It was the official opening of the new bike lane in downtown Vancouver yesterday, which gave all us media types a chance to gather on the street at Granville and Dunsmuir and observe an array of unusual driving techniques while we waited for the news conference to begin.
My story here. As I and others are reporting, businesses along the street are waiting and seeing what the impact is going to be. They are worried about stories they’ve heard that have filtered over from the Burrard Bridge trial, particularly the case of the Appleton Gallery that says it is going to have to close because of the negative impact that bike lane had on its business.
(The mayor, by the way, asked about that yesterday said engineers looked at the case of Hornby Street closely but determined the only way to ensure cyclist safety was to prohibit right turns onto Hornby from Pacific. And he has his doubts about how much impact the bike lane had, saying it’s hard to sort that out from any possible recession impacts. “I disagree that it was all the bike lane, because the street’s open. You can get to it from a couple of directions.”)
68 responses so far ↓
1 Chris Keam // Jun 18, 2010 at 7:02 pm
“And, hopefully, we’ll start to see some evidence that it has resulted in an increase in bike usage soon as well.”
Again, this evidence is available on the city’s website:
“Cycling volumes are up appreciably. Between July 13 and September 30, 26% more bicycle trips were made over the bridge than would have been made had the reconfiguration not happened. This amounts to an additional 70, 000 bike trips. Growth on summer and fall weekends has been the most dramatic, with volumes up 40-70%. Since Labour Day, the number of trips has fallen when compared with summer usage, but remains above the level which would be expected on an unchanged bridge. “
2 IanS // Jun 18, 2010 at 7:33 pm
That’s not data or even evidence Chris. That’s the City giving an “estimate” in support of the trial.
I’ll wait for the facts.
3 IanS // Jun 18, 2010 at 7:35 pm
And…
“Here is some additional information from the abstract of a 1990s American survey:”
Assuming that your summary is accurate, then I would anticipate that the study will show that the bike lane has resulted in fewer accidents. Hopefully, once that study becomes available, we can look at it and will have the evidence necessary to assess the “trial”.
4 Norman // Jun 19, 2010 at 7:36 am
I’d like to see a real transportation plan for Vancouver rather than what appears to be ad hockery and constant bowing to a rather small group of very vocal cyclists. I’d also like to have a reply from someone other than the ubiquitous Chris Keam.
5 spartikus // Jun 19, 2010 at 9:26 am
That’s not data or even evidence Chris. That’s the City giving an “estimate” in support of the trial.
Is using data from other like things to provide an estimate not an accepted practice in transportation engineering? Yes or no?
Everything I’ve read says “yes”.
what appears to be ad hockery
What’s ad hoc about it? It was in their election platform:
Create cycling infrastructure that safely integrates bikes into the road network, beginning with a pilot project that provides separated bike lanes on several major bike routes.
6 spartikus // Jun 19, 2010 at 9:28 am
Yes, completely ad hoc.
7 IanS // Jun 19, 2010 at 10:42 am
“Is using data from other like things to provide an estimate not an accepted practice in transportation engineering? Yes or no?”
I’m not an expert in transportation engineering, but, if it’s like anything else, I imagine that using data from like things to provide an estimate is perfectly acceptable. As long as it’s recognized that the result of that exercise is no more than an estimate, an educated guess. It’s not data in and of itself. It’s an opinion derived from data.
Further, from working with experts and statisticians in my practice, I know that there are lots of ways to use data from like things to produce particular results. I don’t for a moment suggest that there has been a deliberate attempt to falsify or deceive, but I do know from my experience that the process of forming an opinion or estimate requires the exercise of judgment in order to produce a result. I don’t know what “data” the City looked at in reaching its estimate (do you?), but I bet that another analyst looking at the same data could reasonably come to a different, equally supported “estimate”. Of course, we don’t know that for sure, as the basis for the “estimate” isn’t set out on the CoV web page.
In any event, and this was my original point, we are now close to being in a position that we can look at real data and perhaps come to some supportable conclusions as to whether the Burrard Bridge bike lane has lead to an increase in bike use on the bridge. If the City’s estimates are accurate, I’m certain that the data will reflect a large increase.
8 spartikus // Jun 19, 2010 at 11:29 am
I don’t know what “data” the City looked at in reaching its estimate (do you?)
