Metro Vancouver Bike & Pedestrian Discussion

[WarrenC12]

^^^^

Thanks. So what we see on Richards is "Class 1", almost like a barrier-separated lane. What we normally see on Vancouver roads is around Class 2.5, or Class 3.

[Porfiry]

Originally Posted by theKB

The government doesn't subsidize your car purchase.

If you buy the right kind of car, yes they do.
http://www.cevforbc.ca/

[city-dweller]

Regarding the class of bike lane, thanks for pointing out the mistake WarrenC12.

As you can see from tybuilding's reference (one I use often too) Richard street is a class 1 with parking and a painter buffer as protection. My point was this approach is cheaper than concrete or planters. Also, NYC had paint first and then upgraded individual sections later as part of bigger public realm improvements. The Richards improvement was part of a bigger resurfacing project including redesigning the corners. It is good to see the city considering multiple improvements in one project.

[WarrenC12]

I would agree the Richards version is the best bang for the buck. As a cyclist I feel safer on that as compared to riding right next to traffic.

All that being said, nothing beats a totally separated lane, with real barriers between you and traffic.

[jozero]

Originally Posted by s211

"Subsidized" infrastructure for all, perhaps, but can you please tell my wife where she can go to get her subsidy cheque for her car? Far as I know they don't do that for cars, motorcyles, jet packs et al, so why should bikes be subsidized?

Every time you park for free it is subsidized. If you take the value of land in BC the subsidy is quite massive. Gas is subsidized, if we truly charged its cost the prices would be what beyond what Europe charges. Cars are responsible by far for most preventable deaths and injury, which is a massive cost to society.

If I go rent a bike from Bixi, the government doesn't personally hand me a check, as you are requesting. It has subsidized the entire operation. When you bought your car, everything around it has been subsidized (gas, roads, injury).

[mezzanine]

Free parking is heavily subsidized by the public and private sector. Think about all the land and work (signage, patrolling, etc) needed for free on-street parking. you may pay for that with your property taxes but someone with out a car currently has no way of getting that back.

If you take a condo, the mandated amount of parking as per zoning is a cost assumed by the developer, and passed on to the purchaser

Originally Posted by s211

"Subsidized" infrastructure for all, perhaps, but can you please tell my wife where she can go to get her subsidy cheque for her car? Far as I know they don't do that for cars, motorcyles, jet packs et al, so why should bikes be subsidized?

California introduced a parking 'cash-out' law. It obligates employers of larger companies (>50 employees) who lease out parking spaces for employees, to pay out a cash equivalent to those who don't use a parking space.

http://www.arb.ca.gov/planning/tsaq/cashout/cashout.htm

[s211]

Sweet jeebuz, you wankers. READ my post. I'm talking about subsidization of the actual transportation vehicle, not infrastructure. Thank god for the ignore user option. This thread gets lighter all the time. Sayonara, extremists.

[WarrenC12]

Originally Posted by s211

Sweet jeebuz, you wankers. READ my post. I'm talking about subsidization of the actual transportation vehicle, not infrastructure. Thank god for the ignore user option. This thread gets lighter all the time. Sayonara, extremists.

The vehicle is nothing without the infrastructure.

One thing that this whole discussion highlights is the way the auto industry has bamboozled everyone.

[tybuilding]

Originally Posted by s211

Sweet jeebuz, you wankers. READ my post. I'm talking about subsidization of the actual transportation vehicle, not infrastructure. Thank god for the ignore user option. This thread gets lighter all the time. Sayonara, extremists.

Your wife's car is not publicly owned. It is privately owned. It is not in the public service of providing public transportation. The bike share bikes are publicly owned and are meant for public transportation. Why should your wife's car it be subsidized? You don't need to own that car as far as the transportation system is concerned. It makes a lot more sense to subsidize a bike share bike or a bus, even a modo coop car as all of them save on publicly funded infrastructure as mentioned in the posts above.

[SpongeG]

i skimmed so i don't know if this is whats being discussed but i heard that chicago is introducing a new license for bike owners with the idea that monies will help pay for the bike paths etc.

would that idea fly well here? or does the city already have a bike license program or something that cyclists pay towards costs of bike paths/lanes etc?

[spm2013]

Originally Posted by SpongeG

i skimmed so i don't know if this is whats being discussed but i heard that chicago is introducing a new license for bike owners with the idea that monies will help pay for the bike paths etc.

would that idea fly well here? or does the city already have a bike license program or something that cyclists pay towards costs of bike paths/lanes etc?

Article I read about it sounds like it is just some random idea from some councillor that will never get implemented. I'm sure anyone that wants to get elected in Vancouver isn't going to start taxing cyclists after bending over backwards to encourage it.

