109 responses so far ↓

• 1 Bill McCreery // Oct 4, 2010 at 10:11 am

  @ 4 horses 91. Thank you for providing your very humourous comment. It’s refreshing to occasionally read someone with the talent to not only effectively articulate but, to do so in such an enjoyable manner.

• 2 Morven // Oct 4, 2010 at 12:10 pm

  @ Chris # 98

  Fair point.

  You are correct that the Hornby Street official city materials do identify it as a separated bike lane.

  I will be more scrupulous in future how I use the terms but in mitigation, I am in good company.

  Some Vancouver elected representatives also omit using the modifier “separated” in their pronouncements, written and verbal.
  -30-

• 3 Chris Keam // Oct 4, 2010 at 12:56 pm

  “I know you’re not a big fan of consultation, so maybe you’re view of what consultation is and what mine is are very different”

  That’s precisely the kind of b*llshit characterization that pollutes the debate. I’m all for consultation. But, let’s review. Burrard Bridge was going to be a traffic nightmare according to the DVBIA. Didn’t happen.

  Dunsmuir was going to create downtown gridlock according to the media. Didn’t happen.

  Olympics. Businesses said there was no way everyone would bus, walk or bike into town. Wrong again. Travel by those modes exceeded everyone’s expectations.

  Reality. Over a million dollars in changes to the Hornby plan after consulting with businesses. Dozens of businesses, including CFIB members and Hornby St businesses are supporting the new separated lane. Separated lanes in other places faced initial resistance, now businesses love them.

  I know you prefer anecdote and opinion to facts and reality Jason (see how that stings?) but Dunsmuir is permanent because it is proving to be successful, not because of Council ideology or it was a foregone conclusion. I realize that nothing anyone says will change your mind, but all signs point to Hornby St. being like other, similar, plans. A benefit for sustainable transportation and a non-factor or even a positive in terms of business impact.

  Still waiting for even one example of a bike lane ruining business on a street. Why is that Jason? Having some trouble finding a study to reference? I know I sure couldn’t find anything.

• 4 Jason King // Oct 4, 2010 at 3:36 pm

  Chris,

  I’m not trying to pollute the debate. You definitely give the impression that you’re in favor of the mayors approach to pushing through his agenda, regardless of the views of the people it affects.

  When making my case earlier for consultation, and Richard stating that I’d made a good point, your response was, and I quote:

  “He made a case for endless meetings ending in the status quo. No leadership required to take that approach.”

  That struck me as anti-consultation, and you feeling that consultation is was a waste of time that only leads to the status quo.

  “See how it stings”

  Chris, I don’t take this debate personally (you shouldn’t either)….the APPARENT arrogance frustrates me at times, but I don’t take it personally.

  But this is getting stupid, and personal, so lets get back to the primary point I’ve been trying to make and off the he said/she said BS:

  If I have a business, and someone comes along and appears to POTENTIALLY want to negatively impact my business, the burden of proof should be on the people wanting the change to prove to me this is not going to negatively impact my business, not on the businesses to prove otherwise.

  Bike lane advocates/the city should be working to convince businesses, and the advocacy groups that represent them, that a separated bike lanes won’t adversely affect their business. Bike lane advocates however feel that the burden of proof should be on the businesses, who’s livelihood is affected, to prove that they will be negatively impacted. I think that’s ridiculous.

  You’re absolutely right Chris,I don’t have a study (nor have I looked hard for one) showing the negative impact of a bike lane on business. But as I previously stated, if the city/bike lane advocates are so completely positive that businesses, and their advocacy groups, are wrong about their fears, they should be able to convince them of this. These businesses are not opposed to bike lanes…these businesses are concerned that this bike lane will negatively impact their business. That’s a VERY important distinction. It’s not an issue of “not on my block” it’s an issue of “I can’t afford for you guys to be wrong”.

  Businesses are hurting, the economy is not strong at the moment….and you now want to introduce an element that COULD lower their revenues to an even greater extent. Is it any wonder their concerned and want to make damn sure their views are being listened to?

  I am going to again state that I am pro bike lane…regardless of whether anyone wants to characterize me as otherwise.

  I do not, however, have confidence in this mayor or this council to make decisions based on sound fiscal management or even facts. I see a very ideologically driven team of people who arrogantly believe that they have a “vision” for the future that they are going to push through…opposition be damned. It’s therefore difficult to feel confident that prudent decisions are being made, or that the necessary level of study has been completed before making a decision. I believe the mayor/council have brought this view on themselves by their actions, and that this debate is mostly a ramification of their arrogance. Businesses don’t believe this is a “trial” because whether you feel Dunsmuir has yet to prove itself a success or not, it has never looked like a “trial”. It looks like a mayor/council who called it that to implement their agenda. Again, that doesn’t build trust with the businesses that are potentially affected.

