Cycling advocate wants bike lanes on Cambie Street Bridge
For almost the entire 12 years she’s lived in Vancouver, Kari Hewett, chair of the city’s bicycle advisory committee, has used the traffic lanes of the Cambie Street Bridge to cycle into the downtown core.
If she had her way, the roadbed would have striped or separated bike lanes, or both.
“I very rarely use the sidewalk part of it,” Hewett said. “It’s fast. Typically, I’ll just continue going west along Smithe Street. And I do veer off occasionally and use the regular [downtown] traffic lanes.”
The Cambie Bridge has six traffic lanes, and the wide east sidewalk is shared by cyclists and pedestrians.
Hewett’s committee last met on June 16. According to the meeting minutes, committee member and long-time cyclist Richard Campbell introduced a motion recommending that the city undertake “a planning process to increase bicycle and pedestrian access and capacity around and across False Creek”. Hewett noted this would include looking at the Cambie Bridge.
“My preference would be to recommend to council to have striped and/or separated lanes on the bridge deck, however they [council] choose to do that,” Hewett said. “That is not the committee’s choice. That is my personal choice, and it has been for a long time.”
The motion, which carried unanimously, also asked that the city consider the “reallocation of lane(s) of traffic on the Cambie Bridge” and/or “widened sidewalks on the Cambie Bridge”.
However, Hewett abstained from the vote, because she said she disagrees with the motion’s proposal for a “new low level crossing of False Creek”.
Campbell did not respond today (August 5) to a message from the Straight.
Follow us on Twitter
Like us on Facebook
Follow us on Google
Comments
They hand pick committees to tell them what they want to hear, and then go ahead and do it without asking us. The one time they did ask us, the mayor responded by calling the respondents "Fucking NPA hacks".
The bike lanes are becoming pretty much a symbol for our municipal style of government - Decide on something, get another body to back it up, and implement it. Screw the voters.
While a small, vocal minority support these initiatives, the rest of us just want the chance to give meaningful input.
"First they came for the car drivers. I didn't speak up because I wasn't a car driver......" -someone, maybe, in 2023
The committee is made up of regular people who volunteered based on an interest in helping the community. If you don't like the way things are then stop complaining and volunteer after the next election to join the bicycle advisory committee so that your voice can be heard.
Everything is social engineering. From car ads to bike lanes, to freeway building, to subway construction, all forms of transportation come with built-in assumptions about what we want our city to look like. Assuming our city can continue to thrive while encouraging single occupant vehicle use seems unrealistic to me, as the costs outweigh the benefits IMO.
Anyone who has tried to walk across Cambie Bridge with cyclists flying next to you in too crowded of a space, knows that a widening of the sidewalk, or GOD FORBID, a lane of traffic for more than just private automobile drivers, would be helpful for citizens to cross false creek.
Should everything just be for car drivers?? No!! Citizens use many modes of travel and we all have to be accommodated. If you actually read the minutes from the bicycle committee, as I did, you will see they preface the section of suggestions to improve crossing false creek with the statement, "The options considered should include but not be limited to".
"Considered", the word is "considered"! The "advisory" committee "advises" council. In a growing city, and a province set to grow the most in Canada, I fail to see where making suggestions to help fuel this growth and safely facilitate travel is a problem.
The city is doing everyone a great service by encouraging more people to ride bikes. Research from England shows that every person who choses to make some of their trips by bike instead of by car provides a net benefit to society of up to $2000/year. I am sure that this is true for Vancouver as well. By my calculation, cyclists in Vancouver contribute about $40,000,000 per year to society, however expenditures for cycling infrastructure are less than $10,000,000 per year.
More people cycling means a healthier, more vibrant city. More people cycling means less people driving and less people on transit thereby making it easier for those who must drive or take transit to get around the city. This is a win-win-win for everyone!
Surveys conducted by Statistics Canada show that cyclists are the happiest commuters. Cycling is the most enjoyable way to get around the city.
