Image
File
Qari
The Burrard Street Bridge is having a lane closed off on
a trial basis to give cyclists a safe place to ride. But how
is this going to affect motorists who use the bridge? Is it
worth doing? Will it help the environment?
Yellow is the new
ink and bikes are the new car
Archaic Vancouverites experience culture shock upon finding out Vancouver is no longer a “car city”
By Chloé Bach, Assistant Editor
lazy, materialistic, and closed-minded Vancouverites
bitch about one little bike lane on one little bridge.
Oh, the horror! What a violation of Vancouverites’ negligent
right to use material goods as symbols of status, rather
than simply applying practicality. I say this because, unless
you are commuting from a suburb, driving in this city is a
ridiculous waste of time and money.
Even before the implementation of the new bike lane,
the Burrard Street Bridge was a bridge that any logical
person would avoid during high traffic hours. Considering
the close proximity of Kitsilano to downtown, there is really
no excuse to drive between them. So why not make it a safer
commute for those with the foresight to hop on a bike for 10
minutes? Are you too lazy to bike? Good news! There are
buses that run every few minutes between Downtown and
Kits. Truly, there is no real excuse to drive downtown unless
you are commuting or just straight up crazy. :
It seems reasonable that anyone unwilling to change
their driving habits is going to spend a lot longer sitting in
their car being a lazy sloth, than those willing to bike or walk
to a bus stop. In fact, it has been demonstrated in several
European cities that making driving an inconvenience has
improved air quality, the transit system and even obesity
rates.
For example, Amsterdam is almost entirely restricted
to bikes and pedestrians in the downtown core (an urban
design I believe Vancouver should follow). With only
18 thoroughfares sprouting off of one major ring road,
accompanied by major government programs to encourage
biking and the use of transit, driving a car is not only
impractical but a major inconvenience in Amsterdam’s dense
| et me start off by saying I am beyond sick of hearing
population.
In contrast, there is Los Angeles, where the smog is
so thick you can’t see the skyline because everyone spends
hours sitting in their vehicle polluting the air and going
nowhere. Which is no big surprise coming from a nation
that is topping pollution charts left, right and center. With
no Kyoto standards to meet, the U.S. is a prime example of
how asinine and negligent it is not to accommodate more
effective and environmental forms of transportation. I doubt
any of us want to support or mimic this poor behaviour. So
why not make an entirely viable alternative safer? Especially
since the majority of drivers in this city are pretty much
clueless.
Like almost every other city in the world Vancouver
was built almost a century ago as a “car city.” This means
it’s time to move on, adjust and figure out a realistic way to
deal with our city’s exponential annual growth as well as to
ensure areas of high population density remain functional,
safe and green.
Attacks on Mayor Gregor Robertson by clueless
conservatives are both unwarranted and short-sighted. Why
is it a bad thing that he wants to be green? Who in their right
mind wants to be not-green in this day-in-age? I can actually
say I’m proud to live in a city run by a mayor who has
making our city green, safe and progressive on his “agenda.”
It is half-witted to assert that Robertson’s goals are anything
other than a step in the right direction.
It is really only logical to ditch your car if it involves
saving large amounts of time and money, especially if our
city can find safe ways, like the new bike lane on the Burrard
Street Bridge, to facilitate it. Anyone stubborn enough to
do otherwise is laughable at best. If you’re concerned about
our city’s near permanent traffic, get the hell out of it! It’s as
simple as that.
Enough pandering to cyclists
By Garth McLennan
lright, enough is enough. When is City Hall going
Ac stop the endless pandering to cyclists? The latest
debacle to come from Vancouver’s Mayor Gregor
Robertson is the elimination of the far exiting lane on the
Burrard Street Bridge. A concrete barrier has been put up
and the lane is now designated only for bikers.
Robertson is trying desperately to carve out a legacy
for himself as the “green” mayor and has made no secret
whatsoever about his love for cyclists. Now, it’s nice that
he’s thinking of the environment, but here’s what I don’t
understand: in a city where it is hard enough to get out of
near permanent traffic, removing a lane on a key bridge
will only slow that traffic down even more.
