Metro Vancouver Bike/Pedestrian Discussion

[whatnext]

Originally Posted by racc

..Anyway, you trolls are getting rather tiresome. This a bike forum not a whiney motorists forum. I can always go post some inconvenient truths on the Gateway forum if you want.

I believe the forum you're looking for is http://www.velolove.bc.ca, this is Skyscraper page, remember?

Post away about Gateway. I think that project is a bad idea and the money should have been spent on effective rapid transit to the valley, giving people a practical alternative to cars and strengthening Vancouver's place as the pre-eminent city in Metro. And others looking to see who is the more balanced poster will find my support of the Cambie bike lane (which the city botched IMHO) and improving the network of bike routes on secondary streets such as Heather, Ontario etc. because they can be done largely without negatively impacting vehicular traffic.

Sadly the cycling zealots don't realize how they turn off moderate voters and harm their cause with their strident rhetoric. Like WarrenC12, I deliberately choose toget by with one vehicle in a household of three adults and plan my trips to accomodate that with transit or walking, but I am not blind to the fact that is not a possibility for many people in Metro.

[go_leafs_go02]

Originally Posted by whatnext

I believe the forum you're looking for is http://www.velolove.bc.ca, this is Skyscraper page, remember?

Post away about Gateway. I think that project is a bad idea and the money should have been spent on effective rapid transit to the valley, giving people a practical alternative to cars and strengthening Vancouver's place as the pre-eminent city in Metro. And others looking to see who is the more balanced poster will find my support of the Cambie bike lane (which the city botched IMHO) and improving the network of bike routes on secondary streets such as Heather, Ontario etc. because they can be done largely without negatively impacting vehicular traffic.

Sadly the cycling zealots don't realize how they turn off moderate voters and harm their cause with their strident rhetoric. Like WarrenC12, I deliberately choose toget by with one vehicle in a household of three adults and plan my trips to accomodate that with transit or walking, but I am not blind to the fact that is not a possibility for many people in Metro.

Gateway is a good start, you can't just expect heavy trucks to take transit and there needs to be a way to move goods more efficiently. I'm all for more transit and the like, but realize - there is NO real way to get anywhere into Vancouver without using a car if you're coming from the rest of the province. Upgrading the connections through BC's largest city, to better connect with the USA, with the island, to whister and the like. The roads are at or near capacity, but with the crappy service you get anywhere outside of Vancouver/Buranby, you have no choice but to drive.

I would love to see Rail for the Valley be given a pilot project. I'd give it a shot, even if time was a wee bit longer than driving.

But now this thread is really getting offtopic.

[aberdeen5698]

Originally Posted by racc

By the time you take into account the time you spend earning the after tax money required to own, operate and maintain a car into the equation, you might find the total time spent supporting and using your car makes in really no faster than other forms of transportation unless you are really making the big bugs.

That's an interesting take, one I don't think I've seen before. If someone spends say, 10% of their disposable income on purchasing, fueling, insuring and maintaining a car, then that could work out to something in the neighborhood of an hour a day.

Of course you're trying to balance time against money, and money tends to be more replaceable than time...

[deasine]

This isn't the first warning before and this thread is going to be closed for a period of time. If such discussions occur elsewhere on the forum, expect suspensions.

[deasine]

Alright so here are the rules now. Whoever starts a discussion that is mildly unrelated to what this forum is supposed to be discussing and leads to a dispute about will receive a suspension. Those who also continue the dispute will also get suspended. This thread is about discussing the development of bike infrastructure, not Car Vs. Bikes.

If you don't like what the person said, don't bother responding. Discussion and debates are good, but only when they aren't out of control.

[tybuilding]

I found some interesting information in regards to cycle infrastructure in Sydney, Australia. Currently only 1% of trips are made by bike there so there is a lot of room for improvement. In Sydney they want to create their cycle network by adding 200 km of cycleways.

http://www.sydneycycleways.net/default.html

AECOM was hired to do an economic analysis of the bike network and it was very much in favour of an integrated and connected bike network.

Highlights:
http://www.cityofsydney.nsw.gov.au/A...rchCycling.asp

In 2010, the City of Sydney commissioned independent research to quantify the economic benefits of the proposed Inner Sydney Regional Bike Network.
The study by AECOM* found the network would deliver at least $506 million - or $3.88 for every dollar spent - in net economic benefits over 30 years, and reduce Sydney's traffic congestion by 4.3 million car trips a year.

