Like many cities in Canada and the United States, Mission asks residents for their opinion on the quality of services they receive from the municipality. Mission's office of  Civic Engagement and Corporate Initiatives makes available a  "citizen satisfaction  survey" for residents to complete prior to budget deliberations, in the summer. This link to the 2017 survey results provides an example of the range of questions, and responses, that are obtained. The bulk of the survey asks respondents to rate a list of 25 "service areas, including "cycle routes", with regard to their 1 )importance, 2) perceived quality and 3) opinion on whether the level of service should be increased, maintained or reduced. Mission's satisfaction survey therefore provides an opportunity to guage support of bicycle route infrastructure.

An important caveat, however, is that the survey is voluntary and therefore not necessarily representative of the population as whole. Statistically valid surveys are based on population sampling such that every resident or household has an equal probability of being included in the survey. Voluntary surveys are unscientific simply because they represent the opinion of those who decide to opt in, not the population as a whole. How different is the opinion expressed in a voluntary survey from a scientific survey? This is the question I gave to my quantitative methods class at UFV in the fall semester, 2019. I've taught a version of this course in the Geography Department since 1995 and am always on the lookout for term assignments that have local application. The assignment was prepared in collaboration with Mission's Director of Civic Engagement at the time, Michael Boronowski. In summer 2019, using municipal address data, a random sample of 2000 households was selected and mailed an invitation to complete the satisfaction survey. At the same time, residents were able to voluntarily complete the same survey through the municipality's website.

The District received approximately 250 completed surveys. The response rate was disappointing (12.5%) and we didn't have the resources to follow up with the sample to encourage more completions. However it is important to keep in mind that the absolute number of responses does not have to be large in order to be representative of the wider population. Opinion polls for Canada as a whole are typically based on fewer than 2,000 responses. Also, the 250 respondents in the Mission survey was similar to the number of volunteers who answered online.  If nothing else, this provides a bit of a balance in the two data files.

To help with analysis, the class created a scorecard for each of the three categories of assessment. These are shown in the figures, below. The scorecard shows the 'average' score for each service that was obtained from each of the two groups of respondents, 1) voluntary and 2) sampled. With this type of data, known as 'ordinal', the calculation of an average value is determine by the value of the median. To calculate the median, numbers are assigned to the possible answers (eg, "very important=1", "important=2", etc)and all of the responses are arranged in descending order. The median is the answer which is located in the middle of this list. A related measure is the 'mode'; this is the answer chosen by the largest number of respondents. A visualization of these measures is shown in Figure 2. This figure shows how the two groups rated the importance of cycle routes. Surveyed respondents tended to rate cycling routes as an "important" service and over 40% (the modal category) chose "very important". In contrast, the graph for voluntary respondents was loaded up on the other side of the ledger: "not important" and "not at all important". However, the average was on the fence: "neither important or unimportant", which was also the modal category.
​
This difference in opinion on the importance of cycling routes in Mission is notable partly because it was otherwise rare for the two groups to differ on the rating of anything. In fact, opinions were identical for 87% of the ratings, as reflected in the large number of check marks in the three scorecards. Besides cycling lanes, there were also differences in opinion on three environmental services. However,  here it was with the level of importance: "important" vs. "very important". A few differences are also visible in scorecards 2 and 3. With cycling lanes though, both groups tended to select "neutral" on quality and to "maintain" their service level. 

To summarize:

• voluntary surveys are, by their nature, not statistically representative of the wider population from which they are taken because they are not random samples.
• in a class assignment, I had my second-year Geography students compare the results of an opinion survey from a random sample of Mission residents with a volunteer sample.
• the results from the two groups were very similar: there was an 87% overlap.
• opinion on bicycle routes was one of the few topics that produced a difference in opinion: the sampled group rated them to be important whereas the volunteer group were undecided:  they rated them to be neither important nor unimportant.

​

​

The 2018 municipal election resulted in major changes to the composition of  Mission council. Pam Alexis, a former councilor,  replaced Randy Hawes as mayor. Only two councilors were returned: Carol Hamilton and Danny Plecas.  Four councilors were newly elected: Cal Crawford, Mark Davies, Ken Herar and Jag Gill.  The transition period between councils carried through the winter of 2019. The next municipal election occurs on 22 October 2022.

