Bike lanes on Commercial Drive & Cornwall Street? Go for it.
It’s clear that separated bike lanes have become good politics in Vancouver
It’s Bike to Work Week in Metro Vancouver and just like almost every first week of June I can remember here, the weather is not at all bike-friendly. My wife, who cycles from our east Vancouver home downtown everyday to work rain or shine for eight months of the year, doesn’t mind the wet weather because there’s fewer riders to share the road with.
And as a result it reduces the likelihood she’ll be killed or seriously injured during her ride.
The last thing I want is my wife not to come home because of a cycling accident. Stacey is the most safety-conscious rider I’ve ever met. She only travels bike routes, wears protective gear, respects the rules of the road, and never takes the kinds of risks that others might. She’s raised our daughter on good cycling practices, and no one in our household starts pedaling without a helmet strapped on our heads.
In spite of all the precautions there is a lingering doubt in my mind about her safety. Lately when she comes home she quips darkly, “well, only three people tried to kill me today.” She blames both inattentive drivers and careless cyclists. She regularly witnesses bike riders blowing stop signs, ignoring the rules of the road and taking their lives into their hands, right on the well-marked cycling routes that cross Vancouver.
In other words, there’s lots of blame to go around when it comes to cycling safety in Vancouver.
New separated bike paths proposed
A proposal is now coming from the City of Vancouver to improve bike infrastructure on two busy thoroughfares: Commercial Drive and the Cornwall/Point Grey Road route. Both routes present huge engineering challenges by being narrow. Both routes have a lot of cyclists and in the case of Cornwall it’s a busy car commuter route during the morning and afternoon rush hour. Commercial Drive appears to depend on a level of street parking to keep retail businesses viable.
For westsiders looking to get home by car, the Cornwall route is a top choice. It’s possible you could drive all the way from Burrard Bridge to Jericho Beach and never have to touch your brakes. Because this route has few traffic signals drivers are likely to raise a fuss if it is altered signficantly. While tens of thousands of car trips take Cornwall/Point Grey Road daily, it’s likely the surrounding community would welcome a separated bike track along this thoroughfare. While some folks will be unhappy, the majority of the public will probably be onside with the bike path.
Over on Commercial Drive the conditions are somewhat different. There is probably no neighbourhood in the city with stronger grassroots support for cycling and for separated bike lanes. Commercial Drive also happens to be one of Vancouver’s few vibrant suburban shopping areas. It would be foolish to assume that major alterations to the streetscape would not impact businesses, so it must be thoroughly studied. If the City wants to put some kind of bike path along this street, it certainly would be well-received by residents in the area if not by the businesses.
Unlike the Cornwall route, Commercial Drive has a parallel thoroughfare one two blocks away – Victoria Drive – that could also serve as a bike route. It would not have the profile of a Commercial Drive path, but it could achieve the same goals around safety. However, if you really want to make a statement about cycling, then you choose Commercial Drive, which what the City will do.
While there are many people who grumble – sometimes loudly – about separated bike paths taking up space otherwise used for parking or driving, the fact is that the public wants bike lanes. To support them is now just good politics in Vancouver. That doesn’t mean you run roughshod over the public process like we saw with the downtown separated bike lanes. I think there would have been less furor over the lanes had the public been properly consulted. With the routes along Cornwall and Commercial there is a chance to do it right.
A word about helmets
There are no shortage of people who have strong feelings about bike helmets. A bike helmet law was imposed in the 1990s under the NDP government of the day, and it’s one that the majority continues to support. When it became law a decent bike helmet cost you about $75 — today an attractive and safe helmet costs about a third of that. There is no excuse to not wear helmets, but many continue to argue we should toss our helmet law, including a former NPA mayoral candidate and city councillor, Peter Ladner. In a recent Business in Vancouver column Ladner says that bike sharing programs fail in jurisdictions with helmet rules, and with an announcement on bike sharing imminent in Vancouver, we can’t let helmet laws impede its success.
I disagree with Ladner, preferring the viewpoint of Vancouver Sun columnist Craig McInnes:
For me the most compelling argument for mandatory helmets is that children are the most likely to suffer permanent brain damage from a bike accident. The research clearly shows that in jurisdictions where helmets are mandatory, the percentage of children who wear helmets goes up.
While some jurisdictions, including Manitoba last week, have brought in mandatory helmet laws just for children, as a parent it was always much easier to get my kids to follow safety rules if the adults had to follow them too.
Vancouver has long been a city of cyclists. It’s becoming an increasingly popular form of transportation, and politically it’s a no-brainer. Ultimately this is about safety, and making sure that people like my wife make it home safely.
If you want bike lanes on Commercial and Cornwall, I say ‘go for it’.
***
Originally published at CityCaucus.com
May 29, 2012 @ 2:34 pm
Consultation? word is that Engineering staff are already told to be ready to put in the lanes.
I cannot imagine the businesses on the Drive are going to take kindly to any loss in parking whatsoever. A parking spot was taken over for a bike rack area and all hell broke loose.
May 29, 2012 @ 2:36 pm
I’m not quite as inclined to agree with the bike lane on Commercial drive, for the same reason I was against the bike lane on Hornby. Where a viable, non-commercial route is conveniently available, the city should always choose that.
Cornwall is for the most part a no-brainer. It’s narrow, but because of the nature of it being mainly residential, a bike track makes sense. As long as they keep it on the north-side of the street, away from businesses near Arbutus and Burrard streets, they’ve got a winning route.
As for Commercial Drive, a small part of me would love it if they went ahead with that route. It would kill all the trendy urban hipster establishments and would forever injure Vision Vancouver’s ability to be seen as the best decision makers for bike routes.
You have actually touched on the smart route for that corridor. Victoria. Every study says a pleasant ride away from traffic is going to encourage more cycling. Putting down concrete planters filled with weeds isn’t the way to go about doing it.
I used to use Broadway or 12th on my bike until the 10th Avenue route was made more attractive. Now I use that. Cyclists will choose the logical alternative if given the choice.
Victoria is the best option, which means Vision Vancouver will choose Commercial.
May 29, 2012 @ 2:50 pm
LOL Paul,
“Where a viable, non-commercial route is conveniently available, the city should always choose that.”
followed by
“As for Commercial Drive, a small part of me would love it if they went ahead with that route. It would kill all the trendy urban hipster establishments…”
Good stuff bud!
May 29, 2012 @ 3:22 pm
If you’re going to quote boo, use the whole sentence. You missed “…and would forever injure Vision Vancouver’s ability to be seen as the best decision makers for bike routes.”
May 29, 2012 @ 3:27 pm
Sure Paul, so as someone who theoretically cares about small business you would kill small business to score cheap political points. Again, good stuff.
I guess some businesses are more equal than others.
May 29, 2012 @ 3:31 pm
Oh boo… You’re hilarious. That’s why it’s “a small part of me.” Clearly for the business’ sake the smart choice is Victoria. As I said.
On a purely political level, yeah, I do hope they hang themselves with this decision. But for the businesses sake I hope they don’t.
BTW Q1 year to year numbers are in for Hornby. Cycle traffic is down 5% (even though we’ve had less snow and rain this year) and Burrard Bridge is down 15% since it opened. LOOK AT THEM FLOCK TO THE LANES!
May 29, 2012 @ 6:24 pm
Where is that info? In a CoV report? can you pls post?
May 29, 2012 @ 2:59 pm
Michael,
Well-reasoned piece with a measured tone – unusual for cycling stories in this town! A few points:
Commercial Drive likely does benefit from street parking. But how much? What is the ‘level’ that you mention? And what are the alternatives? Mixing it up with a busy trolleybus route will also pose challenges. All that said, cyclists want to be on the drive for the same reason that drivers do – it’s their destination, and they’d like to park close by. As you mention, the Drive attracts a lot of cyclists – it would be good to do a Convercité style survey looking at who visits Commercial, why, how much they spend, how long they stay, and how they get there. See http://www.convercite.org/en/bibliotheque-information/enquetes-et-rapports/enquetes-sur-les-arteres-commerciales/plateau-mont-royal/rue-saint-denis/ for an example.
On Cornwall, surely the benefits to cyclists of having a flat-ish route as close to the water and the beaches as possible outweigh the inconveniences to a drivers, who can take Fourth, Broadway, or Sixteenth, in any event.
