In this interview on CBC, the NPA councillor George Affleck made it clear: the closure of Point Grey Road will be an election issue, and if the NPA gains a majority, this “main arterial” will be reopened “for all Vancouverites.”
Clearly, they think animosity to bike lanes is fertile ground from which to harvest votes – a strategy that did not work out so well for them last election when the party ridiculed downtown bike lanes. Maybe this time.
I’m more intrigued by the phrase ‘for all Vancouverites,’ some of whom, it must be assumed, are excluded from PGR. Technically, of course, that’s not true. People, even the elderly and disabled, can access the road and all the parks along it by driving there. In fact, it’s easier.
Evidence from yesterday: Here are two elderly seniors, one with a cane, in Jean Beaty Park:
.
Here they are crossing Point Grey Road, now considerably safer than before when the traffic was constant:
.
Here they are accessing their car, two spaces up from PGR, probably closer than they were previously able to park:
.
Here they are, driving away on Point Grey Road, soon to take a right – again with a lot less traffic to be concerned about (unless you count the significantly higher number of cyclists).
.
But, I presume, that’s not what George means by “all Vancouverites.” I think he means the ones who do not want to just drive on Point Grey Road, which they can still do (see below right), but to use it as an arterial: fast, direct, where the dominance of cars is unquestioned
and all other users are secondary, confined to narrow sidewalks or squeezed into whatever space is left over between the travel lanes and the parked cars.
In other words, the world according to Motordom.
And if they can’t, they feel excluded, that they have lost something. And it’s true, they have: “The freedom for cars, and cars alone, to move very quickly, unhindered by all the other things that used to happen on streets,” as Charles Montgomery phrases it.
And George proposes to return that freedom, to ‘restore’ Point Grey Road to something it was never intended to be: an arterial.
But by the time of the next election, he will have to explain to the couple above why that requires they lose something they just discovered they now have – a freedom to move safely, slowly, happily – that will be taken away from them in the name of restoring it.
Gordon. I do not see this issue as being for or against bikes. There’s no doubt bike lanes needed to be improved but this could have been done without blocking the start to all public traffic. eg There could have been 1 lane of traffic open to the public.
As someone who occasionally used PG road because I enjoyed the view, I resent this change. It’s not that I’m in favor of motordom. I’m just in favor of allowing the public to enjoy these special views.
Note: this road is still public. There is NOTHING private about PGR.
Author
Michael
I think you’re right: it’s not so much about being for or against bikes as being for or against the unhindered use of cars. Very touchy area.
I suppose it would be possible to have a lane for cars – but that would mean not extending the parks across Point Grey Road. Let’s see how that works out.
The issue then will be whether the loss of those occasional views to drivers using PGR as you did is worth the trade-off for what is gained by the closure. My hunch is that it will be – but, let’s face it, I’m not the most objective judge on that point. I do have to say from the experience I’ve had so far is that something rather extraordinary has been achieved, which I’ll continue to document. Then others can have their say.
What complete bullshit.
I rode my bike down to Jericho Park this afternoon via Pt. Grey Rd. Aside from the fact that it’s still a construction zone, it was an absolutely beautiful experience.
Not only were there numerous cyclists, but there was also a group of boys kicking a soccer ball around in the middle of the road. In fact, I don’t think I’ve ever seen so many pedestrians walking along the sidewalk of Pt. Grey Road. Many of them were elderly, too. In fact, I saw TWO people in electric wheelchairs riding in the middle of the street. I’ve ridden my bike down Pt. Grey Rd many times in my life, and I’ve never seen that before.
The argument that these traffic calming measures have somehow made the street unavailable for “all Vancouverites” is ridiculous. Cars can still access the road, and yet at the same time it has been made more accessible and inviting for more groups of people.
Really, Pt. Grey Rd. is being opened up to all Vancouverites, regardless of class, age, or physical ability. After my experience today, it seems that anyone arguing the opposite is seriously deluded.
What view ? Apart from a select few properties bought by the city, 3 to be exact, there is no view on Pt grey rd. All there is to see on the north side is concrete bunkers, and 2 story palaces, squished together, encumbered by vegetation preventing any views. Don’t believe me, take a walk or a bike ride, or even in your car and check it out. Count the view opportunities and prove me wrong.
Over time this closure will prove to be a wise decision, benefiting more citizens of Vancouver than those who chose to use the road as a shortcut. It creates a new park for all to enjoy The background noise about gated community and a preserve for the wealthy, will prove to be just that: silly noise.
@Matthew and Ron inadvertently prove the case against closing Point Grey Road. Blocks of wealthy landowners now enjoy a near private park, with children and seniors apparently cavorting on the street. What a shame residents on the nearby streets will be picking up the tab (tax and trafficewise).
@Bob: What private park? It’s a public road and public park accessible for all – a continuation of policies of traffic calming that have been used across the entire city, from Boundary Road to the UBC lands. Is it any more objectionable that the city closed Bute Street in the West End years ago to put in a walkway and park space, undoubtedly increasing traffic on Denman and Thurlow?
WOW! I was blocked and turned away at all accesses to the PGR in my auto! @Sean Nelson – lets close Prior Street then and a few others while they’re at it. I DEMAND PRIOR STREET BE CLOSED OFF
NOW!!!
I’m fine with closing PGR to through auto traffic, but mageller is right that this didn’t need to be done to create a bike route. Really all that needed to be done was remove the on-street parking and there would have been plenty of room for a bike path. Really parking requirements drove the closure more than bikes did. But not even Vision was willing to gargle salt water and then lick the political third rail of residential on-street parking elimination.
Removing the on street parking would not have addressed the speed or volume of cars on the road, which have proven to be excessive and dangerous. Residents and visitors alike could not even cross the road prior to its closure because of the commuter traffic. The existing crosswalks and 30k speed limit was completely ignored by the unrestrained commuter motorists. Parking requirements did not drive the closure of the road; you are factually inaccurate. Safety of all users of the road drove the closure of the road. Clearly, you did not attend the City Hall meetings on this issue or hear the over-200 speakers prior to City’s vote on this matter. I did.
Susan, with an equal volume of traffic,10K per day, there were actually 7 times more accidents, both for cyclists and motorists on MacDonald that on Point Grey road over the last 5 years. I obtained this info directly from ICBC and fwdd it to every person on council before the City Hall meetings last year. It is shifting this traffic to MacDonald, which the closure of Point Grey road has done that is excessive and dangerous . Moreover MacDonalld , unlike Point Grey Road, is a transit route for elementary school children attending General Gordon just west of MacDonald and Kitsilano high school. Both of my chlldren attended these schools and I have lived in Kits for 29 years. So it is you in fact who is “factually incorrect” in claiming that safety of all users drove the closure of Point Grey Road. It, demonstrably, is a much safer route for all than MacDonald is, where the Point Grey traffic was rerouted to. You also imply that the 200+ speakers who attended the city hall meetings on this were in favour of road closure. The majority were not. I attended the entire hearing on this and was a speaker. It is quite clear that most speaking did not want the road closed. Last, I invite you to listen to Peter Ladners comments on why the road was closed. It had nothing to do with cyclists, It had everything to do with the residents wanting easier access to the street for their vehicles.
Randey Brophy, in regard to your comment below of today’s date, April 17, at 1:07 PM, this comment from you is entirely obsolete; the road closure that took place this past January has already seen 4 months of results, and the results have only been positive, as predicted by the City’s traffic engineers. Macdonald Street and 4th Avenue were determined to be able to carry extra traffic after the closure of Point Grey Road; the engineer’s analysis is available from the City and always has been, so for you to say otherwise is nonsense. Indeed, these streets have adapted extremely well to the increased traffic (with less traffic on them than the City anticipated), and the City has included automatic timed traffic lights on 4th Avenue at the cross streets as well as newly implemented pedestrian-controlled traffic lights at 1st Avenue and 3rd Avenue on Macdonald Street as part of the street reconfigurations. Traffic has been flowing smoothly without additional accidents or backups. In regard to the extremely dangerous conditions of Point Grey Road prior to its closure, you do not live on Point Grey Road and are not aware of the accidents, deaths, property damage, injuries, near misses, inability to access properties or even just cross the road. I was also one of the two hundred speakers who gave a formal presentation to City Hall regarding the road closure prior to the Vote, and the facts of support for the closure are available online through the City’s formal reports (thoroughly evidenced with engineers’ findings, data, statistics, usage counts, survey and questionnaire results, etc.) as well as the video stream of all 200 of the speakers at City Hall in full. The support for the closure was overwhelming and intelligently presented with extensive factual research. Moreover, a petition was submitted in hard copy with over 2200 signatures gathered in less than two months of Vancouverites from all over the city supporting the road closure. For you to deny this evidence that you know exists is simply ignorant and deliberately misleading. I am not going to enter into a comparison of closed Point Grey Road and Macdonald street, as there simply is no comparison; closed Point Grey Road is a purely residential street with green space. Macdonald Street is commercial with gas stations, stores and major intersections. Macdonald is a commuter route to 4th Avenue, a major arterial; Point Grey Road is not. It is utterly ridiculous for you to suggest that it is better for 10,000 + cars to be on Point Grey Road (a narrow residential street with open parks, a 30K speed limit and no traffic lights or pedestrian crossings) when Macdonald Street has everything to create safety for users that Point Grey Road does not. However, if you have factual evidence to prove that Macdonald Street cannot handle the traffic, provide it to the City and argue that you want Macdonald Street closed, if that is what you think needs to happen. The City will review whatever you provide to them and make a decision based on the evidence and engineer assessments. Residents of Point Grey Road and other concerned parties did this to provide for the safety of users on Point Grey Road. Nothing is stopping you from doing the same thing. But, for you to deny the dangers that previously existed on Point Grey Road as well as the benefits of the continuous seaside bike route and attempt to deny thousands of Vancouverites the safe usage of this road by re-opening is at best unneighbourly and blind and, at worst, malicious and selfish.
Again Susan Smith you are completely wrong. The ICBC stats I obtained i obtained directly from ICBC and sent to City council, They include dooring incidents-unlike the ones on their website- and were measured from Macdonal west to Alma on Point Grey Road and show conclusively that with equal volumes of traffic there have been 7 times the number of motor vehicle accidents and 6 times the number of bicycle accidents on Macdonald as there have been on Point grey road since 2008.I was speaker 86 at the meeting asnd council thanked me for the stats You also mention that a petition was submitted conducted over 2 months from Vancouverites all over the city with 2200 signatures in support of the closure of Point Grey road. Again completely untrue. The poll was conducted over 2 years , not 2 month, by Pam McColl who restricted it to those living between Point grey road and 4th and Alma and Macdoanld.. in other words only those most likely to benefit from the pool were canvaseed. and if when polled you said you were against road closure it, your input was not tabulated. it took 2 years not 2 months to get 2200 signatures. Meantime an online poll taken in the summer of 2012 got 1300 signatures in 6 weeks in opposition to the road closure. The editorials of the Vancouver Province and sun also opposed it. For you to say then that this has widespread approval or that The ICBC statistics do not show, conclusively that with the same number of automobiles per day Point Grey road has 6-7 times the number of accidents as MacDonald is completely misleading.
Susan Smith Re your comment that
” I was also one of the two hundred speakers who gave a formal presentation to City Hall regarding the road closure prior to the Vote, and the facts of support for the closure are available online through the City’s formal reports (thoroughly evidenced with engineers’ findings, data, statistics, usage counts, survey and questionnaire results, etc.) as well as the video stream of all 200 of the speakers at City Hall in full. The support for the closure was overwhelming and intelligently presented with extensive factual research. ”
In fact, as reported in the Globe and Mail even Vision councilor Heather Deal is on record as saying that opposition to the closure of Point Grey Road at the hearing was at 55-65% Others claim it was at 70%
Again you are deliberately misleading people and have no credibility as a result.
