So much new cycling and public space infrastructure is happening at the moment, from new bike lanes to bikeshare, that it’s hard to believe it’s occurring without much controversy. We seem to have reached a new stage in our cycling evolution.
Looking back, it appears the first stage was, with the appointment of a Bicycle Advisory Committee in the 1970s, the creation of a cycling vision and plan. A small cohort of committed individuals within small organizations lobbied consistently and maintained pressure to get change on the ground. Once ongoing capital commitments were approved, the Engineering department responded.
From that we got the network of bikeways – extremely cost-effective, requiring few trade-offs with other road users.
But the second stage led to controversy: the commitment to a network, primarily downtown, of separated bike routes. See Dunsmuir and Hornby. See Burrard Bridge. See Point Grey Road.
Each was the focus of inflamed media attention, each had to be fought separately. All required political commitment, all were won.
And now the third stage: the build-out of a minimum grid, a complete network of separated routes, a bikeshare system, a triple-A culture (all ages and abilities), a steadily increasing modal share for cycling, an integration with greenways and public spaces. It’s happening without a lot of controversy, based on recognition that what we have done is working and what we can do will make the city better and our citizens healthier.
In the last few weeks, there’s been a lot of evidence of that third stage. For one instance, at the north end of the Burrard Bridge.
Send in the evidence as it happens.
The next stage is cycle tracks on destination and shopping streets. Ironically, the first is on Burrard from 1st to 7th (southbound). Ironically where the main destinations are upscale car dealerships and strip malls.
Then the fifth and final step can only be the repeal of the helmet law. Only then will cycling be normal.
RV, define “normal.”
This is happening. The Commercial Drive “Complete Street” model is being adopted, and the city agreed to continue it on three other streets. It was a hard fight, but it’s happening.
We will see how much “contraversy” there is, in fact, next election. When a majority Council refuses to ask for, acknowledge, respect or implement public input, subverting the public consultation process in favour of their own, admitted personal “legacy” regardless of citizens’ needs and safety, contraversy is strong-armed, not silenced. Residents want their City back, and they will take it.
Susan, what are you implying by putting controversy and legacy in quotes. It’s not quoting someone as you previously stated your quotes were about.
Try reading the article that these blogs are about, Don.
I have thank you, I’m still not sure what you are trying to say when you put words in quotes. You did it again below this by saying ‘tinkering’. Clearly you are trying to imply something or else you wouldn’t do it–what are you trying to say?
I welcome all opinions but I respect evidence.
Likewise.
Faced with evidence that a street was well-used by cyclists, in direct opposition to your opinion, I found there was little respect for the information put before you.
We should get rid of all cars and bikes. It would be cheaper to have public transport.
Public transit is cheaper than bikes? How do you figure?
My first thought was when did they start allowing parking on that block of Pacific. Then I realized that is the near continuous lineup of cars waiting to turn onto to the Burrard Bridge. A line that has grown longer and longer since Gregor started tinkering with the bridge. Far from reducing emissions the whole project merely creates more, it is all for show so that Vision may claim to be the greenest cityand appeal to theit hardcover base of bike riders, who seem oblivious to the fact they will soon be priced out of the city thanks to the mayor’s inaction.
That intersection at Pacific and Burrard has had the second highest number of crashes of any intersection in Vancouver (behind Knight and SE Marine) and it is finally being fixed. You are looking at the construction zone and temporary traffic controls and calling it tinkering. I am so glad that they are not just tinkering, but actually rectifying the situation. And when construction is done, there will be protected turn lanes, safer for all modes.
In contrast to the Burrard and Pacific intersection, with a history of accidents, now that Point Grey Road has been traffic-calmed, the further $6.4+ millions that the Council has approved to be spent on tearing out green space and existing sidewalks only to put back other green space and redundant sidewalks is not only “tinkering” but overt wastage as there is no need for it. Funny, Jeff, how you attempt to justify both expenditures.
