Metro Vancouver Bike/Pedestrian Discussion

[s211]

Originally Posted by racc

Huh. Bike lanes are proven to attract the dynamic young workers needed in innovative businesses. These people have many choices and decide where to work based on the lifestyle that a city has to ofter. Bike paths are a big part of that. Even though the bike lanes (or loss of parking to be specific) have some impact on some car dependent businesses, it is pretty obvious that these are good for the overall economy of Vancouver. Even if some people don't shop on Hornby, they will shop somewhere else in the city so there is really no negative impact to the overall economy.

Sure, fine. Let's put someone into bankruptcy and ruin their life so you can enforce your right to ride on them.

[Prometheus]

Originally Posted by LeftCoaster

If a few businesses go bust because of a slight disruption to the streetscape that is really not a big deal...Losing a couple of low margin small businesses is not a major issue, they probably shouldnt have been located DT anyway if their margins were so thin they could be shuttered by a couple of bikelanes.

Your casual dismissal of the suffering that city policy is causing these businesses is emotionally callous and economically unwise. The businesses along the bikelanes are the source of living for hundreds of individuals and families. What is more, small businesses (with "thin margins") happen to be the primary employer of people and the backbone of the economy. Take care in your advocacy of policies that harm small businesses (with "thin margins").

[Prometheus]

Originally Posted by aberdeen5698

And, pray tell, how are cyclists with young children supposed to get to the seawall?.

Are you serious? Have you just moved to Vancouver or something? The Dunsmuir viaduct bikelane begins about two blocks from Creekside Park and the North East False Creek seawall, which is the most scenic, picturesque and safe route to the Stanley Park seawall.

[LeftCoaster]

Originally Posted by Prometheus

Your casual dismissal of the suffering that city policy is causing these businesses is emotionally callous and economically unwise. The businesses along the bikelanes are the source of living for hundreds of individuals and families. What is more, small businesses (with "thin margins") happen to be the primary employer of people and the backbone of the economy. Take care in your advocacy of policies that harm small businesses (with "thin margins").

Is it callous? Absolutely, but business is a callous beast.

I'm not saying small businesses everywhere should suffer, but downtown in the most expensive city in the country is perhaps not the best location for a small business. the city is quite vast and offers many locations for a prospective entrepreneur, many at much more cost effective rents. And if their business needs the high traffic volumes of downtown but still is subject to bankruptcy with the addition of a bikelane then their business model is simply not strong enough.

I'd like to see a list of the businesses who have gone out of business due to the bikelane, I'd imagine most of them are ventures which would be much better suited outside of their downtown locations.

[Prometheus]

Originally Posted by LeftCoaster

downtown...is perhaps not the best location for a small business.

On the contrary. Small business is vital for downtown, and vice versa. Granville Street, Davie Street, Robson Street, Denman Street, Gastown, Yaletown. It is small businesses (with "thin margins") on these streets and many others that are the life blood and soul of downtown Vancouver.

Originally Posted by LeftCoaster

the city is quite vast and offers many locations for a prospective entrepreneur...

The same applies to the prospective exerciser. Indeed, there are already a multitude of established locations for leisure and recreation in the city. Perhaps the epicentre of business and commerce is not the best location for gentile parent-baby bike rides.

[LeftCoaster]

It is definitely not the best location for father son bikerides, but these lanes are used by far more than just that. Their primary intent I believe is for bikers commuting to and from work. it's an added bonus that they link up the seawall with surrounding communities adding to the potential user base of the lanes.

[Porfiry]

Originally Posted by Prometheus

The same applies to recreation. Indeed, there are already a multitude of established locations for leisure and exercise in the city.

Cycling is transportation, not just recreation. How am I supposed to spend money downtown if there's no safe infrastructure to get me to my destination?

[Prometheus]

Originally Posted by Porfiry

Cycling is transportation, not just recreation. How am I supposed to spend money downtown if there's no safe infrastructure to get me to my destination?

There are buses, trains, taxis, boats and walking, among other things. So, there is plenty of infrastructure. Moreover, if streets without bikelanes are unreasonably risky, then how do you function when your destination takes you down a street without a bikelane?

You also mention spending your money downtown, obviously in an attempt to provide an economic rationale for the bikelanes. But the only evidence on the table thus far is that the bikelanes are harming businesses.

[DKaz]

The Dunsmuir bike lanes are crap anyway when you're heading eastbound -- having to stop at every single light since the lights are synchronized for westbound traffic. I take Georgia now. I go down fast enough that I never hit a red light. Great for casual cyclists though.

[geoff's two cents]

This is a bike/pedestrian discussion, and there's a fair bit to talk about without turning this forum into a car v. bike rant - demographic trends, increasing ridership, expansion of the bike-friendly network, comparisons with Montreal's and Copenhagen's systems, etc.

There's no reason why this discussion has to become the viaduct removal thread's identical twin. My sympathies aside, even I have to admit that that discussion is a complete waste of my time. (With all due respect to people who feel differently).