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/british-columbia/vancouvers-bike-lanes-gordon-price-on-when-to-ignore-the-opposition/article13518372/
Vancouver’s bike lanes: Gordon Price on when to ignore the opposition
FRANCES BULA
VANCOUVER — Special to The Globe and Mail
Published Tuesday, Jul. 30 2013, 8:02 PM EDT
Last updated Tuesday, Jul. 30 2013, 8:05 PM EDT
at least half or more of them saying that they adamantly opposed the plan for a Point Grey/Kits bike route and greenway.
Those councillors also reminded themselves of two things: What did you tell people your priorities were in the last election? Does anything in this plan need a serious fix?
“It’s really hard to sit and listen to people who are upset and angry,” said Councillor Heather Deal, who introduced the final motion on Monday to approve the plan. “It’s wearing. But you look at city policies and the things you ran on – like being the greenest city, like the Transportation 2040 plan – and you rely on that.”
Although Councillor George Affleck, who tried to get the project decision deferred until October, said that about 70 per cent of the speakers at five nights of council meetings were opposed, Ms. Deal said that it was more like 60 or even 55 per cent.
Also as I’ve mentioned to you elsewhere I find no record of a “Susan Smith presenting at these proceedings. i see no Susan Smith on the list of 200+ scheduled speakers provided by the city. I was speaker 86.. i attended all sessions. I do not remember you at all. Yet you claim you presented at this hearing . If this is true, please tell me what your speaker number was so i can confirm that. Thank you…
Mageller,
Please open your eyes and use your brain to reason! Get out of bed and see for yourself?
1: All PGR lanes will remain open to the public!
2: Views will always be there for you to enjoy!
3: All cars are still allowed on PGR!
4: Public will always be able to enjoy those special views!
The only difference today: ALL Vancouverites will be able to enjoy PGR without those ridiculously expensive sports cars, taxis, motorcycles, etc.. moving so fast and dangerously that kids, seniors, dogs , etc. tended to ignore the area. Point Grey Road is now SAFE and fun for all of us to ENJOY for the rest of our lives.
I think they would be better off using the removal of the Viaducts as an election issue, everybody uses those, including cyclists.
Downtown access by car is far too cheap in Vancouver. How about a daily congestion fee, such as Stockholm or London, of $20/day ?
Newsflash; We are not London!!!
In ten years we will look back with distaste at the way things were.
If Affleck chooses to make this an election issue, then he is too late. It already is, and he is on the wrong side of the issue, not uncommon for the NPA.
It doesn’t take a genius to recognize that Point Grey Road west of MacDonald was originally built as a residential street, not an arterial. The only people who are against the changes are people from outside the area who want to use it as a thoroughfare. IMHO they shouldn’t have any say in the matter.
Traffic calming has a long and successful history in Vancouver, and this is no different.
Traffic calming is a joke in Vancouver. It is far too sparse and far too uncommon. Far more could be done, such as charging for parking in residential streets and making almost all roads, except arterial roads one way or cul-de-sacs. Far, FAR more has to be done in Vancouver to make this beautiful city less car dependent.
Hey Sean — fair enough. But then the cost of making these changes should be footed by those Point Grey Road residents, since you say that people outside the area should have no say. Wait until summer rolls around, then we will see a bit of congestion. I travel that route on a daily basis — have had no interuptions thus far. I didn’t know it was open for one way traveling east or am I mistaken?
“Robert Charles” — you are mistaken. Point Grey Road West of Macdonald is closed to both East and West traffic. It is also closed to Eastbound traffic at Blenheim and Westbound traffic at Collingwood.
in fact Sean Nelson the city archives already have shown that Point Grey road was intended as an arterial route,, the majority of people who live in the affected area are against its closure, and the rerouting of traffic from Point Grey road.to Macdonald has shifted it to a street, MacDonald that, with a similar number of vehicles, already had 7 times the number of accidents as Pt Grey road. Closing a public road in a city that already has the highest traffic congestion in N America is not the way to go.
Randey Brophy, the newly closed Point Grey Road was intended to be a seaside scenic drive, by your proof in the historical document you quote from below; it was never intended to be an arterial, period. The majority of people who live in the area overwhelmingly supported the closure as the signed petitions, questionnaire and survey data shows. All of this information is factual evidence. Prove your claims with evidence or stop spouting utter nonsense.
Randey Brophy
April 19, 2014 6:12 pm
Again Susan Smith you are completely wrong. The ICBC stats I obtained i obtained directly from ICBC and sent to City council, They include dooring incidents-unlike the ones on their website- and were measured from Macdonal west to Alma on Point Grey Road and show conclusively that with equal volumes of traffic there have been 7 times the number of motor vehicle accidents and 6 times the number of bicycle accidents on Macdonald as there have been on Point grey road since 2008.I was speaker 86 at the meeting asnd council thanked me for the stats You also mention that a petition was submitted conducted over 2 months from Vancouverites all over the city with 2200 signatures in support of the closure of Point Grey road. Again completely untrue. The poll was conducted over 2 years , not 2 month, by Pam McColl who restricted it to those living between Point grey road and 4th and Alma and Macdoanld.. in other words only those most likely to benefit from the pool were canvaseed. and if when polled you said you were against road closure it, your input was not tabulated. it took 2 years not 2 months to get 2200 signatures. Meantime an online poll taken in the summer of 2012 got 1300 signatures in 6 weeks in opposition to the road closure. The editorials of the Vancouver Province and sun also opposed it. For you to say then that this has widespread approval or that The ICBC statistics do not show, conclusively that with the same number of automobiles per day Point Grey road has 6-7 times the number of accidents as MacDonald is completely misleading.
There are lots of waterfront roads that act as by-passes.
There’s also SW Marine Drive and Beach Ave.
In the 90s, the City stopped up Cordova St. through Coal Harbour so it would not be used as a by-pass of Georgia St.
Might we eventually expect the same of Beach Ave – and divert traffic to the arterial – Davie St.?
Firstly, “Mageller,” there is no view (if you mean water and mountains) when driving along Point Grey Road other than a passing second of a pocket park. Secondly, if you are looking for a view, you are not looking at the road and in danger of causing an accident as you commute through the neighbourhood (for residents of Point Grey Road, the speed and volume of commuter car traffic causing safety risks were the primary reasons for closing the road, not the preference for a bike route, although that has its advantages as well for cyclists). Thirdly, Point Grey Road was never intended as a commuter route, an arterial; it was, is, and has always been a 100% residential street with parks and beaches creating a great deal of potential pedestrian and cyclist use that has been limited by the dangerous commuter motorists. Residents have simply taken back their residential street. Fourthly, “Bob,” there is NOTHING “private” about closed Point Grey Road; it is more accessible after the closure, due to increased safety, for all pedestrians, runners, wheel chair users, cyclists and local motorists than it has ever been. The increased green space from the enlarged Tatlow park is not “private”; it is open and available for use by ALL Vancouverites. Instead of making up false reasons to oppose the closing of the road out of some personal jealousy or vendetta against people you do not even know who live in the area, why don’t you check out the truth of the matter by visiting the road yourself. Finally, from someone who has taken the time to see the road for herself, namely me, I can assure you that the closure of the road was long overdue, vastly improved from the closure, and a pleasure to enjoy.
Your attitiude is rather typical of the “raise the drawbridges” mentality of many of the posters here. I hate to break it to you, but if Vancouver wants to enjoy the benefits of being an employment centre then you have to allow access from the outside world. Including accepting the fact that roads are built to move vehicles and that one of downtown’s major bridges was built to feed traffic to Point Grey Road. The results of such a closed mentality will mean Vancouver’s continued slide toward being an unaffordable resort city, as has been seen over the past ten years, where job creation in the suburbs was nearly twice that of the city of Vancouver.
Bob, do you know where Point Grey Road is? For you to suggest that the Burrard Street bridge was built to funnel cars to Point Grey Road is utterly absurd. Firstly, Burrard Bridge is no where near Point Grey Road, which begins a couple of blocks East of Macdonald Street. And, the now closed section of Point Grey Road is all West of Macdonald Street. Burrard Street and Macdonald street run parallel with 10 blocks between them. Burrard Bridge is the continuation of Burrard Street and built solely for the purpose of funneling Burrard Street traffic over False Creek and into downtown. Point Grey Road is a purely residential road that was never built for or intended to be an arterial — this is a historical fact, not hearsay. There is no “closed mentality” here: safety of all users of the residential road simply trumped the misuse of speeding commuters on the road, commuters who should always have used the major arterials (commercial with traffic lights and speed control measures) of 4th Avenue, Broadway, 12th Avenue and 16th Avenue. A wrong has finally been righted — that is all, “Bob.”
its quite clear that you don’t know where Wallace Street is Sue ..
Randey Brophy, my interest and comments here on this web page are in relation to Point Grey Road, not Wallace Street.
It is becoming clearer and clearer that attracting the best and brightest means a lot more than unfettered motordom. Many concepts apply, but in transportation, the key is choice among several modes — walking, cycling, transit and motor vehicle. In addition, parks, recreation and ways to get to them and enjoy them without fear for your safety are huge.
It’s time to look beyond defense of ideas that are 50 years part their prime.
Burrard bridge was built to feed traffic to Pt. Grey road? What a terrible reason to build a bridge.
Bob, (I hope that isn’t Bob Mackin), why do you imagine that Pt. Grey is such a vital component of the commuter network in the west side? Fourth avenue west of Macdonald was chronically under capacity, Macdonald itself could handle double the volume. And as we’ve seen there have been practically no impacts to commuter traffic congestion since closing the road. Far be it from these facts actually sinking in and causing you to evaluate your starting point. What closing Pt. Grey has shown is that it wasn’t an important connector which is the essence of your argument.
If that’s the case then why do you care? Now we have the same amount of vehicles moving around with still the same levels of efficiency, along with a brand new public park for all residents of Vancouver to enjoy. This is a double dividend, much more optimal to the the old system that you desperately cling to.
Absolute and complete nonsense Tyler. Having lived in Kits for 29 years traffic is a mess on 4th as a result of the closure and the Kitsilano business association is already gone public in their plans to sue the city over it . 4th avenue was not chronically under capacity. Why do you make this stuff up ?.Do you honestly think anyone who lives in the area is going to buy your BS? With equal traffic volumes ICBC stats show that MacDonald has had 7 times the number of accidents as Point Grey toad over the last 5 years. it was a complete socila injustice to reroute that traffic to MacDonald from Point Grey Road. No impacts to traffic congestion? Vancouver already had the worst traffic congestion in North America before Point Grey road was closed. and it is much worse in the area now.
Randey Brophy, Tyler is absolutely correct; you are not. The City engineers determined from their counts of traffic (done both manually and by rubber tube counters) that 4th Avenue was under-capacity and could easily bear the commuter motorist traffic once Point Grey Road West of Macdonald was closed. This is a fact, Randey. For you to deny the facts just means that you are refusing to learn and accept truth when it is offered to you. You are the one making up non-existent problems in an attempt to instill moral panic in the uninformed. Look at the traffic reports for 4th Avenue and Macdonald streets, complete with the data online at the City’s website (Vancouver.ca)and/or contact the City’s engineers for a comprehensive discussion and show-and-tell of their calculations; they are the experts and will explain their data to you if you have trouble understanding numbers and rates of traffic flow. Moreover, since the closure of Point Grey Road, the City engineers have been proven correct; 4th Avenue and Macdonald street have been bearing the extra traffic without any backups or additional accidents. Your claim that it is a “mess” is complete fiction. I challenge you too provide evidence that 4th Avenue traffic is now a “mess.” What exactly is your problem? You seem bent on attacking Point Grey Road and its residents for no reason at all, except jealousy over their ability to achieve a safer road. Why would you not want all children of Kitsilano to be able to enjoy this safer road with larger, improved green space, and finally safe access to the beach and parks?
Randey,
For a guy who’s lived in Kits for 29 years you sure seem to have a quizzical interpretation of traffic capacities on 4th. I’ve lived on 4th for about ten years and can tell you resolutely that 4th west of MacDonald was under capacity for the amount of traffic it was designed to carry. City traffic data will back me up on this.
