Lanes, Citizens Still Divided in Vancouver
- Posted by: Andrew Price
- on November 3, 2009 at 11:48 am
In the GOOD 100 we applauded the idea of not only creating more space for cyclists and pedestrians on our roads, but of appropriating car lanes to do it. One place this has been tried is on the Burrard Bridge, which connects Vancouver’s downtown to the Kitsilano neighborhood to the west. Last summer the city gave one of the bridge’s six car lanes to bikes. The idea was controversial, to say the least. Skeptics thought it would result in gridlocked traffic and hurt downtown businesses.
Now there are some numbers out, though, and they look good:
-26% increase in cyclists using the bridge
-31% increase in women riders
-70,000 additional trips over the summer months
-A significant reduction in bicycle accidents
-Impact on vehicle crossing time: negligible.
Not surprisingly, residents support continuing the bike lane trial by a margin of 2 to 1.
But wait! This local news item on the new data has attracted an angry mob of commenters, upset about the bike lane. The tone of the comments has a whiff of astroturf about it, but their points aren’t all unreasonable. One concerned citizen wonders if motorists now bear a disproportionate tax burden for the upkeep of the bridge, with the cyclists getting a free ride (heh). On that point, I’m not sure that by reducing heavy car traffic the change hasn’t also reduced the net wear and tear on the bridge. But regardless, this issue shouldn’t outweigh the larger gains of the experiment in terms of bike safety, cleaner transportation, and public health, right?
Another concern mentioned is that the poll was small—only 310 people were surveyed—and doesn’t reflect the interests of people who live far away and have no choice but to commute by car. The report says the impact of vehicle crossing time has been “negligible,” but that’s vague. It might be that motorists from the far-flung ’burbs are inconvenienced. And that might just be part of the growing pains of moving to denser, more locally-oriented communities.
DISCUSSION: 4 Comments
This is great news. It’s nice to see bike advocates being vindicated, considering all the public and business community adversaries they face. To address the comment about drivers bearing a “disproportionate” tax burden: if drivers were truly to bear a proportionate tax burden they would be unable to afford to drive. Bikers cause less damage to roadways and do not pollute, as well as promote healthy living. Drivers already get away with murder by fueling up on subsidized gasoline and rarely paying tolls, all the while roadways crumble. Leave bikers alone, good behavior should be incentivized, not taxed.
Your headline is really not reflective of the results of the trial nor the opinion of the people of Vancouver. While there are some people who are not happy with the trial, even among drivers, support is 51% for and 31% against. Regarding the “angry mob”, this is pretty typical of the Province regardless of the issue and does not really reflect the general public attitude. The fact that there are only 38 comments reflects a significant change in public attitudes. Before the trial started, articles often had several hundred comments.Given the dire predictions of traffic chaos and great political damage before, the trial has been pretty much a complete success. Councillor Geoff Meggs called it “Burrard Bridge Home Run” in his blog. http://www.geoffmeggs.ca/2009/10/30/burrard-bridge-home-run/Sure, there are some people who are unhappy but there always will be. The tax argument is simply not correct. The money for the trial came from property taxes that all residents of Vancouver including cyclists and pedestrians pay. In fact, the complainers likely don’t even live in Vancouver and thus do not contribute of the funding for the protected lanes. Similarly, long distance commuters have the option of using two nearby bridges with plenty of capacity and a just completed $2 billion transit line. This council has shown strong leadership by resolving this issue after over 16 years of debate. It likely marks a turning point in making Vancouver a more sustainable city. You would do your readers a service by having a more positive headline and posting.
Hey Richard, thanks for the comments. And just to clarify: I’m all for the bike lane.
But there still seem to be some people (call them a “vocal minority” if you like) who oppose it. And with only 310 people polled in a city of 500,000+ it’s hard to claim that this report proves it’s super popular.
In fact, I think it’s likely that measures like this that privilege local transportation over incoming car traffic (congestion pricing would be another example) won’t always be popular with people outside the city. They will sometimes inconvenience people. I think negotiating those intra-city disagreements will be one of the challenges of building better cities. But it can be done.
Congrats on the great new bike lane, too!
The worst thing is the constant we/they divide. It does not have to be that way. Some bike fanatics are so arrogant they make it bad for everyone. It is better is there was more cooperation. Some people prefer one method over another so we are not doing any favors with a self righteous jihad-like attitude. Better road construction,more parking in residential areas. Many cities have move it laws which means cars must be moved each day so there is no parking for residents yet the job may be far away and most employers don’t want to hear the bus was late!!