“It was a very emotional evening,” Niche Wine Bar owner and longtime Vancouver (Washington) cycling advocate Leah Jackson shared in an email Tuesday morning that included a photo of a dog-eared project booklet dated December 2005.
On Monday, Vancouver City Council voted to support a plan for protected bike lanes on Columbia Street. They did so knowing their decision would impact 393 auto parking spaces.
Known most recently as the Westside Bike Mobility Project, the plan aims to improve cycling access on Vancouver’s key north-south corridor. Columbia Street connects residential neighborhoods to downtown, Esther Short Park, and the I-5 bridge to Portland. When I biked on Columbia with resident Ben Sanders in 2015 he said, “It’s a bike street, but it’s also a car street.”
By the end of next year, Columbia will become much more of a bike street.
According to City of Vancouver Principal Transportation Planner Jennifer Campos, Monday’s vote endorsed a plan that will create about 3.5 miles of protected bike lanes and a host of other upgrades to the existing bikeway between the I-5 bridge and NW 45th Street.
Here’s the breakdown:
– E Mill Plain Blvd to 45th: Protected bike lanes in both directions
– 13th to Mill Plain: Buffered bike lane northbound, sharrows southbound
– 8th-13th: Protected bike lanes in both directions
– Columbia Way – 8th: Existing bike lanes to remain and improvements made to shared use path
The most eye-popping fact about the plan? The space to build the new protected bike lanes comes by re-distributing what is currently used as 393 auto parking spaces. Yes, our neighbors to the north just vanquished 393 parking spaces on a key corridor in the name of safer streets.
What makes the vote even more noteworthy is councilors could have endorsed a compromise option that would have maintained parking on one side and “taken away” only 223 parking spaces.
The lede from The Columbian newspaper coverage puts a fine point on what happened:
Vancouver will move forward with a plan to install protected bike lanes along Columbia Street and remove nearly 400 parking spaces, following a near-consensus from the city council that pedestrian and cyclist safety was more important than maintaining convenient parking along the corridor.
Leah Jackson was at the City Council meeting Monday night and could not fight off tears. She and other advocates worried council members would only support a watered-down option that would have kept the parking lane and opted for sharrows instead.
“We in the cycling community were very afraid… [the compromise option] would have been a big hit to safety,” Jackson shared.
Jackson has fought for better bicycling in Vancouver for many years. After this project ran into strong opposition last year, City Council said more public outreach was needed. Jackson joined the citizen’s advisory committee and spent the last six months in meetings.
“I am not going to lie, I cried as some of them [council members] made their statements in support of safety and street equity,” Jackson shared. “Leaving council chambers Monday night I felt appreciated, respected and valued. As a business owner I am delighted to see us take a step toward safe, multimodal transportation.”
The new bikeway will be implemented as part of repaving projects this year and next. It will be completed by the end of 2021.
— Jonathan Maus: (503) 706-8804, @jonathan_maus on Twitter and email@example.com
— Get our headlines delivered to your inbox.
— Support this independent community media outlet with a one-time contribution or monthly subscription.
Way to go Vancouver! We frequently travel through the west side on recreational rides. This will make way easier to stop for lunch in that area. Dollars in the community.
Agreed – on past rides in Vancouver Columbia has seemed like an intuitive street to ride up, both because of its direct offshoot from the I-5 bridge route but also the businesses on it. But I’ve avoided it because it feels unfriendly to riders. Hopefully this helps it feel like a destination again!
Still some inertia, though. Columbia is more physically challenging than other alignments but is already established as *the* route and closer to the waterfront they’re developing.
Some people would call that pragmatism. Of course if we’re on that, then the city’s helmet law could stand review.
I actually took my bike to work today and rode from the Fort Vancouver area to the waterfront. My first ride in the ‘Couv since I started working there last April.
An East Portland resident and an avid cyclist, I see the commuters on the Glenn Jackson bridge daily. A HUGE shout out for those who ride the bridge! A loud, dirty, gorgeous ride (the view of Mt. Hood is amazing).
Congratulations Leah! I still have 25 year old plans for East Portland. Many of which have yet to be built.
400 spots so a few people can ride their bikes is a not a good trade off.
Tell this to me a week ago when someone pulled out from one of these spots without looking and I almost went through their rear window. I’m just one cyclist but I have several people in my life who would like me to stick around
Why is it better to use the public right of way to store personal vehicles that aren’t even moving for free than to provide safe infrastructure for actually moving people?
