Metro Vancouver Bike & Pedestrian Discussion

[Metro-One]

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.

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

Yes, but I ride my bike on roads as well.

What always amazes me about Vancouver is how 🞵🞵🞵🞵🞵🞵 our roads are for an area that supposedly currently spends too much money on roads relative to other modes.

In fact it amazes me how many neighborhood streets in this city do not even have proper curbs or sidewalks! Instead they are just patchwork asphalt that crumble off into pot holed gravel shoulders which transition into lawns.

[whatnext]

I had to laugh at CTV's story tonight on why cats eyes weren't found on more roads given our dark, wet weather. The City of Vancouver said "they couldn't afford any more". LOL, yet we're going to subsidize BIXI to the tune of $2 million a year.

[Echowinds]

2 million is a drop in the bucket for any road improvement projects. Of course the road infrastructure can use any money it gets, but is it really wise to pour every available infrastructure dollars into roads? Probably not.

2 million for a fully functioning BIXI would be a bargain. The road network needs improvements, but axing BIXI isn't going to do that. You need to cut the fat off from some other projects that makes less sense. A stronger biking culture not only increases the number of people that bikes as their main form of transportation, but also increase its value as a secondary option for drivers and transit-users. More transportation options is always a good thing, and biking has nice side-effects such as health and environmental improvement.

The thing about density and smart growth is that you can do more with less mobility. If the average person can conduct all their businesses effectively with people/stuff moving around, that's a net gain in efficiency. Promoting biking/walking culture and infrastructure isn't about deliberately gimping drivers, but rather about creating more situations where biking/walking is more advantageous than driving. There's many jobs where driving is a must, but there's also many that are (or can be) not. Productivity is not linked simply to mobility, but rather how efficient that mobility is. If you can do more with less, why not?

[WarrenC12]

I read somewhere that every intersection where lights are put in to replace stop signs, is approx $2M. Can anyone confirm that number?

Of course the reason they are required is for cars, but does anyone know why they aren't using more traffic calming circles instead?

[s211]

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.

Nominated for post of the year.

[aberdeen5698]

Originally Posted by deasine

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)

Very interesting, thanks, Deasine!

I dunno, $2 million for bike share doesn't seem like such an outrageous sum to me. The issue in my mind isn't the money, it's the helmet laws which are likely to prevent it from being very successful. I believe in helmets, use mine all the time, and pretty much think that those who don't use them are "riding on thin ice". But I also believe that getting more people on bikes is a bigger net benefit to society in terms of reduced congestion, pollution, and long-term health costs.

[twoNeurons]

Originally Posted by whatnext

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

You do realize, that if we're talking dollars and cents, a death is far less costly to the medical system than most other injuries. Just sayin'

There's an easy solution, though. Make it legal to ride on sidewalks. (I'm kidding... unless we go with wider sidewalks...)

Since 77% of deaths involved a vehicle and 86% were men, require a helmet only if the following conditions are met:

• You are under 18
• You are not riding in a bike lane or bikeway
• You are male

That means women would be exempt, which means most of the hair issue goes away. I mean, using statistics, those are the most logical parameters.

Sidepoint: I believe we still provide medical care for people who don't wear seat belts, drink and drive, drive recklessly and go out of bounds at the local ski hill.

[Metro-One]

I think helmets should be mandatory for those under 18 (essentially for children), then after that it is your choice.

[SFUVancouver]

Originally Posted by deasine

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)

That is a considerable amount of money and likely reflects the impact that land acquisition costs add to a project, even when the amount of area that is required is quite limited.

Originally Posted by Metro-One

Yes, but I ride my bike on roads as well.

What always amazes me about Vancouver is how 🞵🞵🞵🞵🞵🞵 our roads are for an area that supposedly currently spends too much money on roads relative to other modes.

Compared to Toronto's incalculable number of rutted, potholed, unevenly-patched, and just plain awful streets and roads, the streets and roads of Vancouver are luxurious beyond measure. As a pedestrian, cyclist, transit rider, and driver, I can say without reservation that the general state of repair for Vancouver's streets and roads are fine. There are still far too many curb-cuts left to be installed on Vancouver sidewalks and I still loath sidewalks and curbs that are poorly patched with asphalt by utility contractors, but in my opinion those are the most salient current issues in the state of repair for Vancouver sidewalks, streets, and roads.

None of this excludes the very real need to redesign many of our streets and roads to make them safer and more efficient for cycling; more safe and appealing to pedestrians and commercial street life (cafes, restaurants, etc.); and far more efficient and equitable, with respect to asphalt space, for transit.

[twoNeurons]

That 18M$ for left turn improvements is a one time cost, though. How long will those improvements last? 20 years? You have to amortize an improvement over the life of that improvement.

