Jump to content

      













Photo

[Bicycles] Bike lanes and cycling infrastructure in Victoria and the south Island


  • Please log in to reply
8113 replies to this topic

#21 rjag

rjag
  • Member
  • 4,856 posts
  • LocationSi vis pacem para bellum

Posted 15 August 2012 - 03:28 AM

Maybe all that car exhaust has ruined your attention span, and you didn't get to the end of the article where it pointed out that US energy consumption is twice that of Europeans. I could care less how many cars someone owns so long as they don't drive them very often.


Or maybe you couldnt see the irony through your cloud of self righteousness.

Here is a continent that for the most part has high density cities with close proximity mass transit connections and some of the highest fuel costs (tax) on earth managed by what some would consider socialist nanny state governments. Yet the population clearly wants individual freedom of movement.

They have identified with small highly fuel efficient cars for the most part due to the tax cost as well as the space issue (parking). Yet even so the car is still king. No matter how much the vocal minority/enviroweeny would have it, personal vehicle transportation is here to stay.

Yes Eu has some of the most amazing mass transit that we could only dream of but they have a much denser population occupying a much smaller area therefore different infrastructure costs and challenges.

Bikes and bike lanes have a role there and in some countries are utilised more than others.

For me, no matter how much the minority bike lobby howls, screams, holds its breath and moans, we will never see the same adoption rates because you cant force somebody to do something they dont want to do.

Personally I think it would be great if more people got out of their cars for just even 1 trip a week, especially in this great weather. I think more bike trails such as the Goose are warranted over under-utilised bike lanes. I see way more bikes commuting on the goose than I do on Fort St

I'm not against cycling....on the contrary, I love to ride my bike for leisure and exercise but I'm also free to choose how I commute and for me its a personal vehicle due to my job location as well as job description. Its not an excuse...its reality.

You cant make a silk purse out of a sows ear no matter how much of other peoples money you throw at it (waste?) Yes some infrastructure changes need to be done... but $200Million worth? Get real!

How many times have I heard the argument from our 'elected' leaders regarding improvements to roads such as Keating Interchange where they say "Show us the evidence" or "The volume has to be there before funding will be considered" if I had a $ for every time I heard that when it comes to critical infrastructure that is vital for our economy and safety, yet vocal minority lobby groups with (in my opinion) weak arguments somehow hold sway over these same elected officials. I dont buy it for 1 minute.

Anyway the bike lanes are already there and the safe ones parrallel the more busy ones; they are called side streets or alternate routes such as Rockland or Fairfield, Cedar Hill, North Dairy, Haultain, Old Esquimalt, Lyall etc.

#22 sdwright.vic

sdwright.vic

    Burnside-Gorge

  • Member
  • 6,441 posts

Posted 15 August 2012 - 09:08 AM

How many times have I heard the argument from our 'elected' leaders regarding improvements to roads such as Keating Interchange where they say "Show us the evidence" or "The volume has to be there before funding will be considered" if I had a $ for every time I heard that when it comes to critical infrastructure that is vital for our economy and safety, yet vocal minority lobby groups with (in my opinion) weak arguments somehow hold sway over these same elected officials. I dont buy it for 1 minute.


I have got to agree with this. Esquimalt spent all that money on traffic calming and bike lanes along Esquimalt Rd. and guess what. I hardly EVER see anyone using this "expense" that was not warranted. Once again, when I do see bikes on Esquimalt Rd. a majority of them are, guess where... on the sidewalk.

The argument I have for licensing is the fact that maybe, just maybe if you want all this infrastructure, then their should be some way to enforce the laws of the road on the users of this infrastructure. I am tired of see bicyclist running read lights, making illegal lane changes (no hand signals what so ever), and the idea the only the driver of the car is responsible for paying attention to the road and those around them.

A certain segment of the "pro-cycling" agenda have gone just a little aggro with their cycling and use of the road.
Predictive text and a tiny keyboard are not my friends!

#23 VicHockeyFan

VicHockeyFan
  • Suspended User
  • 52,121 posts

Posted 15 August 2012 - 10:01 AM

The argument I have for licensing is the fact that maybe, just maybe if you want all this infrastructure, then their should be some way to enforce the laws of the road on the users of this infrastructure. I am tired of see bicyclist running read lights, making illegal lane changes (no hand signals what so ever), and the idea the only the driver of the car is responsible for paying attention to the road and those around them.