In spring 2019, M3C hosted Mission's GoByBike week festivities. The week, 26 May - 02 June, kicked off with a community ride on Sunday followed by a  pancake breakfast on Monday. The week ended with a bike rodeo at Heritage Park. However the most visible component for the week was a pop-up/temporary bike lane  on the full length of 7th Avenue. The lane was set up by the municipality's Engineering Department using  delineators spaced approximately every 15 feet (see photo above). The bi-directional lane was located on the north side of 7th and was about a metre wide. The location of the lane meant the temporary loss of parking on the north side for the period that the lane was operational: 7 am - 7 pm daily.
​

 M3C played a supportive role with set up and operation of the bike lane, including daily sweeps to replace delineators that had been moved and/or signs that had come down. Michelle Fernie, Transportation Engineering Technologist, led the operation on behalf of Mission's Engineering and Public Works. Fernie's review of the project was presented in October 2019 to Mission's Traffic and Transit Committee and is available in their minutes, pages 6 and 7.

What was the impact of the pop-up bike lane? Perhaps most importantly, it demonstrated that removing a small strip of roadway for bicyclists did not produce transportation chaos. Quite the opposite.  A traffic-calming effect was noticed by many, including Engineering. However, negative opinion was expressed especially by those who lost the ability to park in front of their residence.  For many of these, parking is accessed by a back-yard lane. This opposition found an outlet on social media sites, especially in a community-based Facebook page: 'Mission BC and  Neighbours'.  High school students also lost the ability to park in front of Mission Secondary School, which also generated a degree of hostility. Anecdotal evidence is that drivers found alternative parking on streets adjacent to 7th. In any case, opponents were typically incensed over the disruption caused by the bike lane, which, they argued, saw very little bike traffic. On this point, bike counts by Engineering provide some insight. The report by Michelle Fernie, linked above, shows peak cyclist counts for three days (May 28, 30 and 31) during GoByBike week, at three points along the route. The numbers, which cover a three hour period, range from a low of 13 to a high of 22 cyclists. One of the counts, at the intersection on Horne and 7th, can be compared with a "before" value. The comparable measure in September 2017 was 21 whereas it had doubled, with the bike lane, to 40.

Finally, two observations:.
1) We noted that some cyclists on 7th avoided riding in the bike lane. These were usually cyclists travelling east who chose to  ride on the south side of 7th, meaning they were cycling in the same direction as vehicular traffic. Travelling east in the bike lane required cyclists to face oncoming traffic. Although we didn't survey cyclists, our impression was that this could have discouraged use of the outside cycle lane.

2) With the exception of those who lived on the route and therefore received letters from the District advising them about the loss of parking, Mission residents had little or no advance notice that they were about to receive a temporary bike lane. In my view, this lack of advance publicity could  have promoted the feeling of a top-down technocratic approach to the event. I have included reference to an article, below, which argues that without real community engagement, the construction of bike lanes have often invoked a vociferous negative response, which the authors refer to as 'bikelash'. It's debatable whether more publicity would have blunted the bikelash that appeared in Mission social media. What's clear however is the need for the public to understand the rationale for bike lanes, even temporary ones. 

Wild, K., Woodward, A., Field, A., & Macmillan, A. (2018). Beyond ‘bikelash’: engaging with community opposition to cycle lanes. Mobilities, 13(4), 505–519. https://doi.org/10.1080/17450101.2017.1408950

May 23, 2018 marks exactly one year since the inaugural meeting of Mission's Cycling Route Task Force. As one who served on this task force, I'd like to provide a timeline of events and offer my commentary on what's been achieved. The quick, and somewhat flippant answer is: nothing, in that cycle lanes do not yet exist in Mission and there is nothing on the drawing board. The more hopeful answer is that the experience of the last year will at least be useful in the next phase of planning. I want to emphasize that the following are my personal views and do not necessarily represent those of the former task force as a whole. 

