Saturday, August 29, 2015
City Mayor Darrell Mussatto goes to Trondheim, Norway
The City Mayor makes another topic on the blog. This time it is his trek (on his own dime) to the northern Norwegian City of Trondheim to check out their of 'bicycle uphill tow system.' He will bring his research back to City council for review and potential use on the inclined roads here. The system they have in Trondheim was built about 23 years and was rebuilt in 2013. In 1993 its original cost was about $100,00, but today's cost would be as much as ten times more according to Mayor Mussatto.
Bicycle Lift in Trondheim, Norway
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
62 comments:
fantastic! another way to build another skyscraper...just get the developer to pay for the bike lift in return
Funny how the NIMBYs on this blog keep moaning about a lack of infrastructure in the City. But if there is any proposal for infrastructure that benefits bikes or pedestrians, then it's an outrage and completely unnecessary.
More details here: https://nvcityvoices.wordpress.com/2015/08/29/bicycle-lift-coming-to-north-van/ with the link to the video and CBC radio interview
Sensing anti-development sarcasm from 9:31...higher density equals smaller carbon footprint along with the bike lift is win, win isn't it?
Anon 10:01 ... what lack of infrastructure?
Anon 11:02am, take your choice: insufficient fresh water storage for the population, insufficient transit for the population (although most don't complain about this one because they all drive alone in their cars everywhere), insufficient roadways for all the single-occupant vehicles to drive downtown to work (not to mention driving their fully ambulatory children to and from school and soccer practice), insufficient street parking because every household needs a car for every member of the family, etc. And then there's the insufficient policing and firefighting to handle the swell in population (never mind that it just takes more fire and police to look after the sprawl of the district), aging sanitary and water lines that need to be replaced, road repair, ground keeping, etc. You know, infrastructure.
I think it's a good idea that Justin Trudeau has and that is to go into debt to pay for all this neglected infrastructure and put people to work.
This infrastructure has to be replaced anyway. Good idea to stimulate the economy.
10:01
I really haven't noticed much in the way of whining about lack of infrastructure.
I do see people like yourself trying to rephrase someone elses post presumably because you have no answer to them yet want to discredit them somehow.
Although I do have to agree with you that the complete lack of infrastructure supporting horse based transportation needs fixing.
6:50am, the standard (for this blog at any rate) complaint about the speed of development is that infrastructure isn't in place to accommodate the new buildings/people. You want answers? Sure, lets discuss the problems and see what we can come up with.
Grouse Mountain Resort will be installing it on 'their' highway. Another amusement ride like the Eye which pulls in a million dollars per year in revenue.
Maybe that's a good place for it. Biggest problem with it to my mind is RAIN. Oh yeah I realize Mr M is just being proactive..planning for our future without it but until then it is then biggest reason not to spend more millions on bike sh**t. People don't use it. If you want an all season elevator on Lonsdale maybe it is time to revisit Barb Sharpe s support of streetcars. At least they are all weather..good for pedestrians .. and look green and vibrant.
What's rain got to do with it? You do realize that people still ride their bikes whether it's raining or not, right? Get out of your car and open your eyes to what other people are doing. Don't like riding a bike? Hey, that's cool! But you know what, being an ass towards people who enjoy it is pretty pointless. Hell, if you gave it a try, you might find you actually enjoy it. Why not give it a go?
10:07
I do realize that people DON'T ride in the rain .
You do realize that people enjoy riding their bikes uphill whether they have a multimillion dollar bike only elevator or not don't you?
(Wink)
Part of encouraging cycling is encouraging fitness. Want to become more fit? Ride up hill. That is how you get bike fit. No downhill riding will get you fit. I don't believe that this bike lift makes much difference for those who ride and those who don't. I cycle quite a bit and I wouldn't use it a habit of it because I feel that would be laziness. Besides there would have to be one on every hill. I realize there might be some people who would be 'in between' meaning that this would make a difference for them so they would ride, but I believe it wouldn't justify the cost. Have the nice developer people spend the money on some other amenity like nice art work. This bike lift is a publicity stunt.
