Metro Vancouver Bike & Pedestrian Discussion

[Porfiry]

Originally Posted by whatnext

Even more maddening some of those millions will go straight to the City of Montreal who had to bail out BIXI.

What is "maddening" about that? Montreal behaved as a lender and fronted some cash for that business to operate. So yes, some portion of that company's cash flow will be returned to Montreal. It's basic capitalism, hardly something to be frustrated about.

The financial circumstance of a contractor does not represent an abnormal risk to the city of Vancouver. One assumes that a contract was signed for provision of services. All that matters to us is whether those services are delivered. If the company goes under then the services stop, the payments stop, and we just need to find someone new. Given that Montreal taxpayers have some skin in the game, I'd say that the risk of this company failing is lower than typical. Perhaps it's not the best situation for Montreal taxpayers, but that is hardly our concern.

[radacal]

Anybody know why there were about twelve people in reflective vests camped out at the north end of the Burrard Street bridge all week? Counting traffic? Counting bikes? Public outreach?

[tybuilding]

Originally Posted by radacal

Anybody know why there were about twelve people in reflective vests camped out at the north end of the Burrard Street bridge all week? Counting traffic? Counting bikes? Public outreach?

Probably counting traffic and cyclists.

So what if its subsidized? I don't hear the tax payers association complaining about the auto subsidies? They should be. USER PAY!

http://bc.transport2000.ca/learning/background/transport_2021/cost_report.html

Automobile transport was subsidised by $2.7 billion

Private, motorised vehicles (including motorcycles) were subsidised by about $2.7 billion in the Lower Mainland in 1991. As the full costs of auto transport are about $11.7 billion, the subsidy for cars is about 23%. ...

[whatnext]

Originally Posted by Porfiry

What is "maddening" about that? Montreal behaved as a lender and fronted some cash for that business to operate. So yes, some portion of that company's cash flow will be returned to Montreal. It's basic capitalism, hardly something to be frustrated about.

The financial circumstance of a contractor does not represent an abnormal risk to the city of Vancouver. One assumes that a contract was signed for provision of services. All that matters to us is whether those services are delivered. If the company goes under then the services stop, the payments stop, and we just need to find someone new. Given that Montreal taxpayers have some skin in the game, I'd say that the risk of this company failing is lower than typical. Perhaps it's not the best situation for Montreal taxpayers, but that is hardly our concern.

Basic capitalism?!

If it was basic capitalism any one of the existing bike rental companies would be involved, not some outfit that requires $2 million yearly from the taxpayer to subsidize it. Given the recent shenanigans at Montreal city hall, no Vancouver taxpayer should feel that shovelling money into one of that city's pet projects is a smart investment.

[easy as pie]

why not look at who else is using bixi aside from montreal? well, aside from just the places i've used it (london and dc), you have nyc set to roll out the 3rd largest network on the planet, etc. it was bailed out in montreal for a variety of reasons but chiefly it was poor management by crony idiots. it's a company that's successful almost in spite of who montreal's corrupt gang appointed (there's an enormous cultural shift happening there now). anyway, bateman is sort of a fanatic and the only really interesting thing that he gets at is the major thing: the helmet laws. there's almost no question that bike sharing in vancouver will fail, just as it has in other helmet law jurisdictions.

i strongly support vision vancouver, but i hope that their crew realizes that this project will fail utterly unless gregor and co. can convince adrian to repeal the helmet law.

[cornholio]

Originally Posted by tybuilding

Probably counting traffic and cyclists.

So what if its subsidized? I don't hear the tax payers association complaining about the auto subsidies? They should be. USER PAY!

http://bc.transport2000.ca/learning/background/transport_2021/cost_report.html

Automobile transport was subsidised by $2.7 billion

Private, motorised vehicles (including motorcycles) were subsidised by about $2.7 billion in the Lower Mainland in 1991. As the full costs of auto transport are about $11.7 billion, the subsidy for cars is about 23%. ...

Automobile transport is the only reason we are relevant, its the reason we have a economy, and stuff actually gets done. Every $1 invested in to automobile transport gets us $10 back, sure that return drops in some parts of a city as its core densifies and economy changes, and eventually it may even become negative, thats why we have some transit.