Traffic flows since the Pt Grey closure are imperceptibly different. Again, living in the area before and after the change there were practically no changes to flows and slightly higher volumes. Higher volumes, associated with lower speeds should actually increase safety along this stretch couple with safety increases on Pt. Grey the net safety improvement would almost certainly be higher than before.
Susan, PGR has been in the CIty’s inventory of a Major Street and Scenic Route much like SW Marine Drive since the early 1900’s. –
These maps are from the City Archives –
Major Street Plan –
http://searcharchives.vancouver.ca/uploads/r/null/1/6/1687599/a8b8b930-92ed-423b-9ee5-53ec890515d4-A67026.jpg
Major Street Plan showing Scenic Drives-
http://searcharchives.vancouver.ca/uploads/r/null/1/6/1688589/179be439-a2cf-4485-9d4d-c19233396e8b-A67834.jpg
Thanks for the Major Street Plan – “Pleasure Drive” explains the extra width of 31st Ave at Cambie St. – always wondered about that!
That map also shows that Cornwall and Point Grey Road are shown as dashed lines which the Legend shows are “Major Streets to be widened” and there was a plan for a connection to 4th Ave at the western end of Point Grey Road.
From the maps you can also see thta Burrard was weither to continue onto Cedar Crescent and Cypress southwards, or be diverted over to Arbutus.
I suppose that the southbound blockade on Burrard at 16th was also a means of traffic calming for the wealthy residents of Shaughnessy.
“Neil,” a potential residential “major street” and “scenic drive” as proposed in 1900 do not constitute the actual commuter arterial speedway with no views that was Point Grey Road by 2013. You have just proven my point.
Thank you for providing the link to the old maps.
Further, City property that could be used to widen roads exists all over the city of Vancouver, but widening Point Grey Road would do nothing to solve the grave safety concerns of the speed and volume of the commuter traffic; in fact, the injuries, property damage and fatalities that have been extensive on Point Grey Road would only increase by widening the residential road to more motorists. The cost of widening the road would also have been far beyond the current cost of closing the road. These are the two primary reasons that the City, throughout Vancouver’s history, has opted not to widen Point Grey Road.
As well, the current world trend is to work toward decreasing, not increasing the number of cars on roads to cut down on harmful emissions, address the depleting and unrenewable oil resources, and respond to the traffic congestion in growing cities within limited geographic boundaries. Logic dictates that this current trend is the way of the future; we may not always like change, but it is inevitable.
Susan you simply do not know what you are talking about. .Perhaps you are convincing yourself, but you are not convincing anyone else. Point Grey road has been a major commuter route since 1947 in the city plans..that has been shown. So your statementthat it was never intended as one is false. As I’ve shown already on this post Point Grey Road does not have anywhere near the number of accidents to warrant as neighbourins Kitsilano streets like MacDonald do. ICBC stats verify this. So your argument that “in fact, the injuries, property damage and fatalities that have been extensive on Point Grey Road ” is a complete melodramatic crock. There have been no fatalities in the last 5 years on Point Grey Road. There have been only 3 cyclist accidents on Pt Grey road since 2008 while in the same time period there have been 18 on MacDonald In terms of vehicle accidents since 2008 there have been 180 on Pt Grey Road while there have been 1207 . so with equal traffic volumes the closure of Pt Grey road has taken 10K cars from a safe route and put them on one which is 7 times more dangerous.Why don’t you go, As I did to ICBC and get some facts before posting such BS? i live here and unlike you have gotten off my ass to research the topic before posting
Randey Brophy, did you listen at all when you were at the City Hall vote on this matter? ICBC prefaces its existing statistics with a lengthy disclaimer, warning that the data in its report is incomplete and should not be taken to represent the actual number or frequency of the types of accidents occuring on city roads. The disclaimer advises that he data includes only formally reported incidents where a file was initiated, and its statistics do not include dooring incidents, or injuries, or property damage not attributable to a motor vehicle. The disclaimer also warns that further data from police, other authorities, anecdotal evidence and formalized investigative studies involving traffic counts and comparisons to other roads’ data must be considered to estimate a road’s actual safety concerns. This ICBC disclaimer and in depth recommendations for investigative study methods was provided to City Council in the presentations prior to the Vote. You say you attended these speeches at City Hall, yet you do not mention anywhere in your diatribes against the closure of Point Grey Road the fact of the substantial ICBC disclaimer of its own data and recommendations for acquiring more complete and accurate data. You appear to have a very selective memory, Randey Brophy.
I can support Susan’s comments on the limitations of ICBC’s accident statistics. They are ICBC customer claim statistics, not accident statistics. I can recount three local (not PGR) bicycle/vehicle accidents that I was involved in. Two involved police reports. One involved hospitalization. None are included in the ICBC statistics, despite my request that ICBC do so and instructions from the attending police officer to report it to ICBC. Basing a position on these partial ICBC statistics is misdirected at best.
As I’ve mentioned to you many times I did not get my stats from the ICBC website.. I got them directly from ICBC as a specific information request and presented them to coucncil having mailed them earlier to them. They include the dooring incidents and were directly related to Point Grey road from MacDonald west to Alma. I was speaker 86 and am much more familiar with the data than you choose to be becasue it does not support your posiiton..
Again Susan Smith you are completely wrong. The ICBC stats I obtained i obtained directly from ICBC and sent to City council, They include dooring incidents-unlike the ones on their website- and were measured from Macdonal west to Alma on Point Grey Road and show conclusively that with equal volumes of traffic there have been 7 times the number of motor vehicle accidents and 6 times the number of bicycle accidents on Macdonald as there have been on Point grey road since 2008.I was speaker 86 at the meeting asnd council thanked me for the stats You also mention that a petition was submitted conducted over 2 months from Vancouverites all over the city with 2200 signatures in support of the closure of Point Grey road. Again completely untrue. The poll was conducted over 2 years , not 2 month, by Pam McColl who restricted it to those living between Point grey road and 4th and Alma and Macdoanld.. in other words only those most likely to benefit from the pool were canvaseed. and if when polled you said you were against road closure it, your input was not tabulated. it took 2 years not 2 months to get 2200 signatures. Meantime an online poll taken in the summer of 2012 got 1300 signatures in 6 weeks in opposition to the road closure. The editorials of the Vancouver Province and sun also opposed it. For you to say then that this has widespread approval or that The ICBC statistics do not show, conclusively that with the same number of automobiles per day Point Grey road has 6-7 times the number of accidents as MacDonald is completely misleading.
Randey Brophy // Apr 21, 2014 at 12:04 pm
Susan Smith you clearly do not have the facts. Let’s examine your claims, one by one. This response will deal with your claim that Point Grey road was closed to motor vehicles due to traffic safety concerns
You said on the price tag forum
http://pricetags.wordpress.com/2014/01/26/the-politics-of-point-grey-road-an-arterial-for-all-vancouverites/
“Safety of all users of the road drove the closure of the road. “ Susan Smith Jan 17 9:10 pm
January 27, 2014 9:10 pm
Leaving aside, for the moment, that that traffic calming measures that are regularly employed elsewhere in the city, like speed bumps and stop signs, were never used on Point Grey Road, I pointed out to you that in fact ICBC statistics show that Macdonald street , where the city has said 7000 of the 10,o00 cars per day will be diverted to with the closure of Point Grey Road, already had, with equal traffic volumes as Point Grey Road, 6 times the number of bicycle accidents as Point Grey road and 7 times the number of motor vehicle accidents.
So clearly traffic concerns did not cause the closure of Point Grey road, because the area were the bulk of the traffic has been dumped to, Macdonald Street already has 6-7 times the number of accidents, plus unlike Point Grey road Macdonald is a transit rout e which Kitsilano school children cross twice daily to attend General Gordon elementary school and Kitsilano high school. As I pointed out to the city, I was speaker 86 at the hearings on this, from a traffic safety standpoint Point Grey Road is a far safer route than MacDonald
These statistics showing from a traffic safety stand point that Point Grey road is actually a far safer route than MacDonald are readily obtainable from the ICBC website. http://www.icbc.com/crashmap-cyclists
However rather than admit that that is the case you have stated that there is a disclaimer on the ICBC data
“Susan Smith Ap17 Price tags “ICBC prefaces its existing statistics with a lengthy disclaimer, warning that the data in its report is incomplete and should not be taken to represent the actual number or frequency of the types of accidents occuring on city roads. The disclaimer advises that he data includes only formally reported incidents where a file was initiated, and its statistics do not include dooring incidents, or injuries, or property damage not attributable to a motor vehicle. “
A couple of things on this. First the city confirmed they do use ICBC data, but data that is not available online. As reported by the Vancouver Province
http://live.theprovince.com/Event/Vancouver_councillors_hear_from_public_on_Point_Grey_Road_proposal?Page=0
“ 4:32 ICBC provides data for collisions. City doesn’t have its own numbers. Only data for cyclists vs moving vehicles. Doesn’t include dooring, for example.”
And,
“Now we’re talking about ICBC bike accident data.
Dobrovolny clarifies that the city used ICBC data that was not available online . The city staff report included information on accidents between parked cars and bikes, of which there were five on the stretch of Point Grey Road proposed to be shut off to commuter cars.
The ICBC has been clear that there were no accidents between moving cars and bikes on Point Grey between Alma and Macdonald from 2008 to 2012.”
by Graham Slaughter July 23, 2013 at 4:37 PM
So the data from the ICBC website did not report “dooring” incidents-incidents involving bikes and parked cars , called “dooring” in reference to incidents where bikes have run into opening car doors-, nor did it completely delineate Point Grey Road accidents between Alma and MacDonald, instead showing them between Trafalgar and Alma. The city did use the ICBC data though, only something more precise than that available online.
As I have mentioned to you in these forums, many times , when I heard that I no longer relied on the ICBC website data that has the disclaimer you have cited. I made a request directly to ICBC .
The request said
“I would like to know the following:
The number of traffic accidents involving cyclists from 2008-2012 on Point grey road between Macdonald st and Alma
The number of traffic accidents involving cyclists from 2008-2012 on Macdonald St between Cornwall and 16th
The overall number of traffic accidents from 2008-2012 on Point Grey Road between Macdonald st and Alma
The overall number of traffic accidents from 2008-2012 on Point Grey Road Macdonald St between Cornwall and 16th
I would also like a ranking of the top 10 worst intersections in Vancouver , west of Burrard St for traffic accidents from 2008-12, with the number of accidents listed for each
This information is needed for public consultation on the Point grey Cornwall bike lane proposal now before City Hall.
I would appreciate receiving this information today if possible.”
I received the information back the next day. It included dooring incidents and specifically compared Point Road between Alma and MacDonald with MacDonald.
I looked at it and emailed the information to every member of city council. As per my note to them
copied below , the data conclusively showed that since 2008 there have been 6 times the number of cyclist accidents on Macdonald (18 vs 3) as Point Grey Road and 7 times the number of vehicle accidents ( 1207 vs 180).
Now as some like you and HUB member Jeff Leigh have pointed out these accidents, by definition, don’t include unreported accidents. However with a 7 to 1 disparity that would only make a difference if someone were to assume that those being injured on Point Grey Road are for some reason less likely-by a ratio of 7 to 1- to report it than those being injured on MacDonald, which of course is complete nonsense.
So lets put this notion to rest once and for all that Point Grey road was closed to motor vehicle traffic because of safety concerns. There are many many areas of the city that have worse cyclist and motor vehicle accidents rates than Point grey road and Macdonald street, where the Point Grey road traffic was rerouted to is one of them.
After my information was presented , rather than dispute my figures which had been sent to them 2 days prior to my presentation 2 councilors thanked me for giving them the information they had been looking for. You can see that for yourself on the city hall web links to the speakers. I was speaker 86.
So the city was well aware before voting to close Point Grey Road, that MacDonald street, where the city has said the bulk of the Point Grey road traffic will be rerouted to , has 6-7 times the number of cyclist and motor vehicle accidents according to ICBC
My letter to the city prior to me presenting is below. The city acknowledged receipt of it two days before i spoke.
