Metro Vancouver Bike & Pedestrian Discussion

[rsxstock]

Originally Posted by Porfiry

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.

i must be lucky because i never encountered one in 10 years cycling around the sea wall at stanley park and false creek science world

[biketrouble]

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...

Definitions of "rarely" may vary, but based on the BikeYVR Helmet Traps twitter feed (https://twitter.com/bikeyvrHT) there are helmet traps on popular bike routes every 1-2 weeks during the summer. Less frequent outside the summer months but there was one on 7th Ave only a few days ago.

[WarrenC12]

I've bicycle commuted 3-4 days a week for the last 6 years. I've never seen a helmet checkpoint. Ever.

[biketrouble]

Originally Posted by WarrenC12

I've bicycle commuted 3-4 days a week for the last 6 years. I've never seen a helmet checkpoint. Ever.

I've commuted 5 days a week for 8 years and I've never seen one either. Does that mean I win?

The plural of "anecdote" is not "data". The fact - easily checked - is these checks do happen fairly regularly, in particular on the most popular routes - 10th avenue seems to be a favourite. The VPD ticketed 1800 riders last year alone, and there are 11,000 outstanding unpaid tickets.

I think you are also forgetting that you are dramatically less likely to notice one of these helmet traps if you are wearing a helmet, for reasons that should be fairly obvious if you think about the word "trap".

[WarrenC12]

^^^^^

Based on our shared experience, I'm going to stick with the word "rarely". I know anecdotes aren't fact, but come on.

[tybuilding]

Wow, $2.28 million. Thanks Victoria for spending a $0.49 per person per year combined with local goverments! That is amazing. Wait, no its not, it sucks! Leading cycling countries like the Netherlands are spending $30/per person per year! with all spending added up. This is why we get crap. The City of Surrey alone is spending $1 million per year on cycling and the province is committing only $1.14 million for the entire province? Its not enough Victoria!

$1.14 million is only enough for ~10 km of bike path per year.

This is even less than the budget from 2011! It was supposed to be $3 million per year which was then only 0.17%! ($3 million in $1,701 million!)

Cycling investment supports healthier B.C. communities

VICTORIA – The government of B.C. is investing $1.14 million in BikeBC this year, to expand and build cycling lanes, trails and paths for healthier B.C. families and communities.

BikeBC is a 50/50 cost-sharing program between the Province and local governments. This year’s investment will help create more than $2.28 million in cycling infrastructure. Since 2008, the government of B.C. has committed over $14 million in BikeBC funding throughout the province.

$640,000 of this new funding is available to Lower Mainland communities interested in linking their cycling paths and lanes to the Gateway Program cycling network. Local governments interested in this program can apply online at: http://www.th.gov.bc.ca/BikeBC/gatewaycycling.html

In addition, $500,000 is available to help B.C. communities with smaller scale projects, such as bike lanes and paths through the Cycling Infrastructure Partnerships Program (CIPP). Local governments interested in this program can apply online at: www.th.gov.bc.ca/BikeBC/CIPP.html

To be considered for funding, local governments must describe how the project benefits the community and contributes to increased physical activity and healthy living, as part of their municipality’s active community plans. The deadline for applications is Jan. 10, 2014. If they have questions regarding the BikeBC funding program they can contact the Ministry of Transportation and Infrastructure at: [email protected]

Cycling is a key component of the B.C. government’s strategy for encouraging healthy living and addressing climate change, in conjunction with the Climate Action Plan and the Provincial Transit Plan.

The press release is available at:
http://www2.news.gov.bc.ca/news_releases_2013-2017/2013TRAN0074-001735.htm

[b5baxter]

Originally Posted by Porfiry

...Enforcement does happen.

Yes, about 3,000 times a year:
http://www.canada.com/vancouversun/news/...8375-65f1-445a-a7a0-9755c7543d32&k=35598

[city-dweller]

Originally Posted by biketrouble

The plural of "anecdote" is not "data".

