11042 replies to this topic

[Brantastic]

It won't work as well as it did before the city $#*%-ed it up.

It didn't work well for everyone. I'm not going to miss swerving in and out of parked cars as vehicles narrowly fly by me in the door zone.

[Nparker]

It didn't work well for everyone... 

Well it's not going to work well for everyone now, so nothing has been gained. 

[Brantastic]

Yes, of course something has been gained. A north-south route for cyclists on the east side of Downtown. That's something we've never had before. 100% of the road space is given to moving and parking cars on Blanshard, Quadra, and Cook (and what space is given to cyclists on Douglas Street is abysmal). Drivers get these 3 or 4 streets, cyclists get 1. That seems to at least be approaching something that is a bit more fair than allocating all space on all of these streets to cars only, with no consideration for other kinds of users. 

You just don't like cycling infrastructure.

[Rob Randall]

Look at Cedar Hill Golf Course. It's an impassible barrier one and a half kilometres long. Does anyone complain about not being able to cross it? No, you just go down Maplewood or Cedar Hill according to which best suits your destination.

[Nparker]

Yes, of course something has been gained...

The implication is that more people will benefit from the new configuration of Vancouver Street than its previous incarnation. I am suggesting this is not true.

[rmpeers]

Yes, of course something has been gained. A north-south route for cyclists on the east side of Downtown. That's something we've never had before. 100% of the road space is given to moving and parking cars on Blanshard, Quadra, and Cook (and what space is given to cyclists on Douglas Street is abysmal). Drivers get these 3 or 4 streets, cyclists get 1. That seems to at least be approaching something that is a bit more fair than allocating all space on all of these streets to cars only, with no consideration for other kinds of users.

You just don't like cycling infrastructure.

I don't think the "you just don't like it" argument helps anyone. A lot of people don't like it, and perhaps there might be value for the Biketoria folks to reflect on that, rather than imagining that those who don't like the design must hate all cycling infrastructure. It's like when people dare to point out that the City's efforts to reduce homelessness have been a failure, and the response is, "oh, you hate homeless people." Quite the opposite.

Edited by rmpeers, 28 February 2021 - 11:55 AM.

[Brantastic]

The implication is that more people will benefit from the new configuration of Vancouver Street than its previous incarnation. I am suggesting this is not true.

The previous incarnation was one where only drivers had a safe north-south route east of Wharf Street. Now both drivers and cyclists have their own routes. Drivers + cyclists = more people than just drivers. 

Regardless, I don't think the "fewer people benefit because drivers outnumber cyclists" argument is justification against constructing bike infrastructure. We still provide sidewalks for pedestrians on streets where drivers outnumber pedestrians, because pedestrians are vulnerable road users that aren't compatible sharing lanes with vehicles. Same with cyclists.

NParker, what would you propose as a solution for a safe north-south route for cyclists between Douglas and Cook Streets? Painted bike lanes or sharing car lanes with heavy traffic don't count as they don't represent real safety solutions for the majority of people who either ride or would like to ride a bike. I'd like to hear some constructive ideas rather than just complaining about anything that keeps cyclists safe.

[Brantastic]

I don't think the "you just don't like it" argument helps anyone. A lot of people don't like it, and perhaps there might be value for the Biketoria folks to reflect on that, rather than imagining that those who don't like the design must hate all cycling infrastructure. It's like when people dare to point out that the City's efforts to reduce homelessness have been a failure, and the response is, "oh, you hate homeless people." Quite the opposite.

Having listened to the discourse on here for years now about bike lanes, it's pretty clear that a lot of users here genuinely just don't like cyclists or cycling infrastructure. I'm past any kind of belief that people here genuinely want to talk about cycling infrastructure in a positive, constructive way or want to work towards solutions to provide safe routes for cyclists.

To give cyclists safe routes on our existing street network, it's going to almost require one of the following:
-removal of some on-street parking
-removal of a lane for cars
-narrowing the width of car lanes
-installing traffic diverters to substantially reduce car volumes + other traffic calming measures

The majority of users on this forum refuse to ever budge on any one of these options, so we're left with a situation where yes, many of you "just don't like" any kind of feasible design that could ever be put forward. 

[FogPub]

Having listened to the discourse on here for years now about bike lanes, it's pretty clear that a lot of users here genuinely just don't like cyclists or cycling infrastructure. I'm past any kind of belief that people here genuinely want to talk about cycling infrastructure in a positive, constructive way or want to work towards solutions to provide safe routes for cyclists.

To give cyclists safe routes on our existing street network, it's going to almost require one of the following:
-removal of some on-street parking
-removal of a lane for cars
-narrowing the width of car lanes
-installing traffic diverters to substantially reduce car volumes + other traffic calming measures

The majority of users on this forum refuse to ever budge on any one of these options, so we're left with a situation where yes, many of you "just don't like" any kind of feasible design that could ever be put forward. 

Or making some streets one-way, thus providing more room for all.