Turning the wording around is a good mental exercise: “Commercial Drive has a parallel thoroughfare one block away – Victoria Drive – that could also serve as a car route.” If that logic works for one group, why not the other? In terms of narrowness, I’d encourage you to check out http://www.aviewfromthecyclepath.com/search/label/notenoughspace for some great examples and inspiration.
As for helmets, I’ll leave that for the Peter Ladner and Reverend Twowheeler of the church of sit-up cycling, whom I believe the evidence supports.
To end: great to see a reasonable piece on the need to rethink urban neighbourhoods for bikes, while acknowledging that it’s not super simple.
May 29, 2012 @ 3:58 pm
I live just off Cornwall and have not cycled on it for years, it feels dangerous. Anyway, I like the climb and flat is not a particular attraction, to me anyway. I can see your point about cars having many alternate routes. If Cornwall was cycle friendly I would no doubt be more likely to stop off, but there are places I like on 1st so they would lose the business.
May 29, 2012 @ 6:47 pm
So now we understand why you voted for Vision, Mayor, wanted bike lanes… for your own little comfort zone area. LOL, as long as you guys can keep the rest of Vancouverites outside you pristine playground, all is good!
Enough said.
Oops and there’s Chris Keam…
May 30, 2012 @ 4:29 am
Try to read, I said I would like to have bike lanes on 4th. I am indifferent to bike lanes on Cornwall as I do not use Cornwall as it is too dangerous.
May 30, 2012 @ 4:33 am
Also in favour of a lot more density along 4th and the streets that come off it.
May 30, 2012 @ 11:50 am
Actually you wrote “1st” and it puzzled me for a moment. “4th” it’s more like it. However 3rd or 5th would be even better. 🙂
May 29, 2012 @ 3:11 pm
Seriously @Paul T? Have you ever looked along Commercial. it is pretty much lined with parked bikes. In front of JJ Bean, there were two parking spaces turned into at least 10 bike parking spaces and they are often full. Bottom line is that many more people can park in front of business if they arrive by bike.
South of 1st, a lane or two of traffic could be reallocated making space for the bike lanes without removing much if any car parking. Might as well create a bike lane as bikes are taking up that lane pretty much all of the time anyway. The city says that even without bike lanes, 10% or so of trips on Commercial are by bike and I suspect that they are more likely stopping at businesses as opposed to car trips where many are just commuters passing through.
With good design and consultation with businesses, I expect that things will work out well for the most part with bike lanes on Commercial.
May 29, 2012 @ 3:26 pm
You’re right Richard, more bikes can park in front of businesses than cars. That doesn’t mean they have to ride in front of them. Fact is, cyclists choose a route that is more comfortable to ride on. A street that is already calm with far less traffic will be the obvious choice for cyclists who would then cut across to Commercial and park in front of the business of choice.
But like I said, I hope Vision chooses to go the Commercial Drive route for bikes. If they thought Hornby businesses put up a stink, wait til they get to the Drive. Should be an interesting summer.
May 29, 2012 @ 3:55 pm
I know I am much more likely to drop into a business if I am riding on the street. Otherwise it has to be a desination. It will indeed be interesting to see how stores on Commercial react. I would think that commercial Streets like 4th, Commercial, Main would be the best places to have bike lanes and that businesses would benfit. Of course some streets, like Broadway, are too busy, I never shop and seldom eat on Broadway anymore as it is too nasty to get there on a bike.
May 29, 2012 @ 3:38 pm
@Paul T.
With separated bike lanes, Commercial will be more comfortable to cycle on than many of the side streets in the the area. Many of them don’t go through away so people have to cycle on Commercial for a bit anyway. It is often difficult to effectively traffic calm side streets as access is required to people’s homes or schools. We just saw this with the problems traffic calming 45th near Boundary.
On the separated lanes downtown, people are now cycling with their children. A sure sign that they do feel comfortable.
May 29, 2012 @ 3:50 pm
“because there’s fewer riders to share the road with.
And as a result it reduces the likelihood she’ll be killed or seriously injured during her ride.”
Mike, if I parse this correctly it sounds as though you think your wife is safer with fewer cyclists on the road. All the studies I have read show that the reverse is true, the single greatest correlate of cycling safety is the number of cyclists.
May 29, 2012 @ 4:17 pm
As a 7-day-a-week cyclist I am going to continue to oppose separated bike lanes, because I do NOT think they improve safety. All they do is reinforce the wrong idea to drivers that bikes don’t belong on the road. Banishing cyclists to separated bike paths means that cyclists can’t make left turns, have to ride much more slowly, have to put up with wandering pedestrians, more broken glass and debris, bollards sticking up in the middle of the path, and perpetual conflict with right-turning motorists at every intersection. This is NOT improved safety for cyclists. It’s an improved *illusion* of safety, which equals less *real* safety.
May 30, 2012 @ 4:32 am
The vehicular cyclist school. I also have the same riding style. But if you look at the research vehicular cycling has not proven to be as safe as separated bike lanes. And now that I have a grandchild, I would like to be able to cycle places with her, and I don’t think vehicular cycling is the solution.
May 29, 2012 @ 4:54 pm
Why a bike lane on commercial north of Broadway. The dangerous intersections are all south of Broadway. I think Commercial drive self regulates, besides there is a bike route 2 blocks west of commercial already. There are people and cars and bikes and hipster longboarders all over the drive. The nature of the road makes you pay attention when driving it. Removing a parking lane would horribly alter the atmosphere and economics of the drive. Car traffic would all be pushed on to the residential streets, meaning we’d all need to get permitted streets, and kick in more to the city, and lose the flexibility of street parking.
May 29, 2012 @ 8:40 pm
The thing is many of those businesses depend on people driving from outside the area to support them. As much as the hipsters like to think that they are the sole reason the area thrives, the truth is many of the establishments would wither and die without outsiders. Similarly, residents who complain about street parking being used by those outsiders are being hypocritical. Without them, much of what they like about their neighbourhood would disappear.
May 29, 2012 @ 6:08 pm
Practically speaking, if you put a bike lane where people don’t need to go, it won’t get used. Chances are, given the nature of retail on Commercial (individual speciality stores for the most part), one will make more than one stop along the street in the course of a shopping trip. Are people going to detour two blocks away and then two blocks back for every stop they make, adding four blocks to every leg of their trip? Not likely, and inefficient. So you’ll end up with people still using Commercial Drive as a cycling route, and people complaining about the unused bike lanes two blocks over.
June 4, 2012 @ 11:26 am
@Chris — I guess it depends if the idea is to improve cycling safety between points A to B. But you’re right to say that if you want to build cycling tracks that take you right into commercial districts, then that’s the way to go. I suspect the goal is the latter.
Note what the cycle track has done to Hornby north of Georgia Street. It’s a wasteland (mind you, Hornby has struggled on these blocks for about thirty years). The separated path with planter boxes just doesn’t seem to fit here. That’s why I’d love to see other designs for these paths. I recall Geller sharing a bunch of shots from Spain of cycle paths that were interesting.
May 29, 2012 @ 8:03 pm
There are already bike lanes two blocks over and they are used heavily. Parking on the street is very efficient and bikes and pedestrians and cars live pretty well on commercial. At least the commercial drive we all think about, the one north of broadway.
Actually everything coexists as it is.
May 29, 2012 @ 8:33 pm
@Seth
I have a friend who is a personal injury lawyer who specializes in cycling cases. His cases along Hornby have plummeted since the separated bike lanes were installed. So, in a sense, I guess the critics were right, separated bike lanes are bad for business if your business is representing cyclists in injury cases. However, he doesn’t seem to mind the loss in business at all. Research from Montreal, where there separated bike lanes are similar to Vancouver’s backs that up as well. Collisions of all types are down on Hornby indicating that the bike lanes make the street safer for everyone.
Finally, from looking quickly at the ICBC stats, Burrard Street downtown is probably the worse in the city for cyclist collisions. Hopefully, some are using Hornby instead cutting down on the injuries on Burrard.
May 29, 2012 @ 8:53 pm
I am curious as to how they plan on redoing Cornwall.
Between car traffic, bus traffic and much used and needed parking for residents, how do they plan take away a lane without consequence?
