Metro Vancouver Bike/Pedestrian Discussion

[jollyburger]

Originally Posted by ClaytonA

We're getting what we earned after voting down transit improvements. Cycling and pedestrian improvements are orders of magnitude less expensive; these are the cheapest and most effective investments in better accessibility and mobility, so by removing the chance at transit improvements we're left with these.

They would have been built regardless of any referendum. Fact.

[aberdeen5698]

Originally Posted by jollyburger

They would have been built regardless of any referendum. Fact.

Absolutely. But since transit expansion is stalled, the bike and pedestrian infrastructure acts as a bit of a relief valve, giving people more commuting options than they would otherwise have had. That frees up at least some much-needed space on the transit system for other users.

[WarrenC12]

Meanwhile in other cities with even worse winter cycling weather (and summer IMO with all the humidity):

http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/toront...work-1.3625252

The plan will be rolled out over the next decade and cost about $16 million a year, eventually adding 525 kilometres to the city's bike-lane network.

I'm pretty sure Vancouver spends nowhere near this amount per year on bike lanes, yet our council is apparently dominated by the mysterious and powerful bike lobby...

[aberdeen5698]

Originally Posted by WarrenC12

Meanwhile in other cities with even worse winter cycling weather (and summer IMO with all the humidity)...

Glad to see that Rob Ford's "war on bikes" has come to an end.

[urbancanadian]

Originally Posted by aberdeen5698

You're kidding, right? LA as an example of a compact city?

Not the city - the region. The LA MSA is compact. Just about every square inch of the region has been developed (and at similar/often higher densities as the core city). They also have a serious lack of green space.

My entire post was about regional densities, not core cities. BTW, apologies for going off topic.

[urbancanadian]

Originally Posted by WarrenC12

Meanwhile in other cities with even worse winter cycling weather (and summer IMO with all the humidity):

http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/toront...work-1.3625252



I'm pretty sure Vancouver spends nowhere near this amount per year on bike lanes, yet our council is apparently dominated by the mysterious and powerful bike lobby...

Yeah it's amazing how much other cities are spending, all across the continent. Even cities like Calgary. It certainly puts us to shame, but shows that our money is being very well spent overall, especially given we have the highest bike share. But every city has had massive pushback. The rich people in Manhattan are notorious.

[BCPhil]

Originally Posted by ClaytonA

So what you two are claiming is that TomTom says Toronto has better mobility?

Since it takes twice as long, 60 minutes versus 30 minutes, and the amount of time to get somewhere increases by 30 minutes instead of 20 minutes in Vancouver, Toronto is supposed to be better?


We're getting what we earned after voting down transit improvements. Cycling and pedestrian improvements are orders of magnitude less expensive; these are the cheapest and most effective investments in better accessibility and mobility, so by removing the chance at transit improvements we're left with these.

I'd add that Vancouver's politicians aren't voted in by people in places outside Vancouver's political boundaries like Steveston, so it probably makes sense they're investing in their citizen's, their voters', transportation options even if it is at the expense of people who feel entitled to drive from outlying suburbs. We limited our options last spring.

No, I'm saying that comparing a 10 minute commute in Vancouver to a 30 minute commute in Toronto is completely made up and arbitrary and doesn't prove anything at all.

What are you comparing? What takes 20 minutes in Vancouver, and how does that relate to the 30 minute commute in Toronto? They are just bullshit numbers people are pulling out of their asses. What makes that comparison valid? I know it's bullshit because statscan says the average commute times for the CSM in 2010 were 25 minutes in Vancouver and 29 minutes in Toronto. Other more recent studies also have differences of just few minutes in average commute time. So randomly comparing 20 minute, to 30 minutes or an hour or whatever makes absolutely no sense.

How is some random person with a 20 minute commute in Vancouver equal to some random person with a 30 minute commute in Toronto. You could just as easily pull the opposite numbers out of your ass. There ARE people who commute for an hour by car in Vancouver and there ARE people who commute for 10 minutes by car in Toronto. Why not compare those numbers?

It's also focusing on a comparison to someone else's standard of living instead of a comparison to how we could be living.

For example, if Toronto only sees a 50% increase in their commute times at rush hour, and Vancouver sees a 100% increase, what are we doing wrong? Why can't we only have a 50% increase? Clearly, Toronto has better infrastructure that is able to better handle the load.

If we actually have very similar average commute times to Toronto and Montreal, BUT that's because we have higher congestion, that means that we CAN have far better commute times (and a higher standard of living) if we properly invest in infrastructure.

"Vancouver: shut up, it's just as good as Toronto" isn't the slogan I want to live by.

[Rico]

Originally Posted by BCPhil

No, I'm saying that comparing a 10 minute commute in Vancouver to a 30 minute commute in Toronto is completely made up and arbitrary and doesn't prove anything at all.

What are you comparing? What takes 20 minutes in Vancouver, and how does that relate to the 30 minute commute in Toronto? They are just bullshit numbers people are pulling out of their asses. What makes that comparison valid? I know it's bullshit because statscan says the average commute times for the CSM in 2010 were 25 minutes in Vancouver and 29 minutes in Toronto. Other more recent studies also have differences of just few minutes in average commute time. So randomly comparing 20 minute, to 30 minutes or an hour or whatever makes absolutely no sense.

