Metro Vancouver Bike/Pedestrian Discussion

[Prometheus]

Originally Posted by racc

Why is it fair that some businesses get on-street parking while others don't. Shouldn't the ones that get on-street parking have to pay more to the city?

It's not fair that some businesses get street parking while others do not. But the answer is not to make the businesses that get street parking pay even more than they currently do. Why? Because they currently pay more than the full cost of that parking already. To make them pay even more would be grossly unjust. The answer, in a just world, is for the businesses that do not get street parking (or any other public service that others get) to pay less.

Originally Posted by racc

But it is then also paid for by other businesses that don't have it in front of their stores.

No it is not. As I said, the businesses that get street parking are already paying more than the full cost of it themselves. The businesses that do not get street parking are not subsidizing services received by other commercial property owners but rather the services enjoyed by non-commercial property owners, who pay only a fraction of the rate of tax that businesses pay. Thus, it is non-commercial property owners who ought to be paying more, if anyone should.

[WarrenC12]

Originally Posted by jlousa

Taking this away from the topic at hand. I'm a big fan of the new policy of marked parking for motorcycles on many of the block ends. They are not taking away any parking for cars but instead using the edges where motorcycles being smaller/shorter don't impede the sightlines. These new spaces allow 3-4 motorcycles per block, and best of all they are free. I've never seen as many motorcycles d/t as I have this year thanks to this new policy. What it's done is for households that have a motorcycle and car, if you had to pay for parking either way you would drive, now if you have free parking for your motorcycle you will ride more often, this reduces pollution and frees up existing road space. This was accomplished w/o punishing one form of transportation either.

Those seem to have been very quietly implemented, and it takes time for people to realize where they are in relation to their work, etc. But they are a great idea.

However I can tell you as a cyclist/motorcyclist that I'd much rather be pedaling my bike in the rain than taking my motorcycle. But it all helps.

[WarrenC12]

Originally Posted by Prometheus

No it is not. As I said, the businesses that get street parking are already paying more than the full cost of it themselves. The businesses that do not get street parking are not subsidizing services received by other commercial property owners but rather the services enjoyed by non-commercial property owners, who pay only a fraction of the rate of tax that businesses pay. Thus, it is non-commercial property owners that ought to be paying more, if anyone should.

Your statement in bold doesn't make any sense.

Businesses may choose to locate in an area that has street parking nearby, whether it be free, time limited free, or metered. They pay taxes based on the square footage occupied by their business, and nothing else.

They have no right to expect that the parking they are located near be maintained forever. The city can change it from free to metered (which would negatively impact customer parking), or even eliminate it all together, during rush hour, or 24 hours a day to improve traffic flow. Or, they could widen the sidewalk, eliminate parking, and put in some benches, or, of course, they could eliminate that parking for a bike lane.

The bottom line is you are taking a risk relying on the city to maintain whatever is there, outside of your property, that you are deriving a benefit from. Hell, I know somebody who's front yard is being half taken away because the city is widening the road. But guess what, that property was never theirs according to the property boundaries.

Will people get upset? Of course. Do they have a right to be upset? Not really.

[jlousa]

Racc you do know that businesses that have parking in front of their door do pay more then those that do not. Property tax is calculated by using the mil rate * the assessed value. A commercial building that has parking at it's doors will be assessed at a higher value then one who has had it's parking removed.
Although it might seem minimal, all taxpayers will have to pick up the burden of replacing those new reduced taxes as well as the lost parking revenue.

[WBC]

Cycling News from North Van...

from Vancouver Sun

http://www.vancouversun.com/travel/B...511/story.html

[logan5]

It's kind of pointless to have separated bike lanes if they're not utilized all year round. Most cyclists will get in their cars clogging up roads or take an already crowded bus or train to get to work if the weather is not ideal for cycling. So were left with a way underutilized piece of infrastructure that takes up road space. Safety is also an issue that deters some from cycling to work.

A solution to these issues is to build elevated bike paths. Besides protecting the cycling commuter from the weather and traffic, the travel time would be cut in half as this would be an expressway with no stop signs or red lights or traffic to deal with. So a rider could realistically average 30 km an hour (or more) which is almost twice as fast as a bus and would be faster than driving. Electric bikes and scooters would be allowed also.