“As there has been a great deal of confusion over the number of traffic accidents and accidents involving cyclists on Point Grey road versus Macdonald Street during the Tuesday and Thursday discussions to date, I thought I’d list my data sources to hopefully resolve the problem
Traffic Accidents Involving Cyclists, all Traffic accidents: Point Grey Road vs Macdonald
Traffic Accidents involving Cyclists
If you go to the ICBC Website
http://www.icbc.com/crashmap-cyclists
and select Vancouver and drill down to the area relevant to the Pt Grey-Kitsilano bike lane discussion you will see information stating there have been no traffic accidents involving cyclists on Point Grey road between Alma and MacDonald since 2008 (see attached PDF’s: ICBC overview no crashes on Point Grey Road..) and if you key on the circles in the area where there have been crashes to see how many you will see that there have actually been more traffic accidents involving cyclists on Macdonald between Point Grey Road and Broadway, one on 4th & Macdonald and three on Broadway and Macdonald ( see PDF’ ICBC no crashes on Point Grey Road involving cyclists..)
However the ICBC data states it does not report accidents involving parked cars, “dooring”, for example, where a cyclist has run into an open door.
I asked ICBC for this data and they sent a report showing that since 2008 there had been 5 accidents in the last 5 years with cyclists involving parked cars in the area on Point Grey Road between Jericho Beach and Trafalgar (see PDF ICBC Report cyclist Accidents with Parked Cars Jericho Beach to Trafalgar)
Although this is a relatively small number- there were no “doorings” in 2012 and only 1 in 2011- Because the area on Point Grey Road between Jericho Beach and Trafalgar is actually wider than the area proposed to be closed to vehicles on Point Grey Road, between Macdonald and Alma Trafalgar I went back and asked ICBC for accidents involving cyclists including accidents with parked cars specific to Point Grey road between Macdonald and Alma. I wanted to compare it accidents involving cyclists including accidents with parked cars on Macdonald between Point Grey Road and 16th
The data shows that, including accidents with parked cars, “ dooring” ,there have been a total of 3 accidents involving cyclists on Point Grey Road between Alma and Macdonald since 2008 and there have been a total of 18 accidents involving cyclists on Macdonald between Point Grey Road and 16th. (See PDF: ICBC Cyclist Accidents and total accidents Point Grey Road Alma to Macdonald vs Macdonald Pt Grey Road to 16th)
All Traffic Accidents
The data also shows that in comparing all crashes since 2008 there have been 180 crashes on Point Grey Road between Macdonald and Alma since 2008 and there have been 1207 on Macdonald between Point Grey Road and 16th since 2008 (See PDF: ICBC Cyclist Accidents and total accidents Point Grey Road Alma to Macdonald vs Macdonald Pt Grey Road to 16th)
My conclusion from this is that the number of accidents involving cyclists on Point Grey Road between Alma and Macdonald, 0 for the last 2 years and 3 for the last 5 years, and the number of total accidents on Point Grey Road, 21 last year and 180 for the last 5 years, does not warrant rerouting 10,000 cars per day to Macdonald where there have been 18 accidents involving cyclists in the last 5 years and 1207 total accidents.
If I am wrong please tell me where the data is that says otherwise.
If I am right, then lets agree that the real problem on Point Grey road is a traffic one, not a bike path one and take initial steps to reduce speed there. Putting in speed bumps as they already have on Point Grey road west of Alma as you approach Jericho beach. Lets then talk about making the sidewalks larger or dedicating one of the parallel sidewalks to cyclists or removing parking from one side of the street from Trafalgar to Waterloo to allow a bike path..there are 38 driveways between Trafalgar and Waterloo on the north side of Point Grey Road but only 2 on the south side of Point Grey Road.
We can, if we want, work something out that works for everybody.
I am speaker 86 I will be referencing the in my talk and saying that if we can justify closing down roads based on traffic and cyclist accidents then there are a lot of other roads that should be closed down, based on higher accident rates, before Point Grey Road.
Thank you”
Susan,
Sorry the maps don’t help you as PGR did become a Major Street and Scenic Route.
1. PGR Mac-Alma has a min width of 66′ which is/was classified as a Major Street. Also a clue is the center line going down the middle of the street.
2. PGR use to have signs saying Scenic Route. Sets a precedent the other major streets that are scenic routes could push for closed streets too. SW Marine Drive comes to mind. 10 Ave is tight at the best times.
3. In the early 70’s the City started to buy and control subdividing on the North Side of PGR Mac-Alma as they were planning to buy up the lots to make the Scenic Route unobstructed to the North. Some cases of the subdividing which the City stopped even had to go to the Court of Appeals BC
Why is one house on 3 lots as it defeats what the city was trying to do.
I think there is the odd open space that was gifted much like Hadden Park was too. Hence there might be some covenant issues there as the City stopped buying up the lots.
Sure the City could have widen the road as they own a fair chunk of property each side of the street (3-7′). Why they didn’t or why they didn’t follow through with buying up the North side is a question for them and look through the City’s resolutions.
4. The removal of 10K cars from PGR has put them elsewhere to only make matters worse. There are no schools or playing fields North of 4th. Hence there are 10K more cars for the kids going to school and playing fields to dodge.
Further with the kids crossing the streets a ped lights and crossing walks with have all those extra cars idling
5.I’ve looked at the ICBC stats for 2008-2012 accidents and cycle crashes for the area and they are not greater than what happens South of PGR
especially on 4th.
Cycle crashes
http://public.tableausoftware.com/shared/CPXMQ69C5?%3Adisplay_count=yes&utm_source=hootsuite&utm_campaign=hootsuite
Crashes at Intersections
http://public.tableausoftware.com/shared/WC29XNXF8?%3Adisplay_count=yes
Why compound those already bad areas further by adding 10K more cars. Doesn’t it make sense to have alternatives for those areas that have worse problems than PGR before moving PGR problem elsewhere?
6. The process to change PGR like Hadden Park was pretty quiet and looks all to much like a shotgun wedding. Hence court cases to view what documents of the past say is important.
I appreciate your concern for the environment which I think is at the forefront of most Vancouverites especially those in Kits who grew up there in the 60’s. Sadly what the City has done with the closing of PGR has pushed the problem elsewhere in the City. It doesn’t solve anything and it creates divisions in the fabric that has made Vancouver the City it is
Btw in my 50 years of being in Kits I’ve driven, walked, transit, hiked the beach and biked.
Cheers,
Exactly, Neil, you have just confirmed my point: a city and its roads are not static; they evolve, and often unpredictably from the ancient plans. Point Grey Road was never widened to become an arterial, the purchase of homes by the City to make parks and a scenic drive was a plan that was abandoned due to cost, and the volume and speed of commuting motorists avoiding 4th Avenue and the other major arterials occurred unchecked (with the exception of a 30K speed limit being imposed in 1992). Now, the recently closed section of Point Grey Road (10 blocks) has evolved again into a residential and recreational local road and bike route as per the societal shift toward alternative forms of transportation.
Not that I think that this is an argument for keeping PGR as a through-route for cars, but in the Harland Bartholomew plan, PGR was indeed penciled in as a major arterial that would connect via Cornwall to the also penciled in Burrard Street Bridge. On page 50 of the plan, it proposes PGR as an 8 lane arterial. Cornwall and the Burrard Street Bridge were also supposed to be 8 lanes. (One might have been a streetcar lane.) Obviously these plans did not come to pass and PGR was built as a residential street.
Also interesting that the 1946 plan had the expressway from Grandview Cut across SEFC up to Georgia St. – I’ll bet that would have been less controversial than the scheme they tried through Chinatown and Gastown.
The 1946 plan just shows a major arterial on Charles St. to Malkin to the old Georgia Viaduct allignment.
(It also has the expressway entering Burnaby much farther south than the current TCH)
yvrlutyens great comments and good reference to Harland Bartholomew plan, You refer to PGR as residential but isn’t 66′ still classified as a Major Street?
Well no, I wouldn’t say it was a major street. The carriageway is only three lanes wide at points, and it is studded with driveways. That just isn’t major. And there are many residential streets where the ROW looks like it is around 20m from lot line to lot line. All through West Point Grey there are streets that when you measure from hedge to hedge, it is 20m even though the carriageway is only a shade more than 7m and with parking on both sides. That is residential as they get. Another thing, does the city really own a 66′ strip all the way along PGR? I only get 13 to 15 m from hedge to hedge (what I take to be the lot line) from Alma to Waterloo. If the city really does own 66′ all the way along, there is some serious encroachment there. (I’m using the Google Maps measurement tool.)
I would think a center line down the street is a big distinction between Major Street and Residential Street.
Have a read of this article as it spiked my curiosity on the public buffer –
http://www.francesbula.com/uncategorized/one-suggestion-for-point-grey-road-take-back-the-city-land-in-front-of-existing-houses-and-widen-the-road/
Cheers,
Yes, and “built as a residential street,” requires that Point Grey Road be maintained as a residential street, not as an arterial. The City has simply returned Point Grey Road to its original status since Vancouverites persisted in misusing it as a commuter thoroughfare to the detriment of all.
Neil:
I think it is a mistake to assume that a standard 66 foot road allowance designates something as a major street. At the cross streets in question, 2nd, 3rd, 6th, 7th, and 8th also have 66 foot allowances, the same as Alma. On the other hand, 1st, 4th, 5th, and Broadway have 80 foot allowances. If we wanted to build arterials through neighbourhoods based on the street plans, it seems clear that the intention was to use 1st, 4th, and Broadway, and not West Point Grey.
All data available on Van Map.
Yeah, those 1929 and 1946 plans are definitely quite far divorced from the reality we have today. I mean, the 1946 plan proposes for Kingsway, Rupert and sections of Broadway to be 10 lanes wide (!)
A good example of an analogy to Point Grey would be 33rd and Larch (particularly at their intersection). Sure, both have a painted centre line and Larch was slated in 1946 to be widened to four lanes (Puget Drive was considered to have four lanes, although in reality today with parking it does not). Yet today none of these roads are wider than the surrounding streets, and the 33rd and Larch intersection doesn’t even warrant a traffic light.
Those plans are not much more than the wishful thinking of planners foreseeing a (completely unrealistic and unrealised) future in which everyone drove their car.
What is intriguing is how some of these designs for thoroughfares that never came to be have resulted in de facto thoroughfares (some that come to mind are Broadway west of Alma and 10th between MacDonald and Alma — the former has speed bumps, while the latter does not, but both are quiet Kits neighbourhood streets with more traffic than should be allowed down them, much like Point Grey Road).
Susan. you are wrong on a number of points.
You say that Point Grey road was never intended as a commuter route.
In fact It has been since 1947 : From page 35 of “A Preliminary Report upon the Major Street Plan” published in 1947 by the Vancouver Town Planning Commission:
“N.W. Marine Drive – 4th Avenue – Point Grey Road – Cornwall Street
In the 1930 Report, Point Grey Road and Cornwall Street were recommended as major streets to be widened to 100 feet, and ultimately to be developed as a waterfront pleasure drive, which envisaged the acquisition of the property between Point Grey Road and English bay from Alma to Trafalgar Streets. However, as a considerable amount of building development has taken place since then, it would appear that the latter part of the project now would be prohibitive owing to excessive costs.
It is now recommended, therefore, that Point Grey Road, from Wallace to Trafalgar Streets, and Cornwall Street between Trafalgar and Burrard Streets, remain a major street route and that they be widened to 100 feet, 17 feet on each side.”
