City
Do We Have to Say Goodbye to the Olympic Lanes?
It's been 11 days now since the closing of the Olympic lanes on Broadway and various other major thoroughfares in Vancouver, and I'm still in a state of mourning. As a cyclist and transit user, there was nothing better than whizzing down Broadway nary a parked car in sight while being overtaken by buses as they made their way past traffic in lanes that were reserved just for them all day long.
I remember when the transit plan was announced months ago, that there was doom-and-gloom projections over just how awful traffic was going to be if we shut down all these roads and took away all this curbside parking. But, a few days into the Olympics, it was obvious that those prophecies of gridlock and honking horns hadn't come to pass. Instead, the roads were much clearer, with Translink reportedly reaching their goal of reducing road traffic by 30%. In fact, after talking to those that still drove by car into work during the Olympics, they found their commute faster.
It has long been argued that expanding roads and access to roads to alleviate congestion may in fact actually exacerbate it in the future. This is the kind of 'if you build it they will come' thinking -- where with more roads come more cars -- that urban planner Jane Jacobs spoke of in her 1960s book The Death and Life of Great American Cities. Basically, Jacobs' conclusion was that giving preference to cars, which she called the "erosion of cities", breeds more cars, but giving preference to other forms of transportation , which she called the "attrition of automobiles," breeds better alternatives.
Now before all the motorists jump down my throat, it should be recognized that, for Vancouver, the attrition of automobiles is hardly a new or radical idea -- it has historically been a concern of city planning. An easy example of which can be seen in the decision made decades ago not to build a freeway bisecting the city. Other more recent examples are the closure of one lane on the Burrard bridge for bicycles, and the creation of a two-way barricaded bike lane on the Dunsmuir Viaduct, which just opened. In fact, if you trust the city's own statistics Vancouver has, since the 1990s, grown by 27% while decreasing the amount of car trips into downtown by 10%.
What the Olympics has shown, however, is that removal of parking spots and the creation of "transit only" lanes may not herald the traffic apocalypse once thought. Granted, the Olympics are a special case -- receiving a multimillion dollar boost to increase public transportation -- but, despite this, I still think that the creation of transit only lanes along Broadway in particular is a smart decision.
The thing is, in order for all of this to work, you have to provide alternatives that are better than driving a car. Faster, more affordable, cleaner, more comfortable. Some European cities understand this and do things like snow plow bike lanes first, give their buses sensors to turn lights green for them, and allow bicycles a special "head-start" green light at intersections. London's downtown congestion was so bad that they began to charge cars a fee between $14 and $17 a day when driving into downtown.
Vancouver isn't quite there. The idea of asking drivers to pay when they enter the downtown core would probably be political suicide, considering the outrage that a hike in parking fees or closing a lane on a bridge brings. And, although our public transportation system is, despite local grumblings, a pretty good one, it isn't yet the best it could be. Maybe in the future we'll get that downtown streetcar project up and running. Or we'll build the Evergreen line with light-rail technology. Or we'll get the UBC line up and we can retire the 99 B-line to that big bus depot in the sky (I don't see too many people mourning that funeral).
During the Olympics, a lady came into my work who spoke of having taken the Canada Line downtown for the first time. She said that she was going to have to come in more often now that she realized how easy it was to leave the car at home, take the train, and not have to worry about parking. OK, so this is completely anecdotal, but it does leave me wondering how many others "discovered" public transportation and alternatives to driving their car while the Olympics were happening. Perhaps this is something we can build on in the coming years.
Photo by Judy B from our BR Flickr Pool.
Discussion
29 Comments
Sort By Oldest First / Newest First
Subscribe
hear hear. in fact all traffic, including CARS moved better with the lanes. no buses pulling in and out; no parallel parking shutting things down. the olympic lane was used for popping around left turners.... is move parking the answer? how will merchants feel? lessons to be learned, and they're already being forgotten.
The Olympic lane on Broadway is a cyclists dream. I was riding on it a sunny day a few weeks back and it felt great to not have to worry at all about parked cars' doors potentially opening up in front of me. As well the lane was so wide that really it was like a double laned bike path, and it was simple and safe for me to pass slower bicyclists.