Bixi is $2M / year. I'm not sure if I'm for or against it, but the total cost is $20M.

[Metro-One]

Originally Posted by SFUVancouver

That is a considerable amount of money and likely reflects the impact that land acquisition costs add to a project, even when the amount of area that is required is quite limited.



Compared to Toronto's incalculable number of rutted, potholed, unevenly-patched, and just plain awful streets and roads, the streets and roads of Vancouver are luxurious beyond measure. As a pedestrian, cyclist, transit rider, and driver, I can say without reservation that the general state of repair for Vancouver's streets and roads are fine. There are still far too many curb-cuts left to be installed on Vancouver sidewalks and I still loath sidewalks and curbs that are poorly patched with asphalt by utility contractors, but in my opinion those are the most salient current issues in the state of repair for Vancouver sidewalks, streets, and roads.

None of this excludes the very real need to redesign many of our streets and roads to make them safer and more efficient for cycling; more safe and appealing to pedestrians and commercial street life (cafes, restaurants, etc.); and far more efficient and equitable, with respect to asphalt space, for transit.

Exactly, and this is still money spent on roads, so spending money on roads is not a bad thing, they benefit everyone. Good roads are ones where some are more favorable for cars / trucks (left turn bays, etc...), others for bikes, and others for pedestrians, and they all need to be well maintained, but they are all still roads. Every side road in Van should have sidewalks and curbs. I am just use to Japan and areas of Europe I have been, where nearly every road is beautifully maintained, from freeways to alleyways.

I know relative to Canada we have good roads, even relative to many areas of the US, but I wish we could get to European / Japanese standards.

[b5baxter]

Originally Posted by cornholio

65.7% of all travel distance is by private vehicle.

Isn't that a national number? And isn't that quite a bit lower than it would be for Canada. And doesn't that support the point that Canada lags behind other countries in shifting to more sustainable transportation?

Originally Posted by cornholio

Anyways your first link is from the municipality of Copenhagen, not even the metro,....

Isn't the municipality of Copenhagen roughly the same size as the city of Vancouver? So wouldn't it be a very apt comparision if we are talking about policies within the city of Vancouver.

Originally Posted by cornholio

But hey like I said I am for bike lanes, but not at the expense of our mobility.
..

But cycling is still a very small part of the transporation budget. Is there any evidence that it is in fact reducing overall mobility?

Originally Posted by cornholio

There should be NO subsidy for the bike share program, ....

Why should we single out this part of our transporation system for no subsidies? You seem to be advocating that we should not sacrifice one part of the system for others and yet you seem to be okay with subsidizing every part of the system except this one. Isn't that inconsistant?

[cornholio]

Originally Posted by Echowinds

2 million is a drop in the bucket for any road improvement projects. Of course the road infrastructure can use any money it gets, but is it really wise to pour every available infrastructure dollars into roads? Probably not.

2 million for a fully functioning BIXI would be a bargain. The road network needs improvements, but axing BIXI isn't going to do that. You need to cut the fat off from some other projects that makes less sense. A stronger biking culture not only increases the number of people that bikes as their main form of transportation, but also increase its value as a secondary option for drivers and transit-users. More transportation options is always a good thing, and biking has nice side-effects such as health and environmental improvement.

The thing about density and smart growth is that you can do more with less mobility. If the average person can conduct all their businesses effectively with people/stuff moving around, that's a net gain in efficiency. Promoting biking/walking culture and infrastructure isn't about deliberately gimping drivers, but rather about creating more situations where biking/walking is more advantageous than driving. There's many jobs where driving is a must, but there's also many that are (or can be) not. Productivity is not linked simply to mobility, but rather how efficient that mobility is. If you can do more with less, why not?

Well today I had to go downtown for work reasons on short notice, I took Marine to Cambie and from there to Waterfront. I did not see one bike in the Cambie bike lanes and although there was traffic it really wasnt that bad. It took for ever, at 4pm there were only 2 lanes, no left turn restrictions, and curb parking resulted in in only one lane and even that lane in two instances got blocked because of more then two right turning cars and a left turning car at a intersection with pedestrians crossing on the right side blocking the entire road. That is horrible. To top it off the light syncing was completely off. This added atleast 10 min to the trip for me and everyone else for no reason at all. Why is there a bike lane and curb parking on a major atrial street anyway in a city with a grid system and nice safe and direct non atrial options every what..500m's?

There was not one bike between Marine and Cambie street bridge, not one. When they decided to remove capacity on Cambie did anyone do a net benefit/cost analysis? No...

Do you know what I did after I was done downtown? I went and roller bladed around Stanley park on the horribly bumpy, leaf covered seawall route which obviously no one gives a 🞵🞵🞵🞵 about.