It says right on the Burrard Bridge Trial Statistics page:
The estimates are based on measurements of other Vancouver bike routes.
9 IanS // Jun 19, 2010 at 12:38 pm
Here’s what it says:
“The graph above shows weekly bicycle trips measured on Burrard Bridge and estimates of the trips which would have happened if no changes had been made. The estimates are based on measurements of other Vancouver bike routes. Because these other bike routes were affected by Olympic road closures and bike detours, estimates for January, February and March 2010 are less reliable. ”
What measurements? What other routes? When were the measurements taken? How are they comparable?
As I said, we have no way of knowing how the “estimates” were reached.
But, once again, this will all be moot shortly, as we will have real data upon which to base conclusions.
10 IanS // Jun 19, 2010 at 12:38 pm
Here’s what it says:
“The graph above shows weekly bicycle trips measured on Burrard Bridge and estimates of the trips which would have happened if no changes had been made. The estimates are based on measurements of other Vancouver bike routes. Because these other bike routes were affected by Olympic road closures and bike detours, estimates for January, February and March 2010 are less reliable. ”
What measurements? What other routes? When were the measurements taken? How are they comparable?
As I said, we have no way of knowing how the “estimates” were reached.
But, once again, this will all be moot shortly, as we will have real data upon which to base conclusions.
11 Higgins // Jun 19, 2010 at 3:24 pm
Interesting.
Frances, two days ago I’ve posted a response on this thread. Should have been #40. I submitted it twice. Nothing. Let’s assume the spam filter got it…
12 spartikus // Jun 19, 2010 at 4:17 pm
What measurements? What other routes? When were the measurements taken? How are they comparable?
Why don’t you email them and ask for more information about methodology? I’ve had questions answered.
13 spartikus // Jun 19, 2010 at 4:32 pm
Contact: [email protected] / 604.873.7011
14 IanS // Jun 19, 2010 at 6:33 pm
“Why don’t you email them and ask for more information about methodology? I’ve had questions answered.”
Heh. Yes, I recall when you quite properly called me to task for my assertion that the data for the time delays caused by the bike lane had been removed from the site. Unfortunately, notwithstanding the information provided by the City, and passed on by you, that data is still not available, but I’m sure it’ll be posted soon.
As for trying to figure out the basis for the City’s estimate, I’ll pass. I’m not looking to prove or disprove anything; I’m just looking forward to some actual data from which it can be determined whether the bike lane had resulted in an increase in bike use. My point, and my only point really, is that we will soon have some real data with which to consider the issue. And I look forward to seeing it.
15 Frances Bula // Jun 20, 2010 at 11:00 am
@Higgins. I’ve checked my “pending comments” file, where anything I haven’t approved languishes (mainly links from other blogs, as I approve almost everything except spam, links, and unambiguous libel). I don’t see anything from you hanging around in my little limbo-land. ???
16 Chris Keam // Jun 20, 2010 at 11:16 am
“I’d like to see a real transportation plan for Vancouver rather than what appears to be ad hockery and constant bowing to a rather small group of very vocal cyclists….”
In addition to Spartikus’ link to the City’s planning, worth noting that Translink is also developing a ten-year plan for transportation too, with a significant cycling component included.
http://www.translink.ca/en/Plans-and-Projects/10-Year-Transportation-Plan.aspx
ubiquitiously,
CK
17 Matt C // Jun 24, 2010 at 7:31 pm
I’m surprised by Mr. Gauthier’s response – presumably the result of complaints from members like Mr. Kivritsky:
http://vancouver.24hrs.ca/News/2010/06/15/14403416.html
How many people are turning right onto Seymour, noticing the sign and suddenly thinking, “you know, I COULD use a ten thousand dollar stereo”?
The CBD is not a strip mall fed by passing traffic; people come downtown to make specific purchases from specific stores.
I would think that businesses would support these alternative means of transportation, especially considering that their effect is to free up the roadways so that when people do need their cars, ie. to get their $10k stereo home, they’re not sitting in gridlock on Dunsmuir.
18 Norman // Jun 26, 2010 at 5:35 pm
I’ll have to go and tell the gallery owner on Hornby that he is being “nuanced” out of business. The poor sap thinks it’s because his business has dropped 80% since the cyclists were accommodated. Now that’s Duckspeak.