August 9, 2016

Evidence: Third Stage of Cycling Infrastructure – 3

The third stage of cycling infrastructure includes the build-out of a network of separated routes without a lot of controversy (other stages here).
Even though I’m familiar with the City’s transportation plans, this example of new separated lanes along parts of Nelson and Smithe, serving the Cambie Bridge, was in its way a surprise:
IMG_7646 (Large) IMG_7649 (Large)
They’re part of the larger improvements occurring in this part of downtown, connecting with the lanes on Richards and Dunsmuir:
IMG_7664 (Large)
The Beatty Street lane has not been entirely without controversy: those at the armoury, charged with handling crises from wars to earthquakes, were flummoxed at the prospect of a bike lane out front – but then that was about parking.
IMG_7655 (Large)A few years ago, the idea of taking road and parking space from two of the one-way arterials into the core would simply not have come up for serious conversation.
And yet, here they are.

Posted in

Support

If you love this region and have a view to its future please subscribe, donate, or become a Patron.

Share on

Comments

Leave a Reply to AnonymousCancel Reply

  1. Interestingly, I haven’t head any of the negative comments either by letters to the editor or editorials that has accompanied every other bike facility around the city.

      1. I have heard only general comments from people who are anti-bike about bike facilities in general, but almost nothing about the recently (June, 2016) implemented bike lanes.

  2. I attended the open house on these projects, and didn’t hear any push back from attendees. I asked the City staff attending about this, and they noted that they had met with impacted business owners before the general open house.
    The armoury pushback followed construction; perhaps they didn’t know about the open house in advance, although it was held a block from their facility.
    There were five lanes planned and announced, but one was deferred. That was Richards, at the north end. Apparently there were conflicts with the loading zones for the planned lane (which was separated from moving traffic by parked vehicles). I gather that the City wants to take the time to get that one right, and will come back with a revised design that considers the loading zone conflicts.
    I think that the Nelson lane will be even more useful when the planned protected lane across the Cambie Bridge is implemented. Right now, the lane ends at the north end of the bridge.

    1. Once yet again, “the pushback followed construction” because the City did not consult with the people in the affected area; it just went ahead and substantially changed the roadway without asking for input because this current Vision Council does not want input from the public. It just pays them lip-service. Disgusting.

      1. Please reread Jeff’s comment above:
        “I asked the City staff attending about this, and they noted that they had met with impacted business owners before the general open house.”
        So, how the Armoury didn’t know or the people who complained didn’t know is only speculation.

        1. My best suggestion would be to ask the Armoury staff directly to avoid speculation; I know some of these individuals, and I assure you that they were unaware. Indeed, they were in shock when it happened.

  3. Although I find it frustrating that the lanes don’t continue to the West End, or even to Hornby. It’s the biggest gap in the cycling network for me, personally, trying to get to Haro St on the route I cycle most frequently. I’m faced with contending with scary traffic on Smithe/Nelson or to travel several blocks north or south out of my way and back. Yes, an improvement for which I’m grateful, but only a very small one.

  4. Actually, the Armoury issue was about a curbside loading zone, rather than “just” parking. i.e. the same issue you have with bus stops being on the far side of the bike lane.
    WRT the Smithe and Nelson lanes, these need to be signed as “one way” bike lanes. Maybe painted arrows in the lane would work.
    In both cases, I have seen bidirectional bike traffic on them – and because of their “shared lane” segments (as well as narrow segments on Nelson), biking the “wrong way” necessarily creates head-on conflicts with cars and other cyclists.

    1. Good point on the one way arrows on Smithe and Nelson. I have occasionally seen the same behaviour on the Richard’s St one way bike lane, near Beach.

        1. Colin and others,
          It simply does not suffice to say that “cyclists should know….” Of course, they should know and do know. That is not the point; many cyclists just choose not to abide by the rules of the road, and due to a lack of enforcement, they get away with their irrational acts, putting pedestrians, motorists and other cyclists at risk.

        2. Susan, if your point is that some cyclists don’t abide by the rules of the road, that isn’t support for your claim of faulty engineering. The two are separate issues.

        3. Jeff,
          There is no either/or: both lack of signage (faulty engineering) and erratic cyclist behaviour are to blame.

        4. Signs alone will not solve the problem of cyclists behaving badly; that will require enforcement of the directional signage and other rules of the road.

        1. Good to know. In another Pricetags thread a few weeks back there was a discussion about a City web page which noted that ebikes were banned from protected bike lanes, something that doesn’t match the actual bylaw. That CoV web page was updated very soon after to match the bylaw.
          Makes one wonder whether someone on staff with the City might be reading.