Bike share programs have been money pits everywhere, maybe some rare places that broke even but Vancouver will not be one of them. This will be a huge money pit just like it has been just about everywhere else. Paris for example has lost piles of money...I was reading about their program a little while ago.

[cornholio]

Originally Posted by easy as pie

why not look at who else is using bixi aside from montreal? well, aside from just the places i've used it (london and dc), you have nyc set to roll out the 3rd largest network on the planet, etc. it was bailed out in montreal for a variety of reasons but chiefly it was poor management by crony idiots. it's a company that's successful almost in spite of who montreal's corrupt gang appointed (there's an enormous cultural shift happening there now). anyway, bateman is sort of a fanatic and the only really interesting thing that he gets at is the major thing: the helmet laws. there's almost no question that bike sharing in vancouver will fail, just as it has in other helmet law jurisdictions.

i strongly support vision vancouver, but i hope that their crew realizes that this project will fail utterly unless gregor and co. can convince adrian to repeal the helmet law.

It has been subsidized by millions almost everywhere. I think you need to look a little deeper.

[Rico]

Originally Posted by cornholio

Automobile transport is the only reason we are relevant, its the reason we have a economy, and stuff actually gets done. Every $1 invested in to automobile transport gets us $10 back, sure that return drops in some parts of a city as its core densifies and economy changes, and eventually it may even become negative, thats why we have some transit.

Bike share programs have been money pits everywhere, maybe some rare places that broke even but Vancouver will not be one of them. This will be a huge money pit just like it has been just about everywhere else. Paris for example has lost piles of money...I was reading about their program a little while ago.

So every dollar invested in auto transport returns $10 to the economy? I have never heard those numbers before and the only situation I could see where that maybe true is completely new access to a destination. You can bet Gateway will not be returning that...not to mention auto travel has extermal costs like health associated with it. That said money spent on improving mobility produces returns to the economy, you just missed that improved mobility can come from pedestrian/bike/transit investments as well and that those investments have external benifits instead of external costs. So my question to you is assuming Vancouver ends up spending 2million on bike share will that buy more mobility than 2million on road. Since 2million will buy you squat for auto mobility it is pretty clear the bike share will buy you more mobility than an equivelant road investment...and that is before external factors are considered.

[s211]

Originally Posted by easy as pie

i strongly support vision vancouver, but i hope that their crew realizes that this project will fail utterly unless gregor and co. can convince adrian to repeal the helmet law.

Unless cyclists sign an indemnification in favour of society should the cyclist get a head injury, then forget it. I'm not going to pay for the health care of some hipster wang/wangette who just wants to keep his/her hairdo all just-so.

[Porfiry]

Originally Posted by s211

Unless cyclists sign an indemnification in favour of society should the cyclist get a head injury, then forget it. I'm not going to pay for the health care of some hipster wang/wangette who just wants to keep his/her hairdo all just-so.

If you want to opt others out of health care, then you should also be opted out. Why should society help you when you have no desire to help society?

Leave now.

[Prometheus]

Originally Posted by s211

Unless cyclists sign an indemnification in favour of society should the cyclist get a head injury, then forget it. I'm not going to pay for the health care of some hipster wang/wangette who just wants to keep his/her hairdo all just-so.

And where on the list of provincial health care costs do you suppose head injuries from cycling without a helmet ranked? And how many head injuries from cycling without a helmet do you suppose there were compared to head injuries from any other activity undertaken without a helmet (e.g. walking, playing, showering, jogging, driving, etc.)?

Moreover, studies show a positive correlation between mandatory helmet use and an increase in risky behaviour. Thus, do you have any evidence that the overall health care costs associated with cycling have not in fact increased per capita since the helmet law was enacted?

Studies also show that helmet laws discourage many from taking up cycling. (Indeed, it is precisely the helmet law which will preclude the bike share program's economic viability.) Thus, do you have any evidence that the health care costs from cycling without a helmet are not in fact outweighed by the health care savings from the health benefits of greater cycle participation?

[easy as pie]

Originally Posted by cornholio

It has been subsidized by millions almost everywhere. I think you need to look a little deeper.

depends how you define subsidy.