If they haven't already Vancouver should look at Montreal (http://ville.montreal.qc.ca/portal/page?_pageid=2762,3099981&_dad=portal...) and Portland (http://www.portlandonline.com/transportation/index.cfm?c=44597) which are two cities with excellent long term cycling plans. Seattle's is also worth a look (http://www.cityofseattle.net/transportation/bikemaster.htm). Have a good weekend!
until then, learn to ride in traffic and deal with the vehicles.
Right, but continuing to borrow tens of millions of dollars at high interest to build unnecessary bullshit in the middle of the road while cutting kid's summer programs is realistic?
re: "Everything is social engineering. From car ads to bike lanes" So that makes it okay? At least you admit your 'movement' has the same level of honesty as a monolithic advertising corporation.
re: "If there's enough room for everyone, then painting lanes on the roadway shouldn't be an issue."
Neither should just leaving it alone. The difference is that we don't have to borrow money in order to leave it alone!
I've been riding a bike in Vancouver for decades, and NONE of this traffic calming is necessary, all it does is create idle gridlock and pissed off dangerous drivers.
Which is of course, as openly stated by members of council, the entire point. To eco-frustrate and inconvenience drivers. They openly admit that's their goal. Like 'Ron van der Eerden' says above; "Anything we can do to get people out of those tax-hogging single occupant vehicles is a good thing." How about you mind your own business and stop trying to "get people" to do what you want? How about finding something to do with your lives other than competing to be more eco-moral than your neighbours by trying to control and manipulate people?
Even your comments are social engineering Birdy. You are trying to bring people around to your point of view so they act in a way you deem acceptable according to your perspective.
Just because you (Birdy) have ridden for decades without getting hurt or killed doesn't mean we don't need more bike lanes, esp. for novice riders. A lack of safe infrastructure for cyclists costs very little compared to ensuring the safety of a car user (think Sea to Sky Hwy) and not implementing those kinds of measures only highlights how we've socially engineered our society to rely on cars to such a degree that we consider traffic fatalities just a cost of travelling.
Person A: I think we should spend more money on environmental protection.
Person B: You just think that because you’re a stupid tree-hugger.
Person A: It is crucial that we facilitate adequate means to prevent degradation that would jeopardize the project.
Person B: You think that just because you use big words makes you sound smart? Shut up you loser; you don't know what you're talking about."
http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=ad%20hominem
That said I hope you all feel better now.
city should stop building fancy bike routes and maybe pave some of the roads a little better. many of the roads meant for cyclist (like 8th ave bike route) are so bumpy that I need to ride on the main roads to save my bones and joints. avoiding the potholes gets pretty dangerous too. often the problems result from city workers are always digging up the street for pipes and such and they do a terrible patch work job
Anyway, I don't see how this is a story. So, one cycling advocate wants this done. Wow, call the BBC and the Associated Press! Cycling advocates probably want every street turned into a bike lane. I don't see how this is "news".
A biking network is important, but, the way it is being done is terrible and it's being used as a wedge issue by the current Mayor, who seems to like politicizing everything. Simply taking away existing car infrastructure to replace with bike lanes, with little to no real community consultation, its a recipe for disaster. This Mayor and Council fobbed off the first few bike lanes as "trials", yet we all know that once the concrete has been laid and set, it's permanent, not a "trial."
Vancouverites are being played by the bike lobby and lied to by the Mayor and Council, and that's what is causing the very negative reaction from people all over the city. Most people would agree that a safe biking network is a good idea, but, the way it is being done is ad-hoc and the bike lobby has created a "cyclists vs. motorists" mentality that isn't productive or necessary.
So what is the purpose of the critical mass bike protest that ties up friday rush hour traffic in knots every month?
This exercise has huge costs due to lost productivity, the massive increased police costs due to the lack of coordination, and heightened gas emissions from stalled traffic etc. Unlike all other civic marches and protests in the city, the organizers of critical mess refuse to get a permit, coordinate with police or pay for any of the costs they create.