You sound angry. I’m sure you don’t mean what you wrote, especially if you take some time to think deeply about the issue. Do you ride a bicycle in traffic? There are many, many cyclists in the area, and will likely be many more for years to come. A lot of times those who are angry at cyclists are blaming all cyclists for the action of a few, or is it that you just don’t understand the appeal? Perhaps a close reading of the other comments in this thread will help enlighten you!
Take a tour of the street with google maps and you will see why this isn’t a big deal. South of Fourth Plain maybe half the spots are occupied, North of Fourth Plain there are hardly any cars at all. It might be removing 400 spots but the google maps images are from the day time and I’d guess maybe 100 cars parked in those spots total.
It’s a neighborhood street so it will have the highest number of cars in the evening after work. These are older homes so a certain percentage don’t have driveways or garages and others have driveways where the car will block the sidewalk if used. I don’t know how other neighborhoods handle similar situations but I imagine moving trucks and delivery trucks blocking the road.
There is concern that the protected lanes end at 8th street. Some are wondering why the parking by the park, downtown hotel, and the last several blocks to the Interstate bridge aren’t being removed.
It will take an adjustment.
Someone please educate me on why we Portlanders feel superior. City Hall, PBOT, STOP BEING SO FEARFUL.
Because identity politics demands it.
Yes this is great news. A long community discussion through 3 eras of bikeway design (nothing lane, down [& up] hill sharrows & now protected. But I do want to clarify what the Columbian “mis”reported: this plan does not actually remove the ability of 400 car drivers from storing their personal car property on these streets, since there were less than 30 drivers using the curbzone on the 1+ miles north of 22nd Street. The side streets, alley and driveways can accommodate the demand. There are more daily cyclists on this portion of the corridor than parkers. (Just look at Google and Strava.) Plus this street lost its bus line last year. So cycling became the solution.
And this was the vision and opportunity that Council embraced.
It’s good to see that the city of Vancouver Washington is taking steps toward responsible human transportation safety. I would say however it is a bit short compared to it’s increasing population size. After experiencing forty years of Vancouver’s aggressive drivers and haphazard sprawl I moved North to wide shoulders (even in the countryside), generally lowered speed limits (even in the countryside),and the Olympic Discovery Trail. The best part of this region is that people of varying ages use the resource!
We recently did the same move. The Olympic Discovery Trail is a gem!
Nationally, 0.6 percent of workers commute by bike.
Looks like we have work to do to change that.
Locally Portland has 7 times the infrastructure for bikes that Vancouver does and 13 times the percent of commuters biking to work.
Nationally, 40% of the population is obese.
How about quoting a relevant fact instead? The national statistic clearly does not apply to our community. Also, many cyclists are not commuters.
And in 1900, .01 percent of people in the US owned cars. Look what happened when we started “protecting” streets for their exclusive and subsidized use: now, the car:person ratio in the US is about 84%. What would have happened if streets had been “protected” for buses, pedestrians, and bicyclists, only granting private cars limited access?
If this bad idea becomes a bad Vancouver WA bad idea, and a Hough Neighborhood bad idea, and Columbia Street becomes a bike lane not well utilized…will they return the 400 parking spaces back to the city taxpayers? Newspaper they also said these lanes would be used for electric vehicles . One of the bonehead councilors wants electric golf carts housed at Clark College and rented out so people can enjoy the waterfront .
Another waste of taxpayer money.
There is a high cost for free car parking. A book was written about it.
This is bad idea. I’m happy for the movement towards safer commutes for everyone, BUT a very large majority of us do NOT commute via bicycle. Plus, the number of disabled (myself included)out number the cyclists by another large margin and the loss of ALL parking along those streets is a huge impact to their ability to reach those businesses. The businesses will suffer some losses as well as by nature most people don’t care to put in extra effort when there’s more conveniently accessible establishments elsewhere. In my opinion, the compromise option of keeping parking on one side would have been better for both the public and businesses alike.
If businesses regard car parking as an important amenity, they should foot the bill to build a parking garage. Valuable street real estate shouldn’t be used for free storage, particularly for objects that take as much space as cars.
there’s already quite a bit of off-street parking on Columbia. plenty of rarely used on-street parking on the east-west streets, too. this won’t be a big deal for folks who want to park.