The study forecasts a 66 per cent increase in bike trips by 2016 and a 71 per cent rise by 2026 if the 284 km network - spanning 15 council areas, 164 suburbs and a population of 1.2 million people - is built at a cost of $179 million.

The proposed project is in addition to the City's current $76 million works program to build 200km of cycleways in the City Centre and inner city villages by 2017.

The benefit in reducing congestion alone is estimated to be worth $97.8 million or $4.07 for every commuter switching from a car to bicycle during peak periods.

The study found that building the network would provide $147.3 million in health benefits for the next 30 years, potentially saving Sydney commuters from a raft of chronic diseases from heart disease to Type 2 Diabetes.

Cycling makes dollars and sense – key facts from the reports
The AECOM research estimated the following additional benefits from the development of the Inner City Regional Bicycle Network:
Will generate more than 7 million bicycle trips a year by 2016
Will cut car use by 4.3 million trips a year by 2016
Will relieve traffic congestion, making essential car travel easier
Will alleviate health problems such as obesity, high blood pressure and heart disease
Will promote worker productivity through reduced absenteeism
Will increase “journey ambience” for cyclists
Will bring environmental improvements such as reduced greenhouse gas emissions as well as improved air quality and lower noise pollution
Will generate savings in Government transport infrastructure building and operating costs.

Economic Return of the Bicycle Network:
Every $1 spent on the network generates $3.88 back to the community
Fewer cars means $97.8 million in decongestion benefits
Decongestion benefits of $4.07 per trip for every commuter switching from car to bicycle
Average cost savings of $1.34 per trip for each motorist switching to a bicycle
Average fare savings of between $1.60 and $2.20 per trip for every public transport commuter switching to a bicycle
Net benefit of $506 million over 30 years (in today’s dollars).
Community Health/ Lifestyle Benefits:
$147.3 million over 30 years from the reduced risk of mortality
Equal to 44 cents for each cycle trip
Journey ambience (which includes the value of better protection for cyclists and improved way finding) of $129.8 million
Savings of $24.2 million in greenhouse gas emissions, air and noise pollution.
More people riding more often:
Bicycle trips account for just under 1 per cent of total travel each day
62 per cent increase in weekday bike usage on Sydney’s cycleways between 2003 – 2008
55 per cent increase in daily bike usage on Sydney’s cycleways between 2003 – 2008
Cycling to increase 66 per cent by 2016 with the network
42 per cent of households owned at least one bike (2005) versus 37 per cent in 2001.
http://www.cityofsydney.nsw.gov.au/A...s/Brochure.pdf

It seems the emphasis from the report was for separated cycleways with the following types:
Separated cycleway with parking
Separated cycleway without parking
Shared Paths
Contra-flow cycling access
Contra-flow bike lane with separator
Mixed traffic lanes
Separated cycleway bend out intersection
http://www.cityofsydney.nsw.gov.au/A...ys/default.asp

Going along with all of the the city currently gives free education seminars for cycling confidence and bike maintenance. I think cities in the Lower Mainland should do the same.

[whatnext]

Did anyone attend the City's Hornby Street bike lane presentation at Pacific Centre yesterday? Apparently there was verbal dust-up between Nelson Skalbania (there's a name from the past) and a cycling advocate:
http://www.vancouversun.com/travel/S...754/story.html

[Smooth]

Does the City plan on converting the bus lane on Howe to parking once buses return to Granville? I would hope that they do to make up for all the parking that will be lost on Hornby when that bike lane goes in.

[racc]

Originally Posted by Smooth

Does the City plan on converting the bus lane on Howe to parking once buses return to Granville? I would hope that they do to make up for all the parking that will be lost on Hornby when that bike lane goes in.

Well, the city's 1997 Transportation Plan had Seymour and Howe as part of the bike lane network and as part of the Downtown Transportation Plan, the city said they would look at Seymour and Howe for improved sustainable transportation (cycling and walking I would presume).

[Smooth]

Originally Posted by racc

Well, the city's 1997 Transportation Plan had Seymour and Howe as part of the bike lane network and as part of the Downtown Transportation Plan, the city said they would look at Seymour and Howe for improved sustainable transportation (cycling and walking I would presume).

If (when) the City pushes ahead with the Hornby bike lane then it would be redundant to put another cycling lane one block over. The sidewalk is perfectly adequate for pedestrians along Howe and doesn't need widening. Allowing parking in that lane seems appropriate and would alleviate some of the concerns of the businesses in the area re: loss of parking for customers.

