakers to council in favour of the new protected bike lane today. The opposition speakers failed to materialize, despite the call to action. Which left it to some councillors to look for wedge issues.
Our new councillor thought there should be a Transportation Plan so that they didn’t have to vote on all of these things piecemeal. Something with a longer term view (not a vision, that was carefully worded). He should have expected that a Vision councillor would introduce him to Transportation 2040, which is a longer term view. And Councillor Deal did so.
Councillor Affleck asked why it all had to be so divisive, why were people using this decision for political points. But he didn’t mention his tweet.
Councillor De Genova likes using points of order it seems. She thought $400 k on the bridge improvements was not respectful of citizens, that it was too much. But she did want to hire a consultant to explore building a new low level pedestrian and bike bridge across False Creek, a project that was estimated at $75 million last time it was floated.
So on we go.
Then it passed. Councillor Carr jointed in, so only the NPA was against it. Good news for those who ride across the bridge, and for those who walk across it. As well, the City will soon be improving Smithe to eliminate the combined turn lanes and bike lane (mixing zones) as part of repairs to Smithe. That issue didn’t come to council, but will happen soon, and will improve connections off the bridge into downtown.
For a post entitled, “Tactics In Need of Revision”, I would suggest the tactic in Need of Revision is CoV’s approach to these bike lanes. Before everyone tunes out, hear me out. There is no reason this need be a forced choice between bike lanes and vehicle lanes (unless you have a political agenda).
I attended the Open House for this proposal and quickly became evident it was going ahead, at least in its “Interim state” because it was a “cheap improvement” pilot to support the “greenest city”, active transpo, etc. Dedicating 1/2 a full day to raise concerns was as silly as De Genova’s squawks. The really cost is when this becomes a permanent fixture, especially redesigning the SB exit ramps to connect to the bike network and make the Skytrain & intersection areas safe..
The Cambie bridge road deck measures 24m from edge to edge and has a symmetric roadway under-structure. If the proposed NB roadway can accommodate a 4.0m shared path and 3 lanes of traffic, so can the SB! Just move the West curb wall in, same as the East is and make a similar shared path. Engineering staff indicated this is technically feasible and not cost prohibitive in a permanent configuration, as the barriers rest on top of the deck. The vehicle lanes could also be shrunk from their 3.4m configuration; narrower lanes make for slower (and safer) traffic and the remainder also given to the shared bike/ped sidewalk.
The “compromise” satisfies both the desire for a bike lane and does not reduce traffic capacity. There need not be a war on vehicles at the Cambie Bridge.
Note: the proposal claims to not reduce SB capacity, which is only true if you consider Cambie traffic. Any traffic exiting 2nd/6th will now be mixed into the other lanes exponentially increasing travel time for those users.
Staff also admitted they lacked data (missing or medical privacy) to conduct a proper analysis to explain the exponential increase in minor injuries relative to volume or time, though it makes for an easy supporting argument to “must improved safety”.
Redesigning the SB (west) exist ramp to connect would be more expensive, if and when it is done, But the connections to the bike network and improving the intersections are included in this project. It is $400 k for the bridge lane, and $200 k for the work at the south end.
City Engineering drawings don’t show a symmetric structure. The bridge was built with a wider east sidewalk in expectation of heavy pedestrian traffic to the stadium during events. The west sidewalk is 1.6 m, the east is 4.0 m. That is the sidewalk that was designated a MUP some years after construction. The barriers could be moved to reallocate lanes, but it isn’t as simple as just moving barriers. Look at the poured footings for all the lampposts, and the lampposts themselves. These are the types of things that can be considered in a permanent construction in future, but would cost much more than $400 k now.
The war on the car rhetoric is tiresome.
Agree that there is the potential for traffic exiting to 6th westbound to be backed up at times. I suspect that some traffic, being dynamic in nature, will shift to the Granville Bridge if that is the area people are heading to anyway.