This lane closure will result in added wait times for
drivers just sitting idle, causing more gas and exhaust to
spew out into the air. How exactly is that cutting back
on carbon emissions or helping the environment? Could
someone please explain that to me? Let’s be honest here.
Taking out one lane is just going to piss people off.
No logical person is going to expect drivers to
suddenly abandon their cars. Well, maybe Mayor Robertson
is expecting that, so maybe I should say no logical person
without-an agenda. That’s really what this is all about
when you come down to it. This is just another frustrating
example of politicians trying to score cheap political points
by pandering to a very vocal minority at the expense of the
majority.
There are more drivers on the road than cyclists.
Drivers just don’t complain as much. Vancouver was built
as a car city. The backlog of traffic from this lane closure
spills into side streets that were never built for this amount
of traffic. That’s not even to mention that the number of
cyclists that use the new bike lane, even in rush hour, aren’t
enough to justify giving them an entire lane. This increased
traffic congestion results in even more road rage than there
already is in Vancouver, which is saying something.
Now, it wouldn’t be so bad if cyclists weren’t so
arrogant about it. There’s nothing wrong with hopping on
a bike; but regular cyclists in Vancouver are a different
breed. Obviously this doesn’t apply to every single cyclist
out there but the bulk of them have this infuriating belief
that they own the road. As anyone who has been forced to
deal with downtown cyclists can surely attest, these people
can be some of the most haughty, egotistical blowhards
out there. Very few of them obey traffic laws. When you
are forced to slam on the breaks when they run a red light
to stop from sending one of them flying fifty feet, you
usually get the finger or worse. I mean, the number of times
I’ve seen cyclists downtown weave dangerously through
rush hour traffic, pay zero attention to signs or lights and
basically have no one’s safety on their mind is just too
many. to count.
Something has to change here. Cyclists are now
clamouring for their own bridge, but how exactly will that
be funded? If you bring up any sort of bike registration
fee or toll for a bike bridge you get shouted down. Drivers
have to pay for their bridges, so why not cyclists?
I say, “Enough of all this crap!” This bridge bike lane
is scheduled for a three month trial paid for by drivers of
course. So, after that time, let’s get rid of it. Enough is
enough.
Edited Text
Qari
The Burrard Street Bridge is having a lane closed off on
a trial basis to give cyclists a safe place to ride. But how
is this going to affect motorists who use the bridge? Is it
worth doing? Will it help the environment?
Yellow is the new
ink and bikes are the new car
Archaic Vancouverites experience culture shock upon finding out Vancouver is no longer a “car city”
By Chloé Bach, Assistant Editor
lazy, materialistic, and closed-minded Vancouverites
bitch about one little bike lane on one little bridge.
Oh, the horror! What a violation of Vancouverites’ negligent
right to use material goods as symbols of status, rather
than simply applying practicality. I say this because, unless
you are commuting from a suburb, driving in this city is a
ridiculous waste of time and money.
Even before the implementation of the new bike lane,
the Burrard Street Bridge was a bridge that any logical
person would avoid during high traffic hours. Considering
the close proximity of Kitsilano to downtown, there is really
no excuse to drive between them. So why not make it a safer
commute for those with the foresight to hop on a bike for 10
minutes? Are you too lazy to bike? Good news! There are
buses that run every few minutes between Downtown and
Kits. Truly, there is no real excuse to drive downtown unless
you are commuting or just straight up crazy. :
It seems reasonable that anyone unwilling to change
their driving habits is going to spend a lot longer sitting in
their car being a lazy sloth, than those willing to bike or walk
to a bus stop. In fact, it has been demonstrated in several
European cities that making driving an inconvenience has
improved air quality, the transit system and even obesity
rates.
For example, Amsterdam is almost entirely restricted
to bikes and pedestrians in the downtown core (an urban
design I believe Vancouver should follow). With only
18 thoroughfares sprouting off of one major ring road,
accompanied by major government programs to encourage
biking and the use of transit, driving a car is not only
impractical but a major inconvenience in Amsterdam’s dense
| et me start off by saying I am beyond sick of hearing
population.