​The background to Mission's recent “cycling initiative”, as I’ll call it, is the District's Transportation Master Plan (TMP). The TMP was created in 2016 and provides long-range (25 year) goals and objectives pertaining to all aspects of travel, including cycling. A stated “key objective” of the TMP’s “Cycling Plan” is creation of “a safe and cohesive bicycle network” in order to “encourage cycling for recreation, leisure or commuting.” (p. 4-1) The authors of the TMP see an obvious connection between safety and encouragement, and these two themes run throughout the cycling section. If the objective is to grow cycling, and it clearly is in the District of Mission’s Transportation Master Plan, cyclists need to feel safe. In the words of the TMP: “care should be taken to protect physically vulnerable road users from motor vehicle traffic” (p. 4-9) through construction of a designated right of way. There are a variety of options, depending on existing speed limits in the adjoining vehicular travel lane. For 7th Ave., which both Mission's Bicycle Task Force and the TMP agree should be a priority, the recommended design is for a “buffered bike lane [or] cycle track”. A “buffer” is a 0.6-1.2 metre space (according to diagrams in the TRP) that separates the bike lane from a travel lane. A cycle track differs from a bike lane in that some form of protection is provided in addition to the buffer. In the simplest case, parked cars are located outside the buffered bike lane. Somewhat more complex is the placement of flexible bollards in the buffer. Even more elaborate track designs use a curb to separate the bike lane. The importance of a buffer, according to the TMP, is that it moves cyclists away from the “door zone” of parked cars, which is “the most common type of reported collision” between bicycles and automobiles, according to a City of Vancouver study (p. 4-15).
​
The Cycling Route Task Force (CRTF) was created on May 1, 2017.  The CRTF was proposed by Council as a strategy to resolve divisions that occurred over the plan for bicycle lanes on 7th Avenue. The cycle-lane plan entailed the loss of parking on the north side of 7th and some residents and merchants were incensed. Their opinions were aired at a raucous and rowdy public meeting in April 2017. Cycle lane plans were put on hold pending a report from the CRTF which was submitted on November 6, 2017. A copy of this report is available for download at the bottom of this post. An abridged copy of CRTF's PowerPoint presentation to council is also available below. In brief, the task force endorsed the Transportation Master Plan's vision for 7th Avenue to function as a bicycling arterial with provision of buffered cycle lanes.

​Following submission of the report, the work of the Cycling Route Task Force was formally completed. However the group remained informally involved and was periodically consulted by Engineering in the ensuing months whilst they worked to design the cycle lanes. The goal was to have a plan approved by Council in time to meet the Nov 9th deadline to apply for provincial funding.  Communities are eligible to receive a grant of up to 50% to cover the cost of approved bicycle infrastructure. Engineering's report to Council occurred on November 7, 2017 and is available for download, below. They presented four design options and listed advantages and disadvantages of each. The option favoured by Engineering ("Option 1") was for two separated bike lanes on either side of 7th, adjacent to  sidewalks and terminating at Grand St. Parking on the north side of 7th would be eliminated and the parking lane on the south side was placed between the cycle lane and travel lane. In addition, cycle lanes were separated from auto lanes by a 0.5-0.6 m buffer strip and installation of bollards. Although this was different from what the former CRTF favoured (presented in the Engineering document as "Option 2") we accepted the compromise and wrote a letter in support of Option 1, following the vote  to accept it by Council.The vote was 5 in favour and 2 opposed including Mayor Hawes and Councillor Hinds.  The purpose of the endorsement was to assist with the application for funding. While we were generally impressed with the proposed buffer and bollards, we were disappointed with the fact that the route would extend less than half way along the 7th Ave corridor. Engineering was proposing a phased plan, with the remainder of the route, extending west to Wren, to be built "3 or 4 years" in the future.