How is giving assistance up some of our steeper hills discouraging fitness? I ride all over the North Shore, but some of the hills are too much for me, so I push my bike. A few well placed bike lifts would be welcome, especially for those of us who are getting older. I believe they are also user pay (at least the example in Denmark is), so it's not like this needs to be a free ride.
If it gets more people riding, the health benefits and resulting savings to our healthcare system, in the long run, would likely pay for these being installed in fairly short order. The car proponents should be happy to see more people cycling as that would mean fewer cars on the road, making for less congestion.
11:04
I think they've made a solution for people like you (us).
It's called an electric assist kit for your bike. It doesn't have the cachet of them Norwegian gizmos but it works on any hill you find yourself at.. not just Lolo's Vibrant, walkable ...uh ..err .. I mean bike able .. slopes. They part I like about this is that YOU get to pay for it and I don't.
But hey..that reminds me. There's already a public installation on that hill which can get your bike up the hill for free. It is indeed vibrant and walkable too. Sidewalks!
if you cant ride up the hill then walk, simple. Or get electric assist like anon 1209 says. That's a good idea. Boo to lift, yay to electric assist lazy ANON 11:04
You just don't get it. Many people would love to ride bikes if it was safe and not too difficult, i.e. hills. What on earth is wrong with getting people onto bikes?
nothing wrong with getting people on bikes, all safety considerations aside out in that crazy traffic out there - knock yourself out!(not literally odf course) all i'm saying is don't make me pay for it, get yourself an electric assist if you cant make the hills, simple.
Mussatto says biking is a healthy activity,why the heck would you need a lift????
Good thing we don't base funding on what we don't want to pay for. I have no children, but gladly contribute to education. I don't use the rec centres but gladly contribute because healthy people are less of a burden on our healthcare. I don't use the library but gladly contribute because I know that not everyone can afford to buy the books they read. I also appreciate the social benefit of the space. I don't drive a lot (but I do drive) and don't mind my taxes going toward the roads and associated infrastructure. So, anon 1:49pm, how much of the things that you use is everyone else subsidizing? As for the crazy traffic, maybe if the car drivers actually slowed down and followed the rules of the road, the roads would be a little less crazy and safer for everyone to use. Including the kids who are riding their bikes or walking to school. The roads are for everyone, not just the car cultists. So, rather than the sarcastic and snide comments, how about having a real discussion?
Who needs a bike lift? Europe is developing high powered electric bikes for road and trail use. Seen a few on our trails already! Vroom! Vroom!
What I do know is that these future e-cyclists will also fight, tooth and nail, against licensing their steeds.
Density Darrell or D.D. where art thou brain?
7:08
Actually 7 08...
We DO base funding on what we don't want to pay for.
We don't buy everyone who wants one a free new car,for example,because we don't want to pay for it.
Free bus passes same thing. Free medical prescriptions for all . Nuhuh.We like the idea but we don't want to pay for it. See..people have other things they need or want to spend on . This bike elevator is a ' cute ' idea that will run into the millions and will rarely be used so it is a bad idea at this time for reasons already discussed.
These reasons are:
Will not be used much just like every other BAD bike amenity touted by ecozealots. It rains regularly in this part of their world and that negatively and permaently affects ridership. No getting around this one unless you do what Denmark did which is bludgeon their people out of car ownership with massive taxation. (Twenty thousand dollar car price attracts forty thousand dollar registration tax plus financing cost of all that tax.). A Honda civic clocks in at sixty thousand. Yes they ride bikes. What else can they do?
There exist better and redundant solutions to Lolo s elevation problem namely mod your bike with electric assist or take a bus or walk it uphill to the planned endpoint of the elevator. Even a Lonsdale only user pay private jitney for bikers would be cheap to startup and would perform double duty on their return leg bringing foot passengers down there hill. But it would fail cuz .. well it RAINS.
So although we do fund things we don't like to pay for..we only agree with it if we think it is a good idea..like having schools that are free. Free Ike elevators just aren't a good idea.
Who said the lift will be free? The one in Denmark is user pay. If installed here, it'll probably be the same. So don't sweat it. Get out of your car and see just how many people cycle each day (even in the rain). Heck, why not even try it? You might enjoy it.