Thats Andy Yan's line.

[tybuilding]

This would be great for Surrey and White Rock. Surrey already is hoping to have this as a greenway corridor. This would be great for tourism to have multi-use trail on the waterfront between Crescent Beach and White Rock. It would also be great to use the bridge on the Mud Bay to connect to the existing waterfront trail on the north side of Mud Bay that is a bike route all the way to Centennial Beach.

http://www.peacearchnews.com/news/232750551.html

A case is being made to relocate the BNSF train tracks off of the Semiahmoo Peninsula’s waterfront, White Rock’s mayor announced Monday.

Citing incidents that have intensified discussions on rail safety over the past six months – including the tragic July derailment in Lac-Mégantic, Que. and a jogger fatality that same month in White Rock – Wayne Baldwin said a joint community forum is to be held Tuesday evening to share information gathered to date by Surrey and White Rock officials, including possible options for relocating the century-old line.

Council attendees applauded the announcement, which preceded unanimous approval of a motion by Coun. Larry Robinson to call on federal Minister of Transport Lisa Raitt to develop a policy that mandates fire departments be pre-advised of trains coming through their communities with dangerous goods.

Baldwin told Peace Arch News that the costs of moving the line are estimated at $350-400 million, not including any work south of the border.

Staff from the two cities have been researching the plan’s feasibility and preparing a business case for it since August, he said.

While the idea has been raised many times over the years – and in increasing frequency – Baldwin said it gained serious steam following his July radio interview in which concerns with the condition of the Little Campbell rail bridge were discussed. Surrey Mayor Dianne Watts called in to the show, then told Baldwin privately, “We have to get together and talk about this,” he said.

Both cities are critical of plans for a new coal-export terminal in North Surrey, which would increase trains on the waterfront.

[jlousa]

Seems like Toronto's Bixi required a sizable bailout as well.

http://news.nationalpost.com/2013/11/25/...ike-program-over-to-portland-based-firm/

[WarrenC12]

The Portland based firm they are handing over management to is the same one that Vancouver has chosen to run the program here.

Amazing to see so many comments on that article defending Rob Ford...

[twoNeurons]

Originally Posted by WarrenC12

The Portland based firm they are handing over management to is the same one that Vancouver has chosen to run the program here.

Amazing to see so many comments on that article defending Rob Ford...

As much as I think Rob Ford needs help and don't condone his lifestyle, I can't help but think that his support always lacked among the well-to-do in Toronto but been strong with the common man... and that the "us vs. them" mentality gets really strong when this happens.

[204]

Originally Posted by 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.

If you don't feel safe riding in traffic, perhaps this is not the best form of transportation for you.

Also, separated lanes are actually MORE dangerous:

Research carried out over the years and throughout the world comes back with a simple observation – separated bike lanes are not safer, especially at intersections.


In fact, City of Helsinki advises that "two-way cycle paths [separated bike lanes] in particular should be avoided in an urban street network.”


Locally, Vision Mayor Robertson flanked by his sidekick Vision Councillor Meggs can be heard ad nauseam pushing their opinions that placing cyclists behind fixed, solid barriers is safer. They invite cycling lobbyists to their Council Meetings who speak of their SUBJECTIVE PERCEPTIONS of feeling safer when cycling on a separated bike lane.
Feelings and wishful thinking aside, the OBJECTIVE FACTS are clear – separated bike lanes do not make anyone safer. Not cyclists, not pedestrians, not motorized commuters or business traffic.



The reasons are quite intuitive. On a straight stretch of a road, where all commuters can see each other clearly there is little chance of running into each other and little to no benefit from separating bikes from other road users. At the intersections however, a separated bike lane, with its separate set of rules, signs and lights makes an intersection more confusing and confusion is the leading cause of accidents. As commuters we do not run into each other on purpose.

http://604commuter.blogspot.ca/2011/06/no-safety-behind-wall-separated-bike.html#more

[WarrenC12]

Originally Posted by 204

If you don't feel safe riding in traffic, perhaps this is not the best form of transportation for you.