Yeah, I’ve never had any issues finding parking in downtown or uptown Vancouver. Just saying: I think the provision of parking should be left to the private sector (although not made mandatory) should they deem it necessary, and public right-of-ways should be used mainly for throughput (with maybe some drop-off zones).
If you are referring to the two parking lots between 8th and 13th, they are privately owned and aren’t opened for the general public to use. I believe one sells monthly permits but are mainly reserved for the neighboring businesses. The other is owned by the church.
Speaking of parking—as a Vancouverite who uses a bike for transportation whenever I have an excuse for it, every bike on the road is potentially one more parking space available for drivers to use.
This is appalling. So, as a motorist, I am forced to pay taxes to support the roads, supports transit, and NOW SUPPORT BICYCLISTS! I think its high time bicycles had to pay a 500 dollar fee to have a plate and be on the roadways. They should also be required to carry insurance, wear a helmet, and a safety vest.
But I already paid road fees when I registered my car.
And you put very little wear on those roads you helped pay for.
Many cyclists have paid that same fee when they registered their cars.
Sounds like we are forced to pay the same taxes.
Paying a fuel tax is voluntary.
“Paying a fuel tax is voluntary.”
This point is so under-appreciated. Everything with automotive costs is “forced”. I mean, we’d all be prisoners in our own homes without cars!
Mike B – as this is a maintenance project (vs new construction) so work is funded primarily locally via the city’s general fund: property taxes, REET tax (property sales), utility tax, business tax…plus most – if not all – Vancouver cyclists also own cars and pay those car fees too. [This is Vancouver and not Portland after all 😉
This commenter has been put on the blacklist because of inappropriate comments. They can still comment but must be approved by me first. Please keep it civil folks. — Jonathan
Today, and maybe every day from here on in, I will find time to weave through some stopped traffic and tralala away with rotten indifference. See you at TNR!
I made a totally harmless comment for levity under a different pseudonym yesterday on the Marine Drive article. I poked fun at no one and it would have caused zero offense but inexplicably it was shut down pending your moderation, JM. But Mike Bolton here, like the singer?, can say he hopes we get mowed down by trucks and that’s totally fine! Very cool standards you have going here!
John Lascurettes made a comment about lighting and cameras being a deterrent to theft and whatnot. Replying as Zeus I said at my house I prefer using lightning and chimeras. (In case anyone is wondering about my comment and it’s harmlessness, and to satisfy my curiosity about scary words that require moderation. )
I assume it’s as simple as the mods haven’t seen the comment yet. Because, yeah, “hoping [bicycle users] start getting mowed down by trucks” is obviously an outrageous thing to say.
Relax PTB – or whatever name you choose today. If you want to use this site as your platform, it’ll work better if you understand how I operate things. Just be nice and careful with your comments and you’ll be fine. If you have a beef with someone else, let me know and I will do my best to address it quickly. I have just handled Mr. Bolton so he won’t be commenting here so rudely anymore. And please, I do not need you to target me with sarcasm about my “standards” thank you very much.
If you want us to keep the same user name just say so. I changed my name for a dumb joke. Yeesh.
“bicycles damage cars and just ride away”
Hit and run automobile crashes resulted in over 2000 deaths in 2016. There have been an average of 682,000 hit-and-run crashes each year since 2006, and nearly 65 percent of people killed in hit-and-run crashes were pedestrians or bicyclists. (source: AAA Foundation for Traffic Safety) I have seen 3 hit and run crashes in my neighborhood personally over the last few years. I have been rear ended 3 times over the years by drivers with no insurance. I have never been hit by a person on a bicycle.
“they ignore rules of the road, they ignore traffic signals,”
Deaths caused by drivers running red lights reached a 10-year high in 2017. Over the past decade, 12.9 percent of those killed in Oregon by drivers running red-lights were pedestrians or cyclists. 28% of crash deaths that occur at signalized intersections are the result of a driver running through a red light.
Even with the notoriously (negligently, if you ask me) lax enforcement of traffic laws in our state; Drivers, in the last 5 years still managed to rack up 30,671 DUIIs, 45,309 Seat Belt Violations, 64,500 Out of State Speeding Tickets, 72,032 instances of Using Cell Phone/Mobile Communication Device, 75,156 Driving Without a License/In Violation of Restrictions, 119,167 Driving Uninsured, 123,799 Violation of the Basic Rule(!), 185,406 Failure to Obey Traffic Control Device, 187,387 Driving While Suspended or Revoked; and nearly a half a million (425,195) Speeding tickets.