How is some random person with a 20 minute commute in Vancouver equal to some random person with a 30 minute commute in Toronto. You could just as easily pull the opposite numbers out of your ass. There ARE people who commute for an hour by car in Vancouver and there ARE people who commute for 10 minutes by car in Toronto. Why not compare those numbers?

It's also focusing on a comparison to someone else's standard of living instead of a comparison to how we could be living.

For example, if Toronto only sees a 50% increase in their commute times at rush hour, and Vancouver sees a 100% increase, what are we doing wrong? Why can't we only have a 50% increase? Clearly, Toronto has better infrastructure that is able to better handle the load.

If we actually have very similar average commute times to Toronto and Montreal, BUT that's because we have higher congestion, that means that we CAN have far better commute times (and a higher standard of living) if we properly invest in infrastructure.

"Vancouver: shut up, it's just as good as Toronto" isn't the slogan I want to live by.

The point was the Tom Tom survey does not ask the right questions. It is a measure of delay experienced by cars not people....and a measure of delay experienced by cars is not as useful information as how much time you spend commuting. So Tom Tom says congestion is going up in Vancouver (and I can believe some car commutes are getting worse) and Statistics Canada says average commute times in Vancouver are going down and I believe this as well (improved transit, more people closer to work ect.) so as the average person are you better off because your commute is shorter or worse off because a greater amount is spent in a traffic jam. I can only speak for myself but I would rather have the shorter commute even if it is in more traffic. For the record congestion is very strongly correlated to city size and economic activity but poorly correlated to infastructure...and strangely enough Vancouver with its reasonable economy and 3rd largest metro in Canada has the 3rd longest commute. We could do a little better but we are right where you would expect us to be.

[aberdeen5698]

Originally Posted by Rico

...So Tom Tom says congestion is going up in Vancouver (and I can believe some car commutes are getting worse) and Statistics Canada says average commute times in Vancouver are going down and I believe this as well (improved transit, more people closer to work ect.)...

I think this is really the crux of the debate. If you're a driver then you might be frustrated with your commute and angry at governments for not improving the road infrastructure.

But if you're not a driver then you may be happy that there are downtown condos you can buy to make it easy to walk to work, or that there are transit options like the Canada Line to get you downtown quickly, or that there are bike lanes that you feel safe enough commute on.

Does the one outweigh the other? How do you assign relative values to the two? Does one have to come at the expense of the other? Those all the kinds of issues that lead to the arguments and counterarguments we're seeing here.

[Rico]

Originally Posted by aberdeen5698

I think this is really the crux of the debate. If you're a driver then you might be frustrated with your commute and angry at governments for not improving the road infrastructure.

But if you're not a driver then you may be happy that there are downtown condos you can buy to make it easy to walk to work, or that there are transit options like the Canada Line to get you downtown quickly, or that there are bike lanes that you feel safe enough commute on.

Does the one outweigh the other? How do you assign relative values to the two? Does one have to come at the expense of the other? Those all the kinds of issues that lead to the arguments and counterarguments we're seeing here.

This is true, but also note that average commute times in Vancouver have been decreasing while they have been increasing for other major Canadian cities, even ones that perform well in the Tom Tom survey. This implies enough people in these cities are moving further from their jobs to affect the average commute times in Stats Canada. Also note that average commute times is pretty well lined up with city size which implies we can have congested trips over short distances or less congested trips over longer distances but not both. The other way to reduce congestion is to tank your economy, I would think Calgary commute times are down with the drop in oil prices.

[officedweller]

.... back on topic....


Note sure if it has been mentioned -

THERE'S A NEW RIGHT TURN TRAFFIC LIGHT (ie. cyclist light) ON SMITHE @BEATTY.

None of the other intersections on Smithe are configured with a dedicated vehicle right turn lane beside a separated bike path,
so I think this will be the only right turn signal on Smithe.

I haven't seen any changes to the traffic lights on Nelson @ Homer, @Mainland or @Cambie (yet), where there are dedicated vehicle right turn lanes beside a separated bike path.

[whatnext]

Originally Posted by urbancanadian

Yeah it's amazing how much other cities are spending, all across the continent. Even cities like Calgary. It certainly puts us to shame, but shows that our money is being very well spent overall, especially given we have the highest bike share. But every city has had massive pushback. The rich people in Manhattan are notorious.

That's because bicycling is the flavour of the month amongst planners and politicians. When they realize it doesn't solve anything, and mainly creates pretty leisure routes or steals ridership from transit, they'll move on to something else.

[Aroundtheworld]

Originally Posted by whatnext

That's because bicycling is the flavour of the month amongst planners and politicians. When they realize it doesn't solve anything, and mainly creates pretty leisure routes or steals ridership from transit, they'll move on to something else.

Flavour of the month? Really?

Cycling is the most energy efficient form of transportation human beings have ever invented. It is clean, it is affordable and it doesn't take up much space.