[WarrenC12]

Originally Posted by s211

Unless cyclists sign an indemnification in favour of society should the cyclist get a head injury, then forget it. I'm not going to pay for the health care of some hipster wang/wangette who just wants to keep his/her hairdo all just-so.

You already are. Same for smokers, drunk drivers, and so on.

[Echowinds]

If people isn't going to pay for the health care of cyclists' head injuries, I guess people also shouldn't pay for people getting obesity problems for eating too much, shouldn't pay for people with lung issues for smoking, etc etc.

I believe a greater uptake of cycling by the population will save the greater society a lot of money through a healthier population and the fact that you need less roads. I don't get why people are so worked up about cycling infrastructures.

[whatnext]

Originally Posted by Prometheus

And where on the list of provincial health care costs do you suppose head injuries from cycling without a helmet ranked? And how many head injuries from cycling without a helmet do you suppose there were compared to head injuries from any other activity undertaken without a helmet (e.g. walking, playing, showering, jogging, driving, etc.)?

Moreover, studies show a positive correlation between mandatory helmet use and an increase in risky behaviour. Thus, do you have any evidence that the overall health care costs associated with cycling have not in fact increased per capita since the helmet law was enacted?

Studies also show that helmet laws discourage many from taking up cycling. (Indeed, it is precisely the helmet law which will preclude the bike share program's economic viability.) Thus, do you have any evidence that the health care costs from cycling without a helmet are not in fact outweighed by the health care savings from the health benefits of greater cycle participation?

Here ya go:
A new study offers more proof that bicycle helmets prevent fatal head injuries.

Canadian researchers examined data on all 129 cycling deaths that occurred in the province of Ontario between January 2006 and December 2010. The cyclists ranged in age from 10 to 83 years old, and 86 percent were boys or men. Motor vehicles were involved in 77 percent of the deaths.

Cyclists who died of a head injury were three times less likely to be wearing a helmet than those who died of other injuries, according to the study, which was published in the CMAJ (Canadian Medical Association Journal)...
http://www.nlm.nih.gov/medlineplus/news/fullstory_130283.html

[tybuilding]

The auto economy costs BC. It is subsidized. Why in BC does it pay back to the economy "10 to 1" but in Copenhaggen they figure that every km cycled benefits society while every km driven costs society?

Cycling figures in hard cash
– When a person chooses to cycle this is a clear gain for society of DKK 1.22 per extra cycled
kilometre. Conversely, society suffers a net loss of DKK 0.69 per extra kilometre driven by car.
– In cost-benefit terms the health and life expectancy benefits of cycling are seven times
greater than the accident costs.
– The cost of a bicycle is 33 øre per extra cycled kilometre covering purchase price and
maintenance. The equivalent cost for a car is DKK 2.20 per extra driven kilometre.

Here are the subsidies in BC:

http://bc.transport2000.ca/learning/background/transport_2021/cost_report.html

"In February of 1993 the Ministry of Transportation and Highways published a document titled "Reviews of Transport 2021 Costs of Transporting People in the Lower Mainland", which estimates a much higher overall cost for "light vehicle" transport.

In short: the Ministry of Transportation and Highways of the province of British Columbia says that automobile transportation in the Lower Mainland is actually subsidised by $6.6 billion per year; 42% of all automobile costs are subsidised."

I highly doubt that $1 spent on auto infrastructure benefits the economy 10 to 1 and no other form of transportation spending will benefit the economy. So when I see that the City of Vancouver might need to spend $2 million to help out the bike share if it requires it and they want to change the way people are transported in the city by changing the modal share to cycling, walking and public transport with a small subsidy I ask, "So What?"

And in the author of the articles own words:

Jordan Bateman
Nov 9 (4 days ago)

to me
"Gas tax is a fraction of what is paid, but thanks for the email."

I say EXACTLY!!

Investing in cycling makes a lot of sense. Sure we need to be wise about the investments. We should be looking at the cost benefit ratio for all transportation projects and include life cycle costs and external factors as well.

[cornholio]

Originally Posted by tybuilding

The auto economy costs BC. It is subsidized. Why in BC does it pay back to the economy "10 to 1" but in Copenhaggen they figure that every km cycled benefits society while every km driven costs society?

