Fighting fire with fire, the city has done its own poll on public opinion about a Hornby bike lane.
Alert readers will recall that the Canadian Federation of Independent Business released poll results a couple of weeks ago indicating almost 100 per cent of businesses were opposed to the planned bike lane on Hornby.
Now this from the city. Deconstruct away.
82 responses so far ↓
1 IanS // Sep 27, 2010 at 5:03 pm
@Spartikus #49,
Thank you. And thank you. 🙂
(FWIW, these must be posted fairly recently, right? I have googled them on and off and hadn’t seen them before.)
2 Mark Allerton // Sep 27, 2010 at 5:48 pm
@Spartikus #49 I stand corrected regarding the publication of data. That’s great. I just hope it’s not too disappointing for Ian.
@IanS: no offense taken at my end.
I mean to imply that in my opinion your questions about data on the bike lane trials are not purely seeking the data, but instead seeking to demonstrate that the person you are asking doesn’t have data and then to turn the argument into one about the data that the city is and is not publishing and their motives for the latter in particular.
3 IanS // Sep 28, 2010 at 6:35 am
@Mark #52,
My view, which I have stated a number of times, is that the bike lanes should be judged on their facts, based on real data. When someone throws out a number, I ask after the source, so I can review the data and see for myself. If there is no data, then I conclude that the number is without foundation and discount it. I’m a bit puzzled as to how that can be considered improper in a discussion such as this.
4 Mark Allerton // Sep 28, 2010 at 8:32 am
Right, but in most cases those “thrown out” numbers come from somewhere. They are not just made up by posters but come from statements made by city officials who do, in fact, have the data.
And in most cases, when the stats package comes out, those numbers turn out to be true.
Perhaps you are as you portray yourself, a tireless seeker of the truth, but let’s just say I don’t have the data that would back that up.
5 IanS // Sep 28, 2010 at 9:06 am
@mark #54,
In my experience, the numbers thrown out by politicians and advocates are often inaccurate or imcomplete.
As for the rest, I am hardly a “tireless seeker for the truth”. However, I am interested in the issue and, as I indicated, would prefer to make my assessment based on real data. I remain puzzled as to the reason you find that objectionable, but I suppose we’ll have to agree to disagree on that.
6 Sean // Sep 28, 2010 at 9:17 am
@Mark #54:
The problem is that facts get distorted when they circulate on the Internet. Numbers are thrown around without their original context, or quoted in a different context. Someone posts anecdotal evidence, someone else takes that and posts it elsewhere as if it came from an authoritative source. Numbers get exaggerated or discounted. This sort of stuff happens all the time on the Internet – sometimes innocently and sometimes not.
IMHO we need more people who try to verify information before coming to conclusions.
7 Mark Allerton // Sep 28, 2010 at 10:09 am
@Sean, @Ian: people who know me in real life would get a chuckle from the idea that I would find pedantry about facts and assumptions objectionable. I’ve made a career of that kind of pedantry.
So I rather respect Ian’s attention to detail, as someone who’s followed his posts here and elsewhere over the past 18 months or so. But as someone with a similar mindset, I also think I have a good nose for bias in a line of questioning – and that’s what I wanted to call out here.
8 IanS // Sep 28, 2010 at 10:30 am
@Mark #57,
Fair enough.
Regarding bias, there’s no mystery as to my “bias”: I’m skeptical that the bike lanes are worth the trouble, but (FWIW) am willing to assess their merits on the facts and the data.
(I’ll leave it at that, as we’ve already spent too much time talking about ourselves, rather than the issue at hand.)
9 MB // Sep 28, 2010 at 11:25 am
Two Saturdays ago I encountered a fellow in a motorized wheelchair westbound in the Dunsmuir bike lanes x Hornby. (I was walking on the adjacent sidewalk.) The chair was controlled by straw-like devices operated by the fellow’s mouth, and it was soon evident that the controls were sensitive to bumps & dips in the pavement, which made his head sway. He was strapped into the chair at chest level, which indicated he would otherwise be susceptable to being tumbled out of the chair if he hit a bigger bump or dip.
