Eighteen years after Surrey's last cycling strategy was released, the city curbed all doubts they were committed to improving biking by unveiling the new Surrey Cycling Plan earlier this week.
With close to 450 km of cycling routes constructed already, Surrey is hot on the heels of Vancouver when it comes to biking infrastructure. But the city is still a ways off from meeting Translinks's regional cycling goals for Metro Vancouver of 15 per cent of all trips 8 km or less made by bicycle; 50 per cent female riders; and 15 per cent reduction in fatalities and injuries by 2040.
The new plan introduces 70 steps for the city and its partners, including the Government of B.C. and Translink, to tune up cycling infrastructure, safety and awareness.
"Our new Cycling Plan provides clear direction, strategies and increased focus on this active and cost-effective mode of transportation," reads a statement from Surrey Mayor Dianne Watts in a city press release.
"The strategy is not just about building bike routes. It addresses all the factors that are important to making cycling a safe, attractive and viable transportation choice."
Some of the actions include expanding and connecting the off and on street cycling network, including more bike lanes on arterial roads and more greenways; promoting cycling as healthy, fun and safe; improving maintenance and signage on bike routes; and working with local businesses to improve bike parking and storage facilities.
The city has already committed three per cent of its $67 million capital transit budget to the cause: "With this increase, the large amount of cycling infrastructure delivered through the capital roads program, plus costsharing opportunities, along with increased outreach for education, encouragement and awareness, we believe Surrey is positioned to achieve a greater number of trips made by cycling, and safer cycling trips," reads the report.
Tim Yzerman, chair of the HUB committee for Surrey/White Rock/North Delta, a cycling advocacy group, likes the new plan overall. But he cautions the report's reliance on guidelines from Transportation Association Canada could be misguided.
"I think Surrey should really develop their own tool box of design standards, and at the same time follow some examples that are more world class than just national standards," he told The Tyee.
"Because nationally we don't have a huge amount of cycling, it's sort of a new thing, and in some areas it's a lot more established like the Netherlands and places like that."
But Yzerman says Surrey could learn a thing or two about cycling safety and infrastructure from one city in B.C.--and it isn't Vancouver.
"We could always look to Victoria, especially, because they've always had a really high amount of cycling to work. They're consistently been the highest percentage mode-share of cycling (in B.C.)," he says.
Katie Hyslop reports on youth issues and education for The Tyee.
6
Login or register to post comments
snert
42 weeks ago
Surrey has to follow New York's example
Send errant cyclists to traffic school.
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/07/24/nyregion/manhattan-court-sends-erring-cyclists-to-remedial-class.html
clear.the.air
42 weeks ago
Best of luck Surrey!
"The single most important issue facing cyclists today is the absence of proper infrastructure to allow cycling to prosper, as it should, as it must, in a civilized community. If we accept as a general proposition that our societies would be healthier if they had fewer cars and more cyclists, then it follows we need to dedicate our resources to infrastructure, change and development."
http://www.vancouversun.com/news/great+debate+over+bike+helmet+laws/6874947/story.html#ixzz21m7Ys0V8
snert
42 weeks ago
clear.the.air
You forgot, 'In your humble opinion'. Where is the evidence that a society would be healthier if they had fewer cars and more bicycles. Beijing would be a great example of this, I guess, no?
clear.the.air
42 weeks ago
Healthier with bikes, yup!
Okay snert. Let's see. Here are a few examples:
- Obesity, diabetes have exploded in the last 60 years when mass motoring became the norm. To quote a meme I've seen, "One runs on fat, the other makes you fat." --> of course, health care costs increase with increases in disease, which we all pay for. Of course, diet and sitting in front of screens are some of the other factors that play a role in these diseases, but the car figures prominently too.
- Particulate matter and other pollution from car exhaust impacts local environments
- Bikes offer affordable transportation, which improves economic health and resiliency in an age of volatile and rising gas prices
- Bikes offer health in terms less noise pollution, which can increase stress
- Bikes are accessible to people of all ages. Cars are only accessible to those 16+ and are therefore a less democratic form of transportation.
- Climate change results from the burning of fossil fuels in our cars
As for an example, as you mentioned, check out what's happening in China:
'Car-Clogged Chinese Cities Encourage a Return to Bicycles'
http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=bike-sharing-comes-to-china
snert
41 weeks ago
clear.the.air
- "Obesity, diabetes..." - no guarantee that people prone to those problems would cycle. Latest study out says that the best way to control those problems is simply to eat less.
- "Particulate matter and other pollution from car exhaust...." - Most of the particulate is caused by diesel. That won't go away because of cycling. It may actually increase because of congested roads.
- "Bikes offer affordable transportation, which improves economic health and resiliency...." - Absolutely no evidence that that would actually be the case. It's could just as easily create a downward spiral caused by reduced expectations and a lower sense of self worth.
- "Bikes offer health in terms less noise pollution, which can increase stress..." - Once again unlikely to create significant changes as bicycles don't replace trucks.
- "Bikes are accessible to people of all ages. Cars are only accessible to those 16+ and are therefore a less democratic form of transportation." - Democratic transportation, HAH! So is walking which is actually healthier. Contrary to what you might believe bikes are not really all that healthy as a transportation option. In order to gain any real benefit over walking one must travel far greater distances.
- Climate change - You can ride your bike all you want but that snowball is already rolling down hill too fast to stop.
- China - Now there's a country. Are there any studies out that show that the cyclists actually live long and healthier lives than the rest of the population?
One of the problems with this debate is the attitude that everyone would benefit from more exercise. Although this might be the case it would not necessarily come without a price. To my knowledge there have been no studies conducted to find out why a large percentage of the population is exercise adverse. There is always the possibility that it can be more stressful forcing a person into adopting a lifestyle they are not cut out for. In other words people use motorized transport for a very valid reason, exercise is more stressful in a bad way.
Steven Forth
41 weeks ago
Scepticism is good but
Dear Snert
Scepticism is a wonderful thing, gets you to ask questions and puncture assumptions. Your points make general sense. Have you tried applying this attitude to investment in road infrastructure for cars and trucks and our dependence on the automobile for personal transportation? You fail to provide any research or validation for your claim that "people use motorized transport for a very valid reason, exercise is more stressful in a bad way." Really? What study shows this. It seems more likely that the opposite is true (to use your style of argument). And then there is your off hand comment that cycling "could just as easily create a downward spiral caused by reduced expectations and a lower sense of self worth." That suggests quite a bit about your value system and how you generate your own sense of self worth, but do you have any studies to support the generalization?