Prometheus, you might consider starting a new thread concerning "Mayor Moonbeam's" utopian bike infrastructure. That way, I (and others) could just avoid said thread - much as I do the Gateway discussion (no offense intended toward Gateway enthusiasts), and anti-bicycle-infrastructure folks could have a place of their own to rant. It would be comforting to know with some certainty that I'm not wasting 10-30 seconds of my life every time I click on this thread for updates.

[Porfiry]

Originally Posted by Prometheus

There are buses, trains, taxis, boats and walking, among other things.

How many of those operate at 30+km/h, run at a moment's notice anytime of day, take me to within steps of my destination, emit zero greenhouse gasses, and improve my health?

So, there is plenty of infrastructure. Moreover, if streets without bikelanes are unreasonably risky, then how do you function when your destination takes you down a street without a bike lane?

I cross myself and pray.

[Prometheus]

Originally Posted by Porfiry

How many of those operate at 30+km/h, run at a moment's notice anytime of day, take me to within steps of my destination, emit zero greenhouse gasses....

Does the handful of bike lanes always take you "within steps" of your destination?

In terms of speed, frequency, routes and emissions, our network of public transportation does a reasonably good job of transporting persons into the downtown core within a few blocks of their exact destinations. To demand more than that when it entails harm to established businesses and the families whose livelihoods depend on them is, I think, unreasonable.

Originally Posted by Porfiry

and improve my health?

As I said, there are plenty of places where one can exercise without adversely affecting established businesses. Moreover, if health and exercise are important factors, then why must you be delivered "within steps" of your destination? Why are you adverse to walking a few blocks to a bus or skytrain station when walking is a beneficial form of exercise?

[mezzanine]

Originally Posted by Porfiry

I cross myself and pray.

WWJD? I think He'd ride a bike.

[dreambrother808]

Originally Posted by geoff's two cents

Prometheus, you might consider starting a new thread concerning "Mayor Moonbeam's" utopian bike infrastructure.

We could call it the "I Hate Gregor Robertson, Bike Lanes, Hippies, Ferris Wheels, Short Station Platforms, James Cheng, and Chinese Housing Speculators" thread.

Just lump all of our random bitching into one miserable place.

[LeftCoaster]

Originally Posted by dreambrother808

We could call it the "I Hate Gregor Robertson, Bike Lanes, Hippies, Ferris Wheels, Short Station Platforms, James Cheng, and Chinese Housing Speculators" thread.

Just lump all of our random bitching into one miserable place.

I'm prettysure he could just start a thread called I hate everything and save everyone a bunch of time.

[deasine]

Step out the thread if you are here to argue about cars versus bikes versus other modes of transportation.

[s211]

Originally Posted by LeftCoaster

Is it callous? Absolutely, but business is a callous beast.

Business may be a callous beast, but this isn't the market in action. This is a market distortion caused by a callous government.

[Prometheus]

Originally Posted by LeftCoaster

Is it callous? Absolutely, but business is a callous beast.

But the businesses in question are not suffering as a result of the market, i.e., because a more innovative entrepreneur is offering a superior product at a lower price, an achievement which clearly benefits the economy. They are suffering as a result of a government policy, the economic consequences of which are not fully known.

It may turn out to be the case that the current bikelanes will not have a net adverse economic effect. But it is dishonest not to acknowledge that the evidence so far shows that businesses along the bikelanes are being harmed. And it is irrational to be casual about policies that harm businesses in the city's business district.

[BCPhil]

Originally Posted by deasine

Step out the thread if you are here to argue about cars versus bikes versus other modes of transportation.

I don't think Prometheus was arguing against bikes in those terms. He was debating the financial impacts that bike lanes (that seem to cater more to tourists and leisure riders) do to businesses in the heart of the downtown business core.

Attacking him based on his like or dislike of bikes (and even other things) is just ad hominem and poisoning the well and avoiding the issues he raised about business being down over 10% year over year on Hornby street. Some did debate him on the financial and moral issues to which he had well reasoned responses, but others tried to deflect the debate by directly attacking Prometheus and making it seem like a bike vs car debate.

If well reasoned arguments concerning the validity of the impact on business in the downtown core that bike lanes cause isn't allowed in a thread about bike lanes and only positive reinforcing comments are allowed, then perhaps it is THIS thread that should be renamed to reflect its apparent circle jerk status.

[LeftCoaster]

No question of that, but there will always be incursions on the free market so long as we live in a society goverened by rules, and as far as free market distortions go this one is about as minimal as they get.

Like I said before I make on qualms about the crass nature of my dismissal of these businesses, but in my opinoin if you are that close to going under anyway its quite likely either you dont know how to run your business or your business is fundamentally unsound, and either way like I said before, that's business.

If these truly were ventures worth caring about their bottom line would be large enough to handle the paltry distortion brought about by a change in the usage of two lanes in a downtown with hundreds. Honestly this is business not recess at elementary school, you need to plan for the worst and hope for the best.

I fully agree that the economic impact of these bikelanes is not known, and could go either direction, but I still maintain that the current disruption is of minimal concern and is not worth even discussing unless it becomes far more pronounced. I understand your arguement and I don't disagree that it is a negative point against the lanes, I just think it is a very paltry negative point and shouldnt have much sway over the ultimate judgement of the lanes themselves.

Feel free to disagree but I think we have both made our points.