In response to the pic in the previous post of the new green space on Point Grey Road, regular commenter Bob notes:
… you have at least added to the collection of photos which show not a cyclist in sight on the mayor’s expensive pet project.
Well, I wanted to get a clear shot of the green space. But if you insist:
.
Or this:
.
I presume the width of the bike lane is to allow for emergency-vehicle response – but it would also make it easier to return through traffic to PGR. However, that changes the status and safety of the parks now effectively joined – a combined Tatlow / Volunteer Park greensward.
Bob does make an essential point: if there are too few cyclists or other active users taking advantage of the street, it’s a dud.
So, folks, this series is a test: no pics of cyclists, walkers, runners and other active users, then Bob prevails with his presumption that there not enough users to justify the expense and inconvenience.
You can prove otherwise by sending images to pricetags (at) shaw.ca, or linking them to the comments section.
Like this one from Peter Ladner:
This road closure will never be reversed, as residents will like it, their properties have gone up at least 10% and the noise is gone. What is not to like ? The only question is why this is not done in ALL residential neighborhoods and why it wasn’t done sooner ?
Well said…I live next to Metrotown mall and I am sick of all those people shopping in MY neighborhood and driving their cars on MY street. They should be walking or biking and preferably they should not be coming at all…I look forward to the day we traffic calm Kingways and Willington so that I can go to MY mall and shop in peace…Metrotown mall will be much better when there is 95% less people in it so that I can get full attention from all those 400 stores in the mall that I so desperately need…In fact, when I think about it, we should close Kingsway for traffic completely..It passes a block from my building and makes all this noise and pollution. After all, Kingsway was never meant to be a commuter road. It was originally designed by the natives as a simple recreational forest trail that they used for Sunday strolls with their children when they needed to re-connect with nature. And look at it now! Clearly being used for not something it was mean to in the first place. And now that me and my family have been living here 5 1/2 years we have the right to enjoy it in its intrinsic form. It is my right as a citizen of a large city to have park right next to my house! Not a road! After all we did not come to live in a large city so that we can be surrounding by cars, commerce and all these annoying people going about their business. I came to the big city to hear birds chirping, drink water from its pristine streams and grow my own food!
Dejan, unlike you, I did not “come to live in a large city”; I was born in Vancouver and grew up here. I have seen the city change over the years, sometimes for the better, sometimes for the worse. As cities grow, routes that were once residential and traffic calm turn into commuter nightmares although that was not their intended purpose, putting unreasonable strains on the road and the neighbourhood. Such was the case with Point Grey Road. It is not being returned to the way it was years ago; it is being updated and traffic calmed for the safety and use of multiple users. This is the way of the future.
Good one Dejan!
My deepest apologies Susan – I completely misunderstood that only Vancouver’s Patrician families are granted the right to live on traffic calmed streets. I naively thought that that applies to everybody…And now my dream is shattered…I will have to accept that I indeed cannot live next to my beloved mall with no cars…
But, oh how wonderful it would be if the same rules applied to everybody? Can you just imagine this city transformed? No through roads, no cars (I mean sure you could have them but why bother), and especially no annoying trucks? Every street “cul-de-sac” – ed. Blocks connected by parks. We could walk and bike everywhere. I bet we would be in such a good shape we would not even need doctors or hospitals. We could probably grow our own food even…
Dejan
Today I will cycle along Beach Ave, which has long been calmed and closed to through vehicle traffic at Granville. I will proceed up Ontario, which has also been closed to through vehicle traffic, at 2nd, 11th, King Edward, 29th, 41st, 49th, and SE Marine. Crossing over the Canada Line Bridge to Richmond with the other walkers, cyclists, and transit users (no cars, sorry) I will take River Road and Railway Ave. to Steveston, passing through three more traffic calmed sections that are closed to through traffic. Coming back, a similar route except up Heather, along 37th which is closed to through vehicle traffic at Cambie for traffic calming purposes, and then home via Ontario (again through the calmed sections at 29th, King Edward, 11th, and 2nd. Why take this route? Because there is next to no high speed vehicle traffic, the rat runners having been thwarted by the traffic calming methods deployed. I have trouble accepting your notion that all the people who live along this route are Patricians, especially since there are similar routes that I use along Union, Adanac, Lakewood, and in your neck of the woods near Central Park.
So I suggest the same rules do apply to everybody. Streets that were designed as quiet neighbourhood streets, and which were made dangerous by speeding through-traffic seeking to turn these streets into arterial routes, are being reclaimed for their original purpose in all corners of our city, and in Burnaby, Richmond, and other municipalities as well. No Patricians required.