    2. Yes, SIGNAGE is essential for the safety of all the users. Instead of spending millions on unnecessary infrastructure, why won’t this Council spend minimal dollars on urgently needed directional signage? They desperately need to get the urgent priorities straight, not their own personal priorities.

      1. Except when the cycle paths are next to death trap ditches then we should spend who knows what on curbs and other ‘safety’ right?

    3. The confusion can be expected, because there are 2 bi-directional bike lanes on one-way streets downtown of similar width – on Hornby and Dunsmuir.
      The difference in markings would be quite subtle – a short yellow line at intersections.
      So you need a big arrow or something to make it really obvious.

      1. I pushed for bi-directional on Beatty but city staff were against it. It’s more difficult for motorists.
        But it’s better for cyclists – more space to maneuver and pass and way more social and friendly.

        1. I see in other places where there’s a one way protected bike lane and it’s used in the wrong direction. It’s officially the wrong thing to do but it hasn’t been a problem so I don’t worry about it.

      2. A concern with bi-directional is the intersections, and interactions with motor vehicles. Drivers don’t often expect people on bikes coming from other than the usual direction, and crashes can result. I was glad to see unidirectional lanes, for that reason.

        1. Beatty would only have 3 intersections to deal with if it were bi-directional. One-way lanes were proposed to appease motorists because at one of those intersections, Georgia, it was thought there would be delays to motorists turning from Beatty toward the viaduct.
          Once motorists figured it out there have been few problems on either Dunsmuir or Hornby. Motorists have more problems seeing cyclists coming up from behind them as happens on one way lanes than those approaching from opposite in a bi-directional protected lane.
          I believe MV traffic flow, not safety, was the primary reason for the narrow one way lanes in which passing is difficult. Two way lanes are more friendly for cyclists.

      1. Maybe we should start listing in this post all the bad behaviour we’ve seen with car drivers over the decades, and the billions spent on public infrastructure to support them, too of which is exceedingly wasteful.
        What makes cyclists so special to be singled out from the much larger crowd of road users? They are new users and are taking up a modicum of space. So what?

        1. Cyclists are not “new users”. They were the original users of paved roads and the reason that paved roads were invented in the first place. As the years went on motor vehicles increasingly pushed them to the margins and hogged all the space.
          In more recent years motor vehicles have become bigger and more powerful and took over the margins until finally people said “enough is enough” and staged protests (Critical Mass rides) to show motorists what it’s like to not be given any space to get anywhere. This didn’t work to make motorists behave better. It turned out that motorists didn’t even understand what it was about. This was because the problem was systemic. Drivers were just going along with the system and the ideas they were told. Taking the cue from the Netherlands people realized that the only solution to the motorist problem was to not have to have anything to do with them.
          So if anyone complains about cycling infrastructure they have no one else to blame but the newcomers, the motorists.
          And then there are those who cycle who are against them and say that bike lanes are “just letting the cars win.”

    1. Guest – So I once saw a driver turning left from Davie eastbound into the Hornby bike lanes. People make mistakes; they miss a sign or miss a turn. I am sure that these two incidents were not deliberate.
      In terms of public safety, the biggest problem by far is motor vehicles and our focus should be mostly on mostly on how to improve infrastructure, vehicles and driver behaviour in order to make our roads safer. It is good that both the province and CoV have a vision zero policy – namely a goal of zero traffic fatalities – but we have a long way to go to make that a reality. Separated cycling infrastructure will certainly help.

  5. I guess if residents on Beatty between Nelson and Smithe have visitors they bettet not have a car as the city took away about half of the street parking on that block. I’d bet most of that lane will be empty outside a short rush hour window

    1. … and they are on a bike path, and the city has a bike share now … guess what, maybe a lot of those visitors will arrive on foot or by bike?
      Most of those buildings have precious few spaces allocated to visitor parking, and many I have seen have taken a few of those visitor spaces away and used them for garbage/recycling, or are renting them out, or are having them used for zipcar/car2go/evo … if this visitor parking thing becomes such an issue, buildings can certainly free up spaces internally, without their being continually subsidized by everyone else (see any number of rants on the cost of free/cheap parking)

        1. … they’re the only one I don’t have! (I use that option so seldom I haven’t bothered losing zip to get modo’d … basically only when I help out friends who have cars move things that don’t fit in their cars!)

  6. It’s funny that Vancouver claims to be such a cycling city but is so far behind the curve on installing separated bike lanes. Good to see it finally just getting done but man it’s way overdue.

Subscribe to Viewpoint Vancouver

Get breaking news and fresh views, direct to your inbox.

Join 7,284 other subscribers

Show your Support

Check our Patreon page for stylish coffee mugs, private city tours, and more – or, make a one-time or recurring donation. Thank you for helping shape this place we love.

Popular Articles

See All

All Articles