whose (bike) lane is it? a study of bicycle lane usage in vancouver

Whose (Bike) Lane Is It?A Study of Bicycle Lane

Usage in Vancouver

School of Community and Regional PlanningUniversity of British Columbia

17 March 2016

Patrick J. Bell

TABLE OF CONTENTS

1.0 Introduction................................................... 3

2.0 Regulatory Framework................................ 4

3.0 Vehicle Profiles .............................................43.1 Skateboards, In-Line Skates, and Push Scooters.. 53.2 Motorized Wheelchairs................................................ 63.3 Limited Speed Motorcycles............................ ............ 63.4 Other Self-Propelled Motorized Devices................ 63.5 Non-Motorized Cycles................................................. 73.6 Motor Assisted Cycles................................................. 8

3.6.1 What is an E-bike?................................................ 83.6.2 Public Perception of E-Bikes............................ 93.6.3 Safety....................................................................... 11

4.0 Issue Analysis................................................ 124.1 Environment................................................................... 124.2 Public Health.................................................................. 124.3 Equity............................................................................... 124.4 Economic........................................................................ 13

5.0 Recommendation......................................... 14

References............................................................. 15Figures................................................................... 16

INTRODUCTION | 1.0

1.0 Introduction

This summer at the University of British Columbia, VeloMetro is set to launch the first commercial trial for Veemo (Figure 1), “a sophisticated, enclosed, electric-assist, smartphone-connected vehicle, ideal for urban and suburban areas” that is “human-powered, with electric assist to help on hills and over longer distances” (VeloMetro, 2016). While VeloMetro expects to compete with the likes of Car2Go and Evo, their unique vehicle is, legally speaking, a bicycle (Melanson, 2016). VeloMetro’s stated goal is “to provide a completely sustainable transportation option for urban commuters” and is primed for success in Vancouver, which is already a global leader in car sharing (Mackie, 2015).

Veemo is a wonderful concept that could get people out of their cars by providing a cycling experience that is rain-free and enables riders to conquer hills without breaking a sweat—two large barriers to cycling in this region. However, the fact that Veemo meets the provincial definition of a bicycle means that these vehicles will be allowed to use bike lanes and multi-use paths, which could create conflict (Figure 2). VeloMetro CEO John Stonier explains that bike lanes are 1.5m wide while Veemo are only 1.15m wide, leaving room for overtaking if necessary (Melanson, 2016). However, width is not the only factor; speed, size, and general appearance will all likely concern cyclists and pedestrians.

Veemo is not the only vehicle encroaching on bike lanes, as skateboards, rollerblades, scooters, electric scooters, electric bicycles, motorcycles, motorized wheelchairs, and many other devices have been spotted using these dedicated lanes. There is much confusion on the part of residents and officials as to what exactly is—and should—be allowed in bike lanes. In December 2015, Vancouver City Council requested a memo from staff regarding emerging mobility technologies, with Councilor Heather Deal stating: “[w]e want to encourage everybody to use every type of active transportation” (City of Vancouver, 2015c).

This report begins by identifying the current bike lane regulations in Vancouver. Next, there is an examination of the many diverse vehicles that are vying for space in bike lanes, with a particular focus on electric bicycles due to the intricacies involved in their classification. This will be followed by an analysis of the various issues influencing this case, including the environment, public health, equity, and the economy. Finally, this report concludes with select recommendations for the City of Vancouver that are based largely on the City of Toronto’s approach, as they have recently made changes to their by-laws regarding bike lane usage.

Figure 1: Veemo, an encapsulated recumbent electric bicycle Figure 2: Cycling in downtown Vancouver

2.0 | REGULATORY FRAMEWORK

2.0 Regulatory Framework

The guiding regulatory framework for vehicle classification and bike lane regulation includes Transport Canada’s Motor Vehicle Safety Act (MVSA), the British Columbia Ministry of Transportation and Infrastructure’s Motor Vehicle Act (MVA), Insurance Corporation of British Columbia (ICBC) guidelines, and the City of Vancouver’s Street and Traffic By-Law (STB). Essentially, anything with a motor (either gas or electric) is regulated by the MVA, meaning that any regulatory changes need to happen at the provincial level (City of Vancouver, 2015b). However, if the vehicle is human powered or pedal assist—e.g. a bicycle that has electric assist power—it can be regulated through municipal bylaw without having to go to the provincial level (City of Vancouver, 2015b).

Vancouver’s STB (2016) sets out key definitions that inform this study:

• “Street” includes public road, highway, bridge, viaduct, lane and sidewalk, and any other way normally open to the use of the public, but does not include a private right-of-way on private property.

• “Roadway” means that portion of a street improved, designed or intended for vehicular use.

• “Vehicle” includes any device by which any person or property may be transported on a roadway, irrespective of the motive power, but does not include railway cars running upon rails.

• “MotorVehicle” means a vehicle which is self-propelled or propelled by electric power obtained from overhead wires, but does not include a motorized wheelchair or a vehicle operated upon rails or tracks.

• “Pedestrian” means a person on foot or in a wheelchair, whether motorized or not.

• “BicycleLaneBuffer” means a measure to physically separate and protect a bicycle lane from motor vehicle traffic, including curbs, planters, landscaping, parking, bollards or similar measures.

• “Protected Bicycle Lane” means that a part of a roadway or path which is separated from motor vehicle traffic by a bicycle lane buffer and is designated by the City Engineer for use by persons on bicycles, non-motorized skates, skateboards, or push scooters.