Cycling figures in hard cash
– When a person chooses to cycle this is a clear gain for society of DKK 1.22 per extra cycled
kilometre. Conversely, society suffers a net loss of DKK 0.69 per extra kilometre driven by car.
– In cost-benefit terms the health and life expectancy benefits of cycling are seven times
greater than the accident costs.
– The cost of a bicycle is 33 øre per extra cycled kilometre covering purchase price and
maintenance. The equivalent cost for a car is DKK 2.20 per extra driven kilometre.

Here are the subsidies in BC:

http://bc.transport2000.ca/learning/background/transport_2021/cost_report.html

"In February of 1993 the Ministry of Transportation and Highways published a document titled "Reviews of Transport 2021 Costs of Transporting People in the Lower Mainland", which estimates a much higher overall cost for "light vehicle" transport.

In short: the Ministry of Transportation and Highways of the province of British Columbia says that automobile transportation in the Lower Mainland is actually subsidised by $6.6 billion per year; 42% of all automobile costs are subsidised."

I highly doubt that $1 spent on auto infrastructure benefits the economy 10 to 1 and no other form of transportation spending will benefit the economy. So when I see that the City of Vancouver might need to spend $2 million to help out the bike share if it requires it and they want to change the way people are transported in the city by changing the modal share to cycling, walking and public transport with a small subsidy I ask, "So What?"

And in the author of the articles own words:

Jordan Bateman
Nov 9 (4 days ago)

to me
"Gas tax is a fraction of what is paid, but thanks for the email."

I say EXACTLY!!

Investing in cycling makes a lot of sense. Sure we need to be wise about the investments. We should be looking at the cost benefit ratio for all transportation projects and include life cycle costs and external factors as well.

Water, health care, police, electrical grid, airports, parks, community centers etc... are all subsidized. Are you trying to say that we are losing money on these?

The reason roads are subsidized is because they are the life blood of our cities. I am all for bike lanes but not at the expense of our quality of life, because that;s exactly what you accomplish when you reduce overall mobility.

You like to bring up Denmark...Once again.

65.7% of all travel distance is by private vehicle.
60% of all trips are by private vehicle when commuting.
86.2% of all freight tons are transported by truck (nationally).
28.4% of all freight tons are transported by truck (internationally) compared to 8% by train.
http://www.trm.dk/~/media/Files/Publicat...012/Facts%20and%20Figures-netversion.pdf

Oh and yes they have oil pipelines as well...
http://www.theodora.com/pipelines/norway_sweden_denmark_pipelines_map.jpg

Anyways your first link is from the municipality of Copenhagen, not even the metro, its just like taking a study, say a viaduct study from the city of Vancouver and presenting it as fact...crazy I say. Your second link makes a good point, per user transit is subsidized double that of road transport (not even taking in to account goods movement in which case the difference would be astronomical)...what percentage of our population uses transit, and what are we left with when we subtract, students, seniors and the poor?. Yet probably (and im guessing here as I dont even feel the urge to find the real numbers) 95+% of our economy is directly reliant on our road infrastructure. By the way that study is 20 years old...

But hey like I said I am for bike lanes, but not at the expense of our mobility. Look if I were to give up my car my maximum productivity would probably drop by 90%, I would contribute a fraction what I do now back to society...and I work remotely most of the time.

It just bugs me so much when people spin facts like this, especially when they pull out the roads are subsidized card...it's just so absurd imo. sorry.

sorry if i took this off topic.

Build bike lanes, plan for them in new developments, don't build them at the expense of overall mobility. That's like building a wheel chair ramp and complaining no one uses it, so you go break someones legs so they are forced to use it and then you pat your self on the back about how successful the ramp is...

The world is a little more complicated then this.


Back to your point, the bike share program has been a money pit just about everywhere. 2 million is allot of money, and I will bet it will be several times more, every year. These things add up and next thing your looking at is huge deficits. http://www.troymedia.com/2012/06/29/beware-the-hidden-costs-of-bike-sharing-programs/ http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/7881079.stm

There should be NO subsidy for the bike share program, at the most a one time LOAN and no and I mean no bail outs, that should be etched in to stone. Then I will support it and believe me if someone can make it work then I will be happy.

