September 5, 2014
Below we provide mainly some number coming from , using a data base; the “registre du Rhone” (Lyon district, France); recording detailed information for 14 478 cyclist victims of road accident in the Rhone county (France). The data under studies have been collected from 1996 to 2007. The level of detail is very high compared to some other data base, and they can help to clarify the helmet debate:
see wikipedia for the AIS and IIS definition and meaning
Injured Body part among cyclists
reported numbers are only for cyclist where the helmeted/unhelmeted status is known
|helmeted 1461||unhelmeted 5620||helmeted 1461||unhelmeted 5620|
This table shows that the helmeted cyclist are less often severely injured to the head, less often injured and seevrely injured to the face. But they are more often injured and severely injured to the Thorax and spine, and more often injured to the upper extremity. This suggesthelemeted cyclist get involved in more severe accident. 2 reasons can be advanced for it
- Helmeted cyclists have a different cyclist practice that non helmeted one (that relate to the infamous MAMIL)
- There is a risk compensation at play along helmeted cyclist
the effect of it is to give an over estimate of the helmet efficiency
The figure below illustrates the % of head injuries oberved for injuried cyclists with an helmet and without:
So we are looking at a global effect of 1%, but severe head injuries can have long term disabilities consequence, so a reduction by 50% of severe head injuries could be considered a worth endeavour:
Below a more detailled view of the head and face injuries specificities:
Head or face Injuried cyclist: type of lesion according to helmet wearing or not
|Helmeted 238||Unhelmeted 1078|
|Unconsciousness without additional descripted lesion or head trauma without further indication||194||73,5%||668||49,3%|
|Destruction skull and brain||0||-||2||0,1%|
In despite of a pretty huge database, significativity is not reached on many lesions types.
According to , Among the 222 cyclists injuried to the skull or its content
- 30 are dead
- 42 will have severe heavy brain disabilities (IIS3) – that represents 0.3% of the injuried cyclist
- 146 will have light brain disabilities – that represents 1% of the injuired cyclist
The effect of the helmet on long term disabilities seems to be measured on a very small cohort:
|unhelmeted 35||helmeted 3|
|%fatalities among total injuried||0,3%||-|
|%fatalities among head injuries||1,4%||-|
|Severe head disabilities (IIS3+)||20||3|
|% Severe disabilities among total injuried||0,4%||0,2%|
|% Severe disabilities among head injuried||1,9%||1,3%|
|% Other severe disabilities in addition of severe head disabilities ||19,8%||21,4%|
Again, we don’t reach significativity to be able to conclude that a “bike helmet saves life”, but it could well reduce significantly the risk of severe head disabilities. The number could suggests 50%, but again with very little confidence.
In anycase, the effect is measured in tenth of 1% of the total injuries: the absolute number of victim is very small.
How bike injuries compare to other transportation mode?
When involved in an accident, cyclists have the lowest fatailities rate compared to other individual transportation mode. They have also the best chance to survive an accident without long term disabilities. Urban cyclists are even much safer than rural or suburban cyclists:
|Injury severities||Uurban 6584||Rural 1726||0-10years 3364||Pedestrians 10131||car 53151||Mopette Motorbike 21831|
|MAIS 4 and 5||0,9%||2,0%||0,3%||2,3%||1,0%||1,5%|
|light diabilities (MIIS1-2)||20,2%||23,8%||11,1%||29,6%||42,8%||23,8%|
|severe disabilities (MIIS3-6)||0,6%||1,2%||0,2%||1,6%||0,7%||1,3%|
When urban cycling is considered alone, helmeted cyclists are observed to have 20% less chance to be severly injured that non helmeted one, whenever involved in an accident, however significativity is not reached .
The figures below eventually help to compare the different pattern of injuries, according to transportation mode, and eventually relativize the impact of a bike helmet on the total number of both severe head injuries and severe disabilities.
those figures provide absolute numbers for the Rhone district (1.7Millions) inhabitant for years 2007-2010…
Even if a bike helmet is able to reduce the severe head injuries and disabilities, by 50%, the saving in term of public health could be relatively insignificant but the more generalized economic cost can be real: It has became clear that an helmet legislation is counterproductive, but even promotion campaigns in favor of bike helmet could be counter productive:
- The money spend on helemet couldn’t justify the health care saving, and could be better invested somewhere else
- Helmet campaign promotions paint cycling as a dangerous transportation, discouraging people to cycle, conducting to a less healthy population
One could object that a low absolute bike injuries number is due to a relatively low cycle ridership. The dramatic increase in cycle ridership over the last decade, especially in urban area, is well documented, and still the number of total injuries has not increased but is decreasing :
The more people bike, the more a bike helmet becomes irrelevant…unless you believe pedestrians should wear an helmet too!