Secondly you say that “the speed and volume of commuter car traffic causing safety risks were the primary reasons for closing the road”
That is not true in fact ICBC data clearly shows that over the last 5 years , with similar car volumes , MacDonald street has had 7 times the number of accidents that Point Grey road has had. MacDonald is where the Point Grey traffic has been rerouted to. That is not in the public interest. due to relative accident volumes, for both cyclists and motorists and the fact that Macdonald unlike Point Grey road is a transit route for both elementary and secondary school children. I live 2 blocks east of Macdonald and Point Grey Road, have lived here for over 29 years had children that attended both local schools, have appeared on CBC to speak out against Point Grey Road and have sent my facts, which i obtained directly from ICBC to city council. I was speaker 86, in opposition to the closure of Point Grey Road last year at the public meetings and like most was against it. So please do not attempt any more to state that Point Grey Road was not designed to be a commuter route, nor that the speed and volume of traffic was the reason behind its closure. Both statement you’ve made are simply, demonstrably, not true
Randey Brophy, closed Point Grey Road is between Alma Street and Macdonald Street, a 10-block span of road all West of Macdonald Street. Wallace, Trafalgar, Burrard and Cornwall are all East of Macdonald Street, and the City has not closed and has no plans to close the streets East of Macdonald street, including Point Grey Road East of Macdonald Street. You simply do not know what you are talking about. Get your facts straight before you attempt to argue a point. Otherwise, you appear extremely foolish.
Actually it is you who simply doesn’t know doesn’t know what you are talking about because Wallace street is 2 blocks WEST of Alma, not east of MacDonaldd as you have erroneously said. So the area recommedned to remain an major route definitely included the 10 block span of Point Grey Road between Alam and Macdonald that is now closed ..”It is now recommended, therefore, that Point Grey Road, from Wallace to Trafalgar Streets, and Cornwall Street between Trafalgar and Burrard Streets, remain a major street route and that they be widened to 100 feet, 17 feet on each side.”
Once again it is you who appears “extremely foolish”..You really don’t know what you are talking about and/or are deliberately trying to mislead
Randey Brophy,
Again, if you think there is a problem with Macdonald Street, gather your factual evidence and present it to the City for their review. Nobody is stopping you from doing this. However, you clearly know nothing about Point Grey Road West of Macdonald, the now closed section of Point Grey Road, nor do the problems on Point Grey Road have anything to do with Macdonald Street. By your own admission, you think Macdonald Street was more dangerous than Point Grey Road prior to the closure of Point Grey Road (you keep quoting ICBC stats to try to prove this), so that would suggest that Macdonald Street has problems that are unrelated to Point Grey Road. Why are you targetting specifically Point Grey Road for the unrelated problems — that is completely illogical.
Susan Smith as mentioned previously the data was already sent to every member of council before the vote last year. The vision members chose to ignore it. With equal traffic volumes MacDonald already had over 6 times the number of bike accidents and 7 times the number of motor vehicle accidents as Point Grey road. I don’t have to “try to prove this”. It already has been proven. As anyone, can comprehend, increasing the traffic on Macdonald by closing Point Grey road never should have been done. you are doubling the traffic volume on a street that already has 6 -7 times the number of accidents plus goes by 3 schools. I’m sure you understand that. And I’m quite sure that your attempts to ignore the connection, deny the statisticsetc are readily seen for what they are. The accident rates ion Point grey road in no way justified closure of the road to automobiles. Especially when the ramifications of that dumped that motor vehicle traffic onto MacDonald.
Once again you are simply wrong.
Susan Smith notice you haven’t admitted that Wallace street is west of Alma and that the 10 block area of Point Grey road now closed has been recommended as a major street route since 1946 ”It is now recommended, therefore, that Point Grey Road, from Wallace to Trafalgar Streets, and Cornwall Street between Trafalgar and Burrard Streets, remain a major street route and that they be widened to 100 feet, 17 feet on each side.” You had said earlier that Point Grey road had never been intended as a commuter route. when i posted the 1946 study you said Wallace and the other streets mentioned were all east of Macdonald so the study didn’t include the area between MaCdonald and Alma and Once again you’re simply wrong.Wallace-Traflagar on Point Grey road definitely encompasses the area between Alma and Macdonald, So you were wrong in saying Point Grey Road between MacDpnald and Alma was never intended as a commuter route
As you were with saying Point Grey road had significant traffic concerns. ICBC stats don’t show that at all.The stats do show that Macdonald-where the Point Grey traffic has been dumped to has 6-7 times the number of accidents. As an economist at the hearing pointed out a great social injustice has been done to commuters on west side especially those living on MacDonald.
As you were with saying a 2200 member poll in favour of Point Grey Road closure was complied in 2 months. It took 2 years.and it wasn’t a poll.
As you were in saying that the majority of the 208 speakers who spent 4 days speaking against the motion to closure Point Grey road were in favour of closing it. Unfortunately for you the web link showing the speakers has been available for some time. As anyone can see, most were clearly against it. Do you actually expect people to believe that 208 people showed up over four days to tell Vision they were doing a great job by shutting down a public road,that 10k cars travel on daily, in a a city that already has the highest traffic congestion in North America. I was there for the whole session I was speaker 86-where I reiterated the stats I’d already sent council and there is absolutely no doubt thae vase majority were against this closure as Were the editorial staffs of both dailies as well as the results of the polling done by every media outlet The majority a clearly not in favour of closing this road and 2 municpal parties in the upcoming election have already prmised to reoopen it once elected
So your 0 for 4 so far..
Deja “moo”, Sue..same BS over and over and over. .
Please keep posting and I’ll keep calling you on your baloney.. By the way you said in another forum, twice, that there were (wait for it) 4500 cyclists per day now on Point Grey Road. I’ve asked you for the source of this information and you haven’t provided it. Please do so..
Randey Brophy, further to your 2 repetitive posts from today, April 20, 2014, in which you declare that I have not replied to your postings of April 19, 2014, and in which, yet again, you repeat exactly the same false information multiple times that you have already posted on this site and I have already replied to, once again you are wrong: I replied to your postings on April 19, 2014, but you just did not bother to read my posting or are pretending not to have read it. So, I am copying it here again for you, and then Randey, I am done attempting to educate you on the facts as you have proven yourself to be just one of the many trolls, incessantly redundant and prefering to spout the same obsolete fallacies over and over to attempt to manufacture controversy. I refuse to continue to feed the trolls:
“susan smith permalink
April 19, 2014 11:51 pm
Randey Brophy, what is the point of your repeatedly posting to me essentially the same posting in the same words over and over again today? Firstly, you are posting to an old webpage from January; we have moved on: Point Grey Road West of Macdonald has now been closed 4 months, and a lot of what you are trying to discuss is now obsolete. The fact is that the road has been permanently closed, Macdonald and 4th Avenue have suffered no ill effects from the extra traffic, and Point Grey Road is being embraced by numerous different types of users since it is now much safer than it was before. Further, although your comments are obsolete, I wish to correct a few of the blatantly wrong statements that you made in your postings today as they are personally offensive to me: (1) It is a fact that the over-2200 petition signatures gathered in support of closing Point Grey Road last year were gathered in a 2-month period only, not 2 years (which you claim); indeed, Randy, I know this because I was one of those collecting the signatures, and the dates of the signatures are on the petition (on record at City Hall), the date filled out by the signatories themselves; (2) the petition signatures in support of closing Point Grey Road were gathered face-to-face and door-to-door throughout Vancouver, not online anonymously; so, our petition to close the road contained the dates, names, home addresses, phone numbers and signatures by hand of supporters, as well as personal comments they chose to add; your online petition against the closure was (a) falsely worded, so the supporters were in support of nothing that was actually an option to the public, (b) completely anonymous, so there was no way to confirm the identity of the supposed supporters, (c) lacking controls for who could offer support on the petition and how often, and (d) devoid of signatures, rendering the number and validity of supporters questionable, at best, and utterly meaningless, at worst; (3) you are correct that Wallace is West of Alma, and I am correct that Trafalgar, Cornwall, Stephens, York and Burrard are East of Alma and East of Macdonald; (4) I am correct that Point Grey Road was designated a non-commuter arterial in 1995 (see Mike Harcourt’s letter on the subject as reprinted in the Douglas Todd article from last week, referenced here on Price Tags) and the posted speed limit on the road became 30K, which it has been ever since; (5) “recommendations” suggested as possible outcomes for Point Grey Road and made in the 1930′s and 1940′s were never “plans,” and never saw fruition; the road became entirely residential with a few pocket parks but with unrestrained commuter traffic at high volumes and high speeds by people avoiding the commuter arterials; (6) your ICBC statistics are incomplete and disclaimed by ICBC itself as such, so they do not even begin to describe the actual extremely unsafe condition of Point Grey Road prior to its closure; ICBC warns about this fact in its own reports. Again, Randy, these are facts that I am presenting to you, and they are current facts. You opine purely fictions, and the same old fictions over and over. Why?”
Randey Brophy, again it is a fact that Point Grey Road was not designed to be a commuter route. By your own admission in your comments above, and in the corroborating admission by Neil 21, Point Grey Road was never widened to accommodate commuter traffic, nor were any speed or traffic control measures implemented to allow Point Grey Road to function safely as a high-speed, high-volume commuter motorist street. No alterations of any kind were ever made to the road by the City for that purpose. These are incontravertable historical facts. Commuter motorists simply opted to avoid the traffic and speed control measures on the designated major arterials of 4th, 9th, 12th, 16th, 25th, etc. by speeding dangerously unrestrained on Point Grey Road, a road that historically has evolved into an entirely residential road with pocket parks. You may wish to deny its residential status to try to advocate for your personal preference of a commuter route, but factually you can not deny what the road has become and its safety needs for reduced motorist traffic. Indeed, now that it is a bike route, the number of non-motorist users on the road precludes any possiblity of re-opening it. The closure is “permanent.”
Further to my blog above, “Neil 21” refers to “Neil W. Humphrey.”
Vancouver is far too car friendly. PG road partial closure is a step in the right direction, but not far enough. 50% of all roads in Kits or Point Grey or west side need to be free of cars eventually . We have to recapture the city for pedestrians first, bikes second and cars a distant third. Especially “the free parking lot in front of my house is my right” attitude has to change, and the next step here is to charge for it, say $250/month.
It’s almost as if Thomas Beyer’s comment was made up by anti PGR closure people to fear monger and show how this closure is just the beginning of a car hating policy we should be fearing and fighting at all costs. Nice one, Thomas Beyer.
The issue is that PGR like SW Marine drive has been in the City’s Major Street and Scenic Drive inventory since at least the early 1900’s. Now PGR has been taken out of that inventory with no major alterative but to load up already Major Streets that have more cycle and car accidents already. Further there are no schools North of 4th in that area of PGR so the kids now have 10K more cars to cross to get to schools and the playing fields they use.
I grew up in Kits at 4th & Balacalva went to the schools and spent my rec time playing sports in the local clubs. Specifically I spent a lot of my life (50+) going between KYC and RVYC either by walking, bike, car or hiking the beach. That area of PGR is unique to the City in many ways for locals and tourist. Sadly, I now wish the City had carried through with its plan to buy up all the lots on the North side of PGR so we would not be where we are today battling between interest groups.
My position is that since PGR has been a Major Road and Scenic Route since the early 1900’s the City should have looked at a mixed use alterative rather than what they are doing. Sadly like Hadden Park, I see PGR Mac-Alma going before the courts too which I think is going to be the only way to balance what was done in the past and to address the current wishes of everyone.
These maps are from the City Archives –
Major Street Plan –
http://searcharchives.vancouver.ca/uploads/r/null/1/6/1687599/a8b8b930-92ed-423b-9ee5-53ec890515d4-A67026.jpg
Major Street Plan showing Scenic Drives-
http://searcharchives.vancouver.ca/uploads/r/null/1/6/1688589/179be439-a2cf-4485-9d4d-c19233396e8b-A67834.jpg
I have seen the upper map before. The proposed road that interests me is the diagonal road that connects Anadac Street to Twelfth Street, mark in red. The name of that road was suppose to be, “Diagonal Road.”
HERE HERE!
“Neil,” a potential residential “major street” and “scenic drive” as proposed in 1900 do not constitute the actual commuter arterial speedway with no views that was Point Grey Road by 2013. You have just proven my point.