In contrast, there is Los Angeles, where the smog is
so thick you can’t see the skyline because everyone spends
hours sitting in their vehicle polluting the air and going
nowhere. Which is no big surprise coming from a nation
that is topping pollution charts left, right and center. With
no Kyoto standards to meet, the U.S. is a prime example of
how asinine and negligent it is not to accommodate more
effective and environmental forms of transportation. I doubt
any of us want to support or mimic this poor behaviour. So
why not make an entirely viable alternative safer? Especially
since the majority of drivers in this city are pretty much
clueless.
Like almost every other city in the world Vancouver
was built almost a century ago as a “car city.” This means
it’s time to move on, adjust and figure out a realistic way to
deal with our city’s exponential annual growth as well as to
ensure areas of high population density remain functional,
safe and green.
Attacks on Mayor Gregor Robertson by clueless
conservatives are both unwarranted and short-sighted. Why
is it a bad thing that he wants to be green? Who in their right
mind wants to be not-green in this day-in-age? I can actually
say I’m proud to live in a city run by a mayor who has
making our city green, safe and progressive on his “agenda.”
It is half-witted to assert that Robertson’s goals are anything
other than a step in the right direction.
It is really only logical to ditch your car if it involves
saving large amounts of time and money, especially if our
city can find safe ways, like the new bike lane on the Burrard
Street Bridge, to facilitate it. Anyone stubborn enough to
do otherwise is laughable at best. If you’re concerned about
our city’s near permanent traffic, get the hell out of it! It’s as
simple as that.
Enough pandering to cyclists
By Garth McLennan
lright, enough is enough. When is City Hall going
Ac stop the endless pandering to cyclists? The latest
debacle to come from Vancouver’s Mayor Gregor
Robertson is the elimination of the far exiting lane on the
Burrard Street Bridge. A concrete barrier has been put up
and the lane is now designated only for bikers.
Robertson is trying desperately to carve out a legacy
for himself as the “green” mayor and has made no secret
whatsoever about his love for cyclists. Now, it’s nice that
he’s thinking of the environment, but here’s what I don’t
understand: in a city where it is hard enough to get out of
near permanent traffic, removing a lane on a key bridge
will only slow that traffic down even more.
This lane closure will result in added wait times for
drivers just sitting idle, causing more gas and exhaust to
spew out into the air. How exactly is that cutting back
on carbon emissions or helping the environment? Could
someone please explain that to me? Let’s be honest here.
Taking out one lane is just going to piss people off.
No logical person is going to expect drivers to
suddenly abandon their cars. Well, maybe Mayor Robertson
is expecting that, so maybe I should say no logical person
without-an agenda. That’s really what this is all about
when you come down to it. This is just another frustrating
example of politicians trying to score cheap political points
by pandering to a very vocal minority at the expense of the
majority.
There are more drivers on the road than cyclists.
Drivers just don’t complain as much. Vancouver was built
as a car city. The backlog of traffic from this lane closure
spills into side streets that were never built for this amount
of traffic. That’s not even to mention that the number of
cyclists that use the new bike lane, even in rush hour, aren’t
enough to justify giving them an entire lane. This increased
traffic congestion results in even more road rage than there
already is in Vancouver, which is saying something.
Now, it wouldn’t be so bad if cyclists weren’t so
arrogant about it. There’s nothing wrong with hopping on
a bike; but regular cyclists in Vancouver are a different
breed. Obviously this doesn’t apply to every single cyclist
out there but the bulk of them have this infuriating belief
that they own the road. As anyone who has been forced to
deal with downtown cyclists can surely attest, these people
can be some of the most haughty, egotistical blowhards
out there. Very few of them obey traffic laws. When you
are forced to slam on the breaks when they run a red light
to stop from sending one of them flying fifty feet, you
usually get the finger or worse. I mean, the number of times
I’ve seen cyclists downtown weave dangerously through
rush hour traffic, pay zero attention to signs or lights and
basically have no one’s safety on their mind is just too
many. to count.
Something has to change here. Cyclists are now
clamouring for their own bridge, but how exactly will that
be funded? If you bring up any sort of bike registration
fee or toll for a bike bridge you get shouted down. Drivers
have to pay for their bridges, so why not cyclists?
I say, “Enough of all this crap!” This bridge bike lane
is scheduled for a three month trial paid for by drivers of
course. So, after that time, let’s get rid of it. Enough is
enough.