Dejan: Why did you move next to Metrotown? You must love shopping! BTW: When you are not busy shopping at the mall please come down to Kits as you can still drive up and down PGR without getting out of your vehicle! Please watch-out for all the bikes, kids, seniors, runners, walkers, dogs, skateboarders, etc. It was glorious there today. Lots of photos of HAPPY people on PGR to come!
Thomas, good point. I personally believe we’ll see streets conversions like this going viral over the coming years – once residents see the positive effects in other parts of town…. why shouldn’t they demand and expect it in their own neighbourhoods as well?
I hope so .. a good “vision” for a change ! NPA better retool their platform here, not pro-car .. but pro-human, pro-transportation in all its forms. The # of cars is probably THE worst issue in Vancouver right now, i.e. the lack of decent public transit, besides social issues in downtown East-Van.
Point well taken that there are few cyclists– yet. Please note, this is the last leg of a continuous bikeway/greenway from downtown to Jericho. The other legs are still hanging, as it were. It’s like building a bridge that still has a 12-foot gap and saying there aren’t many people using it.
Let’s count cyclists when the whole project is finished. Then it will be fully protected, connected bike route (except for the snipers in Haddon Park), the only way bike lanes work for more than the lycra/bike warrior crowd.
First
Probably too much faith given to the network effect.
The Hornby bike lane joining the Burrard bike lane to the Dunsmuir bike lane, has shown once more this effect is fully over estimated for bike lanes:
The reason, a gap between in a bike lanes network, doesn’t prevent people to cycle on the street (so the analogy with the missing bridge doesn’t work…it works much better with Transit)
Second,
In all the pictures illustrating this PGR transformation, we don’t see a protected bike lane. Instead what we see is a traffic calmed street enjoyed by people for a host of activities…cycling being one among others, and having to share the space with the occasional car: so a Ode to the shared space concept!
(in fact, a protected bike lane, was an alternative to the full closure to Point Grey Rd, at the illustrated location, but has been rightfully,judged useless by the traffic engineers with the closure of Pt Grey)
Result: the new point grey rd layout looks furiously like the current Arbutus street, and seems still less inviting than Ogden Ave . What is celebrated on Point Grey have been despised at Kits pt…but in fact the PGR street layout is making the case against the need to bisect Hadden park (and by ext. Kitsilano) as I have argued here: http://voony.wordpress.com/2014/02/19/cycling-or-not-on-hadden-park/
Thirdly
The “Hadden park’s snippers” could in fact foster much better cycling infrastructure than those hysteric bike lout insisting to pave unnecessarily our prime park lands.
Richard Campbell, has well understood that in his last post (on his blog):
The real problem is Cornwall ave, and the fight over the park, provides some ammunition to push this much more important agenda (*) (since people coming from downtown, arrive by Burnard,… and they don’t come that way to enjoy a ride on York Ave).
(*) Such agenda could involve some transit issues on Cornwall, but nothing unresolvable, if the council is ready to consider that moving buses is more important than providing parking to car.
At the risk of being labelled a hysteric bike lout, I would point out that Point Grey Road is not exactly like Arbutus, since PGR has been closed to through traffic. If you were to close Arbutus to through traffic at a couple of points, and similarly calmed it, then you could proceed to compare it. You would also need to eliminate on-street parking on one side of Arbutus to complete the comparison. The defenders of Kits Beach and Hadden Park were quite clear in their video messages that they required no reduction in parking, so it will be interesting to see if your idea gains traction.
Also, whatever the network effect turns out to be, it is likely that families out riding with children and others using the seaside route are less likely to cover gaps in the network on busy streets than commuters are. The ones most needing a route through Kits Park are those bicyclists, not the commuters.
Jeff,
Minor quibbles,
the “shared arrangement” exits also on PGR portions allowing through traffic.
That said, I think we agree that the revamped PGR will see less traffic than Arbutus (than is the real determinant to make a “shared space” work). And for the record, I am perfectly fine with a separated bike lane on Arbutus street as I have mentioned at http://voony.wordpress.com/2013/10/22/the-disturbing-bike-lane-trend-in-vancouver/
Regarding the lost of parking space a bike lane on Cornwall (a busy street effectively creating a gap in bike lane network) could involve:
Well if a councillor like Heather Deal, estimates than parking space preservation is a red line suffering no compromise, and some people at Hub agree with that (as we have seen for the rational to bisect the park): it will be indeed difficult…
But there is no fatality to that:
There is a significant number of people preferring parking lost to park lost, whose are inviting the candidate to make clear priorities choice which can be validated at the November election.
