bike lanes save money/lives/health

Black Dog · July 21, 2014

Vancouver: Stop The Bike Lanes petition at Change.org:

http://www.change.org/petitions/city-of-vancouver-stop-the-bike-lanes

And your point is...?

Black Dog · July 21, 2014

They took a lane off a bridge. There is no place on earth where it would not result in increased congestion because bridges are always bottlenecks in the system. However, I doubt Vancouver city council would bother to measure it because they likely don't want to know (or if they did measure it they would have a huge incentive to fudge the numbers).

So you don't have any numbers and if you did and they didn't agree with you, you wouldn't believe them. Awesome. :lol:

TimG · July 21, 2014

So you don't have any numbers and if you did and they didn't agree with you, you wouldn't believe them.

Just adopting the same decision making process used by Vancouver city council!

Black Dog · July 21, 2014

Just adopting the same decision making process used by Vancouver city council!

Nah, I think you're just talking out of your ass.

TimG · July 21, 2014

Nah, I think you're just talking out of your ass.

No I am not:

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/globe-drive/news/trans-canada-highway/vancouver-not-toronto-the-most-congested-city-in-canada/article18963826/

In its fourth annual global traffic index, Vancouver ranks fifth among the most congested cities in the Americas, Toronto ninth. In order, the 10 most traffic-clogged cities are Rio de Janeiro, Mexico City, Sao Paulo, Los Angeles, Vancouver, San Francisco, Honolulu, Seattle, Toronto and San Jose.

In Vancouver's case a lot of the blame rests with the city council which places a premium on feel good gestures that please activists but make life more difficult for average people. Closing lanes on Burrard is one of many boned headed decisions so even if I don't have specific numbers for that particular change the over all numbers make it clear that Vancouver has a serious problem with traffic congestion and you cannot seriously argue that removing a lane of traffic did not incrementally make it worse. Edited July 21, 2014 by TimG

bush_cheney2004 · July 21, 2014

...In Vancouver's case a lot of the blame rests with the city council which places a premium on feel good gestures that please activists but make life more difficult for average people.

Yep...these Euro wannabe cities actually compete for the most bike rider friendly surveys and ratings/rankings.

Portland...Seattle...Montreal...Minneapolis...Vancouver all want to be part of the feel good club.

Black Dog · July 22, 2014

No I am not:

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/globe-drive/news/trans-canada-highway/vancouver-not-toronto-the-most-congested-city-in-canada/article18963826/

In Vancouver's case a lot of the blame rests with the city council which places a premium on feel good gestures that please activists but make life more difficult for average people. Closing lanes on Burrard is one of many boned headed decisions so even if I don't have specific numbers for that particular change the over all numbers make it clear that Vancouver has a serious problem with traffic congestion.

As do most major North American cities, thanks to the prevalence of single occupant vehicles. A single lane on a single bridge isn't going to move the needle.

Argus · July 22, 2014

Most cyclists also drive, so yes, though gas taxes account for only a small fraction of spending on roads. Those are mostly paid for by property taxes, that everyone pays.

Roads are a necessary part of infrastructure. If for no other reason we need trucks to move food and goods around. Bicycle lanes come under the heading of "nice to have but not necessary".

Can you give some specific examples?

Laurier Street.

Bryan · July 22, 2014

When hear someone complain about cyclists driving badly, I know I'm listening to a motorist who needs to be taken off the road. Cyclists get blamed for "coming out of nowhere" or swerving around" or "blowing through stop signs" when more often than not, they were right there the whole time obeying the laws to the same degree the drivers were. The real issue is drivers who simply do not pay attention to their surroundings so that they don't see the cyclist who was right there the whole time.

That cyclists who "blew through the stop sign"? Slowed to a significantly slower pace than you did in your car when you insisted that you came to a complete stop. The one who "swerved in front of you"? He was right there the entire time -- take your eyes off your phone and keep it on the road. Do they start swearing at you? Yeah, because you're such an idiot that you have no idea that you came within an inch of killing them twice in the last block.

The_Squid · July 22, 2014

As do most major North American cities, thanks to the prevalence of single occupant vehicles. A single lane on a single bridge isn't going to move the needle.

And not on this bridge.... While it does get busy, it isn't the main bridge into the city. It's the perfect candidate for a bike lane since it will get cyclists off the really busy bridges.

http://katkam.ca

This is a live webcam of the bridge. 5:15pm on a Monday and barely any commuter car traffic.

