I was scheduled as speaker 25 on the Point Grey Road bikeway proposal, but can’t appear before Council as a delegation today. Here are the notes for what I would have said:
.
Look what is happening to Vancouver! Look at how we, the people and visitors, are interacting with our city.
.
More of us than ever are walking, cycling , running, longboarding, skating – finding ever more ways to use wheels, feet and muscles.
.
We are walking longer and more often; we are not driving as much. (That’s what the data says.)
.
And the people who are doing it are more diverse in age, gender and ethnicity.
.
If you want to see the Canadian way of life in Vancouver, you can see it on Seaside.
.
This is a consequence of generations of leadership determining how we shape our city: No freeways, of course, but more importantly, the setting of our priorities as walking and cycling first – priorities that all councils, regardless of ideology, have taken seriously.*
.
Here is a just a short list of what we have done in the last 40 years.
.
Traffic calming, first in the West End in the 1970s – (and the first city in North America to do it). Then Shaughnessy, Mount Pleasant, West End East of Denman, Grandview, and other neighbourhoods. (See Pete McMartin’s column today.) Then extensions of the seawall and the Seaside Bikeway. Followed by a complete bikeway network. Followed in turn by a greenway network, both city-wide and neighbourhood.
.
We’ve done additional street closures: Hornby at the north end, through Mountain View Cemetery, on Hawks, on Ontario, on 37th Avenue, on the Central Valley Greenway – east side, west side, all around the town.
.
We’ve taken parking space for parkettes. And, of course, reallocated space for separated bikeways over Burrard Bridge, the Viaduct and through downtown.
.
So after almost half a century we can ask ourselves:
.
Are we worse off? Are we facing unacceptable levels of congestion as a consequence? Has this come at a cost to our economy?
.
Are we less livable? Would we now change any of the above?
.
In every case, the answer would be, I believe: no. They were the right decisions because they made the city better.
.
And yet there was resistance to these proposals – sometimes hysterical – especially because of concern over the impacts on parking and driving.
.
Yet in almost every case, after a heated controversy and an initial period of adjustment, we adapted – and as a city adopted these changes as part of our lifestyle, and now our identity.
.
It will be the same on Point Grey Road. Only with this difference. Once the parks are extended across PGR, once the stream is daylighted, once access is made easier to the small parks and viewpoints, once the connections are clear, safe and comfortable to parks and beaches from Kitsilano to Spanish Banks for citizens of all ages and abilitiies, this will be one of the joyous highlights of Vancouver, one of our great urban spaces.
.
And another great legacy from one generation to the next.
______________________________________________
* Many voices, from the Board of Trade to local ratepayers, have insisted that Point Grey Road be part of the scenic necklace of this city. Here are a few, as compliled from the Vancouver Archives:
.
June 7th, 1968, Vancouver Board of Trade “fear has been expressed that the waterfront Scenic Drive could become an express by-pass route to the University area and all possible efforts should be made to ensure this does not happen”.
Feb. 25th, 1969, The Community Planning Association of Canada, Greater Vancouver Branch stated in a letter to city council, three basic requirements to be considered essential in the development of this area:
1. The continuing need for additional park space, beach and recreational areas in the City.
2. Preservation of the natural features and amenities unique to the area.
3. Separation of automobile traffic from pedestrian orientated recreational space.
Ultimately their review stated, “that any improvements to Point Grey Road should be designed mainly to provide for scenic drive, complimenting park and waterfront development in the area.”
Executive Director – A.H. Kennedy
Feb. 25th, 1969, Community Arts Council, letter to council,:
The solution to any traffic problems that may exist in relation to the University lies in the development of Fourth Avenue and other street to the south of it, and not in developing either Point Grey Road or a new waterfront road.
We quote from our earlier submission on June 11th, 1968 – “We fear there is an over-emphasis on transportation where transportation is not the issue, and an under-emphasis on the amenity aspects, where the whole purpose is to provide an amenity.”
President Francis Low-Beer
Lower Kitsilano Ratepayers Association, Oct. 29, 1968 – “Steps should be taken to ensure that Pt. Grey Road does not become a speedway”
Richard Neutra, one of the foremost and respected leaders in city planning insists that design in our cities in synonymous with survival. The task of the designer and indeed all of those concerned with the implementation of these designs must first be in terms of the valid requirements for the human organism. The requirements that are valid are those that must be judged from the physiological and organic needs of the individual rather than the commercial and economic interests. Our first commitment must be to the true needs of human beings rather than the superimposed needs that the man-made environment places upon those human beings.
In this connection human beings need places where they can be fully human and the beaches and parks that border our city provide for this. Furthermore, they need places where they can have some peace of mind away from the endless noise and confusion of the city and its highways and at the same time opportunities for some communication – some immediate sensory contact – with the natural elements of the sea, sand, rock, trees and grass. It is precisely this opportunity that the stretch of land between “Macdonald & Alma” provides.
Within the city, the requirements of roads and highways for cars to travel upon must not overwhelm or outweigh the needs of people for places to walk or ride.