Anon 7:08 back on his "car cultist" soapbox. Given the late press re cyclists barrelling past barricades into a closed street at a weekly farmer's market to the peril of pedestrians - then swearing and flipping the finger when called on their behaviour. Cyclists doing a quick glance slow down at red lights and stop signs then riding right through plus numerous other boorish and illegal driving infractions. He should look in the mirror.
Anon 10:59, "ecozealots". Good one.
A solution to this problem between the cyclists and other users of roads and trails is to have them licensed. With a "plate" of their registration number fully visible at the rear of the bike.
And they should have to take out insurance, just like vehicle owners.
Silence!
Anon September 02, 2015 10:15:00 a.m., you really have no idea how I cycle and to paint us all with the same brush as those who you describe is ridiculous. The very same article you describe is pointed toward a minority group of cyclists. The spandex clad weekend road warrior. These jokers hardly represent those of us who ride our bikes as commuters or recreationally with our families and friends. There are the sport riders and then there are the regular folk who just ride to run errands or see the sights of our city. We aren't all the speed demons that you describe. Again, I too can make sweeping generalizations about motorists who disobey the rules of the road. For every infraction you claim cyclists make, I can present you with an equal or worse infraction committed by drivers. As I've said before, get out of your car and walk any street and watch. Really watch. The crap the=at drivers are getting away with is staggering. It's also dangerous to pedestrians and cyclists (and even other motorists). So if you want to play the tit for tat game, I can do that all day long. I can even take you on a guided walking tour of locations in our city where motorists are particularly oblivious like reduced speed zones near parks and schools. So please stop being so smug about the rules, because the car drivers don't fare so well either.
As for licensing bikes, go for it. But remember, if there is a cost to it, you'll have lost any right to your stale old arguments that cyclists aren't contributing financially. An argument that is ludicrous because cyclists also pay taxes and a good number of them also own cars that they pay taxes and insurance on. Ridership is up every year. You should be pleased because it means fewer cars on the road allowing you to get where you want to go more easily.
Anon 2:57. You really have no idea how I drive and to paint us all with the same brush as those who you describe is ridiculous.
The tired, "sure we do bad things but we can find others who do too" argument is sophomoric.
The recent articles in the NS News are not "my" description of cyclist behaviour. They are citizens who have taken the time to write the Editor and point out their observations. Obviously the other posters here are seeing the same thing so these are not isolated incidents and seem to be reaching a norm.
The day that I see cyclists calling out the behaviour of the numerous cycling scofflaws (as motorists do by use of the horn toward poor vehicle drivers) then I will start to believe that responsible cyclists have the courage of their convictions. I have never seen that happen and it would be great to see people in the cycling community step up and tell their colleagues to wait their turn in the traffic line-up, stop at signals, keep to the right, ride single abreast, obey signs and the law etc. In my opinion aggressive and illegal cyclists believe silence means acceptance and they will continue their behaviour until shamed (or injured), and even then, may arrogantly ignore the law and public opinion.
Such venom anon 4:05pm. Can you have a civil discussion without resorting to the sweeping generalizations and hysteria? You should get out of your car and get some fresh air and exercise. You're a little tightly wound.
How about a new rec centre for fitness! Stationary bikes for all!!
These lifts are for the minority.
We already have a rec centre.
Anon 8:03. Your assumption is not reality. I have a great daily outdoor exercise programme thanks. Recognizing the truth is sometimes unpleasant. Highlighting letters to the editor and widely observed behaviour venomous and tightly wound? A little over sensitive to reality.
A very outdated rec. centre, falling apart !Gross
Does not gel with this new City.
Whoa. Anon 4:05 references the NS News letter to the editor that discusses the W. Van weekly farmer's market. The road is legally barricaded off and there are pedestrians, including children, walking on the road. The writer states that many cyclists are riding around the barricades at full speed through the shoppers. When confronted, some swear, make obscene gestures and say that they pay their taxes for the road and they will ride where they like.
I hardly think that it is venom to challenge this type of behaviour or other illegal actions on the roadway.
Anon 8:03 you have your moral compass on backwards.