As for Comemrcial Drive – if you remember, the merchants raised hell over the numerous ‘car free’ days that were implemented, that took car traffic away from the mom and pop owned store fronts. I cannot see them being happy about this – at all. If bike lanes hurt business in the downtown core, and they did, small mom and pop shops are really going to feel the pinch of lost business.
May 29, 2012 @ 11:17 pm
Thought of The Night
“If you want bike lanes on Commercial and Cornwall, I say ‘go for it’.”
This could easily be the best ‘thought’ I never had. 🙂
Kudos, Mike. Well said.
But just to be on the same page, I’ll end with this marvelous speech:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=X0lvp7a7pmk
“I know what you’re thinking. ‘Did he propose Six Bike Lanes or only Five?’ Well, to tell you the truth, in all this excitement I kind of lost track myself… you’ve got to ask yourself one question Vision Vancouver:
“Do I feel lucky? Well, do ya… Punks?”
We live in Vancouver and this keeps us busy.
June 4, 2012 @ 11:28 am
Loved that one. Thanks, Glissy!
May 29, 2012 @ 11:33 pm
Will there be a consultation like on Hornby? I believe that notices were received by the people impacted as the City crews were just starting work…
May 30, 2012 @ 4:54 am
A good post Mike with an exception at the end.
I respect your opinion on helmets, but McInnes’ “compelling” argument is based on a common fallacy. Children (and adults for that matter) rarely suffer serious brain injury or death from simple, stand alone falls off of bicycles.
People on bicycles can suffer these injuries of course, but when they do, it is almost always as a result of collisions with motor vehicles, something bicycle helmets are not made to withstand.
That’s not to say it doesn’t happen, but it is extremely rare, and is as likely to happen to someone on foot as on a bicycle.
The efficacy of bicycle helmets is about as clear as mud, quite unlike the proven positive effects on the health of an individual who rides a bicycle. To impose a law that says it is better to not ride a bicycle at all, than ride one without a helmet is to harm the governed.
May 30, 2012 @ 7:31 am
@Brad:
About 2 weeks back I saw a woman dump her bike with her toddler seated in the back. The impact was far from ‘light’.
The saving grace for that child was his helmet – his head hit the pavement hard.
And if helmets are such a detriemnt to cycling – then why do the serious cyclers wear them? The people that seem resistant are those that are ‘casual rider’s’.
May 30, 2012 @ 6:46 am
I’m going to go out on a limb here and say brad has never lived with someone who has a brain injury from cycling.
May 30, 2012 @ 8:10 am
Anecdotal accounts are all well and good when discussing issues between individuals, but they’re hardly the stuff to base public policy on.
Just because someone thinks something is so, it doesn’t follow that it is. Preventing, or reducing the incidences of collisions between motorists and cyclists should be the priority.
May 30, 2012 @ 9:55 am
Brad, silly, you don’t get it. When you’re attacking something you don’t like (Asian investing in real estate, bicycle helmet effectiveness, etc…) then stories, anecdotes and insinuation are absolutely enough. When attacking something else (bike lanes, green jobs, etc…) then hard facts are required or your argument is meaningless.
Get with it!
(I don’t care about these bike lanes as I’ll probably rarely if ever use them but I think the more options the merrier in Vancouver!)
May 30, 2012 @ 3:08 pm
It’s great that you don’t care about this particular lane Boo… But it is an opportunity to get the Vision council on the right page when it comes to placement of bike tracks. You don’t just build bike tracks because, hey options are good. Patrons of businesses are citizens of the city as well. If you block every entrance to a business, you will be getting less choice in businesses. You put bike tracks where they make the most sense for the greatest amount of users.
As for the argument in the thread that somehow bike tracks are good for business, I can’t disagree more. Urban bike tracks should be looked at as bike freeways. Cyclists can ride at a higher speed, with fewer obstacles. They cater mostly to the commuting cyclist who has no interest in stopping along the way.
Freeways and businesses don’t mix as a general rule. I’ll point you to the South Granville merchants who successfully fought off the dedicated rapid bus lane in their neighbourhood. Now South Granville is a thriving business district. If a freeway was allowed to go in, I’m sure that area would have died.
Bike tracks = good. Bike tracks in front of businesses = not good.
May 30, 2012 @ 4:08 pm
That makes good sense. But I still need to be able to ride my bike along commercial streets so that I can stop and shop. And the same logic should apply to vehicular traffic.
May 30, 2012 @ 4:20 pm
Why would you want bike freeways?
May 31, 2012 @ 11:12 am
I would think the same reason as car freeways – Point A to Point B in the shortest amount of time. If you want to stop, you find an off ramp.
The underlying point Paul T raises is interesting – why do people use bikes lanes? If the bulk are commuters, I would think he is Freeway idea is solid. In the data collected for the existing BLs, was that information gathered and disclosed?
May 30, 2012 @ 10:17 am
I think it is correct to say that Commercial Drive works fine as it is. It is actually a unique ecosystem at present where the mix keeps car traffic slow enough for pedestrian safety. That is good economically for the businesses, because drivers see them. The street scene is vibrant and many drivers want to go slowly to take it in, and for those that don’t, the scene creates enough uncertainty that they have to slow down. Therefore pedestrians can easily cross. It is above all a walkable street in a walkable neighbourhood – any plan needs to put precedence on retaining that. Drivers and cyclists have to be able to get there and park, but everyone is a pedestrian once they are at their destination.
The Drive is certainly somewhat chaotic at times, and that is when bureaucrats and politicians always get an urge to “fix” something. But chaotic does not mean broken, and if it ain’t broke, you don’t need to fix it! Chaotic is also self-correcting, and self-norming. It fixes itself if it goes out of balance. If the fix requires official intervention, the people will clamour for it, and I don’t think anyone is clamouring for bike lanes on Commercial. Traffic is slow enough that it can accommodate cyclists who need to travel there for a few blocks; there are enough of them that drivers tend to be careful opening their doors; and for through-riders, there are bike routes or serviceable side streets just off the Drive in both directions.
It’s funny how on the issue of bike lanes, everyone looks at the bikes to determine their success. But bike lanes will generate a change in car and pedestrian behaviour, and conditions, as well. I think separated bike lanes on Commercial might cause traffic to speed up and might cause more pedestrian hazards. Just compare Commercial Drive during afternoon rush hour (no parking on one side) with mid-day. During rush hour, traffic is faster, pedestrians are less assertive, and the whole feel of the street is different. You can really see that car is king for those two hours, and that proves that during the day, it is pedestrians who rule.
Parking is important on Commercial partly because there is a plethora of grocery stores. Sure, many people are walking to shop, but many aren’t because – news flash here – groceries can be heavy, and there are a lot of homes in the city where people don’t have grocery stores around the corner. People who live even a short distance away and are shopping for a family (that would be me) need to be able to park where they shop, and if they can’t park there, will shop elsewhere. As such, if bike lanes reduce parking, they might change the type of businesses that can make it on the Drive. Years ago in The Republic, Kevin Potvin did a study of what kinds of businesses had occupied Commercial Drive over the past 80 years or so. He didn’t connect it to public policy, but there probably wasn’t much policy to connect it to. It has always been an organic entity that responds to its environment in a sensible way. Politicians and bureaucrats need to trust The Drive, and trust the people on it, to manage and co-exist.
Oh, and Victoria Drive? Two blocks away.
May 30, 2012 @ 4:11 pm
Another good comment, you and Paul T have convinced me that separated bike lanes are likely not a good approach to Commercial, but that slowing down traffic so that bikes, cars and pedestrians can cohabitate is. We should look at a different design approach.
May 30, 2012 @ 7:56 pm
Don’t worry, this Vision Council, will listen to the people… Then they’ll go ahead with separated bike lanes on Commercial. It’s I their blood! Arrgh, pirates!
May 30, 2012 @ 11:41 am
@Boohoo-Is that sorta like Vision using the two week Olympic experience to justify removing the viaducts but at the same time ignoring the incredible streetcar ridership during the same period and mocking the NPA’s streetcar proposal?
Hypocrisy thy name is Vision hacks.
May 30, 2012 @ 12:01 pm
@brilliant,
Umm, not really…the viaduct issue is quite a bit more complicated, although I agree about the streetcars, don’t know why that’s such a non-starter for these guys. But I’m the vision hack?
May 30, 2012 @ 2:40 pm
Sounds like to make it safer for everyone Commercial Drive should be changed into a 30km/hr zone and maintained with parking on both sides during rush hour. This could be the best thing for the area. Commuters strictly using the road for commuting may go to a different area and it will allow more parking at all times of the day.