But, please tell me more about your hurt feelings because someone on a bicycle passed you while you were stuck in traffic.
Are you saying you are going to try to hurt people? Why are you so angry? Sweeping generalizations do not make a point. Do you have any evidence for your claims?
So are the bicyclists going to pay for this? Are the bicyclists going to be required to have registration, insurance, and a license plate? I have no issue with biking and bicyclists but this road is already built and done. I would totally understand if this was a brand new road and they were deciding whether to bike lanes in but this road is done and now the corrupted city is gonna retrofit bike lanes at the expense of 393 lanes. What a joke. The traffic and lack of parking is already bad but we have to cater to these bicycle snowflakes.
Claims to have no issue with b
It sounds like you have a major problem with both bicycling and cyclist. Thankfully voices like your are carrying less and less weight as leadership in Vancouver prioritizes facts over your feels.
“Bicycle snowflakes?!” – Ha, made me laugh.
I wish US drivers – those that only drive and see the street world through their windscreens – would “travel a mile in cyclists / transit users / pedestrians’ shoes” regularly (1x week to start) and deal with the fractured, inconvenient and all too often dangerous roadway system that historically has primarily served the motoring public. Having been in all too many public meetings over my 30 years of transportation design/ parking (worldwide)…US drivers / residential car parkers would be closer to the current definition of a “snowflake”.
Haha where did this article get linked from? Lots of crazy conservatives spamming that I’m quite certain don’t normally read a Bike blog. Poor fellers, sad that OLive shut down the comment section?
and cmh89, how does your comment help the situation? It doesn’t. It only makes things worse. A good comment sections takes all of us working together. Please think twice before leaving comments like this in the future. Thanks. — Jonathan
I was wondering the same thing. Doesn’t seem likely that many Vancouver drivers read bikeportland. Probably NextDoor or Facebook. Same old arguments though it’s nice to see they have so much in common with the anti-bike people in Oregon. They don’t understand how road construction and maintenance is funded, they don’t know about previous failed attempts to license and register bicycles and they don’t realize cyclists aren’t required to have insurance because they do orders of magnitudes less damage and harm to others that drivers do.
idlebytes – you brought up several good points.
The City of Vancouver used to register adult bicycles – when I moved there I did – that is until ~2005 when the VPD (police) begged the City Manager/ Council to end this practice as they did not see that the public benefit (to VPD/ City) was greater that the administrative cost.
exciting stuff. I hope it improves the odds of getting a USBRS route through Vancouver and Portland. there’s a decent connection to the Burnt Bridge Creek Greenway and Fruit Valley, which is an acceptable (though certainly not exceptional) route north. there will still be a significant gap, but plans for the Six Rivers Trail in Cowlitz County are slowly gaining steam.
I ride the whole length of Columbia once a week or so. looking forward to the change.
***Portion of comment deleted because it referred to physical violence and included inappropriate insults. — Jonathan ***
You know it’s a good thing for cyclists when people who drive motor vehicles are going bananas about it. Please welcome the new folks here as they enjoy their banana before us!
What most interesting about all those automobile stats being posted… is that the liberal snowflakes cry about how dangerous guns are… yet, guns are a protected right, and vehicles are a privilege… and liberals conveniently ignore the statistics that moror vehicles are FAR FAR FAR MORE DANGEROUS THAN GUNS… but bring them up when they want bicycles…
I wish I could understand what point you’re trying to make. or maybe I don’t.
either way, I’m concerned about your blood pressure.
Since you are of the opinion that motor vehicles are so dangerous (agreed!), it stands to reason that you would be in favor of getting them off the streets. Yet you are here crying, snowflake-style, about your Vancouver leaders voting in that general direction.
I guess it must serve your needs somehow to come here and out yourself as a hypocrite — but damn, dude, those must be some pretty funky needs.
You are correct that we are spending a lot of time focused on reducing the number of vulnerable roadway users being injured or killed on our public streets…perhaps we think that we can still make a reduction in this violence issue vs. “human fired bullet injuries to other humans” issue.
Though with the all too common motor vehicle operator created roadway aggression towards other more vulnerable roadways users, I (and others in the NW) have often considered that cyclists need to carry guns too…just to have a more equal chance to defend ourselves against 9000+ lbs /300 HP directed vehicles. [Each time I see the rifle rack for handlebars for sale at Bi-Mart, Cabela’s etc. I get weak waver and then having to fight myself to not go there…]
Nice to see the liberal echo chamber. So if people disagree they arent allowed their opinion…
Typical liberals. My response is a direct result of my vehicle being continually damaged by cyclists.