Like our Mayor, apparently, they are entitled to run red lights and break all of the rules of the road the rest of us mere mortals have to obey.
They have dedicated bike paths all over the city, yet it's somehow still necessary to take over the lanes still dedicated to cars and stop traffic for half an hour on the Lions Gate Bridge, endangering anyone in ambulances needing to cross for emergency assistance, tantamount to reckless endangerment. It's also counterproductive, engendering deep-seated resentment across the city that will make it much more difficult for politicians to provide additional dedicated lanes in the future.
So Mr. Hewett will have to choose what he wants - an integrated network of bike paths, or the right to disrupt traffic and inconvenience thousands of hard-working Vancouver families every month?
1. consider the potential cost(s) to the taxpayer of providing a separate bridge for cyclists and pedestrians vs. that of simply striping safer, segregated cycling lanes on the "curbside" of the Cambie Bridge. A differential of perhaps millions of dollars?
2. Simple, segregated lanes on the Cambie bridge deck were proposed by the Bicycle Advisory Committee to City Council as part of an overall integrated network all along Cambie St (bridge to bridge) prior to construction beginning on the (then) RAV line. This would have provided a continuous, safer and more holistic set of infrastructure on the remaining paved surface that both the gov't and the developer(s) had promised would exist due to fewer vehicles using that route because of people taking the "Canada Line". Their numbers.
3. Shared ped and cyclist path on east side can be sufficient. It would be interesting to know how the bulk of pedestrians feel about sharing that space with cyclists. And vice versa.
4. Demonising/judging people, whether they ride a bicycle, drive a car, take transit, or walk is dangerous, presumptuous and counter-productive. Vancouver needs better, more sustainable transportation options and creating safe cycling networks on some roads and bridges is one way of doing that in alignment with Council's own transportation planning hierarchy (for the past several Councils, COPE, NPA AND Vision.... since before 1998): priority is 1st, peds; 2nd, cyclists; 3rd, transit users; 4th, heavy goods vehicles; 5th, single occupancy vehicles.
It's interesting that in this City and part of the world we have it relatively so good that if the worst thing we can find to argue about is transportation infrastructure, ... we're incredibly lucky.
with Critical Mass, a global, leaderless,"grassroots reclamation of public space -- on the last Friday of the month -- which allows cyclists and other self-propelled people to move safely and comfortably through city streets in a car-free space" (http://vancouvercm.blogspot.com/). What is your intent with the association?
I feel sad that a bunch of over weight out of shape car drivers feel the need to whine about those of us that actually make an effort to lead sustainable lives.
That said I hope you all feel better now
==============================
ROTFLMAO!!!
Why are there so many completely self-reflexive comments on internet chat boards? Is it some kind of biological reaction to too much time in front of a computer screen?
Rod Smelser
"A great deal of road surface has been given over to bicycles during this council, though more actual miles of bike paths were created by the last council. So far large swaths of the Dunsmuir viaduct, Dunsmuir street and now Hornby are to be dedicated to bicycles."
Is pure hyperbole. A few kilometres of pavement a few metres wide have been re-purposed for bikes only. If that's large swaths I'd hate to see what a narrow ribbon of pavement looks like in your eyes.
Tying road improvements to a cessation of Critical Mass is nonsense. The two aren't and shouldn't be related anymore than we would demand 100% compliance with the law from automobile users before installing needed safety measures such as traffic lights, signage, or similar. If you believe that should be the case, and traffic delays are such a scourge, then you should also acknowledge that the daily traffic snarls drivers encounter are overwhelmingly a result of poor individual driving decisions and are vastly more damaging in terms of productivity et al. Any attempt to address this issue should begin with enhanced enforcement of existing driving regulations.