Paris, where, parking spaces are in much shorter supply than in Vancouver, has lost 30% of its surface parking (that is 85,000 spaces) in the last 10 years…bike lanes is a political choice which involve consequence on car…today no-one (except a far right candidate) is talking of reverting that choice. No reason to think it could be much different in Vancouver
Challenge accepted, I tore myself away from some work for a bit of shopping, and included Pt Grey Rd on the route. I was only on it for about 10 minutes but took 10 stills from my handy waterproof camera. Not a small number of folks out for a rainy day!
http://www.flickr.com/photos/20399788@N00/13201631203/in/set-72157642454892574/
Nice, but that’s no more than were on it pre-Gregorization.
Just remember the outcry over closing down Times Square to traffic. Cab drivers thought it would be the end of their job! It would be armegeddon! The world was going to collapse! Well, what do you know, nothing of the sort happended and people loved it. It takes time but eventually people see the benefits (even the Bobs of the world).
An important part of that analogy you missed: were overall emissions reduced or increased? It’s easy to dismiss it as a few extra minutes tacked onto the cab’s route but multiply that by a thousand times a week,,,
The same can be said for Pt. Grey Road. If emissions were incrementally increased, is it a fail or a win?
I think the point Bob, is that if people are biking and walking more, then they won’t be using cars or cabs. Emissions would be reduced by default.
Who cares about emissions ? It is a non-issue in Vancouver and BC as the air is very decent. Let’s not cover belief systems in this blog as this is what has become of the global “warming” debate.
Let’s call it “air pollution” and diesel buses certainly aren’t the best alternatives here to cars !
The issue is the amount of time it takes to get anywhere and how livable the place is. Less cars on the road = better life quality = better air quality.
Bob
Vehicle emissions per mile will be lower at the 50 km/hr speed limit along 4th, than at the 30 km/hr speed limit along Point Grey Road, so in general exhaust emissions will be reduced by routing through traffic to roads designed as arterials. If you can document significant waiting times along 4th then that could be a factor, but that will likely only apply during peak hours, whereas the speed limits apply 24/7.
Politics is also about what’s tangible vs what’s intangible or invisible to the eye.
That’s why bike lanes, roads, bridges and transit get much more face-time than sewers, water filtration plants or landfills.
@innocent bikestander-I would wager far more cyclists are taken out of transit than out of a car.
@jeff leigh-like any good cyclist I’m sure you are aware that each time you come to a stop, the energy expended to get moving again is greater than that used when you are cruising along. The same is true for motorized vehicles. A stop and start trip along clogged West 4th creates more emissions than a trip along a more freely moving 30km/h journey did on PGR
@Bob
Yes, I understand momentum and conservation of energy. But the speed limits and average speeds are in effect 24 hours per day, while the clogged traffic isn’t. We wouldn’t want to design our roads for zero traffic delays in any case, as they would be significantly overbuilt then for all the other hours of the day.
I wondered how bad 4th has become with the changes to Point Grey Road, so I went out to the corner of 4th and MacDonald during the first part of an afternoon rush hour (3-4 pm). That corner seemed to be a common observation point for traffic coming down 4th, and traffic on Cornwall forced to head for 4th due to the PGR changes. As I watched the lights over multiple cycles, westbound on 4th there were typically up to 6 vehicles total stopped at the red by the time it changed to green. All made it through the light easily. Eastbound on 4th, slightly more vehicles, all made it through the light each time. Left turns from eastbound 4th on to Macdonald, I saw from 3 to 6 vehicles each cycle. Five comfortably made it through the advance left turn, sixth usually went anyway but was pushing it. I never saw vehicles fail to get through in one light cycle. On MacDonald, there were up to 7 vehicles stopped at the southbound light. All made it through fine, even with a bus stopping on MacDonald.
And of course when the respective light was green, there was no visible slowing. The vehicles just carried on, which is to say about half the time. For the ones stopped by a red light, the first vehicle waited a full cycle, while the last to arrive waited a few seconds.
The traffic appeared to flow remarkably well.
I carried on down 4th towards Alma. I never found this clogged West 4th stop/start traffic. It may exist back on 4th closer to Burrard, but that wouldn’t be a direct result of the PGR changes unless Cornwall was also closed, which it wasn’t. I wondered if vehicles weren’t turning on to Cornwall from the Burrard St bridge due to the construction. That right turn lane was also flowing very well during the time I watched it.
All anecdotal, and just one day of the week. The official traffic counts will be interesting when they are published, as well as the average trip times before and after.