IF bike lanes were added there would be room for left turn vehicle spots. Right now the middle lanes become backed up when there is a car turning left and vehicles will go into the right lane to get around or squeeze into the parking lanes. A street configuration that uses a 2 lane road system with short left turn bays every few blocks could work well. This will allow for 1.8m bike lanes on both sides or separated routes possibly. Parking would be reduced to 1 side though.
May 30, 2012 @ 10:06 pm
Tim: safer than what, why, for whom? Is there a problem on Commercial Drive? Those backed-up cars behind left turners are one of the things that already keeps traffic to an effective average of 30 kph most of the time, and because traffic is so slow, the turn can usually be made pretty quickly so the back-up is very short. I simply don’t see the need for any intervention at all on the Drive, especially not a new speed limit that generates a bunch of ticket revenue without actually improving safety. Unless there is a plethora of accidents that I am not hearing about, Commercial Drive is just fine and doesn’t need any new rules, new lanes, or new policies.
May 30, 2012 @ 10:20 pm
Karin:
Would you feel comfortable cycling with a 10 to 12 year old on Commercial Drive in its current configuration? Or having the same child use that route solo or with friends? That’s an important test of any bike route that is supposed to be accessible to the general public, and IMO Commercial Drive fails that test at the moment.
May 31, 2012 @ 12:05 am
A very interesting question, Chris. Especially since my husband was just telling me about a bike-to-bike accident he’d seen in the Dunsmuir bike lane. Bike-to-bike accidents may be preferable to car-to-bike accidents, but they’re not pretty either. Even if bike accidents are down on Hornby, let’s dispense with the fantasy that bike lanes are “safe.”
Although your question is thought provoking, I don’t think there is an answer that will provide a clear answer about Commercial Drive and it may be a bit of a red herring in fact. 10-12 year-old children traveling alone should probably not be road users on any busy streets no matter what their mode of transport. They can be responsible for neither their own safety nor that of pedestrians. But if they are on their own on the road, I would think at the moment they are safer on Commercial than on almost any other busy thoroughfare in the city because drivers are kept more alert by all the activity. But the children should not be on that busy street unless they have a destination there – otherwise they should be on parallel side streets. If they have a destination, they should get to it on the sidewalk, going slow. With a parent, again Commercial is likely the safest busy street to ride on in the city. The traffic culture permits cars to slow down for slow cyclists. Try that on Venables.
As for whether the 10-12 year old child test is the correct test for public safety, I’m not so sure. Would you design the entire city for child safety? If so, there are a lot more spots to correct before Commercial Drive hits the radar.
PS: Steven, credit should be to Jeff H for the compelling argument!
May 31, 2012 @ 7:10 am
“Would you design the entire city for child safety?”
Absolutely. Because then it’s also safe for other vulnerable users. If we want to encourage families to stay in the city rather than move to the suburbs it is part of the solution to create a welcoming atmosphere for families in public spaces.
May 31, 2012 @ 3:58 pm
I agree with Chris that CD is not a particularly safe street to cycle. But others have pointed out the bike lanes are not the only or even the best way to make a commercial street more bike and pedestrian friendly and that such should be the goal for CD. We can at least have a discussion of other design options.
June 1, 2012 @ 9:52 am
To your point Tim about changing the Drive to a 30 km/h zone. My limited experience on the drive is that for the most part people are driving well below the posted speed limit (currently 50 km/h) in the stretch from Venables to 12th Avenue. The design of the road makes vehicle traffic not want to travel any faster. So you could be very right, lowering the speed limit would probably be a no-brainer.
However I tend to be more on the laissez-faire side of this political football. If people are for the most part obeying a lower speed limit, then why change it?
If someone buzzes through Commerical at 60 km/h at 2 in the afternoon, you could very well argue that not only is the person speeding but they are driving without due care and attention. So I think the law already exists, it just needs to be enforced.
May 30, 2012 @ 4:12 pm
A bike lane along Cornwall is completely superfluous and wholly political/symbolic. I ride from Kits over the Burrard Street bride every weekend. Its very convenient to detour down to the paths that follow the waterfront along side Vanier park and Kits Beach Park. Not only do you avoid traffic, you get a pretty view and inhale less exhaust fumes. Moreover, I commute during the week on transit. Cornwall is a mess when the beach/pool open from the May long weekend to Labour Day. To suggest Mike, that you curie along Cornwall is utter nonsense. Try making a left hand turn from Cornwall to travel up Arbutus/Maple Yew etc. To further constrict traffic along Cornwall and create the further delay for commuters will create more carbon emissions from idling traffic particularly in the summer when air quality is the most compromised. The proposal is foolish and superfluous.
May 30, 2012 @ 4:30 pm
A bike lane from kits beach to Jericho Beach is completely sensible because it would make the entire stretch of sea wall from Jericho to Spanish Banks far more accessible to families who would prefer to leave the car at home when visiting these popular public beaches. Especially since it’s ‘very convenient’ for motorists to choose 4th ave to get to Jericho.
May 30, 2012 @ 4:40 pm
“To further constrict traffic along Cornwall and create the further delay for commuters will create more carbon emissions from idling traffic particularly in the summer when air quality is the most compromised”
It is not the responsibility of non-motorists to adjust their behavior or sacrifice safe access to public roads to mitigate the emissions of car users. If someone is worried about their contributions to greenhouse gases then I would suggest buying a hybrid which emits zero emissions when stationary, or perhaps finding neighbors for whom carpooling once or twice a week is feasible. Since this is Point Grey we are talking about I would venture a guess that the first option would be within the means of many residents of the area, and the second would also be relatively easy to arrange, as many of those residents are probably headed into the downtown core en masse in the morning.
May 30, 2012 @ 4:59 pm
I think a route along Pt Grey Road from kits pool to jericho is sensible.
You quote from my post. FYI. I don’t own a car and as a non-motorist and a user of transit, constricting traffic along Cornwall would slow down the bus I am on and add to my commute time and add to the other problems I point to. So, from my perspective, its the cyclists (exclusive users of the potential bike lane) that will necessitate I adjust my behaviour. To my point, the additional traffic along Cornwall during “beach” season is not Pt Grey residents but common folks from across the lower mainland who don’t have the spare change to pick up a hybrid. I can assure you as well, me and most of my neighbours here in Kits do not have the means to buy a hybrid but thanks for the condescendence.
May 31, 2012 @ 3:17 pm
@Chris:
‘Since this is Point Grey we are talking about I would venture a guess that the first option would be within the means of many residents of the area..”
Wow, now that is an assuming statement.
That area is not all as ‘rich’ as you my think – there are many uni students and young families living in mulit-dwelling homes, condos and apartments. Not all are in big splichy houses (with the exception of Lululemon founder ‘Chip’ who is building a mansion plus in the area)
To suggest that the people in ‘Point Grey’ are capable of purchasing expensive hybrid vehicles in order to apease the cycling community is arrogant.
Cornwall is jammed at the best of times and during the summer months is riduclous. Taking out a lane will cause commute chaos in the area.
May 31, 2012 @ 3:33 pm
@max
I wonder how many times ’cause chaos’ has been trotted out and I wonder how many times it has actually occurred?
May 31, 2012 @ 3:51 pm
@Max – Is there a problem with using the bus?
June 1, 2012 @ 9:57 am
@Steven Forth:
If you had read my earlier comment along with ‘Skippy’s’ then you would realize this is a well used tranist (bus) route. At the best of times, the buses are packed, let alone when the bad weather hts. Removing a lane on an already crowded roadway will cause issues for transit and other commuters – even those in ‘hybrid’ vehicles.
So I am unsure what point you are trying to make.
June 1, 2012 @ 10:07 am
The best way to reduce one’s carbon footprint other than walking or cycling is to use mass transit and not to clog the roads with any form of car, hybrid, electric, etc.
May 30, 2012 @ 5:13 pm
It’s not condescending to point out economic realities.
May 30, 2012 @ 5:31 pm
Well, your comment that us kits residents that line up for the #22,#2 or #32 busses each day, to often times stand on the bus, to commute to an from downtown can save up for a hybrid is void of any reality. Cheers.