"They have dedicated bike paths all over the city"
Besides the short chunks of Carrall St, Dunsmuir and Burrard Bridge, the dedicated bike paths in the city basically consist of the Seawall, Central Valley Greenway, BC Parkway, and ??? None of the three are useful for meeting the needs of people seeking safe options for traveling to a variety of popular destinations for work or recreation.
I'm disappointed to see you falling into the same faulty logic and reactionary, exaggerated rhetoric that continually makes real progress on this front more difficult, confrontational, and ultimately, dangerous to pedestrians and cyclists, than it need be.
The only days that I don't ride my bike are when I am traveling to far, carrying a large load that can't fit on a bike or the roads are blocked by snow, other then that you will see me everyday rain, snow(as long as the roads are safe) or sunshine. Weather is no deterrent. Once you get the right weather gear riding in the rain is actually quite fun. The best part is flying by all the people sitting in their cars frustrated that they are stuck in traffic hiding from the rain.
I love my bike!
It is that lawless dam-the-consequences attitude of Critical Mass the Mayor exemplified when he almost hit a bus running a red light that makes progress on this front more difficult, confrontational and dangerous certainly to pedestrians and cyclists than it should be. Not the legitimate concerns I've raised.
My point is you are connecting its activities to safer facilities for cyclists and that's illogical and a departure from current practice (we didn't demand drivers police other, dangerous drivers before making the Sea to Sky Hwy upgrades, did we?)
You may well have legitimate concerns, but tying them to infrastructure upgrades is unfair to the majority of cyclists who don't participate in Critical Mass. Your comment that they are 'the same cyclists who ride roughsod..." is a gross misrepresentation of the facts. There are thousands of cyclists in Vancouver and generally a few hundred of them regularly participate in Critical Mass. Obvious corollaries to your position would be to stall transit improvements because there are habitual fare cheats, or refuse to do roadwork because people drive through red lights. Do either of those scenarios make any sense? Of course not.
Further, you are using the controversial nature of the event as a springboard for politicizing the debate. The Mayor's riding habits should have no bearing on the building of safer cycling facilities. Would we stop building roads because the premier has a DUI on his record?
Critical Mass may not help things (although if viewed dispassionately, it's clear the event has had a role to play in mainstreaming cycling for transportation) but neither are you when you perpetuate the 'only perfect cyclists get bike lanes' argument.
Agree with this and if they dont, they miss a good opportunity to reflect and acknowledge the changing times but if they stick with the program they way they do, with the attitude they do, they only piss off the rest of the city even more.
I cycle, I support the "integrated, dedicated network of bike paths and pedestrian pathways" as Sean does but do not support Critical Mass. Tried it once and the sense of "we're such rebels, screw you establishment!" was embarassing, i think a good chunk of people there are just in it for the fun as well. There were some that went it about it the right way and thanked the pedestrians and cars as they rode by for their patience but they seemed to be in the minority.
I will not ride it again and if they do not coordinate with the city, I do not feel like I have to stop and wait as they all ride by, I'll just walk thru and since it is their aim to be a confrontational movement, I have no problems with getting in "their" way either.
The idea that cyclists don't pay their fair share is one of the most persistent myths of modern culture.
In fact, private car ownership is one of he most subsidized aspects of our society. In Metro Vancouver two separate studies found that taxpayers subsidize car owners by over $2 billion per year (bc.transport-action.ca/learning/background/transport_2021/cost_report.html).
So cyclists who drive little or never are actually helping to subsidize the habits of frequent car driver.
In fact, private car ownership is one of he most subsidized aspects of our society. In Metro Vancouver two separate studies found that taxpayers subsidize car owners by over $2 billion per year (bc.transport-action.ca/learning/background/transport_2021/cost_report.html
=================================
How does this game work, rob_? You've got a pamphletteer's highly spun extract from a nearly 20 year old report and you consider it to be the last word. Neat trick if it works.
It appears that what has been done here is that very, very high shadow costs have been assigned to the impacts of auto usage, but the same has not been done with transit. For example, is there an estimate of the impact of increased crime that is facilitated by rapid transit line, or of the air pollution generated by buses. It appears that these are assumed to be zero.
