11042 replies to this topic

[Rex Waverly]

Yes, we used to get from downtown to home by using that bit of Rockland by the cathedral. Since that has been closed we now turn right at Burdett by the playground, U turn in someone's driveway, then cross back over Quadra on Burdett. Now that parts of Vancouver are blocked, we use Burdett or MacLure between Vancouver and Cook, and when they bring in no left turn off of Cook onto Richardson, we'll probably turn left up MacLure, cut through the condo parking lot to get back onto Richardson, lol. It all gets to be a bit much. 

 

Out of curiousity, why would you go through the condo parking lot instead of using Linden to get back to Richardson? I'm just not seeing the benefit is all.....

[Mike K.]

Not saying i'm convinced that that actually is their plan, but i agree in concept that they should be open and transparent about their goals and the methods they intend to use to get there.

I think being open to the plan allows for better explanation of the reasoning behind the plan, which (if it's solid reasoning) would increase the public buy-in. Like, if there is an actual plan to reduce the vehicle travel into / through downtown by 30% by 2025, maybe explain why and what the benefits are.

Maybe try something like this:
"The plan is that by reducing vehicle use, we can substantially increase other modes of transportation to not only replace the vehicle trips lost but increase the overall number of trips to / from downtown. We believe that by reducing vehicle trips by 30% by 2025, we can increase total trips by 30%. This would bring more people / business / workers downtown while improving the efficiency of the land use and infrastructure dollars. Now, here's how we will do it and why we think it will work...."

Obviously, i'm just making up some numbers there. But i do think that statements like that would at the very least allow people to understand the thinking behind the plan, even if they don't agree with it. Right now, there's a lot of people who just ascribe every move they make to an ideology, as if there's no thinking / reasoning behind it. Less "god-damn lefties / righties and their crazy ideology" and more "i understand but respectfully disagree" might be nice

Absolutely. And it’s this absence of clarity that frustrates the electorate, as we don’t know what we’re going to get with every step the city takes.

I suspect that when it comes to radical changes to something familiar, moving forward first then asking for forgiveness is far more palatable for politicians who hope the public forgets or moves onto other issues.

[Rex Waverly]

MikeK: I believe the city has a good chance of reaching their goal of vehicle reduction as business leave the downtown core and more people work remotely.

 

Well, based on the CRD origin / destination surveys in 2011 and 2017, the number of vehicle trips ('auto driver' trips) into / out of downtown dropped 7%. So to reach 35% in only 7 more years, they'll need to step up their game! 

 

I guess the good news is, while vehicle numbers are declining, all other travel modes are increasing. Over the same 6 year period, non-driver trips increased 40%, more than making up for the loss in vehicles. The total number of trips rose by 15%, even with the reduction in drivers. (And this is mostly before the AAA bike lanes were built.)

 

For reference, numbers taken from the O/D surveys:

 

Trips From / To Downtown

Mode                    2011        2017    Diff        %Diff

Auto Driver         69624     64770    -4854    -7.0%

Auto Passenger 15461     18030    2569     16.6%

Transit                 21447    28540   7093      33.1%

Bicycle                4918     14270    9352     190.2%

Walk                   17042    21910   4868      28.6%

Other                   2111     2630     519        24.6%

Total                   130603 150150 19547     15.0%

 

(these are daily numbers for vehicles to / from downtown. trips 'within' downtown were excluded since we're talking commuting but it doesn't change the percentages much)

Edited by Rex Waverly, 30 December 2020 - 11:06 AM.

[Mike K.]

Is that daily, Rex?

[Mike K.]

That cycling number is outrageous, lol. Hundreds of buses full of passengers roving around all day deliver 30,000 people, and we’re to believe cycling accounts for 50% of transit capacity. That’s insane.

[spanky123]

It’s in Langford, and yes, there are plans for more offices on the West Shore. The shift has already begun with one downtown unit of a provincial ministry having moved to View Royal, and we know the flex space is coming soon to Westhills. There are rumours of much more but I’ll leave it at that for now.

 

Just look at where the Jawls are acquiring property!

[Blue Steel]

That bit of Rockland by the cathedral I believe was closed after Helps became mayor as in our household we call it the Lisa Helps Memorial Parkway. 

The closure of Rockland between Quadra and Vancouver was already in the works 18 yrs ago when I volunteered to collect surveys to help develop priorities for the greenways plan, which was preceded many years by various volunteer committees working on transportation demand initiatives. 

[On the Level]

There are a lot of other people out there that want a different lifestyle than you. Why should they not have the right to commute safely to work in the manner that they choose?  

 

 

And as I have said many times, I agree with having the bike lanes, provided the designs are balanced for everyone.  If it was about giving you an option, then great, but those lanes are intended to take away options from others.  

 

Pre-covid, everything was stopped. That’s the problem.

But your point takes us back to light timings. That is not difficult to overcome. Cities can move hundreds of thousands of vehicles through their downtown expediently, if they choose, every day. Or they can artificially grind the downtown to a halt, like we have done, and continue to do.

It would all at least feel better if City Hall would admit their plan, openly. But what we get are passive comments about sharing the road, efficiencies, improvements, etc. Just come out and say it: our goal is to reduce vehicle travel through downtown Victoria by 30% by 2025. Just say it, don’t dance around it.

 

Exactly.  If it was about giving citizens a choice to use a protected bike lane, we wouldn't have the upset.  

[Mike K.]

Here’s a gem from the GVCC, from back in 2014. The organization wanted to create the impression that cyclists are a big part of the driving force behind consumerism downtown, not motorists, and they had data to prove it.

This emerged as the conversation around bike lanes was starting.

A survey conducted for the Greater Victoria Cycling Coalition suggests only 23 per cent of people visit downtown Victoria by car. Almost half of those surveyed (48 per cent) came downtown by bicycle or foot.