How about not putting bike lanes on Cambie and creating a bike route 500m's away down one of the side street, its better, safer, and you can traffic calm the non arterial route. Then you can have three lanes on Cambie, do proper light syncing, take out curb parking during the peak hour, and have left turn restrictions on intersections with no left turning bays. Now people who want to bike have a better and safer trip, people who drive have a better and safer trip, people who walk have a better and safer trip and people who live in the communities have better, traffic calmed streets.

But I know why we dont have that, because we have morons who have nothing better to do then to get in to try and play poker with our city planing policies.

Believe me I want better bike lanes and routes, what bothers me is the way some are trying to implement them...to the point that if someone like Rob Ford came along I would consider voting for him out of anger, and I have a bike, I have taken transit, and I do understand its place and importance.

Anyways I am kind of getting this of topic and I dont want to start a bike vs car argument, that is not my intention. I care about this city and what happens to it, I care about our future, and frankly I think some of these extremist's who think they care about our future never ever stopped to think about the bigger picture...some people just purposefully blind them selves, like cult members or something.

/rant

[cornholio]

Originally Posted by twoNeurons

You do realize, that if we're talking dollars and cents, a death is far less costly to the medical system than most other injuries. Just sayin'

There's an easy solution, though. Make it legal to ride on sidewalks. (I'm kidding... unless we go with wider sidewalks...)

Since 77% of deaths involved a vehicle and 86% were men, require a helmet only if the following conditions are met:

• You are under 18
• You are not riding in a bike lane or bikeway
• You are male

That means women would be exempt, which means most of the hair issue goes away. I mean, using statistics, those are the most logical parameters.

Sidepoint: I believe we still provide medical care for people who don't wear seat belts, drink and drive, drive recklessly and go out of bounds at the local ski hill.

This is a funny point. Its not only cheaper for our health care costs but its cheaper for insurers...like ICBC...which actually makes complete sense if you think about the link between insurance costs and health care costs.

As a example the pay out by ICBC is considerably smaller for a death then for a serious injury...and a serious brain injury is the most costly of all. So in other words when some guy is in a coma ICBC is crossing their fingers he dies...as people get desensitized in any profession I can picture someone at ICBC hearing of a horrible crash where a car burst in to flames with a family of 5 asking did they die...someone sais yes they all burned to death, must of been a horrible death..with the ICBC person breathing a sigh of relief and saying oh man I was worried there for a second...

[cornholio]

Originally Posted by b5baxter

Isn't that a national number? And isn't that quite a bit lower than it would be for Canada. And doesn't that support the point that Canada lags behind other countries in shifting to more sustainable transportation?
Denmark is a considerably denser country, with a stagnant population growth and a built form from the times when ony the wealthy could afford a horse...


Isn't the municipality of Copenhagen roughly the same size as the city of Vancouver? So wouldn't it be a very apt comparision if we are talking about policies within the city of Vancouver.
The municipality of Copenhagen is the old center of Copenhagen from once again a different period of time, like most European cities the economic engine is not the core but the ring around them.


But cycling is still a very small part of the transporation budget. Is there any evidence that it is in fact reducing overall mobility?
Proof its reducing overall mobility? Well I dont have the time buts lets calculate how many people a lane of road way transport's per hour and how many people does a bike lane transport..based on todays observation I would say its close to zero this time of the year for bike lanes and probably well over a thousand for the cars.


Why should we single out this part of our transporation system for no subsidies? You seem to be advocating that we should not sacrifice one part of the system for others and yet you seem to be okay with subsidizing every part of the system except this one. Isn't that inconsistant?
We dont have to single it out...but lets start a subsidy for car rental companies...rent me a car for $10 a day and I will be a happy person.

.

[Echowinds]

I am a fan of well designed highways, bridges, and various sort of road infrastructure. It's certainly important for the economy to have a robust road system. Things like the 72nd avenue intersection bothers me to no end, even though I rarely ever need to use it personally. I am also a person that believes axing the viaducts currently as perfectly serviceable road infrastructures is an extreme folly.

What I am simply saying is that cycling infrastructure is so woefully nonexistent that the few sporadic elements within the city isn't going to be well-utilized, because the whole system is lacking. Imagine a subway line without any feeder lines, or a highway without any interchanges leading up to it. To me, that's the problem with a lot of biking programs in the region, as a lot of it doesn't plug well together nor the general environment. A meaningful increase in investments to address these issues isn't going to impact road investments. Sometimes infrastructure meant for another mode of transportation is going to interfere with optimal vehicle traffic, but there are other matters besides ramming as many cars as possible down a road, artery or not.