More citation to come
 Vélo et casque, Journée spécialisée, jeudi 28 mai 2009, Rapport UMRESTTE 0908, May 2009
 doesn’t express it like it, but I am assuming it is due to a typo.
September 3, 2014
The strong bike helmet lobbying push seems to have started with a widely quoted 1989 paper from Thomson & Rivara,  that makes the bold claim that:
“we found that riders with helmets had an 85 percent reduction in their risk of head injury … and an 88 percent reduction in their risk of brain injury”
That finding has been a foundation for helmet legislation calls. Alas, after legislations were passed, be in Australia or in BC, leading to a significant increase in helmet wearing , numbers suggested by  never materialized . Worse, the bike helmet legislation seems to have no impact on bicycling safety , the later study justifying a British Medical Journal editorial advising against helmet legislation .
It quickly appeared that  had many flaws as debunked in , and effectively recognized in a BMJ editorial  …That has not prevented an author of , Rivara, to publish many more papers always claiming impressive efficiency for bike helmet, but always presenting similar flaws as identified in  (confounding factors) . A meta study published in 2001, , was also associating bike helmet with an impressive 64% reduction of risk of head injury and  confirmed those results and reported even more impressive reductions in the risk of head injury. Alas the studies included in both  and  have been demonstrated to be the result of a severe selection bias. After correction of this selection bias,  found that a bike helmet was reducing the risk of head injury by ~15%. The US National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) dropped claim that bike helmets reduce head injury by 85% as this number has no credible basis.
While initial claims on the head injury risk reduction offered by bike helmet has been proven unfounded, and bike helmet legislation shown ineffective at increasing bike safety, it appears that such legislation could discourage cycling , what is eventually conductive to lower bike safety and less physical active population with detrimental effect on the population health . Overall, a bike helmet legislation can quickly be considered as having a negative impact on public health . Wherever more general economic impact is considered, the picture can become even bleaker .
In despite of the above, the bike helmet controversy has side tracked the research community…which focuses more on the way to mitigate the consequence of bike accidents rather than addressing their causes. As an example, several studies have reported an alarming rate of alcohol intoxication among injured and deceased cyclists, but the helmet lobby has totally seized the debate to a ridiculous point:  observing that half of the cyclists who died in Oregon, were alcohol intoxicated, has -in fine- no better recommendation than promoting bike helmet…among drunk cyclists!
It also take considerable energy by cycling promoters to counter misleading claims advanced regularly by the bike helmet lobby. A recent example below:
Following the publication of , The University of Washington and Washington State University, issued a press release titled “Study correlates presence of bike-share programs with more head injuries” stating :
“Risk of head injury among cyclists increased 14 percent after implementation of bike-share programs in several major cities ”.
The journalists, who are not epidemiologists can’t be reasonably blamed to reporting what is told to them by some unscrupulous researchers, considering that the study has been published, after a peer review (How to argue against that?). However in despite of evidence of misrepresentation of facts reported in various social media, they didn’t issued appropriate correction to their original story (and have preferred to close the comment section) and that is a fault.
The unscrupulous researchers can certainly be blamed for their absence of ethic:
We will pass on the unprofessional self promotion of the previous authors’ publications, such as the now well discredited , this, in no uncertain term:
“Solid data from well-designed studies support the effectiveness of bicycle helmets and legislation mandating their use”
As we have seen, that can’t be farther from the true, but the real problem is the thrust of the article and a misplaced conclusion, as well exposed by 
However, the bulk of the blame should go to the American Journal of Public Health editor; Dr. Mary Northridge; to have accepted to publish what appears to be a scientific fraud. Such an article should have never been accepted under such a form and it has clearly not been properly peer reviewed:
Peer reviewing to work, suppose trust in the ethic of the authors (no intention to deceipt…), however, just the name of the authors should have already been sufficient to raise an eyebrow: Frederick P. Rivara, not stranger to deeply flawed studies and scientific controversy, is considered by many as nothing more than a charlatan; noticeably for reason exposed above; and considering this infamous record, the minimum of precaution could have been to choose at least some reviewers showing more scrutinity ability than complacency.