Qari
The Burrard Street Bridge is having a lane closed off on
a trial basis to give cyclists a safe place to ride. But how
is this going to affect motorists who use the bridge? Is it
worth doing? Will it help the environment?
Yellow is the new
ink and bikes are the new car
Archaic Vancouverites experience culture shock upon finding out Vancouver is no longer a “car city”
By Chloé Bach, Assistant Editor
lazy, materialistic, and closed-minded Vancouverites
bitch about one little bike lane on one little bridge.
Oh, the horror! What a violation of Vancouverites’ negligent
right to use material goods as symbols of status, rather
than simply applying practicality. I say this because, unless
you are commuting from a suburb, driving in this city is a
ridiculous waste of time and money.
Even before the implementation of the new bike lane,
the Burrard Street Bridge was a bridge that any logical
person would avoid during high traffic hours. Considering
the close proximity of Kitsilano to downtown, there is really
no excuse to drive between them. So why not make it a safer
commute for those with the foresight to hop on a bike for 10
minutes? Are you too lazy to bike? Good news! There are
buses that run every few minutes between Downtown and
Kits. Truly, there is no real excuse to drive downtown unless
you are commuting or just straight up crazy. :
It seems reasonable that anyone unwilling to change
their driving habits is going to spend a lot longer sitting in
their car being a lazy sloth, than those willing to bike or walk
to a bus stop. In fact, it has been demonstrated in several
European cities that making driving an inconvenience has
improved air quality, the transit system and even obesity
rates.
For example, Amsterdam is almost entirely restricted
to bikes and pedestrians in the downtown core (an urban
design I believe Vancouver should follow). With only
18 thoroughfares sprouting off of one major ring road,
accompanied by major government programs to encourage
biking and the use of transit, driving a car is not only
impractical but a major inconvenience in Amsterdam’s dense
| et me start off by saying I am beyond sick of hearing
population.
In contrast, there is Los Angeles, where the smog is
so thick you can’t see the skyline because everyone spends
hours sitting in their vehicle polluting the air and going
nowhere. Which is no big surprise coming from a nation
that is topping pollution charts left, right and center. With
no Kyoto standards to meet, the U.S. is a prime example of
how asinine and negligent it is not to accommodate more
effective and environmental forms of transportation. I doubt
any of us want to support or mimic this poor behaviour. So
why not make an entirely viable alternative safer? Especially
since the majority of drivers in this city are pretty much
clueless.
Like almost every other city in the world Vancouver
was built almost a century ago as a “car city.” This means
it’s time to move on, adjust and figure out a realistic way to
deal with our city’s exponential annual growth as well as to
ensure areas of high population density remain functional,
safe and green.
Attacks on Mayor Gregor Robertson by clueless
conservatives are both unwarranted and short-sighted. Why
is it a bad thing that he wants to be green? Who in their right
mind wants to be not-green in this day-in-age? I can actually
say I’m proud to live in a city run by a mayor who has
making our city green, safe and progressive on his “agenda.”
It is half-witted to assert that Robertson’s goals are anything
other than a step in the right direction.
It is really only logical to ditch your car if it involves
saving large amounts of time and money, especially if our
city can find safe ways, like the new bike lane on the Burrard
Street Bridge, to facilitate it. Anyone stubborn enough to
do otherwise is laughable at best. If you’re concerned about
our city’s near permanent traffic, get the hell out of it! It’s as
simple as that.
Enough pandering to cyclists
By Garth McLennan
lright, enough is enough. When is City Hall going
Ac stop the endless pandering to cyclists? The latest
debacle to come from Vancouver’s Mayor Gregor
Robertson is the elimination of the far exiting lane on the
Burrard Street Bridge. A concrete barrier has been put up
and the lane is now designated only for bikers.
Robertson is trying desperately to carve out a legacy
for himself as the “green” mayor and has made no secret
whatsoever about his love for cyclists. Now, it’s nice that
he’s thinking of the environment, but here’s what I don’t
understand: in a city where it is hard enough to get out of
near permanent traffic, removing a lane on a key bridge
will only slow that traffic down even more.