I'm not sure about the cost, but I'll estimate 10 million per km. So 10 km of elevated cycle-way along 10th ave or Broadway would be 100 million, which is really a drop in the bucket compared to other transit projects. At 1/10 the cost of an elevated Skytrain, it would need only draw 7600 cyclists a day to be more cost effective than the Millennium Line. Probably much less than that when you factor in the extremely low operating expenses.

[racc]

Originally Posted by logan5

It's kind of pointless to have separated bike lanes if they're not utilized all year round. Most cyclists will get in their cars clogging up roads or take an already crowded bus or train to get to work if the weather is not ideal for cycling. So were left with a way underutilized piece of infrastructure that takes up road space. Safety is also an issue that deters some from cycling to work.

They are used year round. Cycling is more weather dependent than season dependent. On a non-rainly winter day, the lanes can be quite busy. Conversely, on a rainy summer day, they aren't that busy. Sidewalks are also used much less in the rain. Are you suggesting that we shouldn't have them either? How about beaches, golf courses and ski hills? How about roads, they aren't used on very snowy days?

Regarding elevated bike ways, they are probably good for a few places where no other option is possible but they would be rather expensive. Probably at least $30 million a kilometre. Then there is the problem of getting to them. They have to be rather high up so the access ramps would have to be around 100 metres to keep the grades down. It would be cheaper to put coverings over at grade bike lanes so they are used more in the rain.

[logan5]

Originally Posted by racc

Conversely, on a rainy summer day, they aren't that busy. Sidewalks are also used much less in the rain. Are you suggesting that we shouldn't have them either?

I'm not against them really. I'm saying they're ineffective if people are jumping back into their cars on rainy days. Having the bike lanes completely traffic separated and weather protected would drastically increase their effectiveness and usage. As for the cost of elevated bike lanes, I can't find any examples to back my estimate. 10 million per km was my best guess. How did you come up with 30 million per km?

[Zassk]

I have a better idea. If we are going to spend many millions on bike infrastructure, then why not cover the bike paths instead of elevating them? Many more people will use them year-round if they are protected from the elements than if they are protected from a few at-grade street crossings.

[racc]

A couple of postings questioning business impact study's conclusions.

http://spacingvancouver.ca/2011/07/2...ed-bike-lanes/
http://communities.canada.com/vannet...the-lanes.aspx

[aberdeen5698]

Originally Posted by racc

A couple of postings questioning business impact study's conclusions.

Good reading, thanks for the links! I particularly liked this quote from the first link:

While Hornby merchants estimated two in five customers arrive by car, the survey of Hornby customers paints a dramatically different picture, with three times as many cyclists, twice as many transit riders, and only half as many drivers patronizing the street as merchants believe. This mirrors results of similar surveys in Bristol, UK, and Graz, Austria, showing a seemingly universal predilection among shopkeepers to over-estimate how critical automobile traffic is to their business.

[WarrenC12]

Latest city council report on the bike lanes, with plenty of stats. Looks like things are moving in the right direction for bike traffic downtown:

http://vancouver.ca/ctyclerk/cclerk/...Summer2011.pdf

[logan5]

Originally Posted by WarrenC12

As a cyclist who rides mostly on major roads with painted lanes, and through side streets designated as "cycling routes", I am more confident when I have a specific painted or separated lane. Car drivers seem aware of it.

When somebody is tooling through side streets, likely close to home and typically not very busy, they are often ignoring signage, driving too fast, not looking, etc.

So I'd rather real painted lanes on roads like Broadway (just an example ) vs. more bike designated side streets... although the rides themselves are nicer in some ways.

Conversely, as a driver, I would feel more confident if there were separated bike lanes. Maybe a signalling system along 10th Ave and along Ontario St. is needed. I myself feel more confident driving along Hornby (as opposed to 10th) where I know there's a barricade and there are signals for cyclists as well.

The majority of drivers in my neighborhood, where there are lots of cyclists, drive very cautiously for fear of hitting or being hit by a cyclist running a stop sign. It's to the point now where drivers will stop at an intersection even when the cyclist has the stop sign and the driver does not.

[officedweller]

Drove up from Seattle last night - the pedstrain / bike bridge over Hwy 99 was all lit up on green and blue and shimmering like a waterfall.

Very cool.

[twoNeurons]

Originally Posted by officedweller

Drove up from Seattle last night - the pedstrain / bike bridge over Hwy 99 was all lit up on green and blue and shimmering like a waterfall.