The_Squid · July 22, 2014

When hear someone complain about cyclists driving badly, I know I'm listening to a motorist who needs to be taken off the road. Cyclists get blamed for "coming out of nowhere" or swerving around" or "blowing through stop signs" when more often than not, they were right there the whole time obeying the laws to the same degree the drivers were. The real issue is drivers who simply do not pay attention to their surroundings so that they don't see the cyclist who was right there the whole time.

That cyclists who "blew through the stop sign"? Slowed to a significantly slower pace than you did in your car when you insisted that you came to a complete stop. The one who "swerved in front of you"? He was right there the entire time -- take your eyes off your phone and keep it on the road. Do they start swearing at you? Yeah, because you're such an idiot that you have no idea that you came within an inch of killing them twice in the last block.

It's not a left/right issue.... It's a "I'm a car and the road is mine" issue.

But this is just more reason for bikes and cars to be separated into their own lanes. It's safer for cyclists and motorists won't road rage as much....

Edited July 22, 2014 by The_Squid

Argus · July 22, 2014

As do most major North American cities, thanks to the prevalence of single occupant vehicles. A single lane on a single bridge isn't going to move the needle.

Tell that to ex presidential contender Chris Christie...

Argus · July 22, 2014

It's not a left/right issue.... It's a "I'm a car and the road is mine" issue.

Yes, the road was built for cars. No surprise there. If this was simcity I could just bulldoze all the buildings and put in a wider road. This isn't Simcity.

You don't need studies to determine that when you narrow a busy road it causes traffic problems any more than you need a study to determine if you narrow a pipe it will have less water flowing through it.

The_Squid · July 22, 2014

Tell that to ex presidential contender Chris Christie...

There's a guy who should get on a bike once in a while!

Burrard St bridge is NOT the bridge of America, or whatever it's called. The NJ bridge is the busiest in the world apparently. Burrard is not even comparable! Not even close.

The_Squid · July 22, 2014

Yes, the road was built for cars. No surprise there. If this was simcity I could just bulldoze all the buildings and put in a wider road. This isn't Simcity.You don't need studies to determine that when you narrow a busy road it causes traffic problems any more than you need a study to determine if you narrow a pipe it will have less water flowing through it.

So why aren't there bigger traffic problems on the Burrard St bridge?

Big Guy · July 22, 2014

Require a bicycling licence and a bicycle licence for any biker and bike that are used on a road. The bicycling licence would require passing a written and road test similar to a vehicle licence. The bicycle licence would be a plate attached to the bike. Use the money charged for both of those licenses to fund bicycle lanes.

Hal 9000 · July 22, 2014

When hear someone complain about cyclists driving badly, I know I'm listening to a motorist who needs to be taken off the road. Cyclists get blamed for "coming out of nowhere" or swerving around" or "blowing through stop signs" when more often than not, they were right there the whole time obeying the laws to the same degree the drivers were. The real issue is drivers who simply do not pay attention to their surroundings so that they don't see the cyclist who was right there the whole time.

That cyclists who "blew through the stop sign"? Slowed to a significantly slower pace than you did in your car when you insisted that you came to a complete stop. The one who "swerved in front of you"? He was right there the entire time -- take your eyes off your phone and keep it on the road. Do they start swearing at you? Yeah, because you're such an idiot that you have no idea that you came within an inch of killing them twice in the last block.

Complete crap!

The_Squid · July 22, 2014

Require a bicycling licence and a bicycle licence for any biker and bike that are used on a road. The bicycling licence would require passing a written and road test similar to a vehicle licence. The bicycle licence would be a plate attached to the bike. Use the money charged for both of those licenses to fund bicycle lanes.

It wouldn't generate money, it would cost money. And enforcement would be a nightmare. Think of how many tourists rent bikes... Now you require them to pay money and pass a test?

If you make it so it is a revenue generator, it becomes very costly and people won't do it. Students and the poor couldn't afford it. You'd have enforcement nightmares. Cycling would go down, not up.

Just a really bad idea all around.

Argus · July 22, 2014

In Vancouver's case a lot of the blame rests with the city council which places a premium on feel good gestures that please activists but make life more difficult for average people.

Same thing in Ottawa. Case in point, the Alta Vista corridor. This was an example of foresight, so you know it was in the distant past. They left a long, broad strip of land vacant which would provide space for a high volume road they knew would be needed in the future to take cares north to the Queensway.