While protected bike lanes are defined, the standard on-street, unprotected bike lanes are not. It is therefore unclear which regulations apply. By default, unprotected bike lanes are likely treated as part of the roadway and are thus subject to the same regulations as the roadway.

Additionally, the term “bicycle” is not defined in the STB. However, the provincial MVA (1996) offers the following definitions:

• “Cycle” means a device having any number of wheels that is propelled by human power and on which a person may ride and includes a motor assisted cycle, but does not include a skateboard, roller skates or in-line roller skates.”

• “Motorassistedcycle” means a device:• (a) to which pedals or hand cranks are attached that

will allow for the cycle to be propelled by human power,

• (b) on which a person may ride,• (c) to which is attached a motor of a prescribed type

that has an output not exceeding the prescribed output, and

• (d) that meets the other criteria prescribed under section 182.1 (3)

These definitions paint a relatively clear picture of which vehicles are allowed in protected bicycle lanes: bicycles (including motor assisted cycles) as well as non-motorized skates, skateboards, and push scooters are allowed, while pedestrians (including motorized and non-motorized wheelchairs) and motor vehicles are prohibited. Any vehicle that is permitted on the roadway would appear to be permitted in unprotected, on-street bike lanes, although this is somewhat unclear. It is worth diving deeper into each vehicle’s classification and their surrounding regulations, as there remains confusion and controversy surrounding some of these modes of transportation.

Figure 3: Protected bike lane with planter used as a buffer

VEHICLE PROFILES | 3.0

3.0 Vehicle Profiles

3.1 Skateboards, In-Line Skates, and Push Scooters

In December 2015, Vancouver City Council passed a motion to allow non-motorized skateboards, in-line skates, and push scooters to use protected bike lanes in Vancouver on a monitored trial basis for at least one year (Figure 3) (City of Vancouver, 2015c). While many of these vehicles were already widely used in bike lanes, this was technically illegal. City staff therefore put forward this motion in order to recognize “their legitimate use as a healthy and environmentally-friendly form of transportation” (City of Vancouver, 2015b). This motion was endorsed by the Active Transportation Policy Council and supported by the Transportation 2040 plan, which seeks to “better protect vulnerable road users” and “encourage more active transportation while considering safety for all road users” (City of Vancouver, 2010).

As noted earlier, there is a distinction between protected bike lanes and unprotected, painted bike lanes (Figure 5). This motion allows skateboards, in-line skates, and push scooters to use protected bike lanes but not painted lanes, as the lack of separation between modes on painted bike lanes present additional safety concerns (City of Vancouver, 2015b).

The City considered allowing these vehicles in bike lanes back in 2001 when they were officially permitted to use minor streets (City of Vancouver, 2015b). However, staff

recommended against bike lane usage at that time because of concerns that their slower speeds and different movement patterns (the side-to-side slalom motion of skates and skateboards when controlling speed) would make it difficult for cyclists to safely pass them (City of Vancouver, 2015b).

Staff now feel that the nature of skateboarding in particular has changed, with new models such as longboards being used more often and skateboarding becoming a more common way to travel around the city (City of Vancouver, 2015b). The Vancouver Police Department (VPD) is still concerned that the “handling, maneuverability, varied speeds and perhaps most significantly, the braking characteristics of skateboards” is too different from bicycles and may cause conflicts and congestion, so they will be monitoring bike lanes during the trial period in order to assess these safety concerns (City of Vancouver, 2015b).

Allowing skateboards, in-line skates, and push scooters to use protected bike lanes seems like a positive step for the City, as long as conflict between the modes is minimal. This regulation protects these vehicles from motor traffic on the roadway, but it also protects pedestrians, who often have to navigate busy sidewalks while competing with these vehicles. However, while this is a good news for one group, council was concerned that groups may feel left out by this decision (City of Vancouver, 2015c). This sentiment is worth considering as other vehicles are discussed below.

Figure 4: Skateboarding in Vancouver’s bike lanes Figure 5: Unprotected bike lane in Vancouver

3.0 | VEHICLE PROFILES

3.2 Motorized Wheelchairs

As explained above, all wheelchairs, whether motorized or not, are legally defined as pedestrians. ICBC states that they are permitted on sidewalks, walkways, crosswalks, and paths following the same rules as pedestrians (ICBC, 2016). Therefore, no wheelchair is allowed in a Vancouver bike lane, likely because it would be unsafe to mix them into faster-moving bicycle traffic (Figure 6).

However, it is worth noting that the Seawall is treated differently than a bike lane. STB section 89a: Prohibition on Use of Vehicles states that no person shall drive, operate or propel “on any path adjacent to a seawall or on any seawall, any motor vehicle, assisted or not, except for a motorized wheelchair, and for the purpose of this by-law, a ‘seawall’ is a way normally open to the use of the public that is adjacent or close to a body of water” (City of Vancouver, 2016). Note that this regulation refers to any path adjacent to water, not just the official “Seawall” path that lines much of Vancouver’s perimeter.

3.3 Limited Speed Motorcycles

This category includes mopeds and motorized scooters with gas engines no greater than 50cc or electric motors no greater than 1,500 watts (ICBC, 2016). They can go up to 70km/h on level ground and must be registered, licensed, and insured as a motor vehicle (ICBC, 2016). Additionally, a driver’s license is required for operation (ICBC, 2016). Since these vehicles are legally defined as motor vehicles, they are not allowed in bike lakes, although they have been spotted using these lanes illegally (Figure 7).