Very cool.

Yeah... I noticed the pedestrian bridge over Hwy #1 around Surrey was also glowing.

[tybuilding]

South of Fraser Blog's commentary on the regional cycling strategy in the Lower Mainland region.

http://www.southfraser.net/2011/08/r...-strategy.html

"Last month TransLink released their regional cycling strategy as part of Transport 2040. The strategy is called "Cycling for Everyone - A Regional Cycling Strategy for Metro Vancouver" and has lots of interesting stats about cycling in our region. "

http://www.translink.ca/~/media/docu...0everyone.ashx

[deasine]

About 40 per cent of West End residents walk to work
BY CHAD SKELTON, VANCOUVER SUN AUGUST 11, 2011 12:03 PM

About 40 per cent of West End residents walk to work, according to census data.

Based on the 2006 census, about six per cent of Metro Vancouver residents walk to work.

However, in most West End neighbourhoods, at least a third of residents say walking is their main method of commuting.

And in one West End neighbourhood, south of Robson between Burrard and Broughton, nearly half of all residents say they walk to work.

Outside downtown Vancouver, the only other place with walking rates that high is the University of B.C., where 34 per cent of residents walk to work.

While walking to work is most popular downtown, there are a few suburban neighbourhoods with pedestrian commuting in the double digits, including Langley City (11.6), downtown New Westminster (11.5) and Metrotown (11.1).

To see how your neighbourhood compares, you can check out an interactive version of this map, and many others, at vancouversun.com/vanmap/.

The maps were created using data adapted from Statistics Canada Census Tract Boundary Files (Cat. 92-168-X) and Census Tract Profiles (Cat. 92-597-X), 2006 Census.

cskelton@vancouversun.com

© Copyright (c) The Vancouver Sun

Read more: http://www.vancouversun.com/About+ce...#ixzz1UktjF0c5

(Vancouver Sun 2011)

[DKaz]

^^^ Some pretty cool maps.

http://www.vancouversun.com/news/met...ped/index.html

Some of the data is a no brainer.

[IanS]

Originally Posted by DKaz

^^^ Some pretty cool maps.

http://www.vancouversun.com/news/met...ped/index.html

Some of the data is a no brainer.

Yeah, no surprise which areas had the highest percentage of walkers anyway. Happy to see my neighbourhood included among the "best".

[tybuilding]

Should it be illegal for drivers to come too close to cyclists?
It's an idea being floated out east
Tamara Slobogean/National Post Aug 12, 2011 06:25:49 AM

http://www.news1130.com/news/local/a...se-to-cyclists

1 m rule being floated in Ontario, which I think is a good rule. But it is more a rule of thumb to be placed in drivers/cyclist manual or to be broadcast on a commercial. It is tough to enforce but so is giving enough room for cyclists a hard thing to catch. I have had it a few times where vehicles have passed by too close to me. It happens on streets without bike lanes as there is obviously less room to pass. The worst time is when I was on a collector road in Surrey where I can see a vehicle coming toward me and one came from behind and I was on the side of the road and the lane width was only 3m wide. The car going the otherway had to move to the right a bit as the vehicle behind me came towards it and passed me at the same time. After that happened I vowed to ride in the middle of the lane on streets like that which would is a tough thing to do for less confident cyclists.

It is amazing how many drivers are frustrated being stuck behind cyclists like me. "There has been too many times where I had to pretty much drive on the lane or almost on the other side of the road because cyclists are wanna be cars... > . <. However, this doesn't not mean that drivers shouldn't look out for them, but still some cyclists hog the road to the point where we have to switch lanes or literally have to drive into incoming traffic lol." Well yah! In my example above that would have been nice. A 2 m vehicle passing a cyclist riding 0.5m from the curb on a 3m lane leaves about 20cm from his body while staying in the lane. Thus the advice from Bike Sense manual or others is for the cyclist to take the lane. Good advice. I will be happy when all of the shared lane routes in Surrey and the Lower Mainland are changed to bike lanes or bike paths (aside from residential streets). This would mean road diets! http://www.oregonite.org/2007D6/pape...ales_paper.pdf or road improvements with proper shoulders etc.

Speaking of road diets Richmond has many of the typical type of roads mentioned in the paper. Richmond may want to consider road diets to improve its cycling network.