I bike because it’s a lot of fun, but my distaste for your point of view is a result of bodies, minds, cities, and the natural environment being continually damaged by automobiles.
I don’t think it’s simply a matter of disagreement, but rather personal insults or threats/wishes of actual bodily harm. If your opinion is that I should die, that goes beyond mere disagreement.
I would be curious to know how your car gets continually damaged by cyclists. I’ve been riding a bike for several years (like, 40) and have never once managed to damage a motor vehicle. Except for that one time when a driver stopped at a crosswalk at which I had a WALK signal, then lurched right into me as I crossed with the light. He hit my puffy bag (instead of my knee, thankfully!) so maybe it didn’t really do any damage to his car; I wasn’t overly concerned about his bumper at the time.
Ach. I forgot to mention, I’ve also been driving a car for several years (like, 30), and I’ve only had my car run into by a bicyclist once. It was by a toddler on a balance bike in a grocery store parking lot.
Lots to ponder there……How who where why when?
one helpful clue: it never happened.
Vancouver council, you’ve done me proud! Huge thanks to Leah, too…you’re an inspiration!
Seems like this will make driving easier for cars, as well as bike riding, since bikes will have their own lane and cars can slide by safely and smoothly while riders don’t have a door zone to avoid. (Northbound especially.)
Just curious, for comparison with those ~400 parking spaces, how many total public car parking places (street or structured) are in downtown Vancouver? (in other words, percent reduction) I have not had difficulty parking downtown, day or night.
It is just like people of our city that we trusted with there jobs to take away something from tax paying residents and give to a minority something that the tax payers. pay for with there taxes even if bike riders do pay taxes. it doesn’t give them any more right to take over our streets when taxes are paying for that inconvenience for the majority. In actuality it is a invasion of rights of others to feel secure in the decisions our city officials are making for us. Why not make a bike trail down along the freeway that goes all the way down to the river oh that might inconvenience the bicyclist right and you would not have to take anyone’s parking that is what they have done in the Seattle valley maybe we should take a lesson from them
Maybe you could take another lesson: Go complain to those same VANCOUVER leaders rather than here on BikePORTLAND. Just sayin’.
Here’s the deal…the city of Vancouver was not honest with the citizens in their outreach, the data gathering was flawed, the Citizens Advisory Committee and the selection process was a joke and the council paid no attention to all of the neighborhood associations, businesses, historical preservation groups and veteran support associations asking that an alternative route be considered. The CAC came up with 5 very viable and safe routes that were actually selected as a preferred route over Columbia that removed fewer parking places…20 to 30 instead of 400…through cool neighborhoods with less traffic. As an avid biker and commuter, I think it is long overdue for the city to treat us as equals on the roads, however when there are less disruptive alternatives to historically significant neighborhoods, keeps us safe and gets everyone from poor A to point B, why create more of a problem where there really wasn’t one to begin with. When government moves forward with a heavy hand through a corrupt process that has zero transparency, one has to wonder what else is next…Trump part #2?
Bless us all because we will need it
I live along this corridor and while it is the obvious bike route, this entire plan has been both poorly reported and planned. The northern part of Columbia is entirely residential and has far too much traffic on it, largely from commuters trying to bypass I-5. The city refuses to put any kind of diverters or real speed impediments on the road. They are lowering the speed limit from 25 to 20, but people drive over 40 mph on it frequently and there is absolutely no speed enforcement. The refusal of the transportation planners to look at any real traffic calming is a serious problem that is no way addressed by this plan. Also, the vast majority of the removed parking “spaces” are not in downtown, but in residential areas to the north of it.
A lot of the residents along this are worried that is now creating a speed canyon for cars and will make it less safe for pedestrians in the affected neighborhoods. There’s also no protection against turning cars, backing from driveways, or exits from alleys which interrupt this lane every 50 feet in the northern part of it. The intersection at Fourth Plain has enormous numbers of cars turning right northbound and there has been no attempt to prevent them turning through the proposed bike lane, meaning this is wide open for a right hook collision.
The bike (and pedestrian) community would have been far better served by limiting traffic on Columbia and turning it into a neighborhood greenway on the northern half of this planned lane.