The minimum the American Journal of Public Health can do is to issue a correction, clearly stating the observed reduction in head injury in cities having a public bike share program as pointed by K. Teschke , this in a proeminent place and endorsed by its editorial board
In the meantimes, this episode will have helped to make clear how deep is the lack of ethic among the bike helmet supporters, to the point to even embarrasse some of them . It will help to convince more people to be not only very critical of the bike helmet lobby claims, but also aware that a peer review process is unfortunatly not synonym of quality.
 “A case control study of the effectiveness of bicycle safety helmets “, Thompson RS, Rivara FP, Thompson DC , New England Journal of Medicine v320 n21 p1361-7; 1989
 “Effectiveness of bicycle safety helmets in preventing head injuries: a case-control study “ . Thompson DC, Rivara FP, Thompson RS., JAMA 1996 Dec 25;276(24)
 Helmets for preventing head and facial injuries in bicyclists. Cochrane Review. Thompson, D.C., Rivara, F., Thompson, R., 2009. The Cochrane Library (1), 2009
 Bicycle helmet efficacy: a metaanalysis. Attewell, R.G., Glase, K., McFadden, M., Accident Analysis and Prevention 33, 345–352, 2001.
 Publication bias and time-trend bias in meta-analysis of bicycle helmet efficacy: A re-analysis of Attewell, Glase and McFadden, 2001. Accident Analysis and Prevention 43 1245–1251, 2011
 Head injuries and bicycle helmet laws, Robinson DL, Accid Anal Prev. 1996 Jul;28(4):463-75.
 “Bicycle-related head injury rate in Canada over the past 10 years” ,Middaugh-Bonney, T.; Pike, I.; Brussoni, M.; Piedt, S.; MacPherson, A. ; Injury Prevention 16: A228 2010
 Helmet legislation and admissions to hospital for cycling related head injuries in Canadian provinces and territories: interrupted time series analysis.Dennis J, Ramsay T, Turgeon AF, Zarychanski R. BMJ 2013
 Bicycle helmets and the law, Wellcome G. And Spiegelhalter Winton D., BMJ 2013
 misguided doctors or marketing agents? June 11th, 2012, Cyclists Rights Action Group
 The Health Impact of Mandatory Bicycle Helmet Laws, de Jong P. ,Risk Analysis, Vol. 32, No. 5, 2012
 New Zealand bicycle helmet law—do the costs outweigh
the benefits? Taylor M. And Scuffham P. Injury Prevention 2002;8:317–320
 Bikes, Helmets, and Public Health: Decision-Making When Goods Collide. Bateman-House A. ; American Journal of Public Health ; Vol 104, No. 6, June 2014
 Injuries Resulting from Bicycle Collisions Frank E, Frankel P, Mullins RJ, Taylor N. Academic Emergency Medicine, Volume 2, Issue 3, pages 200–203, March 1995
 Few study exist – except maybe  suggesting that the social cost of outfitting every cyclist with an helmet was not economically justified – But as far as we know, there is no comprehensive study examining the implication of transportation mode substitution, under a transportation economic perspective (time saved or not, infrastructure cost…)
 Bicycle helmet use in British Columbia, Foss RD, Beirness DJ, UNC Highway Safety Research Center; Traffic Injury Research Foundation, as cited by cyclehelmet.org
 Bicycle helmet legislation: Can we reach a consensus?, Robinson DL, Accid Anal Prev. 2Volume 39, Issue 1, January 2007, Pages 86–93.
 Public Bicycle Share Programs and Head Injuries; Janessa M. Graves, Barry Pless, Lynne Moore, Avery B. Nathens, Garth Hunte, and Frederick P. Rivara.; American Journal of Public Health: August 2014, Vol. 104, No. 8, pp. e106-e111
 “Study correlates presence of bike-share programs with more head injuries” College of Nursing; Washington State University, June 9, 2014
 “As if we needed another example of lying with statistics and not issuing a correction: bike-share injuries”, Phil Price, andrewgelman.com, June 17, 2014.