This lane closure will result in added wait times for
drivers just sitting idle, causing more gas and exhaust to
spew out into the air. How exactly is that cutting back
on carbon emissions or helping the environment? Could
someone please explain that to me? Let’s be honest here.
Taking out one lane is just going to piss people off.
No logical person is going to expect drivers to
suddenly abandon their cars. Well, maybe Mayor Robertson
is expecting that, so maybe I should say no logical person
without-an agenda. That’s really what this is all about
when you come down to it. This is just another frustrating
example of politicians trying to score cheap political points
by pandering to a very vocal minority at the expense of the
majority.
There are more drivers on the road than cyclists.
Drivers just don’t complain as much. Vancouver was built
as a car city. The backlog of traffic from this lane closure
spills into side streets that were never built for this amount
of traffic. That’s not even to mention that the number of
cyclists that use the new bike lane, even in rush hour, aren’t
enough to justify giving them an entire lane. This increased
traffic congestion results in even more road rage than there
already is in Vancouver, which is saying something.
Now, it wouldn’t be so bad if cyclists weren’t so
arrogant about it. There’s nothing wrong with hopping on
a bike; but regular cyclists in Vancouver are a different
breed. Obviously this doesn’t apply to every single cyclist
out there but the bulk of them have this infuriating belief
that they own the road. As anyone who has been forced to
deal with downtown cyclists can surely attest, these people
can be some of the most haughty, egotistical blowhards
out there. Very few of them obey traffic laws. When you
are forced to slam on the breaks when they run a red light
to stop from sending one of them flying fifty feet, you
usually get the finger or worse. I mean, the number of times
I’ve seen cyclists downtown weave dangerously through
rush hour traffic, pay zero attention to signs or lights and
basically have no one’s safety on their mind is just too
many. to count.
Something has to change here. Cyclists are now
clamouring for their own bridge, but how exactly will that
be funded? If you bring up any sort of bike registration
fee or toll for a bike bridge you get shouted down. Drivers
have to pay for their bridges, so why not cyclists?
I say, “Enough of all this crap!” This bridge bike lane
is scheduled for a three month trial paid for by drivers of
course. So, after that time, let’s get rid of it. Enough is
enough.
Qari
The Burrard Street Bridge is having a lane closed off on
a trial basis to give cyclists a safe place to ride. But how
is this going to affect motorists who use the bridge? Is it
worth doing? Will it help the environment?
Yellow is the new
ink and bikes are the new car
Archaic Vancouverites experience culture shock upon finding out Vancouver is no longer a “car city”
By Chloé Bach, Assistant Editor
lazy, materialistic, and closed-minded Vancouverites
bitch about one little bike lane on one little bridge.
Oh, the horror! What a violation of Vancouverites’ negligent
right to use material goods as symbols of status, rather
than simply applying practicality. I say this because, unless
you are commuting from a suburb, driving in this city is a
ridiculous waste of time and money.
Even before the implementation of the new bike lane,
the Burrard Street Bridge was a bridge that any logical
person would avoid during high traffic hours. Considering
the close proximity of Kitsilano to downtown, there is really
no excuse to drive between them. So why not make it a safer
commute for those with the foresight to hop on a bike for 10
minutes? Are you too lazy to bike? Good news! There are
buses that run every few minutes between Downtown and
Kits. Truly, there is no real excuse to drive downtown unless
you are commuting or just straight up crazy. :
It seems reasonable that anyone unwilling to change
their driving habits is going to spend a lot longer sitting in
their car being a lazy sloth, than those willing to bike or walk
to a bus stop. In fact, it has been demonstrated in several
European cities that making driving an inconvenience has
improved air quality, the transit system and even obesity
rates.
For example, Amsterdam is almost entirely restricted
to bikes and pedestrians in the downtown core (an urban
design I believe Vancouver should follow). With only
18 thoroughfares sprouting off of one major ring road,
accompanied by major government programs to encourage
biking and the use of transit, driving a car is not only
impractical but a major inconvenience in Amsterdam’s dense
| et me start off by saying I am beyond sick of hearing
population.
