As Vancouver city council prepares to vote on Wednesday on a separated bike lane southbound on the Cambie Bridge, opinions abound. Why, it must be Vancouver, and bikes must be involved. Tune in on Wednesday for the result. [Project details HERE and HERE].
With thanks to Glenda Luymes in PostMedia outlet the Vancouver Sun.
City data shows the shared path on the east side of the Cambie Bridge is among the busiest cycling connections to and through downtown Vancouver. In July 2017, there were 80,000 bicycle trips on the shared path, with about 3,200 per midweek day. The report also notes that vehicle volumes on the Cambie Bridge are lower today than they were 20 years ago.
Downtown Vancouver Business Improvement Association CEO Charles Gautier said his organization is supportive of projects that make the downtown “accessible to all modes of transportation,” including the Cambie Bridge bike lane.
While traffic congestion is an issue for business, giving one lane to cyclists on the Cambie Bridge is “not the problem,” he said.
. . . “It would be a very positive step,” cycling advocate Jeff Leigh said of the bike lane. “It would make that area safer all around.”
The chair of HUB Cycling‘s Vancouver committee said pedestrians will likely see the biggest benefit if the bike lane is approved, with half the cyclists that currently weave through walkers on the congested, shared sidewalk on the bridge’s east side moving to the new, designated southbound bike lane. Northbound cyclists would continue to share the path with pedestrians.
. . . But opponent Steffan Ileman said any reduction of lanes leaving downtown will have a negative impact on business.
“This has to stop before the city does real damage to the economy,” he said. “The bridge barely accommodates traffic during rush hour as it is.” [Ed: except, of course, that vehicle volumes have dropped there since 1995, and ya know, the DVBIA support].
I think it’s really hard for some people to wrap their heads around the fact that not everyone is like them. They personally are unwilling to cycle or take transit to go shopping so they imagine that others will not either. They imagine that all the customers in stores drove there like they did.
Fortunately we have data and that’s stronger than anything imaginary could be. We just need to make sure that things are data driven and evidence based. Unfortunately the media isn’t.
The headline really shows The Sun’s bias. “Exclusive bike lane in cards…”
Having the word “exclusive” implies that it’s for an elite minority.
The next one is “Vancouver could get one more bike lane before the mayor vacates city hall.” which implies that the mayor is the reason behind them (which is a recurring narrative that they’ve been using for a long time now). It also implies that there won’t be any more once he’s gone.
We all know that PostMedia has ties to the oil industry and they’re not going to let one little city find an alternative to their product.
https://www.vancouverobserver.com/news/postmedia-prezi-reveals-intimate-relationship-oil-industry-lays-de-souza
LikeLike
“I think it’s really hard for some people to wrap their heads around the fact that not everyone is like them.”
I could not agree more. I believe that a lack of imagination, an inability to put oneself in the shoes of others, is responsible for much of the cruelty that humans inflict on one another. But I do not think that this is a gap is bridged by reason.
“We just need to make sure that things are data driven and evidence based.”
In the context of the above passage this looks to me like an appeal to force: when those with power lack public support, they should use that power to push through their agenda. In the short run, when they happen to be on what you or I see as the right course, we may see them as guided by reason and knowledge. But truth alone is not enough. Cassandra had truth: it only made her suffering worse. For those who are not the high priests, a crusade in the name of truth is indistinguishable from might makes right. And the meaning of evidence is in the eye of the beholder. If the next council builds roads instead of bike paths, they will have data and evidence to support bulldozing their opponents too.
Not so long ago, data, evidence and experts supported motordom, not bike paths. For the disciplines involved, the mistake is only apparent in retrospect. Where motordom was resisted, as in Vancouver, it was by democracy: by listening to people rather than evidence and data. I doubt that more data or expertise would have prevented excesses of motordom. On the contrary, experts will do what they are trained to do: if they are trained to build roads, they will build roads. Had they had more imagination, perhaps they would accommodated alternatives.
I believe that it is essential to bring the public along. Lead, yes: Vancouver’s imposed bike paths are an example of acting ahead of public opinion. Yet it seems to me that they will last not because they are the rational thing, but because they have expanded the public’s imagination.
In my view, we never just need evidence-based policy. It is self-defeating in the end. I believe that democracy is more powerful and more enduring. We can struggle for democracy with compassion and imagination – or, if the high priests force their will upon it (right or wrong), we can have it with anger instead.
LikeLike
I understand what you’re saying but it’s not quite what I meant. I meant countering lies such as “the bike lanes are never used” or “The city doesn’t consult anyone” with evidence such as data from bike counters and proof of consultations and meetings with stakeholders.
I agree that engineers just follow policy. They don’t make policy. Policy has to come from the citizens and their needs and wants.
I disagree that data once supported motordom. It’s been known since the early fifties that it was not possible for every person to use a car for every trip but industries pushed their own agenda through politics and got highways built and transit systems dismantled.
I fully agree with people being critical of everything that governments are planning. Even with things that I’m in favour of, I want people who might be left out to have a say so that they aren’t left out. The criticism has to be productive though and not just automatic contrarianism.
I’m in favour of multimodal transportation. I don’t want everyone to ride a bike, I want everyone to have a lot of choice in ways of getting around.
LikeLike
While there will always be naysayers, Vancouver has made the paradigm shift on bicycling. These projects can be treated as mainstream now.
Next step: the rest of Metro Van.
LikeLike
Oh, it’s happening. The ‘burbs are seeing all the good things that are happening here in active transportation and are wanting some of that too.
LikeLike
Last time I was in Calgary (2015) I was shocked to see some significant separated bike lanes. They looked like they were imported from Vancouver — the same green heat-applied green pavement laminate, similar planters, curbs, signs. It was 40 years after the Calgary Herald published a letter of mine (mid 70s) calling for the same after some scary near misses on the roads during a summer of recreational cycling. I even suggested bolting bike “roads” onto the sides of bridges, but never thought of displacing cars in lanes, brainwashed Calgarian that I was then.
That was a very long seed germination period!
LikeLike
This is another opportunity for hot debate. Most of my friends are divided on this issue. On one hand, I am tired of crossing this bridge as a pedestrian and getting buzzed by bikes, a bike lane is clearly needed. On the other hand, I think they should wait until after the viaducts come down when they implement this, there are always unintended consequences if you don’t know how traffic flow will work while making too many changes at once.
LikeLike
HOV Q jumper lanes would reduce the volume of cars ( not people) going downtown
LikeLike
It’s why it’s a temporary trial Gar. The reason they become permanent is because they’re actually getting pretty good at predicting traffic flows. But they’re doing this on the cheap just in case.
LikeLike
Thanks for the clarification.
LikeLike