I went back to look at the bridge dimensions to evaluate Ian’s proposal for narrower vehicle lanes. There are 6 vehicle lanes, and they could be narrowed from 3.4 m to 3.0 (for example), shifting the centre divider eastward, thus freeing up 2.4 m for a 2 m protected bike lane and a separation barrier. What this wouldn’t do is provide a future solution for the MUP. There would be no further room to build a future NB protected lane, since the longer term goal is to separate people walking from people on bikes. Leaving the MUP in place as a shared space isn’t a long term solution. It appears that narrowing the vehicle lanes would be a higher cost, and even more temporary, solution, than what was selected by the City engineers as the best solution.
Jeff, appreciate your constructive comments; doing better than council! Agree there should not be a war on the car but why permanently eliminate vehicle lanes if alternatives exist?
– From the underside, the East and West base wing structures appear close to identical, though certainly the East sidewalk is wider on the top. Could not find a proper cross-sectional diagram w/overall measurements
– The “poured footings”, wall and barricade are poured on top of the deck slab. It is as simple as knocking it off and pouring a new one on top. Again, this is not viable as a interim option but is a better “permanent fix” than removing a traffic lane.
– Ideally yes, there would be a separated bike lane from peds and vehicles, but compromises are a reality. I’d rather see wide shared pathways on both sides and 3+3 traffic lanes.
– $200K for the off-ramp is just for a temporary (and terrible) sol’n as it does not connect well, dumping bikes into the crowded sidewalk, but they said had limited temporary options (agreed). That entire corner needs reworking for a permanent, safer sol’n which avoids Skytrain traffic, connects to the other bikeways, avoids dismounts, etc.
– For the permanent solution, I suggested closing the direct angle-off ramp and add WB left-turn from the loop. Then cars are separate from bikes and peds at the intersection. They liked that idea.
– It will be a long time in the future before volumes would warrant dedicated bike lanes over vehicle lanes (HUB’s/your threshold may vary to mine). And if it does reach that point, just move them over again to suit. Maybe we look at an underslung pathway like the Olympic Line Skytrain bridge has? Who knows, we might want a streetcar there by then too!
Regards.
Hi Ian
“why permanently eliminate vehicle lanes if alternatives exist?”
I would say because they don’t have sufficient utility. Would we widen the bridge to build those vehicle lanes, if they didn’t exist? If we need three lanes across the bridge, then we likely need even more lanes up Cambie from 7th, as the traffic lights regulate volumes. And we could then plan to restrict turns on Cambie from 7th to 12th. I can’t see that being a positive step. But it would take full advantage of three lanes on the bridge. Seems a bit like a highway though.
“the East and West base wing structures appear close to identical”
Except for the additional width. Take a look at the drains on the road deck, they are asymmetrical as well.
$200 k is not for the off ramp. It includes the separated connections at the foot of the ramp, including the new path to Moberly, the new path to Ash, the improvements to the intersection to the east, and so on.
I suggested using the WB loop to the City as well. That option failed due to the traffic modelling which was done and which showed unacceptable congestion and delays if WB and EB vehicles both used that ramp. During the Olympics when that configuration was used, there were reduced vehicle volumes.
Dedicated bike lanes (and more importantly, sidewalks) are justified now based on our longstanding approved transportation mode hierarchy. All councillors and major parties support it. All we are doing is following it. I would say there should be safe sidewalks, protected bike lanes where the volumes of vehicles justify them, dedicated transit lanes, and then if there is a case for more motor vehicle lanes, go at it. We shouldn’t play a game of “we might want that as a car lane in the future so sacrifice pedestrian and cyclist safety today” but rather follow our hierarchy. The advantage of having principles agreed to is we don’t have to design this every time, we just need to hold proposals up to our agreed principles and see how they perform.
I’m very non-political partyish (almost wrote “non-partisan” there) so I don’t really care which party is in power as long as they’re effective at getting things done and having everyone be involved. Also I like honesty about their motives. I also like there to be multiple viewpoints at the table and nobody left out.
The NPA once did some great things but in the past decade they just seem to be contrary for the sake of it. They don’t seem to have any principles. Just reactiveness and being against things without being for anything. I really don’t know what they’re about or are in favour of so it’s hard to consider them.