May 30, 2012 @ 7:35 pm
Hmm, since that wasn’t my comment, I don’t feel compelled to defend it. However, I would be most interested to hear a more complete explanation from you Skippy — regarding your apparent contention that motoring beach goers, who are likely to be travelling against the flow of commuter traffic in both the morning and afternoon, are going to impact bus travel for those heading to and from work downtown. That seems counter-intuitive to me.
cheers,
CK
May 31, 2012 @ 8:52 am
Note to Chris, who responded above, but I don’t see a reply option on his post – my question about designing the whole city to be child safe was rhetorical. You can’t make a whole house safe, much less a whole city. You couldn’t cook or bathe, for starters, much less open a window, if the whole house has to be child safe all the time, and you’d have to eradicate all bicycles, cars, and heavy machinery from the city to make it child safe. The reason we call them children is because they are not yet ready to participate in the adult world – it’s a parent’s job to transition them from oblivion of the rules and patterns of the world to being able to function within them and safely enjoy their benefits. You would not run a busy street, or even a bike path, through a school yard precisely because children are not ready for the constant vigilance and self-control it takes to function on and around one.
Parents introduce their kids to the rules of the road and experience of it, whether as pedestrians or cyclists, at a pace and place that is right for the child, depending on where they live and where they have to go. Some parents will choose to teach their kids to cycle safely on Commercial Drive when they are old enough to learn it – and yes, that can be done, given that other parents have no choice but to teach their kids to safely cross, let’s say, Knight Street.
May 31, 2012 @ 10:17 am
“The reason we call them children is because they are not yet ready to participate in the adult world”
And yet a 14 year old can run farm equipment according to the law and a child can work in their parents’ corner store? Sorry Karen. I completely disagree. Any child of ten can navigate the world quite well and they have been since time immemorial…. if we take a few sensible and sane steps to make public space accessible to all.
May 31, 2012 @ 11:13 am
Exactly, and so they can certainly ride Commercial Drive as it now stands, if all the presumptions that apply to working in their parents’ store or on their parents’ farm are applied – that is, that they will be taught by their parents, who are knowledgeable and who care about them, to do these things in a manner equivalent to an adult and without hurting themselves or others, when they are ready.
There will always be and always should be limitations on what children of 10 can do – perhaps you do not have children? So let me give you some examples. Children of ten would not be asked to take a large roast out of the oven. Children of 10 do not drive. Children of 10 do not handle large sums of money or make investment or purchase decisions.
But at some point, they will grow old enough to do all of these things, and the responsibility for deciding when and how they make the transition is sometimes a matter of law, but mostly a matter of parental judgement. Guiding a child into and through these transitions can be terrifying, but if you know your child and are yourself competent at the activity, you can generally manage it. Which is why most parents can teach a child to cross a street and, perhaps more importantly, to stay on the sidewalk adjacent to one. And why a novice cycling parent might not “safely” be able to take their child on Commercial Drive, but an experienced cycling parent probably could.
Your question was not easy to answer because children riding a bike on any street is an issue of parental judgement about the individual child. Children vary, but also, parents vary. Some parents take risks that I would not, while I probably took different risks with my kids that those parents would not do. Parents have to make these judgement calls for themselves all the time. They have to raise their kids for the lives that they have, and it is not anyone else’s prerogative to say something is “safe” that might, by any stretch of the imagination, not be. That is why I cited the bike-to-bike accident on Dunsmuir, to say that even if you install a fully separated bike lane, you cannot EVER assure a parent that a street is “safe.”
Commercial Drive as it now stands is within the capabilities of 10-y-olds whose parents judge them to be ready and who have the capability to teach them – but is it inherently “safe?” No – nothing is. But Commercial is safer than a lot of other streets with that volume of traffic because the culture of the street encourages accommodation – of bikes on the road, and of bikes on the sidewalk when necessary. The city messes with that culture at its own risk.
May 31, 2012 @ 11:00 pm
Karen:
I feel like you are moving the goalposts on me. Your first position seemed to be that children aren’t capable of the decision-making necessary to live in the adult world, but when faced with evidence to the contrary, you’ve changed your premise to say that it’s up to parents. The bottom line is that our motoring infrastructure and pedestrian facilities are designed so that even seeming idiots, regardless of age, can navigate them in relative safety. Why should bike infrastructure be any different? Also, I question your contention that drivers distracted by the scenery of a vibrant part of town makes for a safer roadway.
June 3, 2012 @ 9:29 am
Chris, I think the reason you are feeling out of kilter is that your fundamental premise is flawed, and that makes it difficult to defend once you go into depth. I am not sure if you are the same Chris who first answered my rhetorical question to say that the whole city could be child friendly, but whether you said it or not, in defending it you have gotten yourself trapped into arguing for a position that does not exist.
Your current statement “our motoring infrastructure and pedestrian facilities are designed so that seeming idiots… safety” is complete nonsense and also reveals apparent ignorance of what it takes to take a person from helpless baby not yet conscious of their own extremities to someone who can safely walk down a sidewalk adjacent to a busy street, aware of a parallel stream. Your comment of “designed for relative safety” is an utterly fatuous statement for which there is no defense. Our motoring infrastructure, for starters, is not accessible to children; they cannot drive. Among other reasons, they are not tall enough for most of childhood. You keep changing your definition of child, apparently without realizing that progress through childhood is variable, and the same special needs children we talk about in classrooms also have to learn to navigate the city’s traffic infrastructure. Nothing is safe for a child, including crosswalks with lights, and nothing is self-explanatory to a child, until a parent has taught them how it works. Some parents do that instruction very early, and sometimes it is done by older siblings or other kids. None of that makes it inherently safe.
When you talk about “families in public spaces” there is a similar lack of awareness of what parents are actually doing when they are out with their kids. Of course they are enjoying themselves and contributing to your idyllic vision of “community” but the parents are always watching, managing, and training their kids. How to move in a crowd, how to behave in a store, how to act around dogs, how to notice where a street starts and where to watch for cars.
It is a basic reality that bike lanes make being a pedestrian inherently more dangerous, and especially for kids, because they violate the basic pattern we all learn about sidewalks and streets. Currently, a child can walk around and cross Commercial Drive if they can walk around any other road. But stick a bike lane between sidewalk and road, especially a 2-way lane, and you have put in a new unexpected hazard that makes it much harder to teach a child how to cross the street.
As for riding on the Drive with a child, to answer your question again, it would not be inherently safe with or without bike lanes. Different kinds of awareness are needed in both situations, and neither could be done intuitively by a child without parental guidance. To send your child safely down the bike lane, among other things you have to ensure your child is watching for the walking child who wasn’t taught how to navigate a sidewalk/2-way bike lane/roadway combo – and for turning cars.
Because one thing we haven’t talked about with respect to bike lanes on Commercial is whether right and left turns would be restricted as they are along Dunsmuir now. If they are not, the bike lanes will be a challenge. If they are, then the Drive will become a throughway, and not a destination.
I was driving down Commercial yesterday thinking again about why traffic goes slow. Certainly the aforementioned one-lane status, where left turners slow things down, helps. Also, people looking for parking and coming out of parking spaces contribute. So traffic itself slows traffic down, and cyclists, boarders, and assertive pedestrians make that a symbiot circle – they can do what they do because traffic is slow, and it remains slower because of their contribution. I do think the street scene contributes – I think drivers watch the storescape to see if there is anywhere else they want to stop, and since people put themselves on display on the Drive, people watching also makes an impact.
Sorry for the delay in response, but I had gotten bored with the discussion and forgot to check back for a while.
June 3, 2012 @ 11:28 am
Excellent argument, Karin!
May 31, 2012 @ 11:22 am
@Paul H
Highways from point A-B are totally practical if you’re going from City to City–but why on earth would you want one within the City?
Would you build a highway for cars from East Van to downtown?
May 31, 2012 @ 11:52 am
Preference I guess. If you are a bike commuter you may not want to stop and smell the roses. To be clear, I meant a bike freeway not a car freeway – so a straight track from EVan to DT would be valuable to a bike commuter and their equivalent of a “freeway” given relative speeds and distances.
Funny though, at one point in Vancouver’s history, I thought Kingsway was supposed to be a “freeway” through Vancouver.
May 31, 2012 @ 12:36 pm
I guess it depends where we’re talking about…I don’t think a ‘bike highway’ makes sense in urban areas where you’re passing stores, parks, etc for the same reason a standard highway doesn’t make sense in an urban area. Also what you mean by bike track with on/off ramps. Do you mean totally separated like a highway or…?
