Login / RegisterCycling 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.
{poll node='337574'}{/poll}
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
Pages