These vehicles are worth mentioning in this report because many limited speed motorcycles—especially the electric scooters—bear a very close resemblance to scooter-style electric bicycles, which will be discussed later. While visually similar, these vehicles have one important difference: maximum speed. It is important to clearly differentiate between these vehicles; Saturna Green Systems is launching an electric scooter sharing service this summer in Vancouver, so these vehicles will soon be more widespread (Sundstrom, 2016).

3.4 Other Self-Propelled Motorized Devices

A wide variety of interesting and innovative vehicles fit into this category: motorized skateboards, motorized push scooters, mini motorcycles, Segways, hover boards (Figure 8),

and even self-balancing electric unicycles (Figure 9). There are likely similar vehicles in existence and more will be emerging in the future as technology advances. Unfortunately for the users of these devices, they are largely prohibited from the roadways, sidewalks, and bike lanes of Vancouver.

Mini motorcycles, also known “pocket bikes” or “mini choppers,” do not meet Transportation Canada’s safety standards for use on public roads and can only be used during parades or closed-course races (ICBC, 2016). As for motorized scooters and skateboards, ICBC (2016) explains that they “cannot be operated on roads, or on sidewalks beside them” in BC; while they are defined by the MVA as motor vehicles, they do not meet provincial equipment safety standards for on-road use. The only place they can be legally operated is where the MVA does not apply, such as on private property or on trails and pathways if allowed by municipal bylaw (which is not the case in Vancouver) (ICBC, 2016).

There is no category in ICBC’s “low-powered vehicles” section for emerging technologies such as hover boards and

Figures 6 & 7: No motorized wheelchairs or motorcycles are permitted in Vancouver bike lanes, but some use them illegally.


Segways, but they also meet the MVA definition of a motor vehicle and likely do not meet the safety standards for on-road use.

Since bike lanes are part of the municipal street network, these motorized vehicles would be prohibited from using them. Additionally, as described above, Vancouver’s STB section 89a prohibits the use of any motor vehicle other than a motorized wheelchair from using any path adjacent to or on any seawall (City of Vancouver, 2016). It is somewhat unclear if these devices are allowed on any other multi-use trail that is not adjacent to a seawall.

3.5 Non-Motorized Cycles

The standard bicycle is, of course, allowed in Vancouver’s bicycle lanes. The interesting aspect to note is that these days, the bicycle is far from a standard, uniform device. As Figure 10 shows, there are many different shapes and sizes of non-motorized bicycle, each serving a unique and important function (San Francisco Planning Department, 2013). The City of Vancouver is attempting to increase cycling mode share and these diverse bicycles are required in order to serve the needs of motorists who are considering changing modes, such as parent with young children.

Figures 8 & 9: Hover board and self-balancing electric unicycle Figure 10: Various non-motorized bicycle models

The implication for bike lane design and safety is that many bicycle are now much longer, wider, and heavier that they used to be. These factors influence speed, maneuverability, turning radius, and the force exerted in a collision. All non-motorized bicycles are permitted in protected bike lanes, so these factors should be considered as cycling facilities are designed in the future.


3.6 Motor Assisted Cycles

Motor Assisted Cycles, or electric bicycles (e-bikes), present an intriguing case. As such, they will be more closely examined than the previous vehicles. This section will introduce and define e-bikes, describing the different classes and models. Next, the public perception of e-bikes will be explored. Finally, key safety concerns will be discussed.

3.6.1 What is an E-bike?

The MVA’s official definition for “motor assisted cycles” was listed at beginning of this report. The most important points were that it must have pedals or hand cranks and that it must meet the criteria prescribed under section 182.1 (3) of the MVA, which essentially delegates regulatory power to ICBC, allowing it to set the definitional criteria for motor assisted cycles and their operating requirements (Government of British Columbia, 1996). The MVA also contains a separate bulletin called the Motor Assisted Cycle Regulation that includes key requirements for motor assisted cycle classification (Government of British Columbia, 2002):

• Must have no more than one motor• The motor must be electric with a continuous power

output of not more than 500 watts that is incapable of propelling the motor assisted cycle at a speed greater than 32km/h on level ground

• Maximum of three wheels in contact with the ground• Must be equipped with a mechanism, separate from the

accelerator controller, that• (a) allows the driver to turn the motor on and off

from a normal seated position while operating the motor assisted cycle, or

• (b) prevents the motor from turning on or engaging before the motor assisted cycle attains a speed of 3 km/hr.

• The motor of a motor assisted cycle must turn off or disengage if• (a) the operator stops pedaling,• (b) an accelerator controller is released, or • (c) a brake is applied.

ICBC (2016) explains that e-bikes “[m]ay be operated on the road like any bicycle, except where municipal bylaws restrict operation.” Additionally, they clarify that the pedals attached to an e-bike must be usable, stating that the “motor must be capable of being propelled by muscular power using the pedals, but it is not necessary to always be pedaling” (ICBC, 2016).

MacArthur and Kobel (2014) describe two classes of e-bike: the bicycle-style electric bike (BSEB) and the scooter-style electric bike (SSEB). BSEBs can be divided into powered bicycles and power-assisted bicycles (or pedelecs) as described in Figure 11 (MacArthur & Kobel, 2014). A third class is the “encapsulated recumbent electric bicycle” (EREB) which includes Veemo as well as Organic Transit’s ELF cycle (Figure 12)—devices that “challenge our conception of what an electric bicycle could be” (MacArthur & Kobel, 2014).