Personally, I actually believe in having more cars funneled into several relatively narrow limited-access urban expressways while leaving the traditional arteries relatively slower moving with multi-modal traffic. Obviously this isn't going to happen with how Vancouver built out, but having tons of cars down arteries as a replacement could be detrimental. Also, while policies don't necessary have to actively reduce car-ownership, but is creating car-optimized arteries all over the place wise? Taking Cambie again as an example - isn't this route better served with a stronger pedestrian and biking presence now that the Canada Line is there, and instead better traffic signaling and other road upgrades more valid on roads such as Oak and Knight? In a lot of places, sidewalks are barely used compared to the amount of cars, do we just destroy them all for a wider lanes? If total car traffic is actually dropping due to factors outside of city control, isn't it reasonable to reduce car capacity in certain places, even if the selected road choice is questionable? If a two-lane road can carry traffic just as smoothly as a three-lane one, isn't it better to run with a two-lane road and use the remaining space for something else, in the case that car traffic wouldn't increase for the foreseeable future? Frankly, I simply see many of these new biking infrastructure is just a small balancing act that addresses the huge car-bias from age past. Road improvements are still taking the lion's share in terms of funds and grand projects, which is totally fine because it is still the main mode of transportation; I don't see why a few more loose change toss towards biking draws so much ire from motorists. If it works as intended, a stronger biking culture would improve so many things, and if it fails, the costs isn't going to bring ruin to the regions for decades. It's not like we are talking about a multi-billion dollar super highway snaking through the region here.

Some people just wants highways all over the place, and some people want preindustrial eco-fantasies, but it may be worth to think about that most people that advocates for more biking infrastructure believes the best way to go is having biking as a perfectly sensible alternative for cars for more transportation scenarios. The people that actually wants all cars to go away is a very small extremist minority.

[tybuilding]

"But cycling is still a very small part of the transporation budget. Is there any evidence that it is in fact reducing overall mobility? "
Proof its reducing overall mobility? Well I dont have the time buts lets calculate how many people a lane of road way transport's per hour and how many people does a bike lane transport..based on todays observation I would say its close to zero this time of the year for bike lanes and probably well over a thousand for the cars."

I guess we should get rid of all on street parking for that matter as they are taking up road space that could be used for thousands of cars.

[sacrifice333]

Originally Posted by tybuilding

"But cycling is still a very small part of the transporation budget. Is there any evidence that it is in fact reducing overall mobility? "
Proof its reducing overall mobility? Well I dont have the time buts lets calculate how many people a lane of road way transport's per hour and how many people does a bike lane transport..based on todays observation I would say its close to zero this time of the year for bike lanes and probably well over a thousand for the cars."

I guess we should get rid of all on street parking for that matter as they are taking up road space that could be used for thousands of cars.

The example of Seville, Spain, relates to your comments, tybuilding:

Before 2007, cycling wasn’t common in Seville: There was no cycling infrastructure and cars dominated the roads. It was unimaginable for someone to ride a bike to work or to school; in general, cycling was for experienced athletes or for people too poor to own a car. Cycling wasn’t part of the city’s culture.

But five years ago, the city constructed a complete cycling system, including Sevici [Local Public Bike Share Program] and around 120km of cycle lanes. Sevici encouraged people to leave their cars at home and cycle more, especially for short journeys – and with the new cycle lanes, it became an easy, safe and convenient way to travel. And a popular way to travel too; so popular, in fact, that cycling in Seville has grown from being almost non-existent to an important part of daily life.

Seville is completely transformed. Thanks to Sevici, traffic congestion and pollution are declining, and there are fewer cars in the historic part of the city; people are more interested in exercise and in the environment. Seville already has a popular running and rollerblading community, but now there’s a healthy cycling community too.

Sourced from http://learnenglishteens.britishcouncil.org/2012/07/27/cycling-capital-spain. Many more factual sources out there, just grabbed this colloquial example.

[tybuilding]

http://www.richmondreview.com/news/181285871.html


To pave or not to pave. That is the question facing some city councillors mulling the future of the Railway Avenue corridor.

Plans for the first $2.5-million phase of development along the corridor call for a paved trail stretching 3.7 kilometres, from Granville Avenue in West Richmond to Garry Street in Steveston. At city hall late yesterday, council’s parks and recreation committee heard the public trail would provide pedestrians, cyclists and other wheeled users the first long continuous stretch of hard surface for recreational use in Richmond.

But Coun. Harold Steves said blacktop could ruin the city’s chances of securing a light rail transit system in the corridor.


Why not plan for both? The corridor is 23-35m wide. It can accommodate both!

[st7860]

There was a bike lane setup on rupert street between grandview highway and 22nd avenue a few years ago for those that didn't already know.