When I thought about it later, the sidewalk letdowns are pretty bumpy & dippy, and this fellow likely found the bike lanes far smoother, with the exception of catch basin inlets in the gutters.
It struck me that some people with mobility issues may actually find the bike lanes much better than the sidewalks for ease of access, and the convenience of a connection to another bike road on Hornby could be very, very appealing to those in motorized wheelchairs.
10 Richard // Sep 28, 2010 at 12:12 pm
@MB
Great points. I often see people in electric wheelchairs using the street, with or without separated bike lanes, instead of the sidewalk. A couple of weeks ago, a guy was using one on Drake Street against the flow of traffic instead of using the sidewalk. Clearly, sidewalks are not designed for wheeled devices.
11 IanS // Sep 28, 2010 at 2:07 pm
OK, so in my tireless seeking for the truth, 😉 I’ve taken a quick look at the numbers posted on the site which Spartikus kindly pointed out.
This is just a quick look, and I stand to be corrected on my math, but it appears to me that the average daily use for bikes on Dunsmuir increased from 596 pre-bike lane to 1389 post bike lane, an increase of 793 / day.
This isn’t quite the increase bandied about in the media, but I would say it’s a significant increase by any reasonable measure.
Of course, as was the case with the Burrard Bridge lane, we won’t have any direct comparison until there are more than 12 months of figures, but I don’t think there is any doubt but that the separated bike lane on Dunsmuir has resulted in a significant increase in bike use for that street.
12 Mark Allerton // Sep 28, 2010 at 2:47 pm
There you go again though, implying the number in the media is not present in the data.
In fact it is, right at the top of the PDF: the weekday average volume in July was 2000 bikes per day with a peak of 2,500.
And if you take the spreadsheet, and take the weekday numbers from the “total east of hamilton” column, you get a mean of 1979 and a max of 2519.
13 Mark Allerton // Sep 28, 2010 at 2:51 pm
Weekday numbers in July, I should have said in my last paragraph.
14 IanS // Sep 28, 2010 at 3:24 pm
@Mark,
Two points:
1. Now that the data is available, we can have this discussion. Prior to the data being available, we could not. IMO, that’s of value.
2. Yes, if one disregards the days on which cycle use is lower, one can probably justify much higher numbers. IMO, a more accurate assessment would include as broad a range of data as possible, not just select days.
Hence, assuming your calculation is correct (and I don’t question it), the statement may be accurate, but potentially misleading.
3. Finally, my recollection is that one of the media reports (possibly the one you have in mind?) referred to an increase from 500 before the lane opened to an average of 2000 afterward. If we are just choosing to utilize weekday numbers for a limited period of time on one stretch of the road (“east of hamilton”), where does the 500 figure come from? As far as I can tell from the data, there are no figures for “total east of hamilton” prior to the separated bike lane, much less figures from last July.
15 Mark Allerton // Sep 28, 2010 at 3:26 pm
Maths correction: you actually get 2049 for the average of july weekdays, even if you include Canada Day.
16 Mark Allerton // Sep 28, 2010 at 3:49 pm
#2. Since I only intended to point out that the City’s data is consistent with what the City said about that data, I don’t really need to take you up on the point about weekdays.
But, FWIW I believe your position is absurd. The city has not simply eliminated numbers because they were low, they eliminated them because they were weekends – which I think most people understand have some different properties than weekdays. Do you think HSBC rents space for 715 employees in an office building because their numbers say they have 1000 people 5 days a week and none for the other two?
Also, it’s worth mentioning that the median number for the same spot including weekends was 2,023. So on 50% of the days in July that bike lane had over 2023 people use it.
17 spartikus // Sep 28, 2010 at 3:54 pm
I’m not sure I understand – on the spreadsheet b/w March 3 and June 15 data was collected on the Viaduct proper – my rough math indicates an average of 500/day on weekdays for that period.
The claim was for that number on the Dunsmuir corridor as a whole, not “east of Hamilton”.
It’s not as detailed as post June 15, but it seems a fair claim to me.