SSEB are particularly controversial due to their lack of bicycle-like attributes and their physical form, which can “range between a bulky bicycle and an Italian Vespa” (Figures 13 and 14) (MacArthur & Kobel, 2014). While they are required to have pedals in order to be classified as a bicycle (and thus avoid the costs of vehicle licensing and insurance), all SSEBs have foot platforms for the rider, meaning that the pedals are “like the fins that remained on early tetrapods after they crawled out of the sea and became land animals: useless appendages” (Kuitenbrouwer, 2011; MacArthur & Kobel, 2014).

The three classes of e-bike are all bound by the same regulations, meaning that they all have a maximum speed of 32km/h and must comply with all other ICBC regulations.

Figure 12: The ELF, another encapsulated recumbent electric bicycle

Figure 11: Bicycle-style electric bike models

“

”


However, it is clear that there are significant functional differences between these vehicles, which makes it challenging and arguably inappropriate to regulate each of them the same way. Many municipalities are struggling with this; a recent City of Toronto council report complained of regulatory challenges and stated the following:

Pedelecs are functionally bicycles with an auxiliary electric motor to assist the rider when pedaling. E-scooters have nothing in common with bicycles. They are equipped with pedals that have little or no utility; they cannot effectively propel the bike. … an e-scooter is considered a bicycle because it has pedals even though the pedals are ineffective and therefore are rarely used by the rider. However, if the pedals are removed the e-scooter is no longer considered a bicycle. (City of Toronto, 2013)

MacArthur and Kobel (2014) explain that while there are “philosophical arguments about ‘cheating’ by operating SSEBs and [powered bikes] in bicycle lanes without pedaling,” there is actually “no legislation in place that imposes requirements on how effective the pedals must be.”

3.6.2 Public Perception of E-Bikes

Legal definitions aside, it is interesting to examine the public perception of e-bikes. A recent survey by the League of American Bicyclists, a national cycling advocacy group in the US, asked respondents to rank various e-bikes based on their perception of the vehicle, with number one being ‘the most recognizable as a bike’ (McLeod, 2015). Figure 15 shows the results of this survey and reveals a few interesting patterns:

• Lower speed e-bikes (<32km/h) are more often considered to be bicycles

• Powered bikes (those with throttles) are less accepted than pedelecs

• Design or form was important, as SSEBs and EREBs are rarely perceived as bicycles

The survey also asked respondents where they thought e-bikes should be ridden (Figure 16). While nearly 80 per cent of respondents were comfortable allowing e-bikes in protected bike lanes, the percentage of positive responses dropped as the options moved towards off-street pathways, signaling a concern where the path is shared with pedestrians.

Another interesting question is whether or not e-bikes—specifically SSEBs—fit into “bicycle culture.” After banning e-bikes from Toronto Islands, James Dann, the manager of Waterfront Parks in Toronto, stated that “[p]eople riding electric scooters tend to not have the same culture of respect as people on pedal bikes” (Kuitenbrouwer, 2011). The League of American Bicyclists survey revealed similar sentiments, as “respondents identified a lack of shared values as the biggest cultural reason for negative perceptions of electric bicycles” (McLeod, 2015). McLeod (2015) surmises that these sentiments “may point to values that are not culturally based, but are instead values related to safety, the environment, health, or community” and that it could be “a natural reaction to a new type of road user and not reflective of any particular concern about electric bicycle users.” Examining these perceptions is important because they shape public acceptance of e-bikes; managing these perceptions could go a long way towards minimizing political problems as well as actual user conflict in bike lanes.

Figures 13 and 14: Scooter-style e-bikes (note the small pedals)

Figure 16: Nearly 80% said yes to protected bike lanes (McLeod, 2015)


6 ELECTRIC BICYCLES: PUBLIC PERCEPTIONS & POLICY // LEAGUE OF AMERICAN BICYCLISTS WWW.BIKELEAGUE.ORG

21

3 4

5 6

7 8 50 MPH E-BIKE

CLASSIC E-BIKE WITH PEDAL ASSIST

CLASSIC E-BIKE WITH TWIST THROTTLE SPECIALIZED TURBO

ORGANIC TRANSIT ELF 40-MPH E-BIKE

SCOOTER E-BIKE

Wheels: 2 | Pedals: Fully operable; motor only runs when pedaledSpeed at which motor power stops: 20 mph | Weight: 48 lbs

Wheels: 2 | Pedals: Fully operable; motor can be engaged with twist throttle Speed at which motor power stops: 15.5 mph | Weight: 40 lbs

Wheels: 2 | Pedals: Fully operable; motor can be engaged with twist throttle Speed at which motor power stops: 20 mph | Weight: 52 lbs

Wheels: 2 | Pedals: Fully operable; motor only runs when pedaled Speed at which motor power stops: 28 mph | Weight: 50 lbs

Wheels: 3 | Pedals: Fully operable; motor can be engaged with thumb throttle Speed at which motor power stops: 20 mph | Weight: 150 lbs




A BIKE OR NOT A BIKE? That is the question...