Dear anonymous – you have a good point about what has been communicated in the past by the City and its consultants…traffic calming and diversion were “off the table”. BUT I am hearing (CAC meeting update, 2nd hand info to me) that “traffic calming” is back on the table as part of the Columbia project…assuming “if Fire allows it”.
There are others of us on Columbia working with the State on the I-5 shotgun diversion of traffic using the Main Street ramp to Columbia et al in the AM…this is a longer term deal.
If that’s correct it’s very good to hear. They are reducing the speed limit, but as I mentioned, it has not been enforced so far so I don’t expect that to help much.
When they were presenting these plans, they explicitly mentioned that north of Fourth Plain the traffic volumes were right at the edge of where they would recommend buffered lanes instead of standard lanes, but they never presented that to the city council as an option, even though several people brought up that alternating parking on different sides of the street could slow traffic down a lot. Notably, the traffic volumes south of Fourth Plain are too high to make that a good option, but it was baffling to many of us that they presented an option to the city council that showed protecting one side and no bike lane on the other instead of unprotected bike lanes on both sides, even though their own numbers support that north of Fourth Plain that would be reasonable with even a slight reduction in traffic volume.
First-time commenter, long-time reader here. My comment: Hallelujah. OK, I have more to say than that. My house is a few blocks from the northern end of this 3.5-mile Columbia Street bicycling corridor. Has been since 1995. I commuted by bike much of the time when I worked in an office on Columbia near downtown Vancouver. Going forward, this will help ensure many more years of not owning a car. Thank you, Leah, and the Vancouver cycling community.
I live right off of 30th and Columbia, and I’m so excited for this. Columbia is in terrible shape, and the existing sharrows are a joke. There are a lot of angry residents that feel this is being imposed on them and it will be the “death of downtown “. Can’t wait to prove them wrong.
Comment of the week!!!
Plus, while he mentions the lack of enforcement making the numbers lower than they should be, the big one for me is Basic Rule violations. They should be way, way higher. Drivers constantly complain about pedestrians not being being covered head to toe in reflectors and lights on a dark, rainy night, yet feel like there’s nothing wrong with driving 10mph over the limit in those same conditions. It’s bad enough that drivers are allowed such a large cushion over the limit before most officers would consider pulling them over, but it seems like that cushion is just as large in poor-visibility conditions!
As all the dbag demirats say… RESIST! Keep patting each other on the back, seems you want a street war, like what happened in capital hill after the pedophile gay bike loving former mayor of Seattle forced bike lanes… thats fine. Im safe in a 80k lb truck… good luck.
I know you have a strong visceral reaction to this move, and it sounds like you believe your road has been taken away, or at least your ability to park has been (although parking a literal 40-ton truck would be a challenge anywhere, I think). You seem to want to frame it as a liberal vs. conservative issue; why is that? To address your apparent concerns in this immediate comment, using terms like “street war” sound hyperbolic and can make you sound overly aggressive and even threatening—what does “street war” mean in your context? When you say you’re “safe in a 80k lb truck”, and wish the rest of us good luck, are you truly concerned for the safety of others, or is that another prediction of some sort of outbreak of violence against bicyclists?
I’ve driven a car and ridden a bike for transportation and recreation (ever go on a road trip? “Go for a drive”? Drive to the beach or the mountains? That’s recreational driving) for 30-ish years. I’ve taken public transportation regularly for years at a time. I’ve seen most of the things. I’ve watched bicyclists pull boneheaded moves while I’m driving (never hit one, though), I’ve seen vastly more drivers pull boneheaded moves while I’m riding (only been hit once), witnessed violence on MAX, driven past crash scenes, crashed my bike on slippery roads, been hit (in my car) by a drunk driver, even bent a few fenders on my own cars in my younger days. My thoughts and opinions have changed over the years regarding our deeply flawed transportation system. So I just have a few questions for you to consider. I, nor anyone else ever need know you read any of this—I know it’s long—I just hope you will think a little more about these things.
– Would people be this upset if a 400-space parking garage were being demolished to put up apartments?
– You seem concerned about safety; how does adding protection for bicyclists to one street make it more dangerous? If it does make things more dangerous, why?
– I both ride a bike and drive a car. Have you ever considered that “bike lanes” (in all their forms) are for you? At the very least they keep bikes out of your way when you’re driving, and also—and this is a big shocker for many people—you could use them, too—you just have to try riding a bike some time.
