The traffic numbers are slowly going up for the Dunsmuir bike lane, in spite of those who are attempting to cast doubt as to the accuracy of the data.
The bike lanes tend to be a topic of conversation with those that know I have an interest in municipal politics.
Of course, the ones that feel the need to speak to me tend not to be supporters or even indifferent to them, because as is the usually the case, it is the opponents that are the first to voice their opinions.
And, I have heard of the usual responses from these people before:
“No one uses the lanes. There is no traffic on them.”
“The biking lobby have co-0pted the Mayor’s office to the detriment of drivers.”
“The amount of cyclists in this city do not warrant this kind of expense.”
But yesterday the City released the first figures to emerge from the Dunsmuir bike lane trial, and the numbers show that the intent of increasing cycling traffic into the downtown core is showing signs of success (although I have no idea how they came up with the 250% increase – my math says 300).
What comes next for the detractors? Well, they attack the accuracy of the statistics, making ridiculous statements like “The figures the city has published about bike riders are absolute rubbish – if they were even remotely true, you would always see many, many more bike riders on Burrard Bridge – but you can never see more bike riders than pedestrians, never, regardless of the time of day.”
Here, however, are a few things to consider.
- Anecdotal impressions cannot be the basis of one’s “evidence” behind their opposition. This commenter says it best on Bula’s site.
- The numbers are not there yet – we all know that. But this is laying a foundation so that cycling use goes up in the city. Yet again, I have to cite a pretty poignant obsevation from another Bula commenter to demonstrate this point.
- City of Vancouver staff have absolutely no reason to inflate figures, because the decisions for this particularly policy direction come from the political domain, not the staff. Unless, of course, those detractors are suggesting that there is political interference on the data collection.
- The biking agenda is not about social engineering; the biking agenda is designed to make a significant impact on emissions within this city over the next decade. You have to start somewhere, and unless people feel safe and comfortable on their bikes while navigating the streets of Vancouver, cycling as a viable transportation option is a notion that is never going to fly amongst the general public.
- The gridlock that people predicted for both Burrard and Dunsmuir has never truly emerged as described, meaning that Hornby is also unlikely to reach the epic proportions of chaos that is already being prophesized. People have adjusted their times of leaving the house or the routes they take to drive to downtown, and some have even switched to public transit or their bike.
- Finally, biking has become a lightning rod for those that just don’t like Gregor Robertson and/or Vision Vancouver, making the debate one that often deteriorates into personal attacks. Cycling and the bike lanes are just the catalyst.
Bottom line is that this is a policy initiative that is good for the city, regardless of your bias (and I am not even a cyclist – yet).
It’s time for people to contribute to the debate if they have concerns rather than using the issue as a way to advance other political agendas.