There
18 IanS // Sep 28, 2010 at 4:30 pm
@Spartikus #67,
My calculation for the March 3 – June 14 number is 596 / day. (Again, I stand to be corrected, but that’s what I get.) The reference to “east of Hamilton” was in response to Mark’s use of the “east of Hamilton” numbers to support his assertion.
@Mark,
Again, it looks like we’ll have to agree to disagree. While I agree that weekends have different properties than weekdays, the bike lane remains in place 7 days a week. Choosing the days with the highest use and basing your statements on those days is, IMO, misleading. While I am disappointed you find my position to be absurd, I remain of the view that the effect of the bike lane should be judged on the widest possible set of data.
19 Chris Keam // Sep 28, 2010 at 4:54 pm
The effect of the bike lane IMO, should be judged on the same basis as any other road improvement project. Those criteria tend to fall into three areas: increased safety, meeting present and future demand, and reducing or at least having no significant impact on traffic congestion. By those measures, both the separated lane projects to date are arguably two of the most successful transportation infrastructure projects in recent memory.
20 IanS // Sep 29, 2010 at 6:10 am
@Mark,
Just to clarify, here’s what I originally wrote:
“This isn’t quite the increase bandied about in the media.”
What I had in mind as being bandied about in the media what this:
“The city’s assistant engineer Jerry Dobrovolny said bicycle trips on Dunsmuir have increased from 500 before the lane opened to an average of 2,000 per day. ” [Vancouver Courier, Sept 10/10]
And this:
“While drivers are cramped into two lanes on the busy downtown street, the city says 2,000 cyclists are using the Dunsmuir bike lane every day. That is up from 500 a few month ago, an increase of 250 per cent.” [News 1130, July 28/10]
And the City Press Release regrading consultation, which is reposted on this site on July 28, 2010:
“Counters also show 2000 cyclists are using the Dunsmuir lane each day, up from 500 a few months ago, a 250 per cent increase.”
You will note that there’s no qualifications put on the 2000 number.
Having now seen the data, I do not believe those statements to be accurate. I don’t see the 500 uses in the data at all and, as you indicated, the 2000 only comes about if one eliminates certain days for one section of the road.
I will agree that the new web page corrects this. It doesn’t repeat the 500 figure and it qualifies the 2000 figure. Sadly, those qualifications are not reflected in the news release and subsequent media, which gives the impression that the data supports a 500 – 2000 increase.
@Chris Keam,
I agree completely and look forward to seeing the safety and congestion data for the Dunsmuir Bike lane.
(FWIW, I’d also still like to see that same data for the Burrard Bridge project, if / when it becomes available.)
21 Mark Allerton // Sep 29, 2010 at 7:41 am
@Ian I suppose I should not be surprised that you are intent on pursuing this “smoking gun of the gaps” argument through to its bitter end 🙂
22 Chris Keam // Sep 29, 2010 at 8:02 am
@Ian
You don’t need to wait for congestion data on the Burrard Bridge. There’s traffic cams that allow you to check in anytime on the road conditions all over the city. Right now (8am on a weekday, traffic on the (Burrard) bridge deck is flowing smoothly, with the traffic lights at either end bunching up the cars a bit.
http://www.gvrd.com/webcams/
23 IanS // Sep 29, 2010 at 9:18 am
@ Mark #71,
I’m not certain what you mean by the “smoking gun of the gaps” here, though I appreciate how you might think putting my position in those terms would help you discount it. My point is no more than this: politicians and advocates spin numbers to suit their objectives. That’s why it’s important to have access to the data to see what the real numbers are. That’s all.
@Chris Keam #72,
We’ve been around this block before. If I was to look at a webcam at any particular time and say “traffic looks congested at x time” I would be met with you looking at a web cam and “traffic isn’t congested at y time”.
In any event, I know you understand the difference between data and random observations and anecdotal evidence. You raise it every time someone says that they looked at a bike lane at a particular time and it was empty.