Welcome to the third stage of cycling (and active transportation) infrastructure investment. It becomes normal. Expected. Local objectors can’t stage protests and expect significant media coverage, they have to take out $16,000 advertisements in The Sun, as an example. Prolific commenters such as susan smith describe walkers using sidewalks on Point Grey Road as riff-raff, and don’t seem to understand how that comes across to the vast majority of the public. What is funny (curious) is that they can’t see it.
Thought I saw conduit being laid in the trench on the south side when I rode by on Sunday. Are they doing some additional work while creating a protected lane? Should I be castigating Internet users for the minor traffic delays I witnessed?
The project at the north end of the Burrard Bridge has nothing to do with bikes. They’re included of course but the biggest beneficiaries will be motorists who will get two new turning lanes. Also pedestrians will get the east side of the bridge to walk on.
Bikes got two lanes before and will have two lanes after.
The two intersections in the city with the most crashes were this one and Knight and Marine. Both are being improved for safety reasons. It’s not part of the greenest city thing.
It’s much better than just tinkering. It’s a complete redesign of the intersection that encompasses at least a block in every direction to work better and safer.
Have a look at the new south end and see how well it works. It’s an impressive bit of really good design.
You make a good point.
What’s the impact of emerging e-bikes / e-trikes such as http://www.velometro.com i.e. faster and/or wider “bikes” on this infrastructure ?
I see two immediate impacts, one regulatory and one related to physical space limitations.
There isn’t one category of ebikes, and it is a case of legislation needing to catch up with the market. Pedelecs, or electric assist (ie you need to pedal to move) are limited to 32 km/her or so, depending on the jurisdiction. There are proposals to add weight restrictions here, as other jurisdictions have done. Limited speed motorcycles are the next class in BC, and can go faster, but are a class of motor vehicle, so can’t use bike paths. There are heavy electric scooters being sold that have pedals, but don’t require pedalling, and this is where the MVA could use with updating. We also have specific bans in the CoV, such as no motor assist on the Seawall paths.
Apart from all the rules, we would have to build bike paths quite a bit wider to accommodate these types of vehicles in any numbers. I suspect they will end up on the road.
I wonder why the CoV has a speed limit on the Seawall AND bans electric bikes. The speed limit seems sufficient if they are worried about potentially higher speeds with electric bikes. In several downtown areas there is no safe bike route other than the Seawall. Electric bikes not welcome in downtown?
The rules you are referring to are specifically applied by the Park Board, not City Engineering.
Not sure how enforceable the Park Board speed limit is on the seawall, when bicycles are not required to have speedometers. I can understand a citation for dangerous operation of a bicycle in some cases, but not for going an arbitrary speed.
I did some checking and the e-bike restrictions are more severe than I thought. CoV info at:
http://vancouver.ca/streets-transportation/cycling-safety-tips-and-regulations.aspx indicates that e-bikes are forbidden from using any park path and also protected bike lanes. Is this a typo as this is the first time I have seen the restriction of e-bikes on protected bike lanes
Arno, if you go to the bylaws you find that internal combustion powered bikes are banned from all bike infrastructure (as they are classed as motor vehicles) and e bikes are banned from the Seawall paths, but not other park paths. The chart on the web page doesn’t match the bylaws.
Kudos to CoV for making our city much safer and more livable. In spite of over the top consultation and listening closely to citizen concerns, there are still a few people who appear to be unhappy with all the upgrades to our streets. One thing the city could certainly do better is to inform everyone why more cycling is better for everyone.Their mandate is to provide safe and convenient transportation systems. By encouraging more people to cycle, conditions improve for drivers (less congestion), transit riders (less crowding) and pedestrians (safer intersections and less motor vehicles). Also, more bikes are good for business, reduce noise and pollution and make for a more livable city. I don’t see how anyone could be opposed.
Welp. You can’t please everybody but you can make things better in a real tangible way in the realm of reality. That’s more than enough.