THIS IS A BIKE (or mostly a bike)THIS IS (mostly or entirely) NOT A BIKENOT SURE

FOLDING E-BIKE WITH TWIST THROTTLE

Figure 15: Survey respondents’ perceptions of e-bikes (McLeod, 2015)


3.6.3 Safety

The most important question is whether or not e-bikes of any classification can be operated safely in bike lanes. One of the largest concerns is that the e-bikes travel much faster, presenting danger to other cyclists. Here, it is important to first examine the speed characteristics of non-motorized bicycles. Speed depends on a number of factors, including topography, bike model, bike facility, and rider ability. Studies have shown that the average speed of a conventional bike ranges from 19km/h to 24km/h, with top speeds reaching around 40km/h (MacArthur & Kobel, 2014). The City of Toronto conducted a cyclist speed profile that found similar results (Table 1) (City of Toronto, 2013).

Table 1: Non-Motorized Cyclist Speed Profile (City of Toronto, 2013)

CyclistSpeed(Km/h) PercentageofCyclists32+ 1%

26 - 31 14%18 - 25 74%10 - 17 12%

Since e-bike motors can only reach an unassisted maximum speed of 32km/h, the top speed for e-bikes and conventional bikes are quite similar. However, the average e-bike speed is greater than that of conventional bikes because regardless of topography or rider fitness, they can sustain a faster speed over longer distances (City of Toronto, 2013). A Swedish study showed that e-bikes travel an average of 9km/h faster than conventional bikes (Figure 17) (MacArthur, 2014). While the higher than average speeds of e-bikes could cause some conflict, this factor alone does not make e-bikes seem any more dangerous than a conventional cyclist on a road bike blasting down a bike lane at 40km/h.

Another concern is the weight or bulk of certain e-bikes. SSEBs can weight up to 120 kg, compared to conventional bicycles which range from about 10 to 20 kg (City of Toronto, 2013). With that being said, a non-motorized cargo bike filled with gear also weighs significantly more than a conventional bike, so weight alone is not the problem. The concern is the combination of sustained high speeds and a heavy vehicle. City of Toronto (2013) staff explain that “[a]lthough there is no collision data currently available for accidents involving e-scooters in Toronto, the likelihood of being injured when struck by a 120 kg vehicle travelling at 32 km/h is probably far greater than if struck by a lighter bicycle travelling at a slower speed.”

Width is also a factor to consider, especially with the large EREBs. The widest non-motorized bikes (cargo

bikes, child trailers, and recumbent bikes) are about 0.91m wide, while Veemo, at 1.15m wide, are 20 per cent wider (San Francisco Planning Department, 2013). This presents a potential safety concern when vehicles are attempting to pass one another. As more and more cyclists chose these wider bikes, future bike lanes may need to be designed differently in order to provide additional space. One final safety concern surrounding pedelecs in particular is that other road users can be caught off guard by their speed. Pedelecs can be nearly impossible to distinguish from conventional bikes, especially at a distance, and yet they can accelerate much quicker and sustain faster speeds (Dozza, Piccinini, & Werneke, 2015). Drivers, pedestrians, and other cyclists therefore have less time to notice them coming and tend to underestimate their speed (Dozza, Piccinini, & Werneke, 2015). Dozza, Piccinini, and Werneke (2015) suggest somehow making e-bikes more conspicuous (e.g. by mandating the use of lights at all times or a standard paint job) so that they could easily be distinguished from conventional bicycles.

Figure 17: Speed of traditional bikes vs. e-bikes (Dozza et al., 2013)

4.0 | ISSUE ANALYSIS

4.0 Issue Analysis

4.1 Environment

Vancouver is aiming to become the greenest city in the world by 2020, and a large part of achieving that goal is shifting mode share away from driving. Vancouver has already reached its 2020 target of having 50 per cent of all trips taken on foot, bike, or transit, and the City is aiming to increase this mode share to 66 per cent by 2040 (Figure 18) (City of Vancouver, 2015b). Any vehicle that gets citizens out of their cars will help achieve this goal, so from an environmental standpoint, it is in the City’s best interest to continue to allow skateboards, in-line skates, push scooters, and e-bikes to use bike lanes. These modes are likely to continue increasing in popularity if they are legitimized as a form of transportation and given a safe, dedicated space on the roadway.

4.2 Public Health

In addition to encouraging sustainable transportation, the City of Vancouver is focused on increasing active transportation. Under this lens, the focus should be on getting as many users of human-powered vehicles into bike lanes as possible. This is where the classification of e-bikes becomes problematic. Pedelecs and EREBs are active options because they require pedaling—the motor is electric-assist only, rather than using a throttle capable of self-propulsion. While riding an e-bike does not provide the same workout as conventional bikes, research at Portland State University suggests that “riding an electric bicycle provides health benefits similar to walking” (McLeod, 2015). This means that they would certainly be considered a form of active transportation.

While SSEBs may be more sustainable than gas-powered automobiles or scooters, they should not be considered a form of active transportation (Hub Cycling, personal communication, March 14, 2016). However, on a larger scale it could be argued that any form of green transportation will reduce driving and lower carbon emissions, thus improving air quality and human health. Following that line of logic, even though SSEBs are not “active transportation,” their use could still lead to improved health outcomes.