From the article in question (not a letter to the editor by the way):
"Most cyclists are happy to dismount and walk the 1500-block of Bellevue Avenue but there are a handful of road cyclists who flout the Road Closed signs and “come barrelling through,” said Lyn Hainstock, market manager.
So to blame all cyclists for the actions of "a handful" sport riders is inaccurate and wrong. Those riders do not represent the majority and if you got out of your cars and actually watched what goes on, you'd know that. There are plenty of non-sport riders who go to that very same farmers market who dismount and walk their bikes while shopping and supporting the market. Not only in West Vancouver but the other markets all over the metro area. I know this because I'm one of them. The behaviour of the roadies is intolerable and everyone has a responsibility to let them know. Everyone has a camera built right into their phone. Take a picture! They can be identified.
And if you're going to reference an news article, at lest have the decency to paraphrase it fairly. Don't keep blame on all cyclists when the article very clearly identifies that the problem is being caused by a few.
And again with the illegal activity on the road, don't blame everyone for the actions of a few. Remember, the finger can be pointed squarely back at motorists if you want to play that game.
Once again you are inaccurate and overreact based upon your misunderstanding. Reread Anon 4:05.
You will see that you, as the (possibly minority) law abiding cyclist are invited to shout out to your colleagues that are giving cyclists a bad name. Quite obviously, if that invitation is suggested there is a recognition that perhaps there are cyclists that obey the rules. One notes that you ignore the suggestion. Hmmm.....
Secondly, there is a letter to the editor that discusses the widespread practice of cyclists making illegal manoeuvres. Whether the information concerning cyclists bombing through the market is an article or a letter is trivial to the discussion. It is another independent observation.
BTW Anon 9:36. When you did your search of the NS News letters to the editor, how did you fail to mention "Cyclists, it's time to grow up and learn the rules of the road" - June 30, and follow up letter "Elitists make all cyclists look bad" - August 30?
The former letter is a writer who claims a high speed cyclist almost struck him while he was in a marked crosswalk with a car stopped permitting him to walk and the cyclist blasted through screaming at him. He says that he may have been killed if struck.
The latter notes that many cyclists do not know the rules of the road so they break them. Goes on to talk about cyclists blowing through stop signs and stop lights etc.
How did you miss these and fail to include them in your reply?
Okay, so you want to turning the discussion into a moving target to include all letters to the editor? I was addressing the news article that was brought up regarding the farmers market. If you want the discussion to include more than that, you're welcome to do so. Shall I now start producing articles pointing to dangerous driving? You know, the ones that repeatedly ask motorists to follow the rules of the road? The ones that repeatedly ask motorists to get off their phones, slow down in school zones, obey speed limits and stop signs, blocking the left lane on the freeway, turning without signalling, failing to stop for pedestrians in crosswalks, driving while impaired, driving with a dog in your lap, etc, etc.
I get it, you don't like cyclists and somehow think they're all evil and irresponsible and that they shouldn't be on the road because, well, the roads are for cars only. Well, the Highways Act disagrees with you. Bikes are allowed on the roads. There are cyclists who obey the rules and just want to get from point A to B safely. Which means that, in addition to riding responsibly and obeying the rules, motorists too must obey the rules of the road and be responsible for being aware of other users of same road. Cycling ridership is going up each year and safety for everyone is key. All that is being asked of you is to share the road. Be aware and be responsible for your own actions. That's all anyone can ask. If you see illegal activity, whether it be a cyclist or motorist, report it. Go ahead and scold the person acting irresponsibly. And look in the mirror and be absolutely certain that you are a perfect driver who never, ever breaks the rules. Because if you've ever rolled through a stop sign or cut off a pedestrian or car who had the right of way, then you are nothing more than an hypocrite.
Thank you for your reply. You need to try your debating tactics on someone younger.
1. Bait and switch. The subject of this thread is cycling. It is not driving. If you would like to start a thread on cycling, please do so.
2. Creating and attributing statements that haven't been made by your counterpoint discussion partner.
a. Nowhere stated that all cyclists are evil and shouldn't be on the road.
b. Nowhere stated anything that disagrees with legislation. In fact, encouraging scofflaw cyclists to obey law.
c. Stated in earlier post that cyclists should share the road in accordance with the law.