For the Cycling Coalition survey, conducted over two months last fall, 504 people were asked in sidewalk interviews how they had travelled downtown that day. The results:
• 31 per cent walked
• 26 per cent took public transit
• 23 per cent drove an automobile
• 17 per cent cycled
• Three per cent took another mode of transportation (taxi, scooter, motorcycle)
Surprisingly, the survey suggests people who drive cars to get to downtown Victoria are in a minority.

- https://www.timescol...y-says-1.886124

This is largely why anything related to cycling data is suspect in this City, as it gets manipulated.

[Mike K.]

Hilariously, three years later, the CRD’s data showed 56% of people arrived by car, and that’s with the highly suspicious 15,000 by bike.

Imagine that. The GVCC’s “survey” was only off by 140%.

[marks_28]

The 15,000 figure does seem a bit high, but maybe? Call it 3k average for trips along the goose and over the bridge into DT. Maybe 4k if a portion come along Esquimalt Road or Wilson or Craigflower. I've read frequently on here that the areas with the most bike commuters are Fairfield and Oak Bay. Maybe those commuters are 50% more, so 6k total. Are 5k coming from elsewhere? James Bay, Oaklands, Fernwood, etc. Maybe? I guess it does seem high, but maybe there is a case to be made? Would obviously love to see a breakdown of where they are coming from.

[Mike K.]

And it gets better. Guess who paid for the cycling lobby group to conduct its survey? The City of Victoria.

That’s right. Taxpayers footed $10,000 for data that turned out to be wrong in every way, for every single category.

[Mike K.]

The 15,000 figure does seem a bit high, but maybe? Call it 3k average for trips along the goose and over the bridge into DT. Maybe 4k if a portion come along Esquimalt Road or Wilson or Craigflower. I've read frequently on here that the areas with the most bike commuters are Fairfield and Oak Bay. Maybe those commuters are 50% more, so 6k total. Are 5k coming from elsewhere? James Bay, Oaklands, Fernwood, etc. Maybe? I guess it does seem high, but maybe there is a case to be made? Would obviously love to see a breakdown of where they are coming from.

Try not to overthink it. It’s manipulated information.

And you’re off on the wrong foot already. The goose doesn’t have 3,000 inbound trips per day. You’re conflating inbound and outbound (the counter counts both) but doesn’t split the number. But even the goose sees at its maximum ~1,800 cyclists a day, in the peak of summer. And we’re to believe 7.5x that number arrive downtown by bike. It’s absurd.

[Mike K.]

And keep in mind, that data is supposed to be “before” the AAA network grew legs.

[marks_28]

Try not to overthink it. It’s manipulated information.

And you’re off on the wrong foot already. The goose doesn’t have 3,000 inbound trips per day. You’re conflating inbound and outbound (the counter counts both) but doesn’t split the number. But even the goose sees at its maximum ~1,800 cyclists a day, in the peak of summer. And we’re to believe 7.5x that number arrive downtown by bike. It’s absurd.

That is what I thought at first, but the column that was posted said trips to/from downtown. So if someone commuted, that would count as 2 out of the 15,000, no? So sure, 15,000 trips, but 7,500 cyclists. Unless I am still reading it wrong lol.

[Rex Waverly]

Try not to overthink it. It’s manipulated information.

And you’re off on the wrong foot already. The goose doesn’t have 3,000 inbound trips per day. You’re conflating inbound and outbound (the counter counts both) but doesn’t split the number. But even the goose sees at its maximum ~1,800 cyclists a day, in the peak of summer. And we’re to believe 7.5x that number arrive downtown by bike. It’s absurd.

 

Basically all daily traffic data will double-count most trips, since people tend to end up back where they started at the end of the day.  The numbers i provided above were daily, so in-and-out (or if you started downtown, out-and-in).  That's just the nature of the data.

[Mike K.]

Maybe Rex can confirm if the data captures return trips or only origin, ie departing -or- arriving downtown.

[Rex Waverly]

The 15,000 figure does seem a bit high, but maybe? Call it 3k average for trips along the goose and over the bridge into DT. Maybe 4k if a portion come along Esquimalt Road or Wilson or Craigflower. I've read frequently on here that the areas with the most bike commuters are Fairfield and Oak Bay. Maybe those commuters are 50% more, so 6k total. Are 5k coming from elsewhere? James Bay, Oaklands, Fernwood, etc. Maybe? I guess it does seem high, but maybe there is a case to be made? Would obviously love to see a breakdown of where they are coming from.

 

The numbers are daily numbers, so it's not just commuting. There's also recreation trips, trips to the corner store, trips to / from school, etc. 

 

And the numbers are from a CRD survey, not the City.... not sure if the conspiracy goes up that high, but you never know. My understanding of the survey methodology was that it was pretty standard and unbiased, but I honestly haven't really looked for myself.  (That GVCC survey, on the other hand..... a sidewalk survey seems like it's only catching a certain segment of the population, and not a randomly distributed segment at that.)

[Mike K.]

Odd. I can see that if they’re counting manually, and don’t know who is coming or going. But when you’re responding to a survey can you not specifically identify?

[Mike K.]

The numbers are daily numbers, so it's not just commuting. There's also recreation trips, trips to the corner store, trips to / from school, etc.

And the numbers are from a CRD survey, not the City.... not sure if the conspiracy goes up that high, but you never know. My understanding of the survey methodology was that it was pretty standard and unbiased, but I honestly haven't really looked for myself. (That GVCC survey, on the other hand..... a sidewalk survey seems like it's only catching a certain segment of the population, and not a randomly distributed segment at that.)

Trips to the corner store? School? If the data is for downtown, what is actually being captured if we’re talking about school and corner stores. Those exist outside of the downtown borders.