We need to create roadways that pass between neighborhoods rather than through them. The Macdonald to Alma road should be made safe for the walking and cycling public and the tranquil beach views that must not be sealed in concrete and destroyed by the stench and noise of speeding cars. The people that use these areas are entitled to access to the beach and parks without crossing so-called scenic drives that have become congested traffic barriers in front of parks and beach access. In this respect a better plan would be the syphoning of traffic off to East/West Arterials on 4th, Broadway, 10th, 12th, 16th or King Edward.
At a time when large metropolis’s like Los Angeles (and now Seattle) having discovered the mistake of encasing their foreshores in concrete and are desperately trying to reclaim them by breaking up the roads and moving them back, so they can free up their foreshore areas for the use of people. We in Vancouver are on the threshold of making exactly those same mistakes.
With good design Vancouver can continue to remain a city that fulfills the human and organic needs of the people that inhabit it. Let us make Vancouver a city in which people can survive because there are beaches and parks to walk on as well as roads to ride and that these are sufficiently separated that the individual can still find a privacy and peace of mind so essential to his or her physical and sensory well being.
Federation of Canadian Artists – Feb. 25th, 1969
If Pt. Grey Road continues as a thoroughfare then Vancouver will have lost safe access to another of its natural setting and its citizens one of the few remaining areas where they can escape from the relentless tempo of the city.
Feb. 25th, 1969, The Community Planning Association of Canada, Greater Vancouver Branch stated in a letter to city council, three basic requirements to be considered essential in the development of this area:
1. The continuing need for additional park space, beach and recreational areas in the City.
2. Preservation of the natural features and amenities unique to the area.
3. Separation of automobile traffic from pedestrian orientated recreational space.
Ultimately their review stated, “that any improvements to Point Grey Road should be designed mainly to provide for scenic drive, complimenting park and waterfront development in the area.”
Executive Director – A.H. Kennedy
Feb. 25th, 1969, Community Arts Council, letter to council,:
The solution to any traffic problems that may exist in relation to the University lies in the development of Fourth Avenue and other street to the south of it, and not in developing either Point Grey Road or a new waterfront road.
We quote from our earlier submission on June 11th, 1968 – “We fear there is an over-emphasis on transportation where transportation is not the issue, and an under-emphasis on the amenity aspects, where the whole purpose is to provide an amenity.”
President Francis Low-Beer
Lower Kitsilano Ratepayers Association, Oct. 29, 1968 – “Steps should be taken to ensure that Pt. Grey Road does not become a speedway”
Richard Neutra, one of the foremost and respected leaders in city planning insists that design in our cities in synonymous with survival. The task of the designer and indeed all of those concerned with the implementation of these designs must first be in terms of the valid requirements for the human organism. The requirements that are valid are those that must be judged from the physiological and organic needs of the individual rather than the commercial and economic interests. Our first commitment must be to the true needs of human beings rather than the superimposed needs that the man-made environment places upon those human beings.
In this connection human beings need places where they can be fully human and the beaches and parks that border our city provide for this. Furthermore, they need places where they can have some peace of mind away from the endless noise and confusion of the city and its highways and at the same time opportunities for some communication – some immediate sensory contact – with the natural elements of the sea, sand, rock, trees and grass. It is precisely this opportunity that the stretch of land between “Macdonald & Alma” provides.
Within the city, the requirements of roads and highways for cars to travel upon must not overwhelm or outweigh the needs of people for places to walk or ride.
We need to create roadways that pass between neighborhoods rather than through them. The Macdonald to Alma road should be made safe for the walking and cycling public and the tranquil beach views that must not be sealed in concrete and destroyed by the stench and noise of speeding cars. The people that use these areas are entitled to access to the beach and parks without crossing so-called scenic drives that have become congested traffic barriers in front of parks and beach access. In this respect a better plan would be the syphoning of traffic off to East/West Arterials on 4th, Broadway, 10th, 12th, 16th or King Edward.
At a time when large metropolis’s like Los Angeles (and now Seattle) having discovered the mistake of encasing their foreshores in concrete and are desperately trying to reclaim them by breaking up the roads and moving them back, so they can free up their foreshore areas for the use of people. We in Vancouver are on the threshold of making exactly those same mistakes.
With good design Vancouver can continue to remain a city that fulfills the human and organic needs of the people that inhabit it. Let us make Vancouver a city in which people can survive because there are beaches and parks to walk on as well as roads to ride and that these are sufficiently separated that the individual can still find a privacy and peace of mind so essential to his or her physical and sensory well being.
Federation of Canadian Artists – Feb. 25th, 1969
If Pt. Grey Road continues as a thoroughfare then Vancouver will have lost safe access to another of its natural setting and its citizens one of the few remaining areas where they can escape from the relentless tempo of the city.
It’s nice to see that bit of history warning about turning Pt Grey Road into an arterial.