Wait. This works for bikes AND cars? and Buses? Gasp.
More accessibility for bikes and public transit. Continue what you're doing Vancouver don't stop.
As someone who commutes daily in a car, I completely agree. This is clearly win-win-win for everyone. Even though finding parking outside of my apartment building got a tad bit harder with people who would normally park on Broadway parking on the side streets, the affect on Broadway and Hastings traffic was HUGE. Bring back the Olympic Lanes!
Our East/West traffic flow needs some love. The creation of transit only lanes along Broadway? YES PLEASE!
It still baffles my mind that so few cities (if any) in Canada have dedicated bus lanes.
The place where I come from is roughly the size of Vancouver, albeit even more hilly and tightly packed and bus lanes existed there as long as I can remember.
Vancouver has such wide streets that I still don't get why they cannot put a lane aside for buses, but then again, I was more than surprised four years ago when I moved to the Westend and realized that most shops offer free parking to their customers, a luxury that most places in Edmonton (a much more sprawling place) doesn't offer.
By all means, take onstreet parking away on major roads (e.g. Burrard) and give it over to dedicated bus lanes.
Have them share it with bikes and cabs and be done with it.
It's not only "If they build it they will come" with regards to cars, but also in regards to public transit. Just imagine sitting in your car seeing the bus that drives by your house whizz by while you stare at the tail lights of the car in front of you.
Make it so.
Jane Jacobs FTW! hell yeah. major props!
A bus lane on Broadway is a no-brainer.
It's amazing the doom-and-gloom prophecies whenever road space is removed for personal automobiles, and yet it rarely comes to pass. Even London's congestion charge was considered political suicide before it was passed.
Great post. Nice one brother. I drove a bus for the games and found downtown traffic much lighter despite the mania and panic from motorists prior to the games. I'm totally behind a fully dedicated bus lane on Broadway. Twinning the Port Mann bridge is for Vancouver a great example of how LA ended up like LA. In three years that bridge will be at capacity... then what...?
I noticed that too. Much less traffic with the Olympic Lanes in place. However, for the luv of god, don't have the cyclists in Metro Vancouver share any dedicated lane with any vehicle, not until cyclists get a license and carry insurance. Just the other day, I seen a cyclists whiz by a stop sign with one of those child trailers, in fact it was a very long one. Oncoming cars, honked, but the cyclist didn't care one bit, not for himself of the young child that was accompanying him.
Insurance for cyclists? It wouldn't be worth writing the claim. How much damage is done by cyclists each year? Licensing is also a bad idea - expensive to administer, and accomplishing zero. The only people who want it are jealous motorists.
You saw one cyclist make a poor decision. I sincerely doubt they didn't care about their small child. And having a license/insurance isn't going to prevent poor decisions like the one you claim. I sense some antipathy.
Spaz:
However, for the luv of god, don't have the cyclists in Metro Vancouver share any dedicated lane with any vehicle, not until cyclists get a license and carry insurance. Just the other day, I seen a cyclists whiz by a stop sign with one of those child trailers, in fact it was a very long one. Oncoming cars, honked, but the cyclist didn't care one bit, not for himself of the young child that was accompanying him.
I'm not calling you a liar. But I don't think you're telling the truth.
If I hear one more person say cyclists should get insurance I'm going to freak out.
Cars need insurance because of the costly damage they can cause other people and property. In essence, you're driving a weapon that if abused can kill and destroy. That liability needs to be covered, because there is a good chance paying for the damage out of your pocket would bankrupt you.
Bikes don't have that risk. We already have health insurance to cover personal injuries. No one suggests that skateboarders, rollerbladers, skiers, hikers, or pedestrians get mandatory insurance to cover accidents. Why are bikes singled out? It's as if people who drive cars are upset that biking is such a cheap and convenient alternative.
OK I realllllllly need to know something. Why do cyclists insist on riding on broadway? Literally 100 feet away is 10th ave, which is so much better for bikes. There are bike push buttons at every light and there is far less traffic. I think my butt cheeks would clench every time a bus drove 2 feet away from me.