Also, separated lanes are actually MORE dangerous:

Don't put words in my mouth. I feel safe riding in most traffic, more so with painted lines, and safest with separated lanes. It's only common sense.

Originally Posted by 204

http://604commuter.blogspot.ca/2011/06/no-safety-behind-wall-separated-bike.html#more

The north end of the Burrard St. bridge is a mess regardless of separated lanes.

We need north american examples to relate to Vancouver. I'd be safer under any circumstances riding a bicycle in an area like Helsinki where drivers are much more familiar with cyclists.

[tybuilding]

Originally Posted by 204

If you don't feel safe riding in traffic, perhaps this is not the best form of transportation for you.

Also, separated lanes are actually MORE dangerous:



http://604commuter.blogspot.ca/2011/06/no-safety-behind-wall-separated-bike.html#more

Yes this is why Copenhaggen only uses one way separated lanes. What Coppenhaggen has sure beats a traditional bike lane, even the bike lane to the right of the cars beats the traditional bike lane as long as it's wide enough. The biggest thing though is people want to ride the separated lanes, not the traditional bike lanes. For example in a discussion with some female friends of mine they mentioned that they would prefer to ride the new bike lanes on 192 street in Surrey over a traditional bike lane beside moving traffic.

One should not lump 2 way separated pathways and one way pathways as both being more dangerous.

Also the point of better infrastructure is that EVERYONE should feel safe riding, not just the most confident. So if that means separated lanes, whether 2 way or better one way then that is the way to go.

Also I woudn't trust the writer of this blog, they have nothing positive to say about cycling, they are very much against anything by the look of things.

[aberdeen5698]

Originally Posted by 204

If you don't feel safe riding in traffic, perhaps this is not the best form of transportation for you. Also, separated lanes are actually MORE dangerous

All these sentiments and reasons are probably equally applicable to pedestrians, but I don't see anyone recommending that pedestrians should be plopped down right beside vehicular traffic with nothing more than a painted line to separate them from it.

[jlousa]

Originally Posted by aberdeen5698

All these sentiments and reasons are probably equally applicable to pedestrians, but I don't see anyone recommending that pedestrians should be plopped down right beside vehicular traffic with nothing more than a painted line to separate them from it.

A crosswalk is just painted line and it seems to work fine most of the time. The city did experiment with curb less roads in the early 90s in a couple locations but they didn't work out, not due to safety, but because of issues collecting water into storm drains during rain. So they decided to continue with curbs/sidewalks.

[WarrenC12]

From Francus Bula on twitter:

Van budget 2014: Out of total capital budget $772 mil, city will spend $12 million for improvements to walking, cycling; $56 mil for roads

[jlousa]

The $56M figure includes the following...

Major projects for 2014 include: Powell Street Overpass: $23.1 million in 2014 (Total Project $50 million, with completion anticipated in 2014) City roads paving: $9.2 million in 2014 Burrard Bridge rehabilitation and bearing replacement: $6.8 million in 2014 (Total Project $9.6 million, with completion anticipated in 2014) Burrard Bridge South End improvements: $3.9 million in 2014 (Total Project $6 million, with completion anticipated in 2014)

As you can see the normalized number the city spends on roads is pretty miniscule. Most of those expenses are abnormal.
Also worth noting that the city took in Over 47M last year in parking. The city makes money on roads on most years

[WarrenC12]

Originally Posted by jlousa

The $56M figure includes the following...

As you can see the normalized number the city spends on roads is pretty miniscule. Most of those expenses are abnormal.
Also worth noting that the city took in Over 47M last year in parking. The city makes money on roads on most years

That's what capital costs are: one time expenses, not ongoing operational costs.

The $12M for cycling and pedestrian improvements includes $5M for the new bike lanes around Kits, and $1.2M for an equestrian(!!) trail.

I only point this one for those that insist cycling gets all the money in this city. It's simply not true.