May 31, 2012 @ 1:54 pm
@Boohoo – mobile so can’t seem to reply directly to your thread.
Was being a bit tongue and cheek playing off highway and Chris’ comments on Victoria BL. Victoria could be the dedicated bike route and a side street could represent the “off ramp” to a specific commercial drive location. So you could do both the commute A to B as well as stop to shop on CD. The traffic calmed idea would probably work better than a dedicated lane.
More discussing different needs for different users and seeing if both could be met. When I roller blade on BL I’m a point a to b exercise and just don’t want to get hit – looking around or stopping to shop isn’t an issue. When I bike I’m more as you describe.
May 31, 2012 @ 6:10 pm
My gosh – does Vision have to ruin everything unique in Vancouver? Leave Commercial Drive alone!
It is working as a great community. I shop there with my family and we park our car there and even get our bikes serviced there.
Also, Cyclists – wear a dam helmet. If you get injured then you should pay for the bill out of your own pocket. I am trying to teach my child responsible bike riding and it is difficult when there are so many irresponsible riders out there.
May 31, 2012 @ 6:49 pm
@ CK
That was not my contention.
Simply this. Cornwall is a mess during the summer. Regular commuters plus summer beach traffic. Constrict access with bike lanes will make the matters much worse. Those of us that are actually residents in the area will be hugely inconvenienced and have our commutes delayed. My commute, by Transit, will be elongated by the constricted road access caused by bike lanes.
while I apparently have your attention, any suggestions on a retail outlets for Rocky Mountain trail/mountain bikes. A fine canadian made bike….maybe something we can agree on. Cheers.
May 31, 2012 @ 11:08 pm
Skippy:
You are making the same dire predictions we heard about Burrard and Hornby and those calamities did not come to pass. In fact these harbingers of doom called separated lanes never seem to really deliver on the inconvenience front, so I’m skeptical Cornwall will be much different. As for bikes, The Bike Doctor carries Rocky Mountain and I think Simon’s downtown on Robson does as well. Both fine businesses and locally owned.
cheers,
CK
June 1, 2012 @ 9:33 am
Sorry CK, can’t agree with you on that. I live on Hornby. The bike lanes are a total failure. The city’s stats show cycling in decline year to year. Businesses are moving out of the area. You may not call that a calamity, but I certainly do. I liked my neighbourhood and did not want a bike highway to ruin it. I still feel we can correct the problem.
June 1, 2012 @ 8:21 pm
Paul T:
This is the second time you’ve made the statement that cycling volumes are down year over year on Hornby. There’s already been one request for you to provide the data from which you are basing that claim. This is the second request.
Also, what are some of the businesses moving out of the area, and what is the evidence that it’s because of bike lanes? I think we would all benefit from knowing the data you are using for these statements.
thanks,
CK
June 4, 2012 @ 2:19 pm
The figures come from the City of Vancouver website. You can download the numbers yourself and take a look. Q1 2011 to Q1 2012 saw a 5% decrease in bicycle traffic on the Hornby Lane. And Burrard Bridge is down 15% from Q1 2010 to Q1 2012.
Numbers don’t lie. Look for yourself.
June 1, 2012 @ 8:38 am
Just curious how the buses are supposed to pull over if this happens. There’s not a lot of space on these roads. There are also a lot of alleys and intersections on commercial, and pretending it won’t hurt businesses here because one has no personal stake in these businesses is just nasty. They could operate the way they do with permit parking, have a referendum where each building (that’s right, one vote per Building) along each if these streets says yay or nay to a bike lane. this would be much more fair, as these people have invested time and money into their neighborhood. I suppose multi use buildings could have two votes, one residential and one commercial. Why not do that?
June 1, 2012 @ 9:35 am
You raise an interesting point. City Engineers have said they will try to avoid placing bike tracks on bus routes, because the two don’t mix well. I’ll be interested to see how Vision get their staff to spin this one.
June 1, 2012 @ 8:49 am
I don’t know if referendum was the right word to use there. Also, I would think it would be more fair if the business owners, not the building owners or managers (as they do for residential) got the vote.
June 1, 2012 @ 11:33 am
Jesus Christ! Talk about Bikes or bike lanes and they will come! 🙂
June 1, 2012 @ 12:30 pm
The best way to make people use mass transit is to make it more appealing. I think they can fit some hand sanitizer into their budget, and try cleaning the buses when the moon ISN’T blue.
June 1, 2012 @ 1:29 pm
Also Steven, my personal opinion on reducing carbon involves more trees and parks, less construction. we really don’t have a housing shortage in Vancouver, it’s the cost, not the quantity, right? So why won’t anyone step up and demand that park? It would be awesome if we could have wall street (east van) style mini parks in more places. it would cost money but THEY CLEAN THE AIR plain and simple. Downtown could really benefit from more foilage that isn’t stuck into cement.
June 1, 2012 @ 5:11 pm
I agree jenables that we need more parks and green space.
However, I totally disagree that we don’t have a housing shortage. Sure there is plenty of one and two bedroom shoe boxes to live in. But there are NO 3 – 4 family housing that is affordable. THAT IS WANT WE NEED!!!!
We need more free standing family homes that are not town homes! In areas where we can walk our kids to school, where we can feel safe that our children can be outside and play or go biking in parks.
No more bike lanes, no more condo’s, no more talk about sustainability education crap and us being the greenest city in the world! Let’s start talking about making Vancouver livable for EVERYONE not for Vision’s pet projects!
June 1, 2012 @ 5:19 pm
Working mom,
“We need more free standing family homes that are not town homes!”
Where do you propose we put them?
June 1, 2012 @ 7:28 pm
Boohoo – when I talk about free standing home and not townhomes – I am referring to homes that you have to pay a monthly maintenance fee and deal with Strata who always seem to not like children. The townhouse complex across from me have people who don’t want children to use chalk on the sidewalk because it looks messy! Build nice looking row homes but let the owners be responsible for their own home and not part of a complex. That is what I was referring to. I am not expecting single standing homes with white picket fences but it sure would be nice to have a 3 – 4 bedroom home with a small garden for our children to play and no strata making our lives miserable with stupid rules.
It would also be nice that these affordable homes are restricted to buyers who are living in Vancouver and have a family rather being promoted to foreign buyers first AND are not allowed to sell/flip the home for 10 years.
Really is that so hard to ask for and want for the family?
June 1, 2012 @ 10:27 pm
“Really is that so hard to ask for and want for the family?”
It’s not hard to want, but impossible to legislate. What about a couple that can’t have kids but want to have a nice rowhouse like you describe? Or parents that want to downsize cause their kids are out of the house?
Sounds to me like your beef is with your strata, there are solutions to that rather than banning an entire segment of the population from purchasing the type of house you like.
June 2, 2012 @ 6:16 am
Rules on foreign ownership and limits on transactions would probably need to be federal and would probably violate any number of trade agreements we have signed. In any case, I am not sure that interfering with market mechanisms would have the outcomes you desire. But I agree with you about people who make rules that make it difficult for families who have children, or who don’t want to pay the taxes needed to educate the children who will be carrying the economy as we age … and I wonder if there could be tax incentives for housing that is open to and supportive of families with children. Perhaps any house with a child under 18 in it should get property tax relief? Not sure if that is possible or if it would work, but I would like to see as many families with young children as possible living in Vancouver.
June 2, 2012 @ 9:57 am
@boohoo – many families living on condo’s have problems with Strata. My point is that it would be nice to own a home that is not run by a strata nor have property managers who like to gouge the residences. If a single couple wants a home that is fine – I have no issue with that – everyone. But it is sad that FAMILIES are the ones that are getting the raw end of the deal here with finding appropriate living conditions for their children. AND that also has more off road bike trails so that we can ride our bikes with our younger children.
June 3, 2012 @ 11:28 am
@Working mom,
It would be very nice if we could all live in our own little homes with no strata, no property managers, no having to deal with anyone else’s issues or problems, etc. Unfortunately, that’s not reality. You seem to have this idyllic vision of what life in a city should be but it doesn’t really correlate to reality. Living in a city means dealing with other people, good and bad. You sound like you want all the perks of living in Vancouver with the lifestyle of Fort Nelson.