I ride east to west all the time and have never dreamed of taking broadway. What the hell is the point? There are more lights and more traffic. Not to mention when cars try to get around you on Broadway they have to inch into the next lane and risk hitting each other or you.
As for the bus lane, I support it. But I am just wondering why there are always a few cyclists kicking around broadway when a much more inviting street is just a block away.
Unfortunately this city will need a brave and intelligent city council to make changes the our collective mindset from cars to other transportation methods. Our lacklustre mayor and council are not progressive enough to make this happen. Just like other parties they said what they needed to get elected, and since then have none nothing important - save to give the developers what they want.
Davers - sometimes, it's just easier. I find that those push-button stops are a much slower route, depending on traffic. The flow, and steady greens are more common on Broadway.
I used to ride along 10th every day to work until I tried Broadway and haven't used 10th ave since. The reasons are many: the road is in better condition, the route is faster as there are no traffic circles to slow you down, and it is much better lit at night. Of course, the trade-offs are as you mentioned: more traffic and some red lights.
Having 10th ave is crucial for those cyclists who are nervous about busy streets, but Broadway is a much faster and smoother option, especially at night when all the lights are deliciously green and you can fly down the hill from Fraser toward Commercial.
But I am just wondering why there are always a few cyclists kicking around broadway when a much more inviting street is just a block away.
Because it's faster. Unless you're deeply afraid of cars and / or are slow Broadway is excellent for bikes.
I admit it, if I ride my bike I take the lane, but I also ride on average at 35kph which is more than enough to swim in traffic.
those traffic calming circles are death compared to bway, that's why i avoid tenth/quebec.
riding in traffic is not for everyone, but for those who have no issue with it (me, others in these comments) usually ride with confidence and awareness. not everyone rides like the sunday cyclists (wobblers).
davers:
OK I realllllllly need to know something. Why do cyclists insist on riding on broadway? Literally 100 feet away is 10th ave, which is so much better for bikes. There are bike push buttons at every light and there is far less traffic. I think my butt cheeks would clench every time a bus drove 2 feet away from me.
I ride east to west all the time and have never dreamed of taking broadway. What the hell is the point? There are more lights and more traffic. Not to mention when cars try to get around you on Broadway they have to inch into the next lane and risk hitting each other or you.
As for the bus lane, I support it. But I am just wondering why there are always a few cyclists kicking around broadway when a much more inviting street is just a block away.
I agree with you. As a former daily cyclist, I was always amazed at the behaviour of many other cyclists on the road. I mean, seriously, one block north of Broadway is also a dedicated bike route (west 8th) yet many cyclists make the choice to ride on West Broadway anyways and then they have the gall to complain about vehicles all the time. Or how about down at Spanish Banks? The pathways are also bike lanes, but cyclists insist on clogging up the already narrow Marine Drive and just aggravating everyone. In the summer it's beyond ridiculous. And don't get me started on cyclists running through red lights and stop signs without a second thought. Don't try claiming it isn't a lot of them. I used to be guilty of this too.
FYI, roads are built for vehicles, they would not even exist without cars, and although bike lanes and dedicated routes are a privilege which I fully support, I cannot understand why so many don't USE them? I am not anti-cyclist, I still ride for fun on occasion, but I am simply amazed at some of the nonsense I hear from some of the hard-core two-wheelers out there and it makes me sad because the road system can and should be shared by everyone without prejudice. I do not subscribe to the pop culture idea that bikes are better than cars or vice versa. Yes I am a motorsports fan, I love classic vehicles, building muscle cars, roadtrips, etc. I drive for both a living and for pleasure. I do, however, think that dedicated routes for each method of transportation should be used and a LOT of frustration on both sides would be avoided. I don't drive my car on bike paths after all!
/rant
As for the Olympic lanes, sure bring them back. It worked well as far as I could tell. Oh and one more thing, I strongly believe EVERYONE who uses roads should help foot the bill. No matter what the vehicle is. EVERYONE. Maybe not a bike insurance/registration scheme, but something along the lines of a road tax when buying a bike would be more than fair. :)
Justin, we all pay taxes to maintain roads already--whether you're a cyclist, a driver, a transit user, or a pedestrian. The extra charges on cars, like the one in London, are aimed at reducing congestion and the environmental effects of cars and to make bikes and transit look more affordable.