 “Hard Evidence: do bikeshare schemes lead to more head injuries among cyclists?”, Woodcock J. and Goodman A.; Theconversation.com ; August 28, 2014
 Health effects of the London bicycle sharing system: health impact modelling study, James Woodcock, Marko Tainio, James Cheshire, Oliver O’Brien and Anna Goodman. BMJ 2014;348:g425
 letter to American Journal of Public Health Editor, Dr. Mary Northridge, by K. Teschke and M. Winters, June 24, 2014
July 23, 2014
On Thursday July 17th, the SkyTrain system was shut down during the evening peak travel period due to a failed computer component. This left many passengers stranded both at SkyTrain stations and in SkyTrain cars for many hours. Then on Monday July 21th the skytrain system was brought to halt due to a tripped electric breaker protecting the SkyTrain’s operations centre. The power outage also halted the public announcement system
Having two skytrain melt down in a row is statistically improbable. Improbable but not impossible…drawing some hasty conclusions on the general state of the system based on exceptional event shouldn’t be done at this stage:
Some observers have been quick to link the skytrain glitches to lack of funding. We notice that the latest meltdown is linked to the extension of the Skytrain (Evergreen line work)…
Identifying the root cause of the trouble is a good step. Translink, which seems to have learnt how to manage crisis in Pyonyang, thinks it has then took the adequate measure: suspend the electrician whose is alledgely responsible for the tripping of the breaker.
We will note that if a breaker exists in the first place, it is to allow it to trip, and the consequence of a tripping should be known as well. so a first question
- Does the risk of accidental tripping of a critical breaker due to electrical work was properly assessed? and its corollary: Does the electrical work was appropriately scheduled to minimize risks on skytrain operation?
The handling of a crisis communication
A tripping breaker or something else shutting down a whole transit system is a rare occurence, but not something unprecedented:
During the great 2003 North east blackout, whole transit systems, in cities such as Toronto or New York, grind to a complete halt…
In such occurence, The question is: What is the response of the Transit authority and is it adequate?
- Does Translink expect people to roast in trains for hours without any information?
If a train evacation plan was in place, something one could have excepted to be decided in the minutes following the skytrain halt (a tripping breaker is a priori something quick and easy to troubleshoot, and the consequence on the time to “reboot” the system should be well know).
- Why Translink didn’t inform its customers about it?
Thought the passenger announcement system was down, medium like twitter was available (but used only to mention an unspecified “technical issue”). That brings us another aspect of the issue.
Is the Skytrain system rightly designed?
- In crisis situation, more than ever, communication is key: the passenger information system should be insulated of other control systems (be able to run on onboard battery…)
Wrong per design, is also the fact that a Skytrain “glitch”, seems always to bring the whole Skytrain system on its knees. The system seems to be too much centralized. The corollary of it:
The more the system expand, hence add complexity (be by mile of trackage or by number of trains in operation), the more the chance to have catastrophic glitches.
The occurence of it can be reduced by increasing the reliability of the system as is (that can be typically achieved by providing redundancy on key part …but eventually that will not prevent embarassing issues where the whole skytrain system break down, due to a too centralized management of it.
Better overall resilience could be achieved by a more decentralized system: having the different lines operated as much as independently as possible is a step in that direction . That could not necessarily means less over-all break down, but a break down could be of much minor consequence on the system (typically confined to one line). In that regard:
- With the advent of the Evergreen line (VCC-Douglas college), the Millenium line should be shortened to be (Watefront-Lougheed) which should reduce catastrophic break-down effect
- the poor design of the Lougheed station which can be already criticized for the lack of same platform transfer between future Evergreen line train (VCC-Douglas) and Millenium train (Waterfront-Lougheed), can also be blamed, for preventing to operate one line in total disconnection of the other in normal operation (excluding OMC access)
- We have to celebrate as an an eventually uninentended advantage, the fact that the Canada line is operated totally independently from the rest of the skytrain network
The Skytrain reliability is touted at 95%: that measures the % of train running no later than 2mn of its schedule.
A measure providing little meaning for the customer:
- train can run late, but as long as speed and frequency is maintained, the level of service for the customer is maintained.
The measure of the skytrain reliability doesn’t provide us with a good idea of how “late” or “slow” the 5% of trains not “on time” are.
The problem is that when a Skytrain is “running late”, it can very quikly means hour delay for the customer. In that light, 5% trains “running late” could be then considered as way too much (a bit like if a driver was facing incident like flat tire or engine break down once a month, but should feel content because the rest of the month, or 95% of the time, the drive is unevenfull…).
For matter of comparison, the reliability of french driverless subways is usually north of 99% 
To the risk to be at odd with Translink, a review to all of the above question is necessary: the findings could eventually help to reduce the occurence of skytrain systemic issues and more certainly will provide some guidance to help to improve the handling of such occurence in the future
 see Twenty Years of Experiences with driverless metros in France, J.M. Erbina and C. Soulas. As an example, the Paris automated line 14 reliability (percentage of passengers who waited less than 3mn during peak hour or less than 6mn during off-peak hours) is at 99.8% on the Paris automated line 14
 Per definition a “back-up” system is not working when the main system is…and back up system issue are typically discovered when we need it if not thoroughly and recuurently tested what involve significantly ongoing maintenance cost.