The other aspect of human health is collision safety. Safety factors for e-bikes were discussed above, as were the diverse speed and movement patterns of skateboards and in-line skates. The challenge with allowing such a diverse set of vehicles to share one relatively narrow bike lane is that it becomes very difficult to design a safe and efficient bike

facility. Leonard Machler, a Research Associate in the Health and Community Design Lab at the School of Population and Public Health, UBC, has surmised that when there is a large degree of standardization—such as in the Ford Model T era or in modern-day Netherlands where most cyclists ride the same type of bicycle—it becomes much easier to design safe and efficient facilities that meet the needs of those vehicles (L. Machler, personal communication, March 10, 2016).

A humorous analogy for this concept is to imagine what road and safety conditions would be like if Formula-1 racecars and the massive earthmover trucks used in mining operations were allowed on regular downtown city streets (L. Machler, personal communication, March 10, 2016). Clearly, this would present an immense street design challenge. This is not to say that only one type of vehicle should be allowed in bike lanes, as this diversity allows many different people to shift towards active and sustainable transportation. It is simply important to consider the safety and design implications of allowing a plethora of vehicles of varying sizes, weights, speeds, and movement patterns to share one space.

4.3 Equity

From an equity standpoint, there are two key principles to follow: (a) all users should be able to travel safely, and (b) the most vulnerable users should be protected. Bike lanes were created so that cyclists, who are vulnerable road users when mixed in with motor vehicle traffic, could have a safe and comfortable travel experience (Figure 19). The City of Vancouver is striving to make cycling safe for people of all ages and abilities, and protected bike lanes are one of the most important tools for achieving this goal (City of Vancouver, 2010). The City’s investment in cycling infrastructure has been a huge success, with the number of daily bike trips doubling from 50,000 to 100,000 per day between 2008 and 2014 (City of Vancouver, 2015b). This

Figure 18: Vancouver’s 2020 and 2040 mode share targets

“

”

ISSUE ANALYSIS | 4.0

increase perfectly matches the advent of protected bike lanes in Vancouver (Figure 20).

Now that this infrastructure is in place, it makes sense to allow other vulnerable road users to use it as well. Tanya Paz, chair of the City of Vancouver’s Active Transportation Policy Council, wants everyone to enjoy the feeling of safety that bike lanes provide:

Biking on most streets in Vancouver, I vie for my space, I work to take up my fair share like a woman on transit or a woman at a large boardroom table. But once I reach a protected bike lane, or the sea wall, every single time my shoulders relax. I take deeper breaths, I feel calmer, and I’ve actually been able to change the way I ride my bike. …I want skateboarders to feel this too, and in-line skaters, rollerbladers, push scooters, hovertrack riders, maybe one day, e-cycles! (City of Vancouver, 2015c)

The problem is when e-bikes are introduced into the mix. E-bike riders are certainly vulnerable when mixed with motor vehicle traffic. Therefore, allowing them into bike lanes would be equitable as it provides safety to a vulnerable user. However, allowing e-bikes—especially the larger SSEB and EREB models—in bike lanes could endanger the even more vulnerable users, such as children on bicycles and skateboards.

Both the actual and perceived danger of e-bikes needs to be considered. One of the fundamental motivations behind building protected bike lanes is to encourage those citizens

who are “interested but concerned”—people who enjoy cycling but are worried about the safety risks of cycling near motor vehicles—to start riding and to feel safe doing so (Geller, n.d.). It is not hard to imagine a relatively inexperienced rider, let alone someone with years of experience, feeling nervous when a large, bulky Veemo or electric scooter whizzes by in a narrow bike lane. This could slow or even stop the gains in cycling mode share in Vancouver, as new riders would be unwilling to share the bike lanes with e-bikes.

4.4 Economic

Despite what many business owners stubbornly believe, bike lanes that are located along shopping streets bring in many customers (Jaffe, 2015). Allowing an increasingly diverse group of people to travel in bike lanes could therefore mean economic benefit for businesses in close proximity to bike lanes. Increased bike lane use could also help to support local businesses that are selling products like e-bikes and longboards, as demand for these products should increase as it becomes more acceptable to use them throughout the city. Additionally, keeping people safe by allowing them in bike lanes rather than on the roadway could potentially reduce healthcare and policing costs.

On the other hand, if the diversity of users in bike lanes creates conflict, policing costs could rise. The VPD is concerned about this, which is why they are monitoring the the usage of bike lanes by skateboards, in-line skates, and scooters for the next year (City of Vancouver, 2015b). Time will tell as to whether or not the VPD’s concerns are valid.

Figure 19: Spectrum of bicycle lane comfort Figure 20: Bike lane development in Vancouver

5.0 | RECOMMENDATIONS

5.0 Recommendations

It is clear that the City of Vancouver wants to do everything it can to encourage active and sustainable transportation. Many different vehicles can help achieve this, but as it has been demonstrated, these vehicles are functionally diverse and it may not be safe or efficient to place them all in the same lane. Creating policy surrounding bike lanes is therefore a challenge, but considering the environmental, public health, equity, and economic factors, it is clear that a few changes are necessary.

For the most part, the City of Vancouver’s current regulations surrounding bike lane use are effective. Allowing skateboards, in-line skates, and scooters to use bike lanes is a positive step forward, and implementing this motion as a VPD-monitored trial is prudent and, if successful, will help to quell any safety concerns, further legitimizing these modes of transportation. The regulations prohibiting motorized wheelchairs, limited speed motorcycles, and other self-propelled motorized devices also seem appropriate, as these devices would not mix well with the current traffic in bike lanes. New emerging technologies need to be examined on a case-by-case basis and there should be enough flexibility in the legislation to allow new devices to be smoothly integrated into the transportation network wherever it is deemed most appropriate. When devices are left in limbo without regulation, it becomes very confusing for users and law enforcement.