[aberdeen5698]

Originally Posted by whatnext

DApparently there was verbal dust-up between Nelson Skalbania (there's a name from the past) and a cycling advocate

Name from the past indeed!

Nelson wants his taxes reduced because they're taking parking spaces away from the front of his building. The reality is that if the resale value of his property goes down as a result of the bike lanes, then his taxes will go down too. That's the way it's supposed to work - it's got nothing to do with whether there are parking spaces in front of the property or not (unless that affects the property value).

I'm actually a little mystified by these parking space arguments because my experience is that there's never any on-street parking available downtown anyway - at least whenever I'm there all the spaces always seem to be occupied. As a potential patron of these businesses, I never assume I'll be able to find on-street parking, so it's never a reason why I'd patronize a downtown business. And in fact it's why I always find alternatives to driving downtown.

In a way, it would be nice if the City actually did institute an on-street parking space levy. It would make help to level the playing field for for those businesses who are actually providing their own parking spaces, and it would go a long way toward eliminating these kinds of street-use arguments ("yes, you'll loose your parking spaces but you'll be compensated by not having to pay for them any more").

But I have a feeling that most businesses would be opposed to a new levy, even if it were possible under existing legislation.

[racc]

Originally Posted by Smooth

If (when) the City pushes ahead with the Hornby bike lane then it would be redundant to put another cycling lane one block over. The sidewalk is perfectly adequate for pedestrians along Howe and doesn't need widening. Allowing parking in that lane seems appropriate and would alleviate some of the concerns of the businesses in the area re: loss of parking for customers.

There are sidewalks on every street downtown and safe motor vehicle access. There should be safe bicycle access on every street as well.

[s211]

Originally Posted by racc

There are sidewalks on every street downtown and safe motor vehicle access. There should be safe bicycle access on every street as well.

But what about space for skateboarders, too? Can't forget them. In-line skaters too.

[cabotp]

Not sure if this was mentioned recently.

I've noticed that at King Edward and Windsor. They are building a permanent structure to prevent left turns and you can't drive straight through on Windsor.

I'm wondering they will keep or take away the ped activated light .

[WarrenC12]

Originally Posted by aberdeen5698

Name from the past indeed!

Nelson wants his taxes reduced because they're taking parking spaces away from the front of his building. The reality is that if the resale value of his property goes down as a result of the bike lanes, then his taxes will go down too. That's the way it's supposed to work - it's got nothing to do with whether there are parking spaces in front of the property or not (unless that affects the property value).

I don't buy a lot of the business argument against bike lanes, but the hotel one is an interesting issue. Any busy hotel that has a pull-in parking area (I'm thinking of the Hyatt on Burrard or the new Fairmont), would be seriously impacted by a separated bike lane.

I don't think it's impossible, but I think a smart design should be able to take into account some special cases.

[aberdeen5698]

Originally Posted by WarrenC12

I don't buy a lot of the business argument against bike lanes, but the hotel one is an interesting issue.

The existing bike lane is on the opposite side of the street from the Wedgewood hotel - isn't that the side that they'll be converting from parking to a cycle lane? If so, how will it impact the hotel?

[WarrenC12]

Originally Posted by aberdeen5698

The existing bike lane is on the opposite side of the street from the Wedgewood hotel - isn't that the side that they'll be converting from parking to a cycle lane? If so, how will it impact the hotel?

Good question, I haven't seen the model or design. If that's the case, it's just crazy Skalbania...

[twoNeurons]

Originally Posted by s211

But what about space for skateboarders, too? Can't forget them. In-line skaters too.

Skateboards? People-powered-planks? Bike lanes could be used by them too.

Inline-skaters are essentially pedestrians with fancy shoes.

[racc]

Originally Posted by twoNeurons

Skateboards? People-powered-planks? Bike lanes could be used by them too.

Inline-skaters are essentially pedestrians with fancy shoes.

Lots of skateboarders and Inline-skaters use the separated bike lanes on Dunsmuir.

[DKaz]

Originally Posted by twoNeurons

Inline-skaters are essentially pedestrians with fancy shoes.

You could say that if pedestrians can go 30km/h. I generally rollerblade on the roads like a bicycle... the only exception is when I'm going uphill in which case I go too slow and take too much room to want to stay on the road. I often ride down from Burrard Station to Stanley Park on W. Georgia and I can keep up with traffic. On level surfaces, I often blade faster than a casual cyclist though I don't try to tackle the hardcore cyclists preferring instead to keep a leisurely pace. I save that fast stuff for on the ice.