24 Chris Keam // Sep 29, 2010 at 9:30 am
@Ian:
I’m not suggesting you look at them once and be done with it. Check them out on regular basis. Listen to the traffic reports too. Those are excellent ways to get a general sense of traffic flow in the region. That’s what I’ve been doing for quite a while and I don’t see an ongoing issue of congestion on the roads approaching the Burrard Bridge, except for the northwest entrance to the bridge (Pacific eastbound to Burrard onramp) and even that is off and on depending on the day and time, and has been calculated by City traffic engineers to be in the realm of a few minutes delay.
25 Chris Keam // Sep 29, 2010 at 9:32 am
I would also suggest anyone who doubts the number of cyclists in the city check out Tenth Ave between Clark and Cambie at rush hour. If you’re wondering where all the biker are, that’s the place and time to find them.
26 IanS // Sep 29, 2010 at 9:39 am
@Chris Keam #74,
You write “and has been calculated by City traffic engineers to be in the realm of a few minutes delay.”
Isn’t that the answer then? If the calculations have been done, let’s see them. If you’re right, then they will show little or no congestion, which will be another point in favour of the bike lane being a success.
While I admire the work you have done in monitoring traffic flow, I remain of the view that the best way to judge these issues is to go by the data. Unless you have no other work commitments, I don’t see how you (or anyone) can hope to make an accurate assessment of congestion other than in very general terms.
Please note, I’m not asserting that there is a lot of congestion or that the lanes have been a failure. My point is that we should judge the success or failure on the evidence and data.
I also note that this goes both ways. I agreed with your post on the DVBIA position to the effect, if the DVBIA is asserting that the bike lands have caused damage to businesses in the area, they should provide data or evidence to back it up.
27 Chris Keam // Sep 29, 2010 at 9:43 am
“Unless you have no other work commitments, I don’t see how you (or anyone) can hope to make an accurate assessment of congestion other than in very general terms.”
It does allow one to appraise the data when it arrives and see if it makes sense. A lot of people are accusing the City of fudging the numbers, but if you actually take a look at the anecdotal evidence and compare it to the hard numbers , it gets way harder to throw out those unfounded accusations.
Now I gotta run. Work to do! 🙂
28 IanS // Sep 29, 2010 at 9:55 am
@Chris Keam,
“It does allow one to appraise the data when it arrives and see if it makes sense.”
I agree. Now I’m just waiting for the data to arrive.
“A lot of people are accusing the City of fudging the numbers”
Some are. Personally, I accept the data once it’s available. It’s the spin I find to be inaccurate or misleading, which is why the data is so important.
“if you actually take a look at the anecdotal evidence and compare it to the hard numbers , it gets way harder to throw out those unfounded accusations.”
Exactly. Which is why it’s so important to see the “hard numbers”.
Have to get back to work as well. 🙁
29 Mark Allerton // Sep 29, 2010 at 10:02 am
@Ian
“If the calculations have been done, let’s see them.”
I think you’ll find they did publish the results of a study last fall – based on having people actually drive in cars along various routes that took in the bridge, and comparing before and after numbers. If I wasn’t at work I’d hunt down a link.
However what I believe you want is regularly updated numbers for this – which I think is asking quite a lot, given how labour intensive this kind of measurement is. Counting bikes just needs an automated counter, measuring journey times needs people to actually drive the route.
I think that in order to make a case for redoing this, you would need to put forward some reasons why you believe the results would be different if measured again now.
30 IanS // Sep 29, 2010 at 10:09 am
@Mark,
Some figures were posted a while back, but were removed from the site. Spartikus was advised (he posted about it here, IIRC) that the calculations were done incorrectly and were being reworked. So far, AFAIK, they haven’t been reposted.
31 IanS // Sep 29, 2010 at 10:11 am
Sorry, just to be clear, the numbers were posted on the City’s Burrard Bridge trial web site and then removed. Spartikus’ information (I’m going from memory here, so I stand to be corrected) as to the mistake in calculation came from someone at the City, who was connected to the web site.
32 Mark Allerton // Sep 29, 2010 at 3:21 pm
@Ian: fair enough, now you mention it I remember your conversation with spartikus. Does seem odd that this disappeared.