Your off road bike trails comment is totally out of left field–not sure what you’re getting at?
June 1, 2012 @ 3:28 pm
I live just off the Drive and fully support bike lanes. However, I think Victoria Drive is a much better option than Commercial. It’s mostly residential and the community has been calling for traffic-calming along Victoria for years, along with the stretch of Venables between Commercial and Victoria. Choosing Victoria would be beneficial for cyclists and pedestrians, while improving quality of life along a residential corridor.
June 2, 2012 @ 9:59 am
Yes Victoria Drive would be a much better solution than Commercial Drive. Plus it is much quieter so you concentrate more on the safety of bike riding.
June 2, 2012 @ 2:34 am
Venables between commercial and Victoria? It’s traffic calmed by a park on the north, and barriers to the east already..if you block the west side of those TWO BLOCKS, you will drive traffic on commercial to Adanac, and backwards through Salsbury heading south, or off the diversion and back through Adanac at commercial, which had been totally redesigned in a very strange way in the last month. That’s not making anything safer. Blocking the south side sends Salsbury traffic back through the neighborhood, and increases traffic on Parker, I think. Venables, commercial and Victoria SHOULD be where traffic is going, given the surrounding area. however, I did find myself incensed at the amount of money spent on other road projects when Victoria could really use better lighting at crosswalks, and parking signage. There should be less room at the corners of each intersection for parking as they block people waiting to cross, and oncoming cars if you are turning. It’s a dark street, and it would be much safer with better lighting. I always see people cycling in the dark, no lights, seemingly unaware how dangerous that is. I saw the most amazing thing one night, a bicycle frame GLOWING in the darkness. So cool, and no way you could miss it. It was neon blue, too. Does anyone know what that is? glow in the dark paint?
June 4, 2012 @ 4:59 pm
I don’t understand the need for a bike lane on Cornwall with a bike route already exists across the Burrard Bridge, through Kits Point and up to 3rd Ave out toward Jericho.
Why put a dedicated bike route on a main arterial route lined with shops, etc. on both Cornwall and side streets. The bike lanes would no doubt hamper ability to turn down side streets toward Kits Point and Planetarium or up toward 4th.
I agree with several other posts that Cornwall is busy most of the time and in summer is very busy. Why should a few cyclists have unencumbered access to this main street when alternatives already exist?
June 5, 2012 @ 8:47 am
“I don’t understand the need for a bike lane on Cornwall with a bike route already exists across the Burrard Bridge, through Kits Point and up to 3rd Ave out toward Jericho.”
Oh Andrew Andrew. You just don’t GET it do you?
Separated bike lanes are NOT about moving bikes. Just look at the ones we already have and how few bikes exist on them. No. Separated bike lanes will ALWAYS be sited on the busiest, most distruptive car route and designed to create as much car use disruption and ‘congestion’ as possible. That is their ultimate purpose. Biking is a nice side effect to the installation of a ‘congestion engine’. More congestion, more justification. Oh and get ready for removal of all parking on that Cornwall route. That’s another key technique to ‘manufacture congestion.
Just you wait ‘enry ‘iggins .. just you wait.
June 6, 2012 @ 9:41 am
Lee L.
Well it would be typical of Vision(less) to remove parking near one of the most heavily used parks in the city so that people can sit in traffic trying to get there and have nowhere to park once in the vicinity.
The madness continues…
June 6, 2012 @ 11:31 am
Lee L. , Andrew,
I can’t believe I’m going to say this but restricting personal movement, and transportation gridlocks, followed by food scarcity, price fluctuations, were techniques used by the Third Reich, and several communist countries to manipulate the masses into frenetic submission. When you are too tired from trying too hard to keep up with the Rat Race you lose the interest in being combative, you don’t have time to think anymore, that’s why you let others think for you… 🙂
June 6, 2012 @ 11:56 am
And there we have it, the Nazi’s. Only took 100 posts!
Good job people! Now, how many posts before we link Gregor and/or Vision with these body parts being mailed around?
June 6, 2012 @ 1:29 pm
Vision Vancouver is treating this city and its citizens in the same way a dictatorship would be treating their people. It’s been documented boohoo.
With lack of respect, imposing Draconian laws on the majority, stepping over any act of dissent, this MO it’s been used before with same bad endings for the Operators. History repeating is a sign of arrogance.
Prepacked in recycled paper, re-sized, down-sized and sold for three times the real price. ‘Cause they can… for now.
June 7, 2012 @ 4:29 am
Sounds like anyone forced to commute by car, shop in large malls, work in suburban office parks. Must be a conspiracy. Of course if you cycle or walk you get oxygen pumbing and your brain and body wake up.
June 6, 2012 @ 11:44 am
Bike lane on Cornwall? No. No no no no no. As a frequent #22/#2 bus user, I say no. Where will the bus stops go? The middle of the street? Won’t work for the elderly/disabled that have enough trouble getting on/off the bus at the curbs. Stay at the curbs? Well, I guess that defeats the purpose of a “separated bike lane”.
Seriously, our mayor and council seems to be devoid of logical thinking.
June 6, 2012 @ 4:30 pm
It’s bad enough that they put in bike lanes on Burrard when there’s jam packed buses on that route. Imagine how much money translink could have saved and how much faster the buses would go if they took all that space on Cornwall and Burrard street and turned it into bus only lanes.
The problem is that even if you made a seperate pedestrian/bike crossing at kits point (which would connect in with the bike paths in the area) is that while bikes would have an even better route than now while making the buses run more effecient is you wouldn’t have all those bike and buses in the way of the cars. That would be increasing the effecientcy of cars getting around – the ultimate cardinal sin in Vancouver.
Make no mistake, the buses being delayed is not a problem to city staff because making them run effeciently would also help out those planet killing bastards behind the wheel.
June 6, 2012 @ 1:54 pm
@GR
Sorry bud. Vision may be bad, incompetent, etc. They ain’t no nazi’s. It’s fun to make exaggerations, hyperbole, etc… But your assertion is flat out stupid.
Do you know what a dictatorship is? What the nazi’s actually did? Have a visit to North Korea for awhile, come back and tell me we live in a dictatorship. You’ve said some pretty ridiculous things, this takes the cake.
June 6, 2012 @ 5:05 pm
LMAO, boohoo, someone poked at you with a stick?
“Do you know what a dictatorship is?”
Do you, boohoo?
“What the nazi’s actually did?”
We do.
“Have a visit to North Korea for awhile, come back and tell me we live in a dictatorship.”
Did you visit NK boohoo?
Let me remind you that Robertson did visit China and he did like it! A LOT!
Look what they did with the City Hall. Look at how they appointed their people.
Spending other people’s money?
“A drop in a bucket” – Penny Ballem
“Consultation was the Election…” – Geoff Meggs
“F$%$ing NPA Hacks…” – Gregor Robertson
“Democracy cubed & Lobster pictures from “talking about” homelessness” – Heather Deal
Andrea Riemer – self of entitlement and stupid remarks, let others be the judge:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3BviJ8nJxOI
Kerry Jang – Homeless are good for statistics, election time
Re-read the article by City Caucus “Vision Vancouver has a few major flip-flops of their own
4 Oct 2011/ Post by Daniel in Editorial”
How shall we call them boohoo?
Commie Lite? Inquisitors? What would be to your liking? Tell us… LOL!
June 6, 2012 @ 5:25 pm
Ned,
All those things you list and your apparent assertion that they are the result of a dictatorship confirms you have no idea what a dictatorship is.
June 6, 2012 @ 6:10 pm
“All those things you list and your apparent assertion that they are the result of a dictatorship confirms you have no idea what a dictatorship is.”
But you do…boohoo! Wahahahahahaha!
I havefriends from China that moved here after living half their lives under communist regime … and they say this how it started. I’ll take their word over yours anytime… boo!
June 6, 2012 @ 6:48 pm
Actually Alex g taskumis called them bike nazi way before. After you …remember the Hornby bike lane overnight “trial” lol!
So, is there a covenant where it says that only Jerry Seinfeld can call one Soup nazi, boo?
June 6, 2012 @ 8:01 pm
@Terry
No, no covenant. Not sure what straw man you’re trying to prop up? But again, if you’re right and they had no intention of that being a trial bike lane that makes them liars. Last time I checked lying and being a Nazi were pretty far apart on the ‘evilometer’.