[WarrenC12]

Helmet laws aren't enforced, why would licensing be any different?

[tybuilding]

Originally Posted by SpongeG

i skimmed so i don't know if this is whats being discussed but i heard that chicago is introducing a new license for bike owners with the idea that monies will help pay for the bike paths etc.

would that idea fly well here? or does the city already have a bike license program or something that cyclists pay towards costs of bike paths/lanes etc?

I don't think it is justified based on what is put towards cycling already. Cycling funding is not even at a representative amount based on the percentages of trips taken and the amount of general fund taxes already paid by residents as discussed earlier. We should at least match funding levels/taxation to mode share prior to having extra fees for cycling. Otherwise I can see that government would not equalize the gap or they would replace the fees for the current funding. The downside potential and administration and enforcement costs make the program not worth it. It also leads to what do you tax next? Do you tax walking shoes because a lot of the infrastructure funding goes to multi-use trails or there are pedestrian improvements at the same time. (In Surrey Gateway cycling funding went to 148 street which included bike lanes and curb bulge/pedestrian crossings)

http://articles.redeyechicago.com/2013-1..._8-cyclists-chicago-tribune-traffic-laws

[tybuilding]

Originally Posted by WarrenC12

Helmet laws aren't enforced, why would licensing be any different?

That's a bit of a generalization. I had a cop slow down to make sure my baby and I were wearing helmets.

[mezzanine]

I think the chicago idea is a non-serious proposal by one alderman. several cities studied bike licencing and it would not improve public policy goals. It would be a challenge to get cost-recovery of the program, let alone trying to pay for infrastructure.

http://chi.streetsblog.org/2013/10/24/no-a-bike-license-fee-doesnt-make-any-sense/

Cities that operated licensing schemes for decades have abandoned their programs, citing low enforcement that fails to raise revenue to pay for the program. Ottawa, Ontario, found ”limited benefits and significant challenges” and abandoned its proposal. Toronto abolished its 22-year bike licensing program in 1957 and the City Council declined to implement new programs three times since, citing the difficulty of maintaining a current database and licensing children, and noting that “licensing in and of itself does not change the behaviour of cyclists who are disobeying traffic laws.” As Active Transportation Alliance director Ron Burke told DNAinfo, ”The cost to implement it would actually exceed the revenue generated.”

---------

[chicago alderwoman] Dowell’s proposal got some support from Alderman Anthony Beale (9th) — who called it thinking outside the box – but none from the mayor, who said, ”I surely don’t want police involved in policing whether you bought a bike license.”

And Dowell herself said she hasn’t “thought it through completely.” Maybe she doesn’t expect to win any arguments about this plan, but her proposal has already proven a great strategy to get media attention.

[spm2013]

Originally Posted by WarrenC12

Helmet laws aren't enforced, why would licensing be any different?

Neither is jaywalking.

[theKB]

Originally Posted by spm2013

Neither is jaywalking.

it's not illegal to "jaywalk", it is only illegal if you interrupt traffic outside of a marked cross walk.

[spm2013]

Originally Posted by theKB

it's not illegal to "jaywalk", it is only illegal if you interrupt traffic outside of a marked cross walk.

"Jaywalk" means to cross a roadway, not being a lane, at any place which is not within a crosswalk and which is less than one block from an intersection at which traffic control signals are in operation.

12. Crossing at Other Than Crosswalks.
(1) Every pedestrian crossing a roadway at any point other than within a marked
crosswalk or within an unmarked crosswalk at an intersection, shall give the
right-of-way to all vehicles upon the roadway.
(2) No pedestrian shall jaywalk on City streets. For the purpose of this subsection
a lane shall not be considered to be a street.
(3) Notwithstanding the provisions of this section, every driver of a vehicle shall
exercise due care for the safety of pedestrians and shall give warning by
sounding the horn when necessary, and shall exercise proper precaution
upon observing any child or any confused or incapacitated person upon a
roadway.

http://former.vancouver.ca/bylaws/2849c.PDF

[WarrenC12]

Originally Posted by tybuilding

That's a bit of a generalization. I had a cop slow down to make sure my baby and I were wearing helmets.

Ticketing for not wearing a helmet happens, but so rarely as to not really be a concern. It's like speeding 5 km/h over the limit. I'm sure tickets have been written...

[Porfiry]

Originally Posted by WarrenC12

Ticketing for not wearing a helmet happens, but so rarely as to not really be a concern. It's like speeding 5 km/h over the limit. I'm sure tickets have been written...

A random cop is not likely to ticket you, but they treat it as a safety issue so they do run blitzes from time to time. I've encountered cops standing on bike routes doing nothing but ticketing cyclists for missing helmets. Enforcement does happen.