When it comes to e-bikes, both HUB Cycling and the City of Toronto have valuable perspectives. HUB Cycling supports e-bikes in principle, as they encourage ridership and “are especially helpful to parents, those who carry loads on their bikes, those who travel long distances, and those with physical disabilities” (Hub Cycling, personal communication, March 14, 2016). However, HUB wants to see a legal differentiation between pedelecs and SSEB, which would then allow these vehicles to be separately regulated (Hub Cycling, personal communication, March 14, 2016). HUB also “sees the need to establish ways for increasingly diverse types of vehicles on bike routes to communicate well, so as to minimize crashes and conflict” (Hub Cycling, personal communication, March 14, 2016).

The City of Toronto (2013) has indicated that both BSEBs and SSEBs “have potential to support the City’s sustainable transportation goals by providing a practical, affordable alternative to automobiles.” They explain that SSEBs in particular “are an attractive transportation option for non-cyclists, for former cyclists whose cycling ability has been restricted by health issues and for an aging population” (City

of Toronto, 2013). Toronto predicts that e-bike usage is set to increase, which is likely true; in the Netherlands, “one in five new bicycles sold is electric, with 80% of them bought by people over the age of 50” (Bruntlett & Bruntlett, 2015). As a result, the City of Toronto (2013) smartly suggests that “the policy for accommodating power-assisted bicycles should be as permissive as possible, with restrictions imposed only where adverse impacts with other users (especially cyclists and pedestrians) are likely.”

Importantly, though, the “anticipated risks associated with pedelecs and e-scooters are different and, consequently, the recommended level of integration with cyclists and pedestrians should be different as well” (City of Toronto, 2013). Toronto now treats pedelecs the exact same way as conventional bicycles, meaning that they can use all bike lanes and multi-use paths (City of Toronto, 2013). Conversely, SSEBs are currently allowed in painted (unprotected) bike lanes, which provides a degree of refuge from motor vehicle traffic, but not in protected bike lanes or on multi-use trails (City of Toronto, 2013). The rationale behind this decision is that in a protected bike lane, it is more difficult for a SSEB to safely pass slower-moving cyclists, whereas in an unprotected bike lane they can easily pull out into the traffic lane to pass (City of Toronto, 2013). The municipalities of Ottawa and Mississauga follow these regulations as well.

It is recommended that Vancouver take these same steps in regulating bike lanes and e-bikes. Granting pedelecs the same rights as bicycles would mean allowing them to use seawall pathways. This decision may be controversial, but concerns could potentially be addressed by posting a relatively low speed limit on these paths. EREBs such as Veemo should be treated the same as SSEBs under these regulations. While they are arguably more “bicycle-like” due to their pedal-assist functionality, their large mass and unfamiliar appearance present the same safety concerns as SSEBs. Ultimately, clarifying e-bike regulations in would go a long way towards achieving safer, greener, and more active roadways in Vancouver.

Figure 21: Many different vehicles are welcome in bike lanes

REFERENCES

References

Bruntlett, C. & Bruntlett, M. (2015, December 11). Elec-tric bikes leading a quiet revolution on Vancouver streets. Vancity Buzz. Retrieved from http://www.vancitybuzz.com/2015/07/electric-bikes-vancouver/

City of Toronto (2013). Electric Bikes – Proposed Policies and By-laws. Staff Report to Council. Retrieved from http://www.toronto.ca/legdocs/mmis/2014/pw/bgrd/backgroundfile-65205.pdf

City of Vancouver (2010). “Transportation 2040: Plan as Adopted by Council.” Vancouver, British Columbia. http://vancouver.ca/les/cov/Transportation_2040_Plan_as_adopted_by_Council.pdf.

City of Vancouver (2015a). Active Transportation Up-

date. City Council Presentation. Retrieved from http://council.vancouver.ca/20151210/documents/ptec7-Presentation.pdf

City of Vancouver (2015b). Active Transportation Update and Pilot for Skateboarding in Protected Bike Lanes. Administrative Report to Council. Retrieved from http://council.vancouver.ca/20151210/documents/ptec7.pdf

City of Vancouver (2015c, December 10). Items 7 & 8 Active Transportation, Skateboarding, SW Marine. Standing Committee on Planning, Transportation and Envi-ronment. Council Meeting. Retrieved from http://civic.neulion.com/cityofvancouver/index.php?clip-id=3494686,001

City of Vancouver (2016). Street and Traffic By-Law. Con-solidated By-law No. 2849. Retrieved from http://former.vancouver.ca/bylaws/2849c.PDF

Dozza, M., Piccinini, G., & Werneke, J. (2015). Using natural-istic data to assess e-cyclist behavior. Transportation Research Part F: Traffic Psychology and Behaviour. Retrieved from doi:10.1016/j.trf.2015.04.003

Geller, R. (n.d.). Four Types of Cyclists. Retrieved from https://www.portlandoregon.gov/transporta-tion/44597?a=237507

Government of British Columbia (1996). Motor Vehicle Act [RSBC 1996] Chapter 318. Retrieved from http://www.bclaws.ca/Recon/document/ID/free-side/96318_05