[Rico]

Originally Posted by cornholio

Water, health care, police, electrical grid, airports, parks, community centers etc... are all subsidized. Are you trying to say that we are losing money on these?

The reason roads are subsidized is because they are the life blood of our cities. I am all for bike lanes but not at the expense of our quality of life, because that;s exactly what you accomplish when you reduce overall mobility.

You like to bring up Denmark...Once again.

65.7% of all travel distance is by private vehicle.
60% of all trips are by private vehicle when commuting.
86.2% of all freight tons are transported by truck (nationally).
28.4% of all freight tons are transported by truck (internationally) compared to 8% by train.
http://www.trm.dk/~/media/Files/Publicat...012/Facts%20and%20Figures-netversion.pdf

Oh and yes they have oil pipelines as well...
http://www.theodora.com/pipelines/norway_sweden_denmark_pipelines_map.jpg

Anyways your first link is from the municipality of Copenhagen, not even the metro, its just like taking a study, say a viaduct study from the city of Vancouver and presenting it as fact...crazy I say. Your second link makes a good point, per user transit is subsidized double that of road transport (not even taking in to account goods movement in which case the difference would be astronomical)...what percentage of our population uses transit, and what are we left with when we subtract, students, seniors and the poor?. Yet probably (and im guessing here as I dont even feel the urge to find the real numbers) 95+% of our economy is directly reliant on our road infrastructure. By the way that study is 20 years old...

But hey like I said I am for bike lanes, but not at the expense of our mobility. Look if I were to give up my car my maximum productivity would probably drop by 90%, I would contribute a fraction what I do now back to society...and I work remotely most of the time.

It just bugs me so much when people spin facts like this, especially when they pull out the roads are subsidized card...it's just so absurd imo. sorry.

sorry if i took this off topic.

Build bike lanes, plan for them in new developments, don't build them at the expense of overall mobility. That's like building a wheel chair ramp and complaining no one uses it, so you go break someones legs so they are forced to use it and then you pat your self on the back about how successful the ramp is...

The world is a little more complicated then this.


Back to your point, the bike share program has been a money pit just about everywhere. 2 million is allot of money, and I will bet it will be several times more, every year. These things add up and next thing your looking at is huge deficits. http://www.troymedia.com/2012/06/29/beware-the-hidden-costs-of-bike-sharing-programs/ http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/7881079.stm

There should be NO subsidy for the bike share program, at the most a one time LOAN and no and I mean no bail outs, that should be etched in to stone. Then I will support it and believe me if someone can make it work then I will be happy.

Actually I doubt that anyone here is saying we don't need any spending on roads, just that we need to balance our spending on roads. We currently spend too much on roads relative to other modes.
Now a few specifics your observation that 2million is a lot of money is true...for bikes, 2 million will buy a lot of bike mobility...2 million will not buy squat for car mobility. The link provided by Tybuilding actually references 2 seperate 'studies' one reports higher auto subsidies than the other. Although not noted bike/pedestian modes would be the lowest subsidy. The transit subsidy noted (based on 1993 cost recoveries) is higher than the auto subsidy noted in one report and lower than the auto subsidy determined by the BC MoTH. It should also be noted that cost recovery for transit in Metro Vancouver has improved a lot since then so it is probably safe to say that Transit is currently less subsidied than auto travel within Metro Vancouver.

[aberdeen5698]

Originally Posted by Rico

...for bikes, 2 million will buy a lot of bike mobility...2 million will not buy squat for car mobility...

If I recall correctly, installing left turn lanes at Knight and 57th cost 4.5 million dollars. So 2 million is about half of what was required to improve that intersection.

They're re-paving Kingsway right now. I wonder what that costs?

[deasine]

Originally Posted by aberdeen5698

If I recall correctly, installing left turn lanes at Knight and 57th cost 4.5 million dollars. So 2 million is about half of what was required to improve that intersection.

Left turn lanes, Knight @ 49th	3,000,000
Left turn lanes, Knight @ 41st	3,200,000
Left turn lanes, Knight @ 57th	6,200,000
Left turn lanes, Knight @ 33rd	3,400,000

(Various City Council Reports/Minutes)