Exactly one month later, on March 5th, Mayor Hawes asked Council to reconsider the cycle route plan that it had approved one month prior. Mayors are granted the right to require reconsideration under Section 131 of the Community Charter. Given that the Mayor voted to oppose the original plan, this turn of events was perhaps not surprising. But what was surprising was the revised plan that Engineering staff, at the request of the Mayor, revealed to council. The new plan called for the retention of cycle tracks, but with bollards removed and the re-location of the south side track, from its original location between the curb and parked cars, to run outside the parking lane, adjacent to driver doors.  The Mayor argued, ironically, that this new plan was “safer” than the previous.  Although he was never asked, “safer for whom?”, he implied that he was concerned about motorists. It definitely wasn’t cyclists. The provision of a measly 0.5 metre buffer between the cycle lane and parking lane is smaller than anything suggested in the TRP, and given that the cycle lane was moved to the driver side of parked vehicles, the likelihood of dooring collisions was in fact increased for those cycling east on 7th.  The original plan, as noted above, also included 0.5 metre buffers also, but the addition of bollards meant much more substantial protection. All in all, the revised plan was a thoroughly awful replacement for what had originally received council approval, four weeks prior. What’s worse is that the Mayor’s new plan had at least the appearance of a rearguard action, given that it was sprung on the public, including by all indications, his fellow Councilors, at the last minute. In the end, Council voted to approve the new plan. In short, the action was a textbook example of how not to design cycling infrastructure.

The greater irony with the revised plan was that there were no winners. Cyclists, especially novices, would not feel safer and therefore not be encouraged to get out on their bikes. Without cyclists using the lanes, the naysayers, especially those that lost parking on 7th, would feel justified in saying that they told us so, and they would be right. And Mission taxpayers would feel short-changed, especially given that this plan would have likely been ineligible for BC Bike funding. The frustration and disappointment at this unexpected turn of events was obvious among  CRTF members in attendance at the March 5th Council meeting, myself included. We were afforded an opportunity to briefly speak about our concerns with the revision at the meeting and followed up in meetings with staff and Councillors in weeks following. 

The outcome of this lobbying was a motion presented at the May 7th Council  meeting, moved by Councillor Plecas. The motion rescinded the revised plan of March 5th which (and I know its getting confusing here) itself rescinded the original plan. The motion essentially calls for a return to the drawing board and pushes for the design of a comprehensive cycling network - a great improvement over the piece-meal approach taken in the original. Completion of a route along the entire length of 7th Ave is also identified as a priority. Unfortunately, there are no time lines included, and this is a potential fatal flaw. Effort must now be directed towards getting a design and costing for 7th Ave in time to be included in the fall 2018 budget.

So there you have it. A year ago, Mission embarked on a journey to design bike lanes. Since then, two different designs were accepted by Council and almost as quickly, two designs were rescinded. Ultimately, of course, we've got to get this right or it will be a huge waste of money, or worse, unsafe. 

Stay tuned.

​John Belec




​

 There's really no way of avoiding this essential fact: the addition of a cycle lane/track to an existing roadway inevitably means less space for automobiles. The key question is how much less space and, following from this, whether it can be taken from existing travel and/or parking lanes. The answer to this question depends on what we think is the minimum width of an auto travel lane.  This, I believe, to be one of the thorniest of issues related to implementation of Mission's Transportation Master Plan (TMP). This is partly because it runs counter to the prevailing ideology: the wider the lanes, the better. Mission's TMP suggests that these days are over, at least in theory. The question now for many cities in North America  is not how wide to build travel lanes, but how narrow. 

​John Belec

The purpose of this page is to support discussion on cycle lane design and implementation. It's prompted by the current discussion/debate in Mission on this topic. A key design issue concerns the construction of buffers to separate  cyclists from vehicular traffic.  I recently listened to a discussion by three urban designers hosted by Anna Maria Tremonti on CBC's The Current that aired in the wake of Toronto's van attack. Here's the link to the episode.

In brief, the designers are of the opinion that it's very difficult, if not impossible, to design a city such that it would be immune from what happened on Yonge St on April 23rd. This is not to say that protective infrastructure is impossible. Rather, the question is how to prevent a fortress mentality from destroying the freedom and vitality that cities thrive on. 

Two of the designers interviewed on The Current expressed the view that a simple fix in order to protect cyclists and pedestrians from the day-to-day dangers of vehicular impact is to use parked cars as a buffer/barrier. According to Claire Weisz, architect and urban designer with the New York firm WXY, "the best move New York made was to move the parked cars away from the sidewalk to allow for a bike lane."

​John Belec