– If you would never, ever consider riding a bike to get anywhere, why not? I’m sure there are many reasons, but one of the biggest for many people is that “it’s dangerous”. Why do people think it’s dangerous? Is there any way to make it less “dangerous”?
– Assuming you drive everywhere, do you feel that is your choice, or do you feel forced to drive? If you feel “forced” to drive, or that you wouldn’t be able to get around without a car, what does that say about your level of freedom?
– Given that cars are used mostly to haul themselves and several cubic feet of air around, should we really dedicate the majority of road space to air bubbles? Would it make any sense at all to try to move more actual people on a road than to use that road for movement and storage of giant air bubbles? Which is a more suitable use for a street: storing cars, or moving people? (Think about why roads were invented way back in the BCE).
I think that’s plenty for now; hope you will read and consider.
I’m impressed with your patience.
regardless of whether or not Mr. Bolton is edified by your post (though I certainly hope he is), you’ve articulated some ideas that I’ve had trouble finding the words for.
Mike Bolton: as a former dump truck operator, I have to say, that is some impressive personal truck you are describing…80,000 lbs. If its not a commercial cab and trailer then its a super hum dinger of an SUV. I can see why a block of parking spaces is important to you. I know you must them be paying 10x the road fees that a normal family SUV pays.
I want to thank Mike Bolton for illustrating the need for this project. He’s showing that there are people with big trucks who hope that people get mowed down.
At the point of upsetting some folks, I did not support this bike lane.
I commute by bike almost every day with my four children on a cargo bike. My oldest is just learning how to bike, but is not road ready yet. I used to bike in this area every single day on Columbia coming from Orchards (NE of Vancouver), west outside of city limits, and eventual south on Columbia to the I-5 bridge. Full disclosure, I don’t regularly bike in this area often anymore, but from what I see, conditions are similar to what they were when I did. Despite the steadily increasing population, most of the area affected is higher middle income single family housing.
With that background, I have two main objections to the project: necessity and equality.
For necessity, I don’t really fell this specific area of town is unsafe for biking. I’ve biked Columbia in morning rush hour traffic, evening rush hour traffic, and several times at 1:30 in the morning. If you feel like going down Columbia is unsafe with it’s thin traffic and speeds of 25 mph, there are even calmer streets parallel to Columbia and also 25 mph. One such street, Daniels, passes by two different elementary schools. There was a route on the table that increased the bike infrastructure for Daniels instead of Columbia that took less parking, increased access for the most vulnerable of bike riders, but included a jog in the route for riders coming from or going to the I-5 bridge.
For equality, the very first thought that came to mind when I did the initial survey for this project was, why of all areas are they putting bike infrastructure in here? The answer is that every single one of Vancouver City Councilmembers (who had the finally call for this project) live here instead of the other side of town where there is a more dire need of bike facilities. It’s not that the needs of east Vancouver aren’t known, they’re just always passed up for funding for more projects on the west side. If I want to go anywhere along 112th Ave (the road where two young men recently lost their lives on an area that DOESN’T EVEN HAVE A SIDEWALK), I have to either walk on the sidewalk if there is one, or bike a half mile to several miles out of my way taking a number of side streets that wind and curve and are impossible to remember without directions. There is another road, NE 136/137th that has a bike lane for a large portion to the north and south, but inexplicably has none in the middle of a narrow two lane section with no shoulder and 40 mph speeds. If I want to go further east to Camas (or to go to my dr office or Costco) I would have to either go literally miles out of my way to travel on safe roads, or once again travel on narrow shoulder less roads. City council is FINALLY extending the bike lane on NE 1st street out until NE 177th ave, but it’s not going to NE 192nd Ave (which has extensive bike lanes) until funding happens who knows when.
Anyway, City Council did do two things that I felt were positive after a year of debating and commissions: they plan on lowering the speed limit to 20 mph on Columbia and they have decided not to trash up Vancouver’s historical part of town with those horrible white plastic poles. Some very nice sounding alternatives are on the table that would better match the area and hopefully not anger the neighbors anymore than they are.
TLDR City Council, please fund some bike lanes on the east side. You know the ones.
some here might disagree with you, but I doubt you’ll upset anyone. your objections are germane and reasonable.
Agreed, turnips, and while I like the Columbia plan, I do agree with Summersong that the east side needs bike routes including NE 136/137th*, and connections with the eastern terminals of Burnt Bridge MUP, SE 7th, SE 1st, and more.
*round-about fans, those intersections may alter your preferences