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.

However, I just wanted to offer a quick opinion on this story about Mayor Gregor Robertson.

Ethan Baron seems to have some real breaking news here!!!  The Mayor made an error on the road with his bike where he almost got hurt, and now this “error of judgment will provide ammunition for many car commuters who will become very irate when they learn that another dedicated bike lane is coming to downtown.”

What a ridiculous assertion to push.

Today are the silly days of summer, where it is a pile on Robertson type of mentality from the media after his unfortunate “f-bomb” and subsequent comments.

It is the Province after all, so I shouldn’t expect much more in terms of journalistic quality.  Nonetheless, when so much ink can be spent on the Mayor’s biking mistake, you know that the dditor of the paper is just hurting for things to put into print (with Mel Gibson’s recorded rants seemingly

If you the media really wanted, they could nail many politicians on their road safety.  In fact, they could probably stake out everyone’s house and then tail individual elected members on their daily agenda.

Grow up people.

Diversity in the West End? Forget about that, says Randy Helten. Most of the individuals who are different from WEN's notion of the demographics of the neighbourhood are nothing more than stereotypes, apparently.

Last night there was a story on Global about the annual about the Celebration of Light fireworks competition that is slated to begin tonight. In it, there were comments from MLA Spencer Herbert and Brenty Granby of the West End Resident’s Association regarding tolerance for the diversity of the neighbourhood (refer to CivicScene’s Quote of the Day for Granby’s quote). This is of course in consideration of several gay bashings that have occurred in the West End over the past few years.

Now, juxtapose those utterances with the content of this letter from Randy Helten, the “spokesperson” of the West End Neighbours (WEN) group, and you will see how narrow the viewpoints of some lining up against the Mayor and Council truly are.

In the letter, Helten urges the Mayor to “amend its [Mayor’s West End Community Advisory Committee] terms of reference before the City calls for applicants.” Why? Because, as Helten goes on to state, “it is important that this proposed Committee be formed properly, as experiences with this Committee will be relevant for and scrutinized by the whole City.”

But here is what really serves as a window into the mindset of Helten and his cohorts:

“There is no role under CityPlan for either a Mayoral or Council advisory committee to oversee planning policy and implementation for a community, and no group of 12 individuals based on stereotypes should serve as the primary advisory body for planning and development decisions affecting tens of thousands of residents, and potentially billions of dollars worth of property investments that could stand for a hundred years.”

Stereotypes? Excuse me? So because the Mayor wants this committee to be as diverse and as representative of the community as possible (renters, owners, different cultural groups, different ages, different sexual orientations, new residents, long-time residents, etc.), Helten characterizes that diversity as nothing more than tokenism.

Absolutely ridiculous.  In fact, it is quite offensive.

To conclude his letter, Helten offers his take on some of the opinions voice by Vision Vancouver Councillors, which he called “incorrect, damaging and divisive.”

How about applying that same kind of criteria to your own utterances, Mr. Helten, which to me sound about as divisive and damaging to setting the framework of a community consultation process as possible.

Meggs is doing his part to ensure that the agenda setting on high speed rail doesn't come solely from down south.

Here are some of the key points to emerge from a conversation I had with Geoff Meggs about his meetings down in Portland.

• The U.S. is taking a “are you in or out?” kind of approach with Canada, and officials are getting the sense from both the BC Government and the feds that there is just not a hell of a lot institutional interest in extending high speed rail across the border

• The Board of Trade as well as Tourism Vancouver are the local entities that are leading the charge, and Rick Antonson is probably going to play a large part in putting together an advisory/lobbying group to generate interest from the public and elected officials.

• There is a definite feeling of the possibility of losing out a on a multi-billion dollar opportunity if Canada’s stakeholders – government, private sector and other interested parties don’t get their shit together.  Obama’s $8 billion investment is not likely to come along again, and Vancouver should be a part of the plan now rather than an addition made in a decade.

• Costs like customs services are being haggled over by the federal government; the feds are clearly more focused on achieving high speed rail links between Windsor and and Quebec City, as well as Calgary and Edmonton

• Current rail links are limited because no money has been put into upgrading the tracks; high speed rail, most likely because of the terrain between Seattle and Vancouver, wouldn’t exactly be “high speed” when we compare to the terminology and examples from Europe and Asia.

• The old swing bridge in New Westminster is on its very last legs; all trains must slow to a crawl to get over it.  The feds are currently looking to transfer responsibility for it to the port.

• The extra daily train from Seattle that was added during the Olympics was a huge success, and is a large part of the reason that in spite of an apparent lack of interest from its governmental counterparts, the City of Vancouver is pushing hard to keep the issue alive and have Canada still a part of the agenda in the planning phase of how to spend Obama’s upcoming investment.

• High-speed rail is kind of a misnomer, as once again the terrain, and the fact that new tracks are not going to be built, means that trains will likely top out at 80-90 miles an hour.

So, seems like a lot of talk about something that isn’t even a possibility in this region – at least when speaking about “high speed.”  Nonetheless, I certainly hope that Antonson and his group (along with the work of Meggs and the Mayor) can get the senior levels of government more on the ball with this issue. Quite frankly, I find it ridiculous that a high speed rail link between Calgary and Edmonton takes more priority than one extending from Eugene, Oregon to Vancouver, BC, particularly with so much American money committed and on the table.

I will keep readers posted when I hear back more about the composition and purpose of the advisory group.