Why is bicycle licensing supposed to change everything? Look, you can be fined for riding your bike inappropriately.

$29 under the Motor Vehicle Act for not wearing a helmet to $109 for most of the other operational offences.

Cyclists who fail to stop at a stop sign, run a red light or fail to yield to pedestrians can be fined $167.

If a police officer concludes that a cyclist rides a bicycle "without due care," the cyclist will get a ticket with a $195 fine


http://www.cbc.ca/ne...y-campaign.html
<p><span style="font-size:12px;"><em><span style="color:rgb(40,40,40);font-family:helvetica, arial, sans-serif;">"I don’t need a middle person in my pizza slice transaction" <strong>- zoomer, April 17, 2018</strong></span></em></span>

#24 Nparker

Nparker
  • Member
  • 22,556 posts

Posted 15 August 2012 - 10:28 AM

...you can be fined for riding your bike inappropriately...


But does it EVER happen? If everyone I ever saw riding their bike on a sidewalk were even fined $10 the city could probably retire its debt in 5 years or less. :o

And I don't think anyone believes bicycle licencing will change behaviour, but it would be a guaranteed source of revenue. Much like licencing my dog does not guarantee her behaviour on city property (or even a regular supply of pooper-scooper bags in city parks apparently) but it does ensure that I and every other dog owner in the City of Victoria - and you can imagine that is quite a large number (I would guess at least 10,000) - has to cough up $35 annually. That's $350,000 that more than likely goes to general revenue - and theoretically funds the pet nazis...er I mean Animal Control.

#25 pherthyl

pherthyl
  • Member
  • 2,209 posts

Posted 15 August 2012 - 11:36 AM

I don't need a study; I have eyes. Mass transit moves far more people than the equivalent dollars spent on bike infrastructure. I assume you are aware of a thing called a bus?


You know for a fact that spending on mass transit is a better value proposition for reducing congestion than spending on cycling infrastructure? I don't see how this logically follows from seeing a bus.

#26 pherthyl

pherthyl
  • Member
  • 2,209 posts

Posted 15 August 2012 - 11:52 AM

Yes Eu has some of the most amazing mass transit that we could only dream of but they have a much denser population occupying a much smaller area therefore different infrastructure costs and challenges.

Bikes and bike lanes have a role there and in some countries are utilised more than others.


So as our cities densify, we will arrive at the same point. More and more people in the same space. The roads aren't going to get any bigger downtown, so we have to be more efficient at moving people. That means mass transit and cycling/pedestrian infrastructure. There is no alternative.

For me, no matter how much the minority bike lobby howls, screams, holds its breath and moans, we will never see the same adoption rates because you cant force somebody to do something they dont want to do.


Sure you can. Rising gas costs make the car less appealing. Building cycling and mass transit infrastructure makes the alternatives more appealing.

I ride my bike to work up Hillside. I'm comfortable cycling, but that road is not very friendly to cycling. Narrow or nonexistent shoulders and I regularly have cars miss me by inches. I can certainly see that a less confident cyclist would not want to ride, and see that road as a barrier to leaving their car. Add a bike lane and suddenly the option is open to more people. Sure a lot of people will continue to drive, but the first step is to make the alternative at least safe.

#27 pherthyl

pherthyl
  • Member
  • 2,209 posts

Posted 15 August 2012 - 11:56 AM

But does it EVER happen? If everyone I ever saw riding their bike on a sidewalk were even fined $10 the city could probably retire its debt in 5 years or less. :o


Same thing if everyone talking on a cell phone was fined. Enforcement is spotty, it's the same thing with any violation. The police regularly hand out tickets for no helmet up at UVic.

And I don't think anyone believes bicycle licencing will change behaviour, but it would be a guaranteed source of revenue.


I don't mind paying a license fee for my bike. But if that happens I will be a lot more vocal about demanding cycling infrastructure too.

#28 Nparker

Nparker
  • Member
  • 22,556 posts

Posted 15 August 2012 - 12:04 PM

You know for a fact that spending on mass transit is a better value proposition for reducing congestion than spending on cycling infrastructure...