Government of British Columbia (2002). B.C. Reg. 151/2002, Motor Assisted Cycle Regulation. Motor Vehicle Act. Retrieved from http://www.bclaws.ca/EPLibraries/bclaws_new/document/ID/freeside/151_2002

ICBC (2016). Low-powered vehicles. Retrieved from http://www.icbc.com/vehicle-registration/specialty-vehi-cles/Low-powered-vehicles/Pages/default.aspx

Jaffe, E. (2015, March 12). The Complete Business Case for Converting Street Parking Into Bike Lanes. Cityl-ab. Retrieved from http://www.citylab.com/cityfix-er/2015/03/the-complete-business-case-for-con-verting-street-parking-into-bike-lanes/387595/

Kuitenbrouwer, P. (2011, October 15). No pedals? Get out of my bike lane. National Post. Retrieved from http://news.nationalpost.com/posted-toronto/no-pedals-get-out-of-my-bike-lane

MacArthur, J. (2014, November 26). Are e-bikes faster than conventional bicycles? [Web log post]. Retrieved from http://trec.pdx.edu/blog/are-e-bikes-fast-er-conventional-bicycles

MacArthur, J. & Kobel, N. (2014). Regulations of E-Bikes in North America. Retrieved from http://ppms.trec.pdx.edu/media/project_files/NITC-RR-564_Regula-tions_of_E-Bikes_in_North_America_1.pdf

Mackie, J. (2015, July 30). Car share numbers rev up in Vancouver as drivers take the wheel. Vancouver Sun. Retrieved from http://www.vancouversun.com/share+numbers+Vancouver+drivers+take+-wheel/11252730/story.html?__lsa=ca32-3971

McLeod, K. (2015). Electric Bicycles: Public Perceptions & Policy. Retrieved from http://www.bikeleague.org/sites/default/files/E_bikes_mini_report.pdf

Melanson, T. (2016, March 2). Vancouver’s newest car share: no driver’s licence required. Vancouver Magazine. Retrieved from http://vanmag.com/city/vancouvers-newest-car-share-no-drivers-licence-required/

San Francisco Planning Department (2013). “Zoning Admin-istrator Bulletin No. 9: Bicycle Parking Requirements: Design and Layout.” San Francisco, California. http://www.sf-planning.org/ftp/ les/publica- tions_reports/bicycle_parking_reqs/ExhibitC_ZAB.pdf.

REFERENCES

Sundstrom, L. (2016, January 22). Electric scooter sharing service to launch in Vancouver this summer. Vanc-ity Buzz. Retrieved from http://www.vancitybuzz.com/2016/01/scooter-sharing-service-vancouver/

Transport Canada (2016). Motor Vehicle Safety Regula-tions, C.R.C., c. 1038, Motor Vehicle Safety Act. Re-trieved from http://lois-laws.justice.gc.ca/eng/regu-lations/C.R.C.,_c._1038/FullText.html#s-4.

VeloMetro (2016). VeloMetro. Retrieved from http://www.velometro.com/

Figures

Cover Image: Paul Krueger (https://www.flickr.com/pho-tos/pwkrueger/albums/72157625160007617)

Inside Cover Image: Modacity (http://www.modacitylife.com/still-photography/) Figure 1: VeloMetro (http://www.nationalobserver.com/2016/02/23/news/part-bike-part-car-velometro-take-cities-storm)

Figure 2: Paul Krueger (https://www.flickr.com/photos/pwkrueger/albums/72157625160007617)



Figure5: CBC (http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/british-co-lumbia/vancouver-s-bike-lanes-finally-accepted-by-down-town-business-group-1.3086795)

Figure 6: David Roos (https://averagejoecyclist.com/busi-ness-man-changes-mind-separate-bike-lanes/)


Figure 8: Christopher Furlong (http://d.fastcompany.net/multisite_files/fastcompany/imagecache/1280/pos-ter/2015/11/3054003-poster-p-1-dont-give-a-hoverboard-this-christmas.jpg)

Figure9:AntonOgzon (http://antonogzon.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/07/1408805179294_wps_2_22_AUG_2014_LONDON_UK_EXC.jpg)

Figure10:San Francisco Planning Department (http://www.sf-planning.org/ftp/files/publications_reports/bicycle_park-ing_reqs/ExhibitC_ZAB.pdf)

Figure11: John MacArthur (http://ppms.trec.pdx.edu/me-dia/project_files/NITC-RR-564_Regulations_of_E-Bikes_in_North_America_1.pdf)

Figure 12: Organic Transit (http://ichef.bbci.co.uk/wwfea-tures/624_351/images/live/p0/20/m1/p020m19s.jpg)

Figure13: Motorino (http://www.motorino.ca/)

Figure14:Motorino (http://www.motorino.ca/)

Figure 15: Ken McLeod (http://www.bikeleague.org/sites/default/files/E_bikes_mini_report.pdf)

Figure 16: Ken McLeod (http://www.bikeleague.org/sites/default/files/E_bikes_mini_report.pdf)

Figure 17: Dozza et al. 2013 (http://trec.pdx.edu/blog/are-e-bikes-faster-conventional-bicycles)

Figure 18: City of Vancouver (http://council.vancouver.ca/20151210/documents/ptec7.pdf)



Figure21: David Phu (http://www.vancitybuzz.com/2015/07/electric-bikes-vancouver/)

whose (bike) lane is it? a study of bicycle lane usage in vancouver

Documents