In contrast, there is Los Angeles, where the smog is
so thick you can’t see the skyline because everyone spends
hours sitting in their vehicle polluting the air and going
nowhere. Which is no big surprise coming from a nation
that is topping pollution charts left, right and center. With
no Kyoto standards to meet, the U.S. is a prime example of
how asinine and negligent it is not to accommodate more
effective and environmental forms of transportation. I doubt
any of us want to support or mimic this poor behaviour. So
why not make an entirely viable alternative safer? Especially
since the majority of drivers in this city are pretty much
clueless.
Like almost every other city in the world Vancouver
was built almost a century ago as a “car city.” This means
it’s time to move on, adjust and figure out a realistic way to
deal with our city’s exponential annual growth as well as to
ensure areas of high population density remain functional,
safe and green.
Attacks on Mayor Gregor Robertson by clueless
conservatives are both unwarranted and short-sighted. Why
is it a bad thing that he wants to be green? Who in their right
mind wants to be not-green in this day-in-age? I can actually
say I’m proud to live in a city run by a mayor who has
making our city green, safe and progressive on his “agenda.”
It is half-witted to assert that Robertson’s goals are anything
other than a step in the right direction.
It is really only logical to ditch your car if it involves
saving large amounts of time and money, especially if our
city can find safe ways, like the new bike lane on the Burrard
Street Bridge, to facilitate it. Anyone stubborn enough to
do otherwise is laughable at best. If you’re concerned about
our city’s near permanent traffic, get the hell out of it! It’s as
simple as that.
Enough pandering to cyclists
By Garth McLennan
lright, enough is enough. When is City Hall going
Ac stop the endless pandering to cyclists? The latest
debacle to come from Vancouver’s Mayor Gregor
Robertson is the elimination of the far exiting lane on the
Burrard Street Bridge. A concrete barrier has been put up
and the lane is now designated only for bikers.
Robertson is trying desperately to carve out a legacy
for himself as the “green” mayor and has made no secret
whatsoever about his love for cyclists. Now, it’s nice that
he’s thinking of the environment, but here’s what I don’t
understand: in a city where it is hard enough to get out of
near permanent traffic, removing a lane on a key bridge
will only slow that traffic down even more.
This lane closure will result in added wait times for
drivers just sitting idle, causing more gas and exhaust to
spew out into the air. How exactly is that cutting back
on carbon emissions or helping the environment? Could
someone please explain that to me? Let’s be honest here.
Taking out one lane is just going to piss people off.
No logical person is going to expect drivers to
suddenly abandon their cars. Well, maybe Mayor Robertson
is expecting that, so maybe I should say no logical person
without-an agenda. That’s really what this is all about
when you come down to it. This is just another frustrating
example of politicians trying to score cheap political points
by pandering to a very vocal minority at the expense of the
majority.
There are more drivers on the road than cyclists.
Drivers just don’t complain as much. Vancouver was built
as a car city. The backlog of traffic from this lane closure
spills into side streets that were never built for this amount
of traffic. That’s not even to mention that the number of
cyclists that use the new bike lane, even in rush hour, aren’t
enough to justify giving them an entire lane. This increased
traffic congestion results in even more road rage than there
already is in Vancouver, which is saying something.
Now, it wouldn’t be so bad if cyclists weren’t so
arrogant about it. There’s nothing wrong with hopping on
a bike; but regular cyclists in Vancouver are a different
breed. Obviously this doesn’t apply to every single cyclist
out there but the bulk of them have this infuriating belief
that they own the road. As anyone who has been forced to
deal with downtown cyclists can surely attest, these people
can be some of the most haughty, egotistical blowhards
out there. Very few of them obey traffic laws. When you
are forced to slam on the breaks when they run a red light
to stop from sending one of them flying fifty feet, you
usually get the finger or worse. I mean, the number of times
I’ve seen cyclists downtown weave dangerously through
rush hour traffic, pay zero attention to signs or lights and
basically have no one’s safety on their mind is just too
many. to count.
Something has to change here. Cyclists are now
clamouring for their own bridge, but how exactly will that
be funded? If you bring up any sort of bike registration
fee or toll for a bike bridge you get shouted down. Drivers
have to pay for their bridges, so why not cyclists?
I say, “Enough of all this crap!” This bridge bike lane
is scheduled for a three month trial paid for by drivers of
course. So, after that time, let’s get rid of it. Enough is
enough.