Thank you for providing the link to the old maps.
Further, City property that could be used to widen roads exists all over the city of Vancouver, but widening Point Grey Road would do nothing to solve the grave safety concerns of the speed and volume of the commuter traffic; in fact, the injuries, property damage and fatalities that have been extensive on Point Grey Road would only increase by widening the residential road to more motorists. The cost of widening the road would also have been far beyond the current cost of closing the road. These are the two primary reasons that the City, throughout Vancouver’s history, has opted not to widen Point Grey Road.
As well, the current world trend is to work toward decreasing, not increasing the number of cars on roads to cut down on harmful emissions, address the depleting and unrenewable oil resources, and respond to the traffic congestion in growing cities within limited geographic boundaries. Logic dictates that this current trend is the way of the future; we may not always like change, but it is inevitable.
Susan, first you deny the Burrard Bridge was ever designed to feed traffic to Point Grey Road and when confronted with a plan that clearly shows it was always the intention, you dismiss it. It’s clear that with an attitude like that, you’re just the kind of citizen tailor made for Vision Vancouver.
Reading between the lines, it appears you are a resident of the area, and therefore no doubt overjoyed with a new semi-private parkway, paid for by the rest of us. It’s also clear you have no idea of commuting patterns between downtown, the North Shore and UBC.
And I am surprised nobody called out Mr. Price for the touching story of the triumph of the bicycle: illustrated with a couple driving a car to enjoy this new utopia.
Yes, and Paramedics and VFRS should be driven by horse and carriage, or some version of rickshaws, and absolutely no cars should be allowed anywhere in the COV as they are powered by the devil itself. The best way is to blow up the Viaducts, close all the roads for cars and allow only pedestrians and cyclists to use them. Anyone with disability or not fit to walk long distance, or cycle, should be outcast from Vancouver. This city is meant to be enjoyed by those who are wealthy, e.g. Mr. Lululemon. Why should working class people pollute his precious air with their Hondas, driving in front of his concrete fort on daily basis? I even propose that we build barricades on both sides of Burrard bridge and let only buses taking working class to their jobs to pass. Actually, all bridges in Vancouver should ban car traffic, we should have plants, and grow vegetables in the middle of these bridges, and have benches to enjoy the most beautiful views in the world. Absolutely no cars. They are pure evil, and their sale and use in COV should be banned permanently.
Well, that map puts paid to the oft repeated assertion that PGR was never meant as a thoroughfare for cars. I mean, here you have it, the city considered it a scenic drive.
Well said Deana
This sort of commentary is absurd – we can’t form public policy on misconceptions and stereotypes.
You know what’s even more “working class” than a Honda? A bike. By allowing people who live in the city to get around without a car, we’re actually making this city more affordable.
Tessa, not everyone can hop on a bike and pedal to work, especially long distance and certainly not everyone can afford $10 k + cycling gear. Rest assured those who drive their Lamborghinis, AQ7, etc. do not want to see a bicycle except when their 12 year old children are riding them.
I refuse to be told how to commute, what to eat and how to live my life: see, that way of thinking I thought I left for good when I immigrated from a communist country to a free society. I am not Mrs. Lululemon but I am not 12, or 21 year old, and I will not be told how to get to work. Because at work I actually have work to do. I don’t have time to shower three times a day, blow dry my hair three times a day, etc. I don’t have time for that, get it?
Maybe you are unable to understand because you are one of those with lots of money in the bank, maybe you do not have to work to pay your mortgage/ rent, and good for you if you can afford 10k bicycle gear. I can’t. Plus, as I age, I find it very, very offensive, rude and selfish when the likes of you treat us – the motorists – with such disrespect only because we accept cars as most comfortable and safest means of transportation. The more we are stuck in traffic, the pollution gets worse. And that is something the likes of you conveniently seem to ignore.
This city, FYI, is less affordable and less livable by every minute, thanks to the skyscrapers being built as we speak. The West End zoning laws have gone to hell. For almost 20 years since I have lived in the West End and commuted to UBC, my travel time has doubled the reason is less road and more people. And it is “only” 13 km, from my home to my workplace. Developers are making tonnes of money, and “green” fraudsters are running the city. Simply sickening.
Deana, you mention living in the West End and wanting to drive on any road you like, without restrictions. Are you also requesting that the traffic calming measures in the West End be removed, and those roads turned over to commuter through traffic?
Deana,
You live in the West End and commute to UBC and are sticking up for the ‘working man’? While transit is not feasible for people in all parts of Vancouver you have hit on two places well linked with transit and I would assume ‘the working man’ would take transit to work in your situation. Maybe you should try it. Maybe it will help with your attitude problem.
@Deana:
$10,000 cycling gear? What world do you live in where you need to spend more than the price of a car simply to peddle to work? I haven’t lived in Vancouver for about a year now, but where I live I bike every day to work and shops and earn maybe $1,000 a month, maybe a little more if I’m lucky. When I lived in Vancouver I cycled to all my non-work destinations – my commute was too long so I took transit, and I’ll happily admit that cycling doesn’t work for every trip. I can’t afford a car, let alone $10,000 worth of clothes, and I’ve never showered more than once a day or suffered because of it. I certainly don’t cycle at top speed in lycra or whatever. This is what I mean when I say this debate shouldn’t be based on such obvious misinformation, stereotypes and fear-mongering, as you are providing.
You accuse me of privilege and yet you think you should have the right to park your giant hulk of metal in the middle of the city and drive on roads wherever you like regardless of the effect these cars have on the rest of the city, the residents or our environment. I’m guessing you also don’t believe you should have to give up any space on those roads for other modes of transportation, even though biking, transit and walking are growing in mode share, use less space, cause less pollution and cost the city less in tax dollars than auto infrastructure. These mode shares even reduce congestion, as there is no way we could accomodate everyone in automobiles in such a dense city. And I expect you also don’t want to pay for that pollution you cause through an increase in the carbon tax. And you call me rude and selfish, and pretend as though I am somehow so much more privileged than you?
Another misconception you make is that the increasing population in Vancouver is also driving up the number of cars and traffic in the city. It’s not. The number of cars on the roads throughout the city of Vancouver is decreasing year over year, and is around the same now as it was in the 1960s. These facts are well documented by the city and have been covered extensively on this blog.
No one is telling you how to commute, Dana: You are the one getting in the way of other people simply trying to get to and from work safely, to and from the shops safely, to and from parks safely. You are the one opposing transportation options for everyone of all ages, all abilities and all incomes, and while I am trying to remain as respectful as possible in this comment, I can’t call what you wrote anything other than ignorant, self-righteous and hypocritical.
Car use is far too cheap in Vancouver. As such it’s use has to be made more inconvenient and expensive, both driving and parking. So, yes, PGR closure is a step in the right direction but not far enough. Vancouver is a city designed for cars, and to change that takes time and leadership that is sadly lacking in Vancouver. Car is king, and will be for some time. We can do better. I’d say that downtown Vancouver, like Stockholm or London, needs to charge for car access, say $20/ day. On street parking in residential areas needs to be high, very high, say $250/month. Then things will change . Until then, just lip service under the “vision” label.
Deana: this absurd strawman concoction is so obviously just angry sarcasm. But it so far from being anything but silly, and maybe a bit funny, that I’m going to dub it the inaugural member of a new class of argument: The Zombie Strawman.
It makes noise. It staggers over the earth. But it has no life.
think whatever you want … My vote has life, and it is time to take the trash out the City Hall. and undue the damage.
Deanna, it is too bad that with the closure of Point Grey Road, you might have to change your commuter route to work by driving an extra block or two. It is too bad that you might have to get up 5 minutes earlier to drive on one of the major designated arterials with speed control measures. It is too bad that as car traffic increases with an increasing population in a World Class City that changes have to be made to respond to changes in congestion and preferred traffic patterns. Yes, it is too bad that all things cannot remain the same forever. You know what they say, Deanna: “If you can’t stand the heat, get out of the kitchen.” Or, as once Mayor Campbell said to his constituents, “If you can’t afford to live in Vancouver, move to Revelstoke.” Although I do not know you Deanna, I would hate to think that you were pushed out of Vancouver to Revelstoke because you refused to simply follow the rules of the road and realize that compromises have to be made as cities grow and change. Here’s a thought; if you go to bed 5 minutes earlier, you won’t miss any sleep when you get up earlier for work. I understand your concerns about not wanting to be smelly at work from riding a bike there; have you considered an electric bike or scooter — they are cheaper than a car, better for the environment, and won’t make you smelly.
“Neil,” it is unfortunate that you insist on a “scenic route” that simply does not exist anymore. As I’ve already stated, the only view is a second’s worth in a car when passing by a pocket park. Precisely, previous City councils did not follow through on purchasing the properties on the North side of the road to protect, preserve or insure a “scenic drive.” And, with the rise in property values and costs, the City is no longer considering the option of buying them up now. That decision cannot be reversed. However, protecting the street as a safe, residential road for all users is achievable, and has not been achieved, at long last.
“Bob,” I trust that with this long overdue return of Point Grey Road to its initial status as a residential street as opposed to the over-sight of it becoming a commuter freeway by commuter preference (not necessity), that anyone and everyone who wants to spend time there, now can and will, safely. In no way is your claim that it is a “semi-private” park even remotely accurate. Nothing is stopping anyone from accessing and using what will be an enlarged green space at Tatlow Park and the traffic-calmed road. No one, including the residents of the area can commute down Point Grey Road anymore as a fast, unsafe route to downtown, UBC or the North Shore. For much too long, Point Grey Road has been used illegally by speed demons as an unchecked commuter route to all parts of the City because the road did not have stop-lights, pedestrian crossings, advance turn lanes, roundabouts or other speed control measures on it. You and the two “Neil”s resent that this freedom to break the law has now been denied you by the City. You are precisely the types who should not be driving down Point Grey Road because you don’t obey the 30K speed limit. The planned and executed arterials of 4th, 9th, 12th, 16th, 25th, Macdonald Street, etc. complete with speed and traffic control measures to harness your excessive speed are exactly where commuter traffic was envisioned and planned for. Finally, the City has acted after Point Grey Road reached its critical mass of traffic congestion. No one is forcing you to get out of your vehicle; but, if you are going to drive, the City is going to take the necessary measures to control your speed and protect the safety of others. I applaud this forward-thinking effort.
Susan, you’re now venturing into incomprehensible rant territory. You have no idea how fast I ever drove down Point Grey Road, how could you? We’re all so happy you’ve gotten us to pay for your semi-private road. Perhaps you are one of the 1%, living on the waterside. If not, your time of being priced out of the area is coming. For your children (if you have any) it’s likely already here. But it’s a swell playground for the rich, enhanced courtesy of the mayor. Shame their maids will have to commute in from Langley.
Bob and his gang should move to Russia and become friends with Putin!
Don’t look now, “Bob,” but your jealousy is showing. True colours always will out. Try finding a reasonable argument with at least a smidgeon of supporting truth/evidence.
I used logic, “Bob” — if you were not a speeding commuter driver along Point Grey Road, why would you care if the road is now closed only to commuter drivers? You wouldn’t. I notice you haven’t denied speeding down the road, either. Case closed (just like Point Grey Road).
“Bob,” so sad that you mistake facts as “incompehensible rant”, but then ignorance is said to be bliss.
Ah Susan, so you see yourself as one of the privileged creme de la creme we should all be jealous of. Sorry, not. Strange you seem certain I recreate the Indy 500 on Point Grey Road, when just a few posts earlier you pontificated that I had clearly never driven on it. Rest assured the 4 or 5 times a year I used Point Grey Road it was done at the speed limit.
The only thing that’s clear about this exchange is that you are nothing more than a stereotypical NIMBY, out to get your little slice of private-drive heaven, at the expense of your neighbours a few blocks away who will contend with the fallout.
The maps are interesting. Good to see what the plans were for the city decades ago. However, the future should not be guided by decades old plans.