It would be counter-productive to make bicycles pay a tax on top of what they already pay to maintain roads. If you insist on that, then why not have pedestrians pay a sidewalk tax for maintaining sidewalks? Everyone already pays for these things through their taxes.
Broadway was not less busy only because of the bus lanes. West 12th had no parking at all 24 hrs/day and a lot of the Broadway traffic was diverted to west 12th. It is a nightmare driving home in the dark and the rain along west 12th with parking starting at 6pm. Yes, during the Olympics, I took transit from home to downtown after work to catch an event but only because I could drive home earlier with west 12th moving much more quickly. Now I cannot do that. Open up west 12th to drivers who need to go where transit does not.
Even if broadway is a bit faster (something I still doubt unless you are lance armstrong) it is still insane during rush hour. I am fine with doing it at night as it is much better lit and cars have lots of room to get around the bikes. I was talking more about during rush hour.
As someone who has to drive for work and sometimes takes Broadway, I can tell you even the fastest cyclists during rush hour are a big inconvience to drivers. Most drivers will not pass a bike in their lane without going into the next lane. It can be done but it goes very close to the bike and if you are even a bit off or the bike swerves it could do serious harm to the biker.
Basically a biker takes up a whole lane because the cars need to inch into the next lane to get around them. If they are really fast its not so bad, but during a hill some slow to a crawl and cause a mini traffic jam. It seems really selfish to take up that whole lane just because you can.
Most bikers are pretty considerate, but when some slow down hundreds of drivers so they can save themselves a few minutes it doesnt make drivers want to give them any more bike lanes, because they dont even use them anyway.
The whole point of going green and doing things like riding your bike is to make the world a better place for everyone. Doing this just seems counterproductive because it slows others down which causes them to use more gas, making the air worse.
I know I probably seem like I am blowing this out of proportion, but it always bugs me when 1 person can inconvience hundreds for almost no reason.
In my experience biking on Broadway, cars and buses have no problem passing right by me as I ride just to the left of parked cars. I try to keep as far to the side as safely possible and so far have encountered no honking or irate drivers (unless they swear at me silently in their car, which is entirely possible).
However, the whole point of this article was to argue that keeping the lanes on Broadway are better for all forms of transit, cars included, because they don't have to pass nervously by bikers near or in their lane and buses move faster and are taken out of then car traffic stream.
Bike streets and bike lanes are two different things. The parallel streets of 10th and 7th ave are useful, but they shouldn't preclude bike lanes on busier streets like Broadway where they would be useful, if just for all the reasons you stated above.
I wasnt saying a bike lane on broadway was a bad idea, I was questioning the reasoning behind riding on broadway without the bike lane. I think the bike lane is a fine idea, but I never park on broadway so it really doesnt affect me at all.
You probably dont notice it but cars need to go right up to the next lane and sometimes into it to pass bikers. It is like if every single parked car's door was open. A biker adds a good 2 feet to the width of the parked car and cars usually like to leave an extra 2 feet so they dont risk hitting you.
Maybe you are better than most, but a good chunk of the bikers on broadway (thankfully there arent many) cause cars to slow down or switch lanes in order to get by. This may not seem like much but if you make each passing car take an extra 20 seconds on the road, and a few hundred cars pass you it adds up to 1 car on the road for an extra hour.
You probably wont get many drivers honking or yelling because they know you have the right to be there. They may not like it, but they know honking wont solve anything.
I still dont get the logic behind it because 10th has far less lights and less traffic, but I am ride a mountain bike so I am far slower than anyone with a road bike.
Not to say anyone who rides broadway is a bad person, I just dont really understand the point and was trying to explain things from a drivers perspective.
Just a not that I've found this article and the comments very intriguing from each angle, and overall I agree that davers has got it most right.
cheers-
whoops a "note" not a "not" -- haha
I drive to and from work along Broadway or Hastings pretty much every day... while other drivers make me crazy at times I have never been bothered by the cyclists. If anything we should be encouraging cycling in the city. I totally and wholeheartedly agree that driving along these routes was much easier during the Olympics. I would love to see designated lanes for bikes.