Nice try but I'm not supporting arguments that I haven't made and that you have created in a wobbly defence of the indefensible.
Sorry, "a thread on cycling" should read "a thread on driving".
What's to debate? The sweeping generalizations being made about cyclists in these topics? Forget the debates, let's have a sane discussion about how to solve the problem!
An excellent start would be to LICENSE THE CYCLISTS so they are identifiable.
Okay. How do you make that happen?
Perhaps it should be attached to ICBC and insurance should be purchased just like autos. They are on our roads and cause many accidents which involve vehicular insurance claims.
Many are drivers and already licensed. Let's be clear, do you want to license the bike or the rider? Also, please show us statistics that support your claim that bikes "cause many accidents which involve vehicular insurance claims".
Car drivers? and already licensed regarding their auto, not their bike. Do your own research on ICBC claims that involve cyclists.
I'm asking you to back up a claim which you made. You should be able to support your statements. It's not my job to check your facts for you. You made a claim, you need to be able to back it up. Remember, you're entitled to your own opinion, but you aren't entitled to make up your own facts.
Now, I'll ask again. Are you suggesting that cyclists be licensed or that their bikes be licensed? Come now. You're demanding cyclists be licensed but you don't seem to have thought through how it's going to work. Or do you want somebody else to do that for you as well?
Anon. 5:01 you epitomize the word cretin.
Anon 5:50. I feel your frustration. I've spent some time trying to point out to this poster that the community is getting pretty tired of the road antics of many cyclists.
Just returned home and while out I saw a man, at least 60 years old, cycling along without a helmet. This in a few minutes on the street. All to frequent.
Until the police and/or bylaw people are able to, or want to, address what has become an epidemic of cyclists ignoring the rules of the road I fear we can only expect more of the same.
And what of the motorists who ignore the rules of the road? They have the ability to cause the greatest harm to pedestrians a cyclists. Where's your outrage for them?
And claiming to speak for the community is awfully presumptuous of you. What gives you that right?
And anon 5:50pm, why must you resort to the name-calling when all I'm trying to do is have a conversation? Why can't we discuss the problem and try to figure out a solution?
OK. We've gone around and around on this. This thread is not about motorists. It is about cyclists. Start a thread about motorists and I will be an early poster calling for a minimum $1000 fine AND cellphone confiscation for distracted driving.
Meanwhile sticking to the point - cycling. It can't be more clear. A letter from a man claiming to have been almost struck down and killed by a cyclist cycling illegally. Let's not forget that he then watched the cyclist go right through 2 stop signs.
A lady who writes that cyclists need education and also sees them going right through stop signs and stop lights.
A recent article concerning the upset pedestrians at a closed street market.
The posters on this thread concurring that some cyclists are entitled and dangerous.
The person(s) calling for licensing.
The silent majority that talk about it at social gatherings but don't put it in writing.
Look, if you can't see that there is a broad-based cross-section of the community just fed up then I am done and you can just carry on in your denial bubble.
Actually, the topic is bike lifts. It went sideways with the usual nonsense from the cars at any cost brigade.
And to be honest, all I see are a few uptight people who get wound up whenever they see something they don't like and come here to whine about it or write letters about it. If you think that represents any kind of majority that's your prerogative. You carry on, I'll continue to drive my car or ride my bike responsibly and enjoy myself. Just like thousands of others each and every day.
A few uptight people? You really are in denial.
Thanks for permission to drive on the streets I pay for. I'll continue to try to avoid smacking into the cyclists going through stop signs, red lights, lane spitting, riding 2 or 3 abreast, riding the wrong way on one way streets. I'll bet they are enjoying themselves too.
Cyclists should be licensed and pay insurance just like other users of our roadways.
Even the children riding in front of their homes or on the way to school?
What about neighbourhoods with no sidewalks? Plenty of those here on the North Shore. Should pedestrians also be insured and licensed before they walk on the roadways?
Maybe the children could be under their parents own insurance somehow. Maybe a "to and from school" category something like "to and from work" on regular insurance. Just thinking out loud as I say not an expert.
And what of the low income families who can't afford the insurance but rely on their bikes as transportation? Would you like to deny them access to an affordable mode of transportation?
Post a Comment