 As an example in Paris, each automated subway lines (taht is line 1 and 14 has its own central command center. That is also true of the Lille VAL system, which has 2 lines opened in 1983 and 1989
April 26, 2014
Adam Fitch will be leading bike tours on Saturday May 3 and Sunday May 4 as part of the Jane’s Walk Vancouver series – An Alternative to the Broadway Subway
Also in New Westminster on May 4th
Walk The Route That Could Inspire Our Transit Future
And in Vancouver on May 8th (07:00 to 09:00 PM)
Passenger Trains in Canada – their current status and future potential. A Transport Action Canada town hall meeting for the National Dream Renewed project with Transportation expert Dr. Harry Gow. Brix Studio, 102 – 211 Columbia St., Gastown. RSVP to firstname.lastname@example.org.
April 25, 2014
This blog uses many reference documents, sometimes not available online except thru this blog: This post gathers those “odd” documents and is aimed to be updated whenever needed.
- Rail Rapid Transit for metropolitan Vancouver, study by the Province of British Columbia, 1962
- The Erickson/Massey plan, commissioned by the Vancouver art council, 1966
- “Beat the Traffic Rush”, The case for rapid Transit, Alderman Harry Rankin, Vancouver 1971
- A Rapid transit study for Burrard Inlet, William H. McCreery, Vancouver, B.C, circa 1972
- Draft memorandum on transit service planning to complement downtown peninsula plans of the City of Vancouver, Bureau of Transit Services, BC Minister of Municipal affairs, Sept 19, 1975
- Environmental Assessment Certification Application for the Richmond Airport Vancouver Rapid Transit Project, December 2004.
- TransLink’s Rapid & Regional Transit Model , PTV America Inc. and Translink, Vancouver and Wilmington, DE, February 2007 and December 2008
- Expo line upgrade strategy, SNC Lavalin, May 2012
- referenced in the post “Rail Rapid Transit for Vancouver in 1962″
- This document focusing on the Block 61 has been presented in “Vancouver 1966: The Erickson/Massey proposal for block 61 and the Downtown core “
- Extensive verbatim is done in “The Case for Rapid Transit…in 1970″
- It is a monorail proposal across the Burrard Inlet
- The key points of this document are presented in The Downtown Vancouver Bus Service vision in 1975
- It is a 144MB zip file
review of the Phase 2 consultation: loop and connectivity issues
This review is eventually done in light of previous ideas exposed in those posts
- Vancouver Downtown Transit network: the local view
- Vancouver Downtown Transit network: the regional and city view
Bus 17 and C23
The new route alignment are the same as the one suggested in our previous posts, so we obviously consider them as good. In order to avoid Cambie (a street targeted for aggressive pedestrianization by the City), a byzantine alternative proposal (B2) is proposed: it induces operating costs 5 time higher than the more straightforward Cambie routing .
- That should be enough to rule out this alternative…and the closure of Cambie
Bus 4,7 and 3,8
The improvement is obvious for route 4 and 7. For route 3 and 8, there is an issue. Thought the consolidation of the both service directions on Pender (avoiding the 30km/h Hasting speed limit) improves the legibility of the routes in the DTES, it is done at the expense of the network connectivity:
- lost of direct Transfer with the Hasting buses
- bus 4,7 (and 200’s) East Bound, are also 2 block away of Pender, making the transfer poorer than today
We are of the opinion that e Main#Hasting is a major transfer point between bus 3,8 and Hasting buses (#14,#16,#20,#135), and for this reason we have some reservations on the 3 and 8 proposal.
The Robson and Davie loop
About the loop
Loop touch things deep in the human psyche. When community leaders are asked in a meeting to talk about their transit needs. it’s not uncommon for one of them to say, usually with circular hand gestures, that they need some kind of loop […]. Straight lines can seem aggressive, whereas loops offer a sense of closure […].
If your agenda in life is to to enjoy every moment and never worry about a destination, then the appeal of loops is undeniable […].
But however much we may savor every moment of life, most of us still have jobs and families. so sometimes we just need to get there. We are at point A and need to be at point B as soon as possible. The shape of that desire is not a loop. It’s a straight line.