  That’s my viewpoint. Now I’m going to walk away from the debate because I’ve wasted a ton of my time going back and forth…and I have a business to run….

  But to those I’ve debated with, I do appreciate the debate/information/feedback, and I have listened to what you’ve had to say and it HAS had an impact. I do hope that something I’ve said has done likewise.

• 5 Chris Keam // Oct 4, 2010 at 4:03 pm

  “When making my case earlier for consultation, and Richard stating that I’d made a good point, your response was, and I quote:”

  Bill McCreery thought you’d made a good point. Bill has admitted to using issues to score political points.

  You joined the conversation by referring to me and others as ‘boys’ Jason. I wish. Too many grey hairs to be a boy anymore. So, if you want a civil debate, best to begin on a higher plane than snark.

  “But as I previously stated, if the city/bike lane advocates are so completely positive that businesses, and their advocacy groups, are wrong about their fears, they should be able to convince them of this.”

  The combined threat of punishment, personal injury, and numerous studies can’t even convince people to hang up and drive. If ICBC’s deep pockets can’t make people behave rationally, why should we naturally expect a few bike advocates to be able to convince businesses of anything?

  I’m sorry Jason, but people don’t always behave rationally, esp. when they are faced with change. It’s not due to lack of consultation or this project being inherently flawed. It’s due to misinformation and bad information (such as that which you perpetuated by claiming Montreal closed bike lanes in winter) that make it really hard to have a productive discussion of the real issues.

  Even now, you’ve been given a number of resources to check out showing bike lane impacts. Why aren’t we discussing the findings therein? Have you read any of the material that’s been supplied to you. Why aren’t those studies convincing enough? Offer up some specifics. We all have businesses to run or work to do. The least you could do is have the courtesy to take note of the information other people are taking the time to find for you.

  cheers,
  CK

• 6 Bill McCreery // Oct 4, 2010 at 5:48 pm

  @ Chris 105.
  “Bill has admitted to using issues to score political points.”

  You’ve just illustrated your own agenda in these discussions which is to score your own points political or otherwise. I did not admit to “to using issues to score political points”, I did acknowledge I enjoyed these ‘discussions’ for their intellectual
  stimulation & that the politics was a side bar’. I don’t think that is a wholesale admission that my primary purpose here is to “score political points”. Unfortunately the positions you & others, on both sides, often take make my replies perhaps seem more partisan than I would prefer they were. So you see it’s really your fault Chris, once again.

• 7 Chris Keam // Oct 4, 2010 at 6:29 pm

  Right Bill. As they say, I was born, but I wasn’t born yesterday.

• 8 The Fourth Horseman // Oct 4, 2010 at 9:04 pm

  @Chris re: #93

  I never said they represented the majority. But, there is a significant and very visual and verbal minority of bike riders in this town who bully pedestrians and don’t care to follow rules of the road. I suggest that many of them appear to be concentrated in the downtown area.

  How many does it take to create ill feelings and create resentment? All it takes is one, who flips the bird, mouths off and creates a charged atmosphere. I think the cycling supporters should come out and vigorously condemn that kind of behaviour. Instead, we get defensiveness, rationale and general bs. Is this kind of entitlemet a tactci so that you don’t appear to be weak? I think the approach I so oftern see here, in defending —or writing this kind of action off as an aberrant few—actually undermines the support people COULD have for more cycling in this city. Come on, you guys—you have a pr problem. If you want to be seen as leaders, make some public calls to those that continually put themselves—and the rest of us—at risk to clean up their act.

  And considering the lack of beat cops, park rangers or volunteers around the parks in this city, I further suggest that women have every right to feel uncomfortable when faced with that kind of aggressive behaviour.

• 9 Mark Allerton // Oct 4, 2010 at 9:07 pm

  @Morven 102

  You seem to be under the impression that I am putting forward a definition of “bike lane” that only fits the kind of lane being proposed for Hornby, and insisting that you can only say you are in favour of bike lanes if you are in favour of this specific project.

  This would be kind of silly and is far from what I am actually saying.

  There are other kinds of routes the city calls “bike lanes” – they are separated by a painted line only but are still exclusively for bikes. There are a number of these in Downtown already. The existing lane on Hornby is a good example but they can also be found on Homer, Richards, Pacific and Beatty.

  This kind of lane also requires space to be taken either from parking or from car lanes.

  I’ve long suspected that many commenters in these threads who claim to be in favour of bike lanes are really talking about recreational facilities rather than transportation and not interested in anything anywhere near downtown that involves taking space from cars. This thread has been an interesting opportunity to elaborate on that. Thanks for helping to prove my point.