I don’t disagree with the City’s plan, but I don’t think closing Pr Grey Road is necessary to create a better bike path. That really just requires some parking removal. The biggest bike danger is on Cornwall and the City is dodging that one by proposing a route on York (not that I think this dodge is necessarily the wrong move).
The question then becomes removing cars for the betterment of the urban space. In this case, I agree it would create a vastly improved area as Gordon describes it, and I think I would probably vote for it. (I might also vote for a plan that truly calmed traffic and created a parkway that people didn’t drive on like a highway.) But there are other places in the city that are burdened with traffic on roads that weren’t really designed for them. I’m thinking of parts of 10th Ave west of MacDonald, 12th east of Ontario, 1st from Clark to Nanaimo, Denman in the summer. It seems like some sort of plan needs to be offered to those areas as well.
Oops I didn’t mean parkway as highway; I was thinking more of a landscaped car path. What I was really thinking was two brick paths set in grass and landscaping and lined with dwarf trees and two further bike path / sidewalks on either side. I imagined the vehicle carriageways to be truly narrow to discourage fast driving.
I’m not old enough to remember the “parkway” proposal for Point Grey Road, but I’ve heard that it was to be just like parkways in the USA: 4-8 lanes of high speed traffic. Was the land actually available to build such a wide road? If so it seems terribly short sighted to have sold it off for housing.
I do remember when the stretch west of Macdonald acquired it’s current 30km/h signage. It made little sense to erect playground signs on the portion of Point Grey Road with (almost) no parks while retaining the 50km/h speed limit in the section east of Bayswater where more parks are located. It’s clear to most observers that it’s merely a “playground for the rich”. Closing the road to through traffic adds fencing to the playground.
Not extending the seawall from Kits to Jericho was never about preserving a bit of decidedly unnatural, but not recently disturbed bit of shoreline. It was always about protecting the multi-millionaires on Point Grey Road from having anyone invade their “private” waterfront. There must be some really powerful people living in that tiny strip of land.
So am I saying that we shouldn’t extend Tatlow Park to the water or improve cycling facilities? No, I love Tatlow Park and it would be awesome to have to go all the way to the water. I’m merely pointing out that closing the road is less about pedestrians or cyclists or cars than Gregor et al would have us believe.
The so-called cycling improvements east of Macdonald are a joke. Let’s see… we’ll make cyclists wait at a signal to cross the street, go up a big hill lined with parked cars, then wait to cross the street again all the while avoiding the destinations many are probably headed for. Sounds like the status quo with one new traffic signal. Oh yeah, there’s going to be a path through the park on Burrard. Woohoo! I expect to see just as many if not more cyclists on Cornwall in the coming years. And I expect the bus route that suffers from the greatest bunching in BC (perhaps all of Canada) to get slower and even less reliable.
Well documented, and well stated points,
That said, I see a dangerous encouragement at taking too literally the stated modes hierarchy (1. walking 2. Cycling. …)
While it it well recognized, that the current council has reversed the order (Cycling trumps every other modes), this policy is not recognizing 2 things:
(1) Complementary of mode
As shown by a recent Translink survey, Walking, cycling and transit are not competiting mode but complementary mode, walking for short distance (<1 mile), cycling for less short distance and transit for longer one:
Having a hard hierarchy between those mode, conducting to develop one at the expense of the 2 others is in fact detrimental to mobility and accessibility (something we can already see apparent on Robson).
Some people think bike parking issue in Amsterdam is a nice problem to have, I think it is even smarter to learn from that to avoid this nice problem.
(2) Inclusiveness of our transportation system
There is the need of the disabled, but beyond it, there is a growing population of “mobility challenged” people:
Some people, like Gil Penalosa, advocate for complete street or 8-80 street and Jarret walker illustrates his book with these people (even larger spectrum in fact)
http://urbanist.typepad.com/.a/6a00d83454714d69e20162fd5cb447970d-popup
I know, in some Vancouver circles, especially the cycling ones, it is believed that everyone should be on wheels, …the old man should be in a mobility scooter and the young child in a stroller…
But honestly is it the right thing to proposes to them…and still what is the option proposed to them to travel in decent time any length greater than 1/4 mile ?
Again, in the Cornwall Point Grey corridor , we will have seen some cyclists advocating for separate bike lane on Cornwall, this at the expense of Transit, and separated bike lane aside a one way arterial Point Grey rd.
That was an unfortunate stand, and thankfully, Vancouver staff came with a much more sensible solution before council. A solution I support, thought I think Mike0123 suggestion (done on Fabula blog) of a bus lane on 4th avenue (instead of a left turn at Alma) could have been worthy of an investigation, .
Section 6.6.6 of the Vancouver-UBC Area Transit Plan recommends Transit Priority Measures in the 4th Avenue commercial area. Dedicated bus lanes and bus bulges on 4th Avenue are suggested in the margins. Investigating the idea has long been the policy of the City and Translink.
http://www.translink.ca/~/media/Documents/plans_and_projects/area_transit_plans/vancouver_ubc/Vancouver%20UBC%20Area%20Transit%20Plan.ashx