@JJ
Can I call bullshit on you? If you’re telling me Chinese Communism started with a municipal government lying about a bike lane, with a politician believing they have a mandate from the election, with a politician spending money poorly, etc…well, I have some tin foil I’ll give you a good deal on.
You guys are so blinded in your vitriol towards vision you’re exactly the same thing you accuse them of. Pretty funny.
June 6, 2012 @ 4:26 pm
What the hell is with all these planners that keep on putting bike lanes on busy roads with people trying to park and buses flying all over the place?
The good bike lanes are the ones on quiet streets that paralell the main roads. Like on 10th. Or the sections of the Central valley greenway that are in East Van on the cul-de-sac’d residential roads east of Victoria.
The best bike roads are the ones with very few conflicts. Shoehorning them into busy roads is a danger to the cyclists and an annoyance to other road users.
If you want to make a bike lane or bike bridge do it right and there won’t be any conflict.
June 6, 2012 @ 4:35 pm
@Lee L
That’s exactly it. Make no mistake. They make no announcement of it but City of Van policy is to not allow increased car capacity at any cost.
It’s only more zealous under Vision. The car hating staff find a mayor who will turn all those arterials into nice punishment to try to stick people into walking/biking/transit (stick them so hard that they sometimes do it to walking and transit while they are it).
It’s like the freeway fight in the 70s forever tramatised the mentality and they spend half their time rocking back and forth repeating “Must not increase car capaicty. Must not increase car capacity……”
June 7, 2012 @ 6:26 am
So..they don’t want to increase or maintain car capacity, and they refuse to believe that despite their best efforts spending our money to harass us out, many people will still choose to or have to drive their cars on these increasingly inefficient roads (I also heard way back in 2008 or 2009 sustainability council dreamed up NARROWING the roads so it is more intimidating/dangerous= less cars) which will of course pollute more of that stop and go “visible” exhaust into the air and use up much MORE gasoline doing so. in times like these I feel the need to replace my helplessness with SPITE. and I think _____ YOU, COV! I’ll stop eating before I stop driving! I don’t take too kindly to being buffaloed and eco-shamed by you garbage burning jerks! so I guess their work has paid off in a sense, they did change one mind…. Mine. I haven’t of course stopped eating or driving or being overtly suspicious of green buzzwords, but I have my reasons and number one stems from an incident with a machete at night waiting for the bus.
June 7, 2012 @ 2:26 pm
I feel the same way, only about cars. Why should I be prevented from riding to down town with my grand children? Why should I have to live in a city clogged by cars, choking on their exhaust? Why should my office be required to subsidize drivers by providing parking? Why is so much land taken up by roads and parking that could be put to community use? Why is there any on street parking at all? You want to drive down town and park pay for it. Etc. I have as much right to my views as you to yours only I have to pay the cost of yours. I am tired of free loaders and people who think they are entitled to impose their values on others. And that is what car drivers in urban areas are.
June 7, 2012 @ 6:36 pm
WOW Steven!
This comment defines who you really are… 100%.
A pitiful NIMBY close to the beach dweller in the third degree.
Not necessary from now on to read your comments, dear. I know where you stand, and why.
“Screw everybody else, I live in Kits! Please don’t inconvenience me, my friends, my neighbors, and my habitat, and my personal space with your presence.”
Typical Vision / Robertson voter. LOL!
Nuff said.
June 8, 2012 @ 11:08 am
@Steven Forth:
Suggestion: move to the country.
If all of what you list ails you to no end, then there is an obvious and easy solution – move out of the city.
Otherwise, welcome to the city and city living.
This is not ‘Little House on the Prairie’.
FYI- I feel the same way about the entitlements held by cyclists and you do cars and you are a clear definition of that entititlement.
June 11, 2012 @ 10:27 am
@Steve
Why have on street parking?
Well, other than business getting pissed about it?
But what say we didn’t even care about that.
Here’s a way to increase transit capacity at the low low price of signs and paint.
Take broadway (the one with tons and tones of 99 bline buses chocked to the rim with studants in them) and put in bus only lanes from Commercial drive to UBC. Do this by taking out the parking. With nothing but other buses to fight against, that would up the capacity of the buses by making them more effecient since they would only have their own traffic to fight against.
Heck, if you wanted to comprimise with business, you could simply make it that way during the morning and evening rush, allowing all those happy parkers to come in during midday for the housewife shop, in the evenings for the couples dinner, and on the weekend for the family shopping.
Great plan right? One problem.
With the buses out of the way, and with no doubt some turn restrictions, and without having to fight the people pulling into the parking spots, it would make the east west traffic for commuters much much better. Not only would bus capactiy increase with the same number of buses (that would be ok) but so would car capacity with the same number of lanes.
So it’s DOA since that’s against the “no increase to car capacity rules”. Even if it helps the buses and requires no additionally traffic lanes.
June 7, 2012 @ 12:00 pm
I laughed with the latest news that City’ staff will be putting out their final report on the separated bike lanes along with recommendations on whether they stay or go.
Who here honeslty believes this was a ‘trial’ of any sorts????
2 weeks back the ‘City’ was painting new bright green direction paths and cross ways for bikes. If it wasn’t a done deal, would they have bothered.
Something one gentleman mentioned on Global BC this morning when being intereviewed on his thoughts on the bike lanes – was the total costs involved, which he had ‘heard’ were much more than the $4M ‘published’ by the city. He heard closer to
$33 M.
June 7, 2012 @ 1:31 pm
“Something one gentleman mentioned on Global BC this morning when being intereviewed on his thoughts on the bike lanes – was the total costs involved, which he had ‘heard’ were much more than the $4M ‘published’ by the city. He heard closer to
$33 M.”
You know, I heard on some news channel, some guy, might have been a girl, said that they heard from their cousin’s landlord that they might have heard that the bike lane’s actual cost was more like 100 million!
June 7, 2012 @ 3:10 pm
Somewhat on topic has anyone seen these maps?
http://public.tableausoftware.com/views/AzIntersectionCrashesintheLowerMainland20072011/LMDashboard?:embed=y
Wow. What a waste of money, resources and life.
June 8, 2012 @ 2:11 am
Steven, I don’t get it. Why don’t you ask yourself why you came to such a place in the first place? After all, I wouldn’t trek to your office in the woods and demand to know why there wasn’t a bike lane to your door. So is your anger directed at past decisions to create roads, or yourself, for moving (a really fun experience without vehicles) to a place with so many STREETS. I usually consider you someone who can see the others point, even when they are trying to burn you you seem pretty level headed but think about what you just stated. PS -glad you feel your office and the many businesses around you don’t benefit from those with cars being able to use them to patronize said businesses. I mean, why have businesses at all?
June 8, 2012 @ 4:31 am
My own businesses, being software companies and largely virtual, don’t directly benefit from parking for myself or others. If they did I would be willing to pay for it. Car advocates expect massive subsidies but object to bike lanes! Now there is a double standard. If there is a market need for parking let the market deliver it but don’t force it on tax payers.
I do not expect cars to go away, and I enjoy using them once or twice a month. We clearly have to accomodate many of transportation. But let’s try to (i) decrease subsidies all around and (ii) find some balance. Bike lanes make cycling safer, especially for people carrying loads, or who are with children, or who are older. And I have no problem paying for them directly if we could figure out how to do this. But car drivers should realize just how massively they are subsidiazed and how dangerous they make the world for people on foot or on bicycles. They are in deep denial.
And I do choose to live in a place where I can walk or cycle just about everywhere I need to go.
June 8, 2012 @ 2:14 am
Also, read my comment above. I started driving again after my personal safety was comprimised. Judge away.
June 8, 2012 @ 4:32 am
So I would guess you are a strong advocate for anything that will increase the personal safety of pedestrians and cyclists then?
June 8, 2012 @ 10:19 am
Steven, I am a strong advocate for increasing PEOPLE’S personal safety. For myself that doesn’t include waiting for a bus like a sitting duck alone at night. When I am navigating through traffic on foot or in a car, I don’t assume that people see me or will stop for me. That and keeping my eyes on the road and lots of shoulder checking. In other words I try to take as much responsibility for myself as I can.
June 8, 2012 @ 10:24 am
Also why do you feel you are subsidizing cars exactly? Can I get some actual stats? Because last time I checked we were all using the road.