Cars are not efficient in stop and go traffic, so fewer speed changes will be more efficient. Also, higher speeds always require more energy than lower speeds. There is the obvious extra acceleration required to get to the higher speed plus the increased air friction at the higher speed. This takes into account the shorter time travelling at the higher speed as well. With physics, you don’t get something for nothing. So in comparing traffic on PGR to 4th I would assume that PGR was the lower emissions route because it is less stop and go. (Nevermind the putative speed limits, the traffic on PGR was never slower than 4th.) However, there is a bigger picture than just one road. By making the whole city friendlier to human powered transport, people will choose other modes besides just the car. So the overall impact of this change cannot really be measured in isolation.
I also wonder where this assumption that cyclists are mostly transit users. Someone in my office used to be a daily cyclist in the past, but he bought a nice car and got out of the habit. A couple of years ago, he got back into the habit and bikes along PGR every day unless he has court that day and is wearing court clothes. His wife is also moving away from the default car mindset. Neither of these people wear anything particular on their bikes. No neon, no spandex. I bike to work every day, and I never wear that stuff. In fact I bike when I am wearing my court clothes. Another co-worker that also bikes in has seen me doing so and calls me the fastest man in a suit.
No Patrician here, Dejan; just a hard-working middle-class family like many others. I’ll take your apology, though.
Ha ha a hard-working middle-class family living on Pt Grey road. That’s a good one.
Yup the middle class family living on 80K of honest family income (probably berry picking) in 10 mil dollar home…This would be an interesting discussion to have with CRA…
I’m fairly sure Susan lives on the south side of the road where there are many old houses on standard lots, many of them cut up into multiple rental suites of questionable legality. So she could be a renter. Or perhaps her family bought into the area a few decades ago when housing in Vancouver was far more affordable. In 1970 you could get a house in Point Grey, Dunbar, Kerrisdale or Kitsilano for under $25,000.
Well Susan, if someone can call Dejan out for moving beside Metrotown and complaining, you can be called out for moving next to Point Grey Road when it was clearly indicated as a commuter route. And perhaps you should be offering an apology for your continual insistence that anyone who doesn’t agree with your capital “V” vision has never been near Point Grey Road.
Corrent David. Clearly Dejan and Bar foo are not at all familiar with Point Grey Road, particularly North versus South side, nor the history of Vancouver’s excalating house prices. Perhaps Dejan and bar foo should not presume to discuss something they clearly know nothing about. It is a FACT that my family, including me, have always been extremely hard working, and I do not appreciate any suggestion to the contrary.
Judging by your post times and frequency more like hardly working.
No Geoff, spending husbands money and ordering food at restaurants while increasing your property value by blocking traffic is hard work. I wish my wife would do that. But she refuses to do more than work night shifts at vgh. Lazy, lazy, lazy
I don’t doubt your hard-workingness. But middle-class, on Pt Grey road (either side)? Please. So your house is only worth $4m instead of $10m. Come on out to east Van, Burnaby, Surrey, and meet real middle-class people. And working class people. You might even like them.
Bar foo, and others, here are some FACTS for you: on the North side of the closed section of Point Grey Road, properties currently range in value (sales prices) from $3.5 million to $52 million. This range obviously depends on the size of the lot, whether or not there is a view of the water and/or mountains, the age of the house on the property, the size of the house, and all the bells and whistles that the house and property have — tennis courts, swimming pools, underground parking, 24 hour security, etc. For example, Chip Wilson purchased 4 properties side by side in order to build his one home. On that same side of the road, there are also a few duplexes and rental properties. On the South side of the closed section of Point Grey Road, properties currently range in value (sales prices) from $600,000 for a half-duplex to $4 million. Most homes are on small lots and in the $1 million – $2.5 million range. There are many duplexes, triplexes and multi-unit properties, ranging in age from 75+ years old to brand new. A number of these are rental units. Look up the sales prices for yourselves. The FACT is that Point Grey Road has a cross-section of society living on it; most socio-economic statuses are well-represented.
Well Susan it’s certainly odd that the density police haven’t visited Chip Wilson. Displacing four resindetial units for one multimillionaire’s play palace? Hardly green. But perhaps having to accept density is for the little people, like those living along Cambie.
I should add, I do appreciate Mr. Price’s willingness to try and prove me wrong!
Jeff Leigh, thank you for your time and effort in your anecdotal traffic counts on 4th Avenue since the closure of Point Grey Road to commuter motorists; smooth-flowing traffic with no back-ups or clogs has been my daily observation as well. The same is true for Macdonald Street. These 2 arterials are handling any increases in commuter car traffic extremely well.