Loops also creates some operating challenges: a disturbance (delay in Transit) introduced in a loop never disappear unless the loop is opened (think Larsen effect). What is usually done is that loops are either open (London Circle line) or operated in segments (Tram T3 in Paris). Bus loops are much more prone to disturbance that segregated railway loop.
- That is the reason of the lay-over at Davie and Denman, and all Translink loop proposals involve a second layover on Cambie
- Stay in the bus if the operator allows this during his break
- Transfer to a bus ahead in the queue at the layover
Those layovers undermine significantly the attractiveness of a loop for the transit user whose has either the choice to:
The Davie route
All options extend the Davie bus to Yaletown, then loop it back with the Robson bus via Cambie:
This shouldn’t be controversial, and respects some good Transit principles:
- We have a single bus route serving the entire Corridor
- And the route is anchored at Yaletown station
The Robson route
The L shape option
It is built up on the existing route 5, but instead to loop on itself via Richard, branches into the Davie bus via Cambie to make a “downtown loop”:
As such, beside a greater legibility (bus running both directions on all served street), this route mainly carries the same advantages/drawbacks of the current route:
- The route, is not serving Robson east of Granville, (hence not serving Yaletown when it is natural to extend the Robson route eastward)
- As we have seen before, it doesn’t make for a grid oriented network improving legibility and general accessibility
The option avoiding Robson square, is mainly the current seasonal routing. Beside the removal of the hook at Burrard and Robson, it doesn’t address most of its current shortcoming already pointed many times :
- The route is disconnected of the Granville bus corridor, and offers a back-ward connection with the Canada line
- The disconnection between Yaletwon and the Robson Strasse is even greater
All trip toward South Vancouver or Yaletwon are penalized
The Rectangular Loop
The drawback of this option? The loop is pretty insulated of the rest of the network:
- No reasonable connection with the Expo line is offered
No reasonable connection is offered with the Hasting buses too
But, the option has its advantages on the L shape loop:
- It covers all Robson street
…and more generally it offers good foundations based on sound Transit principles (a grid oriented network with one bus route per corridor), from which we can elaborate to cover the connectivities weakness of the option: That is what we have done in our previous post:
What we have proposed for routes 5 and 6
See our previous post for further explanations and interaction with other routes
We hook the Rectangular loop to Stadium Station, offering a connection with the Expo line. From there, the question is:
- Where the buses turn back and make their lay-over
As we have seen before, we extend the route up to Hasting#Main (lay over on Gore), to connect the downtown routes with the Hasting and Main route.
A consequence of this proposal, is that it introduces bus services redundancies with the Translink option C1 (routes #3 and #8 on Pender): it provides a reason to short turn those bus at the north end of Main.
Short turning of the bus 3 is something which has been done in 2008, but Translink has reverted this in face of public hostility at a time it was not as actively as now looking for better operation efficiencies. In 2014, the short turning of artics bus #3 and #8
- pay the extension of standard bus #5 and #6 on Pender
- The lost of a direct route between Fraser and Hasting, is also compensated by a better access to the Westend via route #5 and #6
- A short turning at the north end of Main preserves a good connection with the Hasting corridor
- That makes those routes otherwise very short, also more useful by enabling to circulate in an downtown extended to its neck and Chinatown, without the need to transfer 
At the exception of the proposal B2 (route #17 avoidng Cambie), the Translink option are generally a step in the good direction. Some ideas discussed in our previous post still fit and could be still valid with whatever option is proposed.
We notice, that in despite of many efforts, not only no good Transit solutions have been found to accommodate a potential closure of Robson square, but all proposed alternatives trying to accommodate such a closure end up to be tremendously expensive ($300k to $400K additional operating expense …that can buy ~2 community shuttle routes).
Who is willing to pay for it?
What the Downtown Transit review has demonstrated is that
- Closure of Cambie should be forgotten
- Closure of Robson square to Transit is simply unreasonable and irresponsible
The city council should accept that a good surface transit is a necessity, and that pedestrianization of streets should be done to complement it and not to impede it, as we have said many times before.
 Human Transit: How Clearer Thinking about Public Transit Can Enrich Our Communities and Our Lives, Jarret Walker, Island Press, 2011
 Downtown Bus Service Review – Phase 2 Technical Summary City of Vancouver and Translink, 2014
 See also Jordan’s comment at the buzzer blog
 Downtown Bus Service Review – Phase 1 Consultation Summary Report City of Vancouver and Translink, 2013
 See also the PriceTag’s circling-the-square serie as an example where a critic of the proposed seasonal route is proposed.