Unfortunately, the future came, and the city council at the time bowed to NIMBYs who didn't want a road there since they liked the nice, undeveloped green space, and transit lovers who wanted to discourage cars, and refused to do anything. In fact, what it did was to rent a chunk of the land in the middle to the Ottawa General Hospital on a 99 year less as a parking lot in hopes that no future council would be able to build the road. The result is Ottawa has no major north-south artery near its center except Bronson.

Edited July 22, 2014 by Argus

WestCoastRunner · July 22, 2014

They took a lane off a bridge. There is no place on earth where it would not result in increased congestion because bridges are always bottlenecks in the system. However, I doubt Vancouver city council would bother to measure it because they likely don't want to know (or if they did measure it they would have a huge incentive to fudge the numbers).

Burrard Bridge is not the only bridge heading into downtown Vancouver. Granville St bridge heads into downtown and is underutilized. Many of the drivers can use that bridge instead of Burrrard. I have driven to the downtown core for many years using both bridges and I have had no problems with cyclists.

I do know for sure that at 5:15 the burrard bridge is heavy with traffic. Maybe that live webcam was taken on a holiday? Don't know, but I've never seen the Burrard bridge at with barely any traffic at that time of day.

The_Squid · July 22, 2014

It's a LIVE webcam. It posts a picture every few minutes. You can also look at any time of day on any day you wish on that webcam.

Edited July 22, 2014 by The_Squid

jacee · July 22, 2014

Require a bicycling licence and a bicycle licence for any biker and bike that are used on a road. The bicycling licence would require passing a written and road test similar to a vehicle licence. The bicycle licence would be a plate attached to the bike. Use the money charged for both of those licenses to fund bicycle lanes.

... or ... not.

Cyclists aren't killing many people.

Causes of Death in Canada:

Motor vehicle collisions,

Men: 1 death every 4 hrs.

Women: 1 death every 8 hrs.

.

Edited July 22, 2014 by jacee

Black Dog · July 22, 2014

Roads are a necessary part of infrastructure. If for no other reason we need trucks to move food and goods around. Bicycle lanes come under the heading of "nice to have but not necessary".

The point of roads is to move people and goods as efficiently as possible. Creating an environment that privileges the personal vehicle has clearly failed to achieve that end as we can see from the epidemic of road congestion. Therefore, it's worth looking at ways to get people out of their vehicles and into alternative modes of transport and to make those modes as safe and viable as possible where it's appropriate.

My morning bike commute takes me along some of Toronto's busiest and most congested city streets. Every day I'm struck by the fact that the overwhelming proportion of cars have a single occupant (I'd say it's roughly 10:1 single to multi occupants). Talk about inefficient.

Black Dog · July 22, 2014

Require a bicycling licence and a bicycle licence for any biker and bike that are used on a road. The bicycling licence would require passing a written and road test similar to a vehicle licence. The bicycle licence would be a plate attached to the bike. Use the money charged for both of those licenses to fund bicycle lanes.

You'd never make enough money to cover the cost of the administration and enforcement of such a program, let alone pay for any infrastructure. Personally, I'd refuse to abide by such a nonsensical program.

Mighty AC · July 22, 2014

When hear someone complain about cyclists driving badly, I know I'm listening to a motorist who needs to be taken off the road. Cyclists get blamed for "coming out of nowhere" or swerving around" or "blowing through stop signs" when more often than not, they were right there the whole time obeying the laws to the same degree the drivers were. The real issue is drivers who simply do not pay attention to their surroundings so that they don't see the cyclist who was right there the whole time.

That cyclists who "blew through the stop sign"? Slowed to a significantly slower pace than you did in your car when you insisted that you came to a complete stop. The one who "swerved in front of you"? He was right there the entire time -- take your eyes off your phone and keep it on the road. Do they start swearing at you? Yeah, because you're such an idiot that you have no idea that you came within an inch of killing them twice in the last block.

Well said. Since, we have so few cyclists in most North American cities, motorists are not in the habit of looking for them. Plus far too many routinely drive while distracted. If the number of bikes increased I expect that, in time, driving ability would improve as well. Unfortunately, it is hard to convince people to ride a bike when, bad drivers and horrible urban/suburban design, make it is so unsafe. That's why bike lanes and simple, cheap intersection layouts (that require zero additional space) make so much sense.