 

I've always thought that, between Hillside and Bellevue, Government St should be one-way southbound and Douglas St one-way northbound.  Yes, this would require making Government St south of Yates into an actual road again, but I'm more than OK with that.  Both streets are easily wide enough to allow for dedicated bus lanes, bike lanes, car lanes, etc. if made one-way.

 

Making Blanshard and Douglas each one-way doesn't work nearly as well due to all the one-block cross-overs people would have to make depending which highway (1 or 17) you're going to/coming from.

 

The other thing is that the cycling infrastructure that does exist - e.g. Galloping Goose (maybe as far as Colwood) and Lochside south of Royal Oak - needs to be made strictly cyclists only.  No pedestrians, no dogs, nothing else except cyclists, who can then go as fast as they like without worrying about uncontrolled kids or pets.

[David Bratzer]

Having listened to the discourse on here for years now about bike lanes, it's pretty clear that a lot of users here genuinely just don't like cyclists or cycling infrastructure. I'm past any kind of belief that people here genuinely want to talk about cycling infrastructure in a positive, constructive way or want to work towards solutions to provide safe routes for cyclists.
<snip>

 

It can be hard to get bikes these days.  I recently put a deposit down on an e-bike.  I'm waiting for it to show up.  The bike shop has no idea when it will be here.  There's a worldwide shortage of bikes, e-bikes and various bike accessories. Here's a video of the guy from Propel talking about it. Could be three months, could be nine months, who knows.

[Mike K.]

I was at a pub on the West Shore over the weekend, and a couple rode up on bicycles. They said they were from the CoV and some patrons chatted with them about the ride, etc.

 

Anyways, as they were leaving the man just jutted out into moving traffic, and angrily stared down motorists who lurched to a stop as he and his partner then rode into the travel lane and continued on.

 

Everyone on the patio watching this went silent, and eventually someone spoke up and said "that's one heck of an entitled attitude if I ever did see one," or something like that.

 

It was like the two wanted to show up the backwards West Shore'ers having beer on the patio? Not sure how else to make sense of something that could have resulted in a needless collision.

[max.bravo]

I was at a pub on the West Shore over the weekend, and a couple rode up on bicycles. They said they were from the CoV and some patrons chatted with them about the ride, etc.

Anyways, as they were leaving the man just jutted out into moving traffic, and angrily stared down motorists who lurched to a stop as he and his partner then rode into the travel lane and continued on.

Everyone on the patio watching this went silent, and eventually someone spoke up and said "that's one heck of an entitled attitude if I ever did see one," or something like that.

It was like the two wanted to show up the backwards West Shore'ers having beer on the patio? Not sure how else to make sense of something that could have resulted in a needless collision.

They must have been asserting their Bicycle Rights [Portlandia clip 1:21] https://m.youtube.co...h?v=V3nMnr8ZirI

[Mike K.]

Holy mother of a pearl, that was it!

[Nparker]

They must have been asserting their Bicycle Rights [Portlandia clip 1:21] https://m.youtube.co...h?v=V3nMnr8ZirI

In all satire, there is some truth.

[Rex Waverly]

The implication is that more people will benefit from the new configuration of Vancouver Street than its previous incarnation. I am suggesting this is not true.

 

I think if you go just by the number of users, you're probably right that more users will be negatively impacted (mostly drivers) than positively impacted (mainly cyclists). I could boost the numbers a bit by adding the number of households that benefit from a much more quiet street, but at least from a traffic perspective that seems reasonable.

 

But that's by absolute numbers only..... surely the magnitude of the impact has to be factored in.... for drivers, it's a little bit longer drive time, so the individual negative impact is relatively low. For cyclists, it's a safe AAA route where there wasn't one before, so the positive impact is much greater for each cyclist. 

 

So if a smaller number of cyclists gain a really large benefit, while a larger number of drivers are impacted only a small amount, that could be a net positive. Unfortunately it's not easy to quantify the benefits to cyclists; otherwise a simple cost / benefit ratio would be easy to apply.  

 

Maybe one of you can tell me the unit conversion for 'safe bike trips' to 'seconds of increased driver delay'?   

[Victoria Watcher]

Victoria’s bike lane network will be pushing into James Bay next year and the city wants feedback from residents, businesses and commuters on the proposed routes.

 

North-south routes are planned for Government and Montreal streets, and there are two east-west route options on the table for Superior and Michigan streets, one of which will be designated for construction by the end of 2022.

 

 

 

https://www.timescol...-bay-1.24289925

Edited by Victoria Watcher, 04 March 2021 - 06:19 AM.

[Nparker]

...the city wants feedback from residents, businesses and commuters on the proposed routes...

As long as that feedback supports the decisions that have already been made. Otherwise don't waste your time putting pen to paper.

[Hotel Mike]

^ "Pen to paper" What century are you living in my friend?

[Nparker]

"Fingers to keyboard/keypad" doesn't have the same cachet.

[On the Level]

There are a few "Public Input Sought" articles in the Times Colonist today.  What the frig for?  It insults everyone's intelligence.