Then PROVE to me how many cars will be permanently removed from the road by spending the proposed $220 million on cycling infrastructure.

#29 Nparker

Nparker
  • Member
  • 22,556 posts

Posted 15 August 2012 - 12:06 PM

I don't mind paying a license fee for my bike. But if that happens I will be a lot more vocal about demanding cycling infrastructure too.


Good luck with that. As I have already alluded my dog licencing fees pretty much get me nothing.

#30 jklymak

jklymak
  • Member
  • 3,514 posts

Posted 15 August 2012 - 05:42 PM

They have identified with small highly fuel efficient cars for the most part due to the tax cost as well as the space issue (parking). Yet even so the car is still king. No matter how much the vocal minority/enviroweeny would have it, personal vehicle transportation is here to stay.


Well, as the comments in that article point out, Carnegie screwed up and didn't include SUVs and pickups, which Amreican's love. If you do that you get something more like 800 cars per 1000, so your argument to your enviroweenies, as you dismissively call them, is factually flawed.

But even if weren't, I don't think anyone but a few lunatics are arguing against having cars. I think they are arguing for making it easier to get around w/o one. As I've said a bunch of times, I have a car. I use it once or twice a week. I love using it. But I'm pretty happy to be able to live somewhere that is good to ride a bike and has good transit, so I can do that as often as possible.

Anyway the bike lanes are already there and the safe ones parrallel the more busy ones; they are called side streets or alternate routes such as Rockland or Fairfield, Cedar Hill, North Dairy, Haultain, Old Esquimalt, Lyall etc.


I agree that some of the bike lanes that have been put in are not necessarily that useful, and that making side streets like Haultain bike routes is probably better than drawing arbitrary lines on the road and putting weird curbs everywhere. However, I would argue that there is no good North/South conduit through town right now. Cedar Hill is terrible for biking on. Its steep, narrow, and cars barrel along really fast.

#31 jklymak

jklymak
  • Member
  • 3,514 posts

Posted 15 August 2012 - 05:44 PM

Then why is an additional $220 million needed in cycling infrastructure if the costs are already accounted for in current revenue and if not, from where do we magically come up with this money?


I'll repeat my question - where are you getting this $220 million number, and what jurisdiction requires that money?

#32 sebberry

sebberry

    Resident Housekeeper

  • Moderator
  • 18,087 posts
  • LocationVictoria

Posted 15 August 2012 - 05:54 PM

I'll repeat my question - where are you getting this $220 million number, and what jurisdiction requires that money?


http://www.canada.co...8608/story.html

Victoria current weather by neighbourhood: Victoria school-based weather station network

Victoria webcams: Big Wave Dave Webcams

 


#33 sdwright.vic

sdwright.vic

    Burnside-Gorge

  • Member
  • 6,441 posts

Posted 15 August 2012 - 06:32 PM

Why is bicycle licensing supposed to change everything? Look, you can be fined for riding your bike inappropriately.


http://www.cbc.ca/ne...y-campaign.html


The question is, while yes the can be be fined, can they be reported, like any other user of the road with a license plate.
Predictive text and a tiny keyboard are not my friends!

#34 Nparker

Nparker
  • Member
  • 22,556 posts

Posted 15 August 2012 - 08:37 PM

I'll repeat my question - where are you getting this $220 million number, and what jurisdiction requires that money?


I realize sebbery has already responded to this, but since you have asked more than once perhaps you need more than one link to the original story:

http://www.vancouver...8608/story.html

#35 pherthyl

pherthyl
  • Member
  • 2,209 posts

Posted 15 August 2012 - 08:51 PM

Then PROVE to me how many cars will be permanently removed from the road by spending the proposed $220 million on cycling infrastructure.


I'm not the one making the wild claims that spending on mass transit is so much more effective.

Good luck with that. As I have already alluded my dog licencing fees pretty much get me nothing.


Yeah the city is really lacking in dog infrastructure.

#36 Holden West

Holden West

    Va va voom!

  • Member
  • 9,058 posts

Posted 15 August 2012 - 08:52 PM

In Victoria, Fort Street between Wharf and Cook streets could be a candidate for barriers that separate cyclists from vehicle traffic, Hutchison said.