Cyclists may cost less, but they pay absolutely nothing for the refitting of roads to meet their needs. What is much more important is that they set aside no insurance premiums to cover medical costs or long term wage loss and disability in the event of an accident.
In terms of persistent myths, the notion that motorists can be taxed to pay for everything that moves is one of the most laughable. Motorists should pay for their services, no doubt, but the policy that says they should pay for everyone else's IN ADDITION is a bridge too far.
Rod Smelser
Motorists require a huge amount of public space to reach their destination, far more than those who use transit, walk or cycle. Consider the two second rule, and how much road space is required to maintain a safe distance at 50 kmh and compare that to the requirements of a pedestrian, cyclist, or bus carrying dozens of passengers. It seems clear to me that motorists should expect to pay for the privilege of monopolizing public space, esp. when so much of it ends up sitting empty for hours each day, waiting for the next rush hour... and is unavailable for other uses by the rest of the population.
If you want the best seat in the house, then it comes at a price, and motorists are in the Sky Boxes of Transportation Stadium. I haven't seen any recent data to counter Rob's assertion that car use is subsidized. I'd be most interested in any data you could find that indicates there's been a change in this situation.
As to the refit of roads to accommodate cycling, that money AFAIK is coming from municipal money, so all of us who live in the city and pay rent or property taxes are helping in this effort. Further, it's a benefit to motorists to finance other means of transportation, because it takes additional cars off the road and allows them the speedy passage that they appear to desire.
Chris, I realize that anti-car rhetoric, most of it quite insincere, had been a Vancouver political staple for both left and right since the days of the late Walter Hardwick.
In the 1960s and early 1970s Vancouver ratepayers and local politicos came to the conclusion that they could not
afford to build any freeways into the City, which they would be responsible for financing themselves under the City Charter Act. So they went for a "no build" option.
And then decided to make a virtue of necessity by advertising the results as something they had planned to do all along, ... because they're just sooo smart, ... and now, don't you see, ... Vancouver has the world class advantage of being the only city in North America that doesn't ... {At this point, Chris, I think you can fill in the blanks with some romantic prose from Pricetags}.
Let me refer you to what I said. "Motorists should pay for their services, no doubt, but the policy that says they should pay for everyone else's IN ADDITION is a bridge too far." That's the issue here and I think you know that. In fact, I am certain you do.
Rod Smelser
CM is a confrontational movement or message by nature. Thats fine in part. I understand thats how things have to be to get noticed sometimes and push thru. In some ways, I applaud that. I'm on the same general side. But its meant to ruffle some feathers so dont start labelling those feathers as "misanthropic" because they dont like it. Who says they have to like it? Who says they should have to wait? It IS inconvenient for those who have to wait and it takes more than a "few minutes" for it to pass thru. So while I wont say CM should just be killed, I wont tell those people who are waiting they have to wait for it to pass by and like it either since the initial gesture is CM is in your face. So if some who have to wait are being "misanthropic," that is nature of the beast,
Ive been on it. Ive seen the taunting gestures some of the riders give to those are are impatiently waiting. They are just waiting for those reactions so they can go laugh at them and act all "woo hoo for us, we're making you wait!" Its kind of like a door to door sales man or Christian pamphlet solicitor pointing a finger at the annoyed resident who opens their door and says "aha! I am annoying you!"
And to make the situation worse, CM still refuses to coordinate with the city, pay for the policing costs, acknowledge the gains that their cause has made. That is thumbing their nose at the rest of the people who are not on their side. So, yeah, some people will get pissed off and I dont blame them. CM is trying to piss them off so....
You questioned Rob's data. Do you have any information you could point me to that shows the public subsidies for car travel have lessened or abated? Because, you are suggesting the opposite is the case and motorists are paying the way for others. That's a big switch. Upon what data do you base this supposition?