The maps do prove that making Point Grey a local traffic greenway is not unique. Wall Street was a scenic drive east of Nanaino and a major road to be widened west of Nanaino. It is now a bikeway, part of the TransCanada Trial and the future Portside Greenway. Essential the Eastside’s Seaside Greenway.
People get angry about the most inconsequential things, like this road. I mean, REALLY people. It doesn’t matter that much.
What’s with everyone saying cyclists are the wealthy elite, too? I ride a bike and don’t own a car. My bike gear didn’t cost $10,000, come on. I bought my bike on craigslist for $75.
Everyone’s trying to lay claim of “the everyman” identity. The victim identity. You can live in the West End and drive to UBC, and still feel like you are being victimized by bike lanes and high rises. It’s astonishingly egotistic.
Here’s the rule we should live by in a liberal society: you can do whatever you want as long as it only affects you. As soon as your freedom hurts others, that freedom must sadly be constrained. For this reason, driving must be constrained. It’s just an unfortunate drawback of living in a society with other humans.
Yes, “Spank,” I could not agree with you more.
Susan,
Love your strategic thinking on this PGR discussion. Truly amazing how many people can’t think logically! Let’s continue the fight to make sure PGR remains open to all Vancouverites for a very long time! Maybe we should included to all Canadians?
Extreme views from either side does nothing to help this discourse. Telling others that they should get on a bike instead of using a car shows a complete lack of awareness and sensitivity about reality. Many people, for whatever reason, are simply not comfortable with biking to work every day, be it their fitness, age or comfort about riding in poor weather, which we get a fair bit of here in Vancouver. The fact is, we need safe places to commute by cycle, but that cannot be at the expense of cars, which also need to be used. That’s just a fact of life. Both need to co-exist and anyone who feels otherwise is just not being either realistic or empathetic and should not be part of this conversation at all. Sorry, but honestly, telling someone to ditch their car and ride a bike is just as stupid as telling a bike rider to get a car. Let’s keep this discussion reality based.
David,
It is time for rich people in Vancouver to use our world class transit system. Bus #22 can take you from Kits to downtown in less than 10 minutes.
I ride the bus often from Kits to downtown and never see wealthy-rich people. What I do see are very rich people driving their BMW, Ferraris, and Lamborghinis down PGR at speeds of up to 100 k/h. These people are coming from point grey and UBC and using PGR as a shortcut to downtown. The amount of traffic and excessive speed has made PGR a danger zone for children, seniors, tourists, etc….
You can see an interesting presentation on Ted Talks from “Enrique Peñalosa called: Why buses represent democracy in action”
http://www.ted.com/talks/enrique_penalosa_why_buses_represent_democracy_in_action.html
Ben, public transit is very important and I know plenty of people of all class that use it. At the same time, please don’t dilute your point with fantasy notions about the bus taking 10 minutes. You have to walk from your home to the bus, wait for the bus and then, maybe it takes 10 or 15 minutes, then you have to walk to your final destination. That can be more like 45 minutes to an hour. I know. I’ve done it, so keep it real here. Anyway, I was talking more about telling people to get on a bike.
Talking about Lamborghinis racing down PGR at 100km is also a bit far fetched. Has it happened? Maybe, but I’ve never seen it ever. Have you really seen it? Really? If so, perhaps it’s the people who live there already, so they will race down another road, right? Just pushing that problem somewhere else. You care so much about children and seniors, but seemingly only on PGR but not where that same Lamboghini will be redirected to.
Studies have been done in Vancouver of how long it takes to take transit, ride a bike and take a car from one destination to another, and you might be surprised to hear the bike often beats the car – especially because of parking concerns. Transit usually lags behind a bit but not by much. If you’re going to add the amount of time it takes to walk to a bus stop, we should also consider the time spent circling the block for a parking spot.
That said, you’re right, cars aren’t going to disappear. But if we are going to move more people in less space as the city becomes more dense, we need to look at other modes. Up until now, the car has taken up much more space on city streets than the number of users would warrant, and part of balancing out that historical imbalance means taking some space away from cars. In many places, you simply can’t fit a separated bike lane without taking away a lane of cars (Burrard Bridge, for instance) If we do that, and if we can move the modal shift even a little bit over towards bikes/walking/transit/carpooling, then congestion decreases and we can move more people in less space. We’ve seen this already – since 1996, the number of vehicles in the city of Vancouver has been decreasing.
But what we certainly can’t do is expect every new resident in the Vancouver area to own a car, and then expect there to be anything other than constant gridlock. We can’t build more roads in Vancouver – there’s no space, so we have to fit more people in somewhere. That means alternatives, and those alternatives need space.
Hi Tessa,
All great comments!
Have you noticed how the traffic on Cornwall street has now also been reduced which is allowing buses to travel more quickly? Yesterday it took me 8 minutes on bus 22 from Larch street to robson with a return time from robson street back to larch of 7 minutes! These are truly amazing numbers. BC Transit has a app which gives the exact minute your bus will arrive. Lets get rich people from the west side to use now!
I also nominate Susan as our next mayor!
People can still race their Lamborghinis along Pt Grey, although I don’t expect they will be hitting 100kph. http://m.theatlanticcities.com/design/2013/03/introducing-32000-lamborghini-bicycle/4954/
At “only” $32,000, this two wheeler is less expensive than many cars.
Funny!
Richard,
With the closure of Point Grey Road, the street is now teeming with pedestrians, runners, wheel chair users, cyclists, local motorists and others at all times of the day and night, which is fabulous. If lamborginis try racing down Point Grey Road today, firstly they will be prevented from doing so at Blenheim, and again at Macdonald (the road is completely blocked in both directions). In between the blockages, they will almost certainly hit one or more of the above-mentioned other users of the road, kill them, and go to jail for murder.
David,
Cars will always exist in one form or another as long as there is an energy source to keep them running, people can afford them, and a government does not decide to ban them. No one is advocating banning cars, yet. Once a technology has been invented and embraced, it is here to stay unless an improved technology replaces it. Encouraging people to use other forms of transportation — bikes, scooters, the bus, skateboards, etc. — is not a dirty suggestion (just the opposite), and does not imply giving up one’s car. It is simply a fact that the world is changing, with cities contracting and becoming congested with car traffic; thus, changes in transportation systems and methods are a reality (not a preference), and adjustments in our routines and mindsets have to be made whether we like it or not. Social responsibility requires compromise and sometimes personal sacrifices. I am an avid motorist and will not be abandoning my car any time soon unless I am forced to do so, but I am increasingly including other forms of transportation in my life in order to respond to the reality of my changing city. Luckily, I am still young and able enough to do so. Those who are not, can’t, of course, and no one is suggesting that they can.
Susan, we are really on the same page here, but others are making the glib comment that people should get out of their cars and on bikes, without appreciating that this is just not practical or appropriate for many people. I use my bike when I can, but also rely on my car. The other fact that people have to appreciate is that biking represents a growing and important part of the commuter picture, but it’s still very, very small percentage of people who use bikes for transport (as opposed to say, weekend fun). That’s a reality that has to be considered in all this. I support bike lanes and safety measures, but I don’t appreciate some of the comments suggesting that cars should be essentially fazed out and people should learn to get on a bike. Just not going to happen.
“David” — I suspect that the die-hard cyclists who insist that biking is for one and all (1) genuinely love riding a bike — the breeze in their hair, etc.– and so want others to experience the joy they feel, or (2) can’t afford a car, or (3) are environmentally conscious, or (4) want to stay fit, or (5) are socially responsible and want to do their part to lessen traffic congestion in the city, or (6) are kids at heart, or (7) appreciate the convenience of being able to go and park where cars can’t, or (8) see the writing on the wall and are accepting that unsustainable resources may render cars obsolete at some point, or (9) _______________ fill in the blank. I further suspect that depending on the individual, more than one of the above motivators guides their enthusiasm for two-wheeling it. Bless them, as all of these intentions are well-meaning and intelligent. I also think that most cyclists know very well that a bike is not a viable solution for everyone or at all times.
Hi Susan: let me say how much I admire your knowledge and energy. You are a refreshing voice in this oddly tiresome exchange.
It is worth noting how the PGR issue is constantly framed as the loathsome “bikes vs. cars”, when in fact it is more about traffic calming in a residential area. Meaning safe access to parks and recreation. And yes, for sure, a safe route for people on bikes. And peds. And residents.
Further, it seems that transportation issues as a whole are being framed by some as “faster, faster, get there faster”. Personally, I think transportation is vastly complex, with one of the many rarely-discussed issues being that SOV car travel is a health hazard to the driver and passengers due to stress and inactivity. Meanwhile, people taking transit walk to and from stations (30 minutes of walking a day has profound health benefits). And people on bikes can get even more benefit, and can travel 5-10 km in 30 minutes.
The entire argument against closing the road is based on a false premise. That closing the road makes the vehicle transportation system less efficient. Almost all respondents in this comments section lament that this closure makes driving worse and that’s not something Vancouver should do. Except that the closure hasn’t made driving worse. At all. There is no new congestion on the new way points. Commute times are immaterially longer if at all. Distance driven is the exact same.
Get it? There has been no net loss in the efficiency of the system and everyone knows it.
So why then are people upset? Well, if you look at what people are saying is that they’re trumping up some canard that the drive is worse, slower, congested while what they say they miss is… the view.
Well I’m sorry, but catering to commuters or affluent west siders so they can enjoy their view just doesn’t pass the benefit-cost test at all. Sorry people, you enjoyed those three snippets of views for 50 years. Now EVERYONE can enjoy them not just people whizzing by.
Susan, my experience tells me that some cyclists persist on an “us vs. them” mentality and that cars are evil and should be marginalized at all costs and that if you don’t ride a bike, you are some kind of leper. I just don’t think that view is either well meaning or intelligent. Otherwise, again, I agree with you. Most cyclists, like myself, just enjoy it and want others to as well. No harm in that.
Oh, and the notion that cars may one day be rendered obsolete? I can’t agree with you there. It just isn’t going to happen, so best to just forget that unreal notion. It just ain’t so.
Hi Ken,
Thank you for the welcome. Will try not to let you down.
I agree with Ron’s idea that removal – or not – of the viaducts would have been a better election issue for the NPA. First of all, it affects a far wider spectrum of users and interests, is both a downtown and East Side issue and, further, can be seen as just another mega development ploy rather than a “green”, i.e., enlarged park, issue.
On the park issue, I think most people who live anywhere near NEFC would rather have the long-promised park sooner rather than much, much later, which removal of the viaducts would entail.
Funny how the PGR dissenters have gone away so quickly. Their arguments were deliberately misconstrued! Honesty and logic prevails. Great job Susan!
“Bob,” re your comment posted last night, no “pontificating” here, just clarification for the uninformed or misinformed. Too bad my efforts bounced off you, but then brick is thick. How is NIMBYism involved in the closure of Point Grey Road when all Vancouverites who choose to use the closed road benefit? As already clearly stated by me and others above, there is no “private park.” If you can’t say anything meaningful, why say anything at all?
Occasionally it can take time to spot them, but the best advice is: “Don’t feed the trolls”.
“Ken,” point taken.
Ah yes Ken, the typical line taken when someone disagrees with your echo chamber. Best stick to the photos.
There is another scenic roadway which had to be closed to commuter traffic due to cars and taxis travelling at excessive speeds endangering the lives of pedestrians, children, seniors, cyclists, tourists, etc. The City does not allow north shore commuters to use the Stanley Park roadway during rush hours from 3:30pm to 6:30pm as it was being used as a shortcut to Georgia street. Over the last 30 years, I have biked hundreds of times around Stanley Park. What I have seen are the exact same issues as point grey road, where taxis and powerful cars like BMWs, Audis, etc. are allowed to drive unimpeded at two to three times over the speed limit (set at 30 K/M).
Let’s ask George Affleck to vote for increasing the speed limit in Stanley Park!
I have the perfect solution: MAKE PGR a ONE WAY ALTERNATING roadway and24 hour bikeway and pedestrians.