In my opinion, it's about time we started building our societies around this form of transportation. In fact, if we are talking about passing fads, I'm thinking with the advent of self-driving cars, we may be seeing the end of the private automobile fairly soon.

[VancouverOfTheFuture]

Originally Posted by Aroundtheworld

I'm thinking with the advent of self-driving cars, we may be seeing the end of the private automobile fairly soon.

would self-driving cars increase the use of private automobiles? i would think the vehicles would get smaller, would be self driving, would be electric and therefore require very little maintenance. the cost to buy and own would go down, therefore increasing the market of people who could buy. road space would go further due to increased inefficiencies with computers doing it.

i think the opposite would happen with self-driving cars.

i think cycling is more of a fad, and the bike data that the city has proves it. its a summer fad; ie. not many people commute by bike in the winter. it is seasonal in this city, and it hasn't changed even with many of the bike lanes being around for years now. there is a huge drop off of biking once the weather turns.

[s211]

Originally Posted by officedweller

.... back on topic....


Note sure if it has been mentioned -

THERE'S A NEW RIGHT TURN TRAFFIC LIGHT (ie. cyclist light) ON SMITHE @BEATTY.

And I've seen it happen several times where traffic in the through lane next to the right turn lane stops when the right turn light turns red. The overhead right turn signal light is placed very close to the through lane, such that it throws drivers in the through lane off.

[WarrenC12]

Originally Posted by whatnext

That's because bicycling is the flavour of the month amongst planners and politicians. When they realize it doesn't solve anything, and mainly creates pretty leisure routes or steals ridership from transit, they'll move on to something else.

Well, your bias is clear. I know everybody points to Copenhagen and most people roll their eyes, but 30-ish years ago, they were no different than any typical North American city. Now they have completed transformed their way of getting around. It is part of the reason Denmark can realistically make the amazing commitments they have to getting off of fossil fuel.

[WarrenC12]

Originally Posted by VancouverOfTheFuture

i think the opposite would happen with self-driving cars.

i think cycling is more of a fad, and the bike data that the city has proves it. its a summer fad; ie. not many people commute by bike in the winter. it is seasonal in this city, and it hasn't changed even with many of the bike lanes being around for years now. there is a huge drop off of biking once the weather turns.

Owning a car is already slowing. Car shares allow a more efficient, cheaper, and easier (maintenance free) way of driving when you need to. Cars are huge assets that do nothing but sit and depreciate for 98% of the time.

If the car can drive itself, then I can order one to my house whenever I need it. No point in owning whatsoever.

And your "fad" statement... so summer is a fad now?

[aberdeen5698]

Originally Posted by WarrenC12

Owning a car is already slowing. Car shares allow a more efficient, cheaper, and easier (maintenance free) way of driving when you need to. Cars are huge assets that do nothing but sit and depreciate for 98% of the time.

If the car can drive itself, then I can order one to my house whenever I need it. No point in owning whatsoever.

I'm a bit skeptical about how long it's going to take to get fully autonomous vehicles on the roads. But when they do arrive it think it really will have a big impact in terms of vehicle ownership. I'm a Car2Go member but I don't use it all that often because it seems like the nearest car is always several blocks away. If you could order one to your door it would be a lot more compelling, IMHO.

[logicbomb]

Originally Posted by WarrenC12

Well, your bias is clear. I know everybody points to Copenhagen and most people roll their eyes, but 30-ish years ago, they were no different than any typical North American city. Now they have completed transformed their way of getting around. It is part of the reason Denmark can realistically make the amazing commitments they have to getting off of fossil fuel.

I am sort of questioning how municipal governments see bike lanes. Do they actually intend to try and get people on them? Are they trying to reduce traffic entering city streets? Or are they trying to encourage density and pandering to developers? I will argue and say that bike lanes here are being built to appease a tiny minority AND beautify/calm streets in neighborhoods. The last one is a sticking point for me as most projects have been focused in more wealthy neighborhoods. Hell, the Arbutus Greenway is already being marketed in new developments...

[WarrenC12]

Originally Posted by logicbomb

I am sort of questioning how municipal governments see bike lanes. Do they actually intend to try and get people on them? Are they trying to reduce traffic entering city streets? Or are they trying to encourage density and pandering to developers? I will argue and say that bike lanes here are being built to appease a tiny minority AND beautify/calm streets in neighborhoods. The last one is a sticking point for me as most projects have been focused in more wealthy neighborhoods. Hell, the Arbutus Greenway is already being marketed in new developments...

Well, bike lanes come in all kinds of shapes and sizes. But when I look at the downtown lanes for example, they are for commuters trying to get to the same central places that everybody else is getting to.

In Vancouver, outside of the core, they can afford to have these bike routes on less-used roads like Ontario, 10th, etc. But everybody has to use the same bridges to get into the core.

Also as pointed out above, this is one of the things that is within the scope and budget of a municipal government. They are completely at the mercy of other levels of government for things like new transit and road infrastructure (big ones anyway). I mean, can Burnaby or Vancouver even dictate the course of a new bus route?