Voony, 2 points: your claim that Point Grey Road still has “through traffic” is simply nonsense. Point Grey Road is completely blocked off (closed) to all through traffic at Macdonald Street (heading East and West), Collingwood (heading West) and Blenheim (heading East). So, in no way can you compare Arbutus Street (a through road with commuter traffic) to Point Grey Road (a not through road without commuter traffic); Jeff Leigh is absolutely correct. The shared road concept is an extremely dangerous one if there is a large volume of commuter motorists (that is exactly the problem that Point Grey Road had before it was closed). For you to advocate putting cyclists and pedestrians of all ages and abilities next to a large volume of commuter motorists on Arbutus as a shared road model is insanity. Further, for you to claim that what is done in Paris in regard to taking away parking will follow suit in Vancouver is also nonsense. Try comparing city histories, culture, lifestyles, weather, city road traffic volumes, citizens needs and street configurations before you lump us all into one homogeneous blob.
Susan
I believe Voony is referring to the two block stretch of lower Point Grey Road running between Balsam and Trafalgar. It is technically open to through traffic, but it doesn’t connect to anywhere so is more of a crescent in practice. The city decided to calm that stretch instead of building a separated bicycle lane, in order to retain more parking. Retaining parking was a priority identified during the consultation phase. Voony has advocated removing parking to build on-street bicycle lanes, and has criticized those who have defended retaining parking, but it seems the city is listening to the requests heard during consultations.
There is also a shared section west of Alma but this is temporary until the separated lane is built out to Jericho Beach Park. Implementation is being phased to match annual budgets.
The separated lane will continue all the way to Jericho Beach Park this year – the two blocks to the west are taking a different construction approach (working between existing curbs).
Good to know, thanks.
To be sure, I advocate for a bike lane, without necessarily removing on street parking, on Arbutus, and a shared space on Ogden (which is also a crescent in practice):
http://voony.wordpress.com/2013/10/22/the-disturbing-bike-lane-trend-in-vancouver/
Not sure why we should blindly follow Copenhagen, Paris…, when its time to put a new bike lane, while explaining that we can’t follow those same city when it is time to remove on-street parking (what is the other side of the coin)
Should I now understand Susan want eat her cake and have it?
bike lanes are OK as long as they don’t hinder car parking….
…alas, you will not find a park to pave along many avenues in Vancouver, and hard choice here as in Paris, will be necessary to be done, if we want to get more than 1km of bike lane per year.
Jeff, based on this comment from Voony, although he previously said that he advocates removing street parking, he is now saying that he does not advocate removing street parking: “I advocate for a bike lane, without necessarily removing on street parking.” He is also saying in this most recent post from him that he advocates for bike lanes, but in his previous posts, he says that he does not advocate for bike lanes, especially in parks. I am shaking my head here: does Voony know what he is advocating for one moment to the next? In this most recent post, he says that we should follow what Paris does in removing street parking if we follow what Paris does in building bike lanes. This is all or nothing logic that in no way is required or even makes sense city to city.
Ogden and Arbutus are not closed roads and so are not aptly compared to closed Point Grey Road, a shared road. Lower Point Grey Road, being a very short crescent off-Cornwall, has virtually no commuter traffic, unlike Ogden and Arbutus, so they are not aptly compared by Voony to Lower Point Grey Road as a shared road.
Indeed, in a previous post by Voony, he says that “What is celebrated on Point Grey have been despised at Kits pt [sic].” This statement indicates that he is actually not advocating the all or nothing approach to street configurations, parking and bike lanes, despite what he just said above in always following, or never following, what Paris does. As I’ve stated already, Voony appears to swing with the wind.
Susan,
Thanks for your interest for all what I have to say:
What you call “swing with the wind” is what I call pragmatism.
but you are right I am not a bike lane advocate: I am advocating for an environment facilitating cycling.
I consider a bike lane as a tool toward that, not as a goal in itself:
bike lanes in some case, are necessary…and pretty often it could be necessary to remove street parking to implement them that but… not always….
In some other case, shared space are better, because they promote a better social use of the street
Hope that will help you to better understand my thoughts.
I have already stated all that in http://voony.wordpress.com/2013/10/22/the-disturbing-bike-lane-trend-in-vancouver/
Thank you for the semantic clarification Voony, but I am not sure that we are much further ahead in meaning as a result. For example, you say that you approve of the closure of Point Grey Road that has already happened, which includes a separated bike lane through the park space of Tatlow and Volunteer parks, as well as a separated bike lane on the North side of Point Grey Road in the block just East of Alma; yet, you oppose a separated bike lane in Hadden and Kits parks, preferring the unworkable existing one pathway (like Point Grey Road was prior to its closure) that is congested with bikes, pedestrians, skateboarders, wheelchairs, etc. Logic?