I cycle up this stretch of Fort frequently--I did it today in heavy traffic as a matter of fact.

I can't conceive how a physical barrier would help things. Actually, I can see it being more dangerous. Bunching up cyclists of differing speeds and skill levels can be dangerous. When I go up Fort I go quickly, keeping aware of my surroundings and the traffic flowing with me and I've never experienced a conflict or anything that would discourage me from biking.

What if want to stop at a store on the left side of Fort? Cars can change lanes and park there but I guess I would be encouraged to continue to the next "exit" and backtrack to my destination.

I suspect if they did build a lane there I would forego it and continue to cycle at the right of the vehicle lane.
"Beaver, ahoy!""The bridge is like a magnet, attracting both pedestrians and over 30,000 vehicles daily who enjoy the views of Victoria's harbour. The skyline may change, but "Big Blue" as some call it, will always be there."
-City of Victoria website, 2009

#37 Nparker

Nparker
  • Member
  • 22,556 posts

Posted 15 August 2012 - 09:44 PM

Yeah the city is really lacking in dog infrastructure.


As far as I can see there are already plenty of paved roads, which IMHO is perfectly good as bike infrastructure. If more than this is truly what people want then put it to a referendum and see if the majority of taxpayers want to spend $220 million on special infrastructure just for bicycles.

#38 rjag

rjag
  • Member
  • 4,856 posts
  • LocationSi vis pacem para bellum

Posted 16 August 2012 - 06:06 AM

Well, as the comments in that article point out, Carnegie screwed up and didn't include SUVs and pickups, which Amreican's love. If you do that you get something more like 800 cars per 1000, so your argument to your enviroweenies, as you dismissively call them, is factually flawed.


Actually if you read his footnote you will see that they did include all SUV's and pickups but excluded vehicles capable of seating more than 9 passengers and freight vehicles.

Carnegie has used a similar World Bank study on just "passenger vehicles," which is the number I use. Both of those numbers do include pickup trucks, SUVs, minivans, and small buses.


http://www.theatlant...mment-619190681

Regardless you miss the point which is that Eu nanny state govts have been trying to get people out of cars by taxing fuel like crazy and all it has done is forced people to buy smaller more fuel efficient vehicles... car use has not decreased. In other words taxing fuel doesnt really work if its their intention to get people out of cars.

I support the concept of encouraging more bike use as it does in some way relieve congestion and improves society's health...however the mere thought of spending this type of money to appease a relative minority is simply insanity.

There has to be a bigger picture where proper urban planning is developed over a 25-50 year cycle where density is encouraged that will enable more green space and in turn if there is density then there is proximity which encourages simpler methods of mobility such as walking or cycling.

This will never happen when there are 14 princes and princesses and numerous Earls and Barons all scrambling to protect their little bit of turf.

#39 jklymak

jklymak
  • Member
  • 3,514 posts

Posted 16 August 2012 - 10:47 AM

Actually if you read his footnote you will see that they did include all SUV's and pickups but excluded vehicles capable of seating more than 9 passengers and freight vehicles.



http://www.theatlant...mment-619190681

Regardless you miss the point which is that Eu nanny state govts have been trying to get people out of cars by taxing fuel like crazy and all it has done is forced people to buy smaller more fuel efficient vehicles... car use has not decreased. In other words taxing fuel doesnt really work if its their intention to get people out of cars.


OK, but I don't think the intention is to get people out of cars, its to stop emitting so much CO2. By that measure, the EU's nanny states have succeeded, since their per-capita energy use if half that of the US's.

#40 jklymak

jklymak
  • Member
  • 3,514 posts

Posted 16 August 2012 - 10:57 AM

Actually if you read his footnote you will see that they did include all SUV's and pickups but excluded vehicles capable of seating more than 9 passengers and freight vehicles.



http://www.theatlant...mment-619190681


I tend to give more credence to some of the comments that point out the flaws in the Carnegie and World Bank numbers and cite the US-DOT numbers.

You're not quite at the end of this discussion topic!

Use the page links at the lower-left to go to the next page to read additional posts.
 



0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users