Eastbound from 6am to 12 noon. ONE WAY ONLY!!
from NOON TO 3:AM WESTBOUND OPEN
Just like Stanley Park causeway, lights are put in RED / GREEN OK ….
CREATE A ROUNDABOUT AT 4TH AND ALMA OR…..
AT LEAST PUT A LEFT TURN BAY ON WESTBOUND 4TH AT ALMA. <— Why is there no left bay here????
THIS IS THE WAY!!!
Sorry, meant, EASTBOUND from 3AM to Noon. When people are going to work. Get the working people’s votes. When they come home at 5PM THE LANE IS OPEN WESTBOUND!!!
Perfect harmony.
Obviously this means only one lane for cars and one lane for bikes + wider silk walk for peds.
Shephard, what don’t you understand about the MAJOR SAFETY problem of car volume and speed on Point Grey Road which contributed to its closure to commuter motorists? Hello, are you paying attention! What don’t you understand about the fact that Point Grey Road is a RESIDENTIAL STREET and SCENIC RECREATIONAL AREA, not a commercial road, not a causeway, not a commuter highway. A one-way street would do nothing to control the speed of cars and although reducing the volume of commuter traffic by half, would still be 5,000+ cars a day zooming through a RESIDENTIAL AREA used by pedestrians, bikes, runners, beach-goers, park users, local motorists, etc. Further, how would home-owners and residents of the area be able to access their homes by car during your proposed hours of rush-hour one-way traffic if they live on the opposite side of the road to the one-way traffic flow: North-siders all have driveways and garages accessed only from Point Grey Road (no back lanes), and this is true for many South-siders as well. I take it that you are suggesting that the vast majority of home owners living on Point Grey Road should not be permitted to access their homes by their cars during rush hours because you prefer to commute by car at break-neck speed down this RESIDENTIAL road rather than use the major commuter arterials of 4th, 9th, 12th, 16th, 25th, etc.: are you nuts!
‘ sidewalk (damn spell check)
By way of an update on the Point Grey Road Closure to commuter traffic, be advised that as part of the project, City “staff have improved the signals along West 4th Avenue at Bayswater, Balaclava, Trutch and Blenheim to make it easier for drivers leaving the neighbourhood to make a left-turn onto 4th Avenue. These changes mean you will no longer have to wait for a pedestrian to push the button in order for the light to change and will be in effect every day between 7:00am and 7:00pm.” The City is making excellent efforts in terms of keeping motorist and cyclist traffic moving smoothly in the area.
Randey Brophy, what is the point of your repeatedly posting to me essentially the same posting in the same words over and over again today? Firstly, you are posting to an old webpage from January; we have moved on: Point Grey Road West of Macdonald has now been closed 4 months, and a lot of what you are trying to discuss is now obsolete. The fact is that the road has been permanently closed, Macdonald and 4th Avenue have suffered no ill effects from the extra traffic, and Point Grey Road is being embraced by numerous different types of users since it is now much safer than it was before. Further, although your comments are obsolete, I wish to correct a few of the blatantly wrong statements that you made in your postings today as they are personally offensive to me: (1) It is a fact that the over-2200 petition signatures gathered in support of closing Point Grey Road last year were gathered in a 2-month period only, not 2 years (which you claim); indeed, Randy, I know this because I was one of those collecting the signatures, and the dates of the signatures are on the petition (on record at City Hall), the date filled out by the signatories themselves; (2) the petition signatures in support of closing Point Grey Road were gathered face-to-face and door-to-door throughout Vancouver, not online anonymously; so, our petition to close the road contained the dates, names, home addresses, phone numbers and signatures by hand of supporters, as well as personal comments they chose to add; your online petition against the closure was (a) falsely worded, so the supporters were in support of nothing that was actually an option to the public, (b) completely anonymous, so there was no way to confirm the identity of the supposed supporters, (c) lacking controls for who could offer support on the petition and how often, and (d) devoid of signatures, rendering the number and validity of supporters questionable, at best, and utterly meaningless, at worst; (3) you are correct that Wallace is West of Alma, and I am correct that Trafalgar, Cornwall, Stephens, York and Burrard are East of Alma and East of Macdonald; (4) I am correct that Point Grey Road was designated a non-commuter arterial in 1995 (see Mike Harcourt’s letter on the subject as reprinted in the Douglas Todd article from last week, referenced here on Price Tags) and the posted speed limit on the road became 30K, which it has been ever since; (5) “recommendations” suggested as possible outcomes for Point Grey Road and made in the 1930’s and 1940’s were never “plans,” and never saw fruition; the road became entirely residential with a few pocket parks but with unrestrained commuter traffic at high volumes and high speeds by people avoiding the commuter arterials; (6) your ICBC statistics are incomplete and disclaimed by ICBC itself as such, so they do not even begin to describe the actual extremely unsafe condition of Point Grey Road prior to its closure; ICBC warns about this fact in its own reports. Again, Randy, these are facts that I am presenting to you, and they are current facts. You opine purely fictions, and the same old fictions over and over. Why?
Because you repeatedly say things completely untrue and then insult everyone’s intelligence with a cavalcade of transparent BS when called on it.
You said Point Grey was never intended as a commuter route i pointed out that documents dating back to 1946 had it designated as a major artery. you said I was wrong becuase those documents refereed to streets on Point grey road east of MacDonald. They did not. Wallace street identified s the western boundary of Pt Grey Road in the document is west of Alma. So your statment then that Point Grey road was never intended as a commuter route was completely wrong.
You then tried to claim that the majority of the 200 speakers who spoke at the hearing on Point Grey road were in favour of closure. That as you know is completely false As Reported in the Globe and Mail Even Vison councior Heather Deal said 55-65% of the speakers were against the proposal. http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/british-columbia/vancouvers-bike-lanes-gordon-price-on-when-to-ignore-the-opposition/article13518372/ quote:
Vancouver’s bike lanes: Gordon Price on when to ignore the opposition
FRANCES BULA
VANCOUVER — Special to The Globe and Mail
Published Tuesday, Jul. 30 2013, 8:02 PM EDT
Last updated Tuesday, Jul. 30 2013, 8:05 PM EDT
at least half or more of them saying that they adamantly opposed the plan for a Point Grey/Kits bike route and greenway.
Those councillors also reminded themselves of two things: What did you tell people your priorities were in the last election? Does anything in this plan need a serious fix?
“It’s really hard to sit and listen to people who are upset and angry,” said Councillor Heather Deal, who introduced the final motion on Monday to approve the plan. “It’s wearing. But you look at city policies and the things you ran on – like being the greenest city, like the Transportation 2040 plan – and you rely on that.”
Although Councillor George Affleck, who tried to get the project decision deferred until October, said that about 70 per cent of the speakers at five nights of council meetings were opposed, Ms. Deal said that it was more like 60 or even 55 per cent.
so for you to say the majority of speakers were in favour of the closure of Point Grey road is absolutely false. Even vision councilors disagree with that. 55-70% were against it. I attended all sessions and would put theose against it at about 70%.
You then says you were a speaker at these sessions. The problem with that was I was also a speaker at theses sessions I was speaker 86 and I attended all these sessions either in person or via the live videostream I don’t remember seeing or hearing any presentation from you and when I look at the speakers list for all the sessions I don’t see your name. Again when did you speak and what was your number?
You then say that my stats which I obtained directly from ICBC- not from their website, which contains the disclaimer that it doesn’t include incidents with parked cars is wrong.. As I have said to you repeatedly the data I got was a specific request I sent to ICBC I stated in my request it was for the Point Grey bike lane hearing and asked for a comparison since 2008, including incidents/accidents involving parked cars, “Dooring” between Point Grey road Alma to MacDonald and Macdonald,. The data showed conclusively that there have been 6 times the number of cyclist accidents and 7 times the number of motor vehicle accidents on Point Grey road as there have been on MacDonald. I obtained this info Jul 25 sent it to council, they acknoweldge receipt of it I asked them if they felt the info was wrong or had other stats that said otherwise to let me know. They didn’t have anything else. I presented it 2 days later. Far from saying it was incomplete and inaccurate- as you claim it is. they thanked me for it. you have made repeated false referenses to the validity of my stats. the fact is as reported by The Vancouver Observer live blog at the event
http://www.vancouverobserver.com/politics/bicycle-battle-city-hall-continues-kits-bike-lane-proposal-live-blog?page=0,2
The city uses ICBC stats . As reported::
“Now we’re talking about ICBC bike accident data.
“(City Manager} Dobrovolny clarifies that the city used ICBC data that was not available online . The city staff report included information on accidents between parked cars and bikes, of which there were five on the stretch of Point Grey Road proposed to be shut off to commuter cars.
The ICBC has been clear that there were no accidents between moving cars and bikes on Point Grey between Alma and Macdonald from 2008 to 2012.
by Graham Slaughter July 23, 2013 at 4:37 PM
the City uses ICBC stats”
and the city acknowledges that the bulk of the 10000 cars rerouted per day from Point Grey road will be routed to MacDonald As reported in the Observer online blog:
“Councillors now asking Dobrovolny questions about the bike lane proposal. Concerns centre on safety, specifically on the stretch of Macdonald Street between Point Grey and 4th. Traffic will increase from 10,000 cars per day to 17,000.
Dobrovolny says “it’s absolutely a legitimate concern” for residents’ safety, but other residential streets in Vancouver have handled higher volumes of traffic.
by Graham Slaughter July 23, 2013 at 5:26 PM
So for you to say as you have that Point Grey road was closed becasue of safety concerns and that the increased traffic on MacDonald is somehow an unrelated issue. is the biggest lie of all.
You know that the bigger traffic safety issue was already occuring on Macdonald ,which with the same number of traffic has 6 to 7 times the accidents ans Point Grey road and instead of admitting it you try to say the stats are incorrect. They are not. you are.
and comments from you and Hub member Jeff Leigh that the reported ICBC accident data doesn’t include unreported accidents aere irrelevant, unless you seriously expecte people to believe that people getting injured on Point Grey road are less likelty to report it ( by a factor of 7, then people on Macdonald.
To sum
Point Grey Road never should have been closed to motor vehicles. . Point Grey road did not have a high accident rate, period. Especially not compared to MacDonald where the bulk of the traffic was shifted to.
Point Grey road had been designed as a commuter route for some time and should have stayed one, especially in a city which already has the highest traffic congestion in north america.
The majority of people attending the public meeting were against the closure of Point Grey road. Vision councilors even admit this. Polls taken and editiorials writtenby every newspaper and media outlet also found the majority were against the closure of Point Grey road.
These are the facts Susan Smith. anyone who says different is lying.
Randey Brophy,
Still, you have provided nothing but hearsay. You do not seem to understand that hearsay is not fact; that is why hearsay is not evidenciary in law. What people may or may not have said, and, even worse, what the media prints as what people may or may not have said is just hearsay, meaningless subjective opinion based on personal biases, not fact, unless supported by objective evidence, such as documentary evidence, legal proceedings, photos, videos, recordings, data, statistics, expert investigative studies, etc. Jeff, others, and I have provided numerous types of objective factual evidence, and the links for you, and others, to learn the facts yourself about why and how Point Grey Road came to be permanently closed as well as the benefits for all Vancouverites. But, Randey, you choose to ignore the facts and depend on the sensationalized media hearsay that favours your biased opinion. Since you depend exclusively on hearsay, are you aware how many media articles and publications support the closing of Point Grey Road? You never quote from or refer to any of them? That’s your blatant bias. Choosing to stay ignorant of the facts is just that, your choice, Randey.
It is unfortunate that you resent Point Grey Road being closed to commuter traffic even though it does not affect you, living on Trafalgar, except by providing you with the benefits of a safer road to run on and walk your dog. You seem to have overlooked these obvious benefits to you of having closed Point Grey Road. However, you are not entirely alone in your negative opinion; Nelson Skalbania also wishes Point Grey Road had not been closed because now he must drive 4 blocks instead of 2 blocks from his home to his tennis club. You and Nelson do seem to have your priorities.