Stephen Rees sends along shots of transportation cyclists on PGR:
.
.
At least they look to me to be less like recreational riders than commuters. Not that the distinction matters much. But it suggests that cyclists may be transferring from the 3rd Avenue or Off-Broadway Bikeways to PGR, given the absence of cross-traffic and better connections. Does anyone have any anecdotal observations of a drop in use of the traditional bikeways yet?
Or better yet, data.
You can see those two rubber-hose counters in the lower shot. I’m sure Engineering is also measuring traffic on the side streets to the south, as well as 4th Avenue and Broadway.
The counts will be fascinating, even though, if previous experience is an indicator, critics and defenders will be undeterred by actual, you know, evidence.
This road is a done deal. Let’s ensure that it is also happening elsewhere in Vancouver as far too many cars drive through residential roads.
We need more green streets in Vancouver , with less or no free parking on the road. Residents somehow think that they have a free right to extend their yard onto the street and park one, two or even three vehicles there. Parking fees ought to be $80-$400 a month for a dedicated space on the road. In parallel, of course, public transit has to improve.
I took the so called B line 99 bus yesterday on Broadway. No wonder people like me prefer the car as it is triple as fast and more convenient. Only if buses are faster than cars, say via a dedicated bus lane, will people switch from their BMWs or Mazdas. Car is king in Vancouver, and PGR is a tiny tiny step in the right direction. Many more have to follow.
Thomas has the right mindset. Transit & Active transport activists must stop engaging in internal battles (LRT vs RRT) or arguing over petty issues (Surrey vs Vancouver) and really start focusing on getting more results & action happening.
Frankly, the to-do list is quite clear, and the steps forward are too. What is the debate then? It’s just the province (christy clark) manifesting delay and division between transit advocates.
Building a bike lane isn’t difficult. And as we see over and over, once the change is implemented, the criticism dissipates. We need to keep moving forward, and as thomas says, until transit & cycling can compete with car, our job is not done.
Thomas – I’m never met you but I find I almost always entirely disagree with your sweeping generalizations.
Forget for the moment resident and business convenience, streets with no parking on them tend to have moving traffic right next to the curb. Zoom zoom. Definitely a pedestrian turnoff and unsafe as well. I know for a fact that most people prefer the buffer – as well as convenience – of on-street parking than streets with no parking or when it is stripped during peak periods.
Don’t take my word for it. Just walk on Central Broadway or any other arterial during peak period and off-peak. Notice the difference? You could also talk to merchants about their customer activity in the peak vs. off-peak periods. A pretty direct correlation.
It is not by accident that the COV restored peak-period parking to Cambie Village as part of the compensation package for the Canada Line. Merchants, shoppers and just general folks like it better and it is good for business. The South Granville BIA wants the same thing in their area, now that the Canada Line has eliminated 98B service through the area and significantly reduced the ped counts.
Frank
On street parking has proven to make roads more dangerous especially for children. In Europe, they have found that it makes streets 25% more dangerous. It blocks visibility at intersections and driveways making streets less safe for drivers, cyclists and pedestrians. Car doors opening are a big problem for cyclists. As well, cars pulling in and out of parking are a hazard for cyclists and drivers.
Yes, on street parking does slow down traffic but the other risks far outweigh the benifits.
While parking does prove a buffer from traffic, a much better solution for pedestrians is to use the space for wider sidewalks, separated bike lanes or patios.
Parked cars also create a rather uninteresting dark canyon like effect along a street blocking views of store fronts, people and greenery all of which are far more interested than parked cars, 95% of which are dull coloured.
Sorry Richard but without those parking spots the small retailers and restauranteurs who occupy our commercial strips would wither and die. Density isn’t enough to fill all of them, as the large number of empty storefronts on Denman illustrate.
The alternative would be for the city to require large amounts of underground pay parking to replace that lost by removing it from the street.
I don’t think those street parking spots are that important for shops on busy pedestrian streets. The number of people walking by must exceed the number of people parking in front of the store by several orders of magnitude. If they only had two customers an hour, the max utilization of those spots, they’d go busto pretty quick. Denman is gappy in parts, but that is not for lack of customer traffic, but partly because of a series of weak concepts and I suspect partly by a landlord that is just charging more than the market will bear.
Agree with Richard. The idea that on-street parking acts as a buffer for pedestrians seems like a bit of a myth to me. It is only a buffer for cars that go out of control on the carriageway which is a very low probability event. But parked cars definitely impair visibility at intersections, particularly for drivers. And intersection collisions are not a low probability event. Not to mention that parked cars are a visual turnoff. Really clutter up the street. Fast car traffic is unpleasant for pedestrians, but there are other ways to slow cars down.
People go shopping, not cars.
We need arterial roads to move traffic. We also need areas where people shop. That is not necessarily the same street. Perhaps you ought to travel more and see what works in other jurisdictions. If Mr Vision had the guts to actually close Granville Street for traffic, and make it a pedestrian zone, business would eventually double.
Shopping on S-Granville is a joke. There is a 1.5m sidewalk, then 6 lanes of traffic. This is a nice shopping environment ? We can better than that !
Agreed.
The one-size-fits-all approach does not work.
That’s why Georgia St. downtown is not a major shopping street, and neither is Burrard St.
It’s also why Burnaby is not trying to pedestrianize Lougheed Highway at Brentwood – the “high street” is a block over, on Dawson St..
Richmond, on the other hand, seems to want to pedestrianize No. 3 Rd.
One cannot cater to everyone’s wishes. With a new transit line, such as the Canada Line, a substantial shift of commuting pattern happens. Some commercial retail locations are out of place and ought to die / be replaced. That is the price of progress, for example along Cambie. A Broadway subway line would have similar far reaching impact on residential and commercial hubs. Broadway is a dying commercial center as shopping is not nice there. Malls like Oakridge will flourish, and commercial along arterial roads / city highways like Broadway will wither.
Really? I think that’s a bit of a generalization.
No redevelopment of Oakridge is going to make me want to shop at a sterile mall environment. I prefer neighbourhood streets, and so do many others, though certainly not everyone, it’s enough that these streets won’t “die/be replaced.” West Broadway (The villagey part), Commercial, Davie, Robson, Main, these streets continue to flourish – and development is adding more shops to Broadway. I don’t think that will change.
Have you looked at the number of “for lease” signs on 10th, 4th or Robson lately ?
As more and more shopping moves online ambiance is critical .. and shopping along a highway or in a parking lot is just not my (and thousands of others’) cup of tea .. malls will flourish as will streets with pedestrian friendly flair .. and that is lacking in many so called “high streets” in Vancouver as they are far too car centric.
The City has had its cable counters on 10th Avenue and 16th Avenue West of Macdonald as well as 4th Avenue, Broadway, Point Grey Road, Alma, Macdonald and the side streets West and East of Macdonald. Currently, the counters are on 4th Avenue, Alma, Point Grey Road and the side streets North of 4th Avenue. I, for one, am very interested in the data from these counters, particularly in whether or not the results are in line with the City’s initial predictions for the traffic changes as provided to interested parties two years ago. We already know, for example, that the amount of car traffic possibly rerouted to Macdonald Street after the closure of Point Grey Road is below the City’s anticipated amount, which is great news for those living on Macdonald Street. As per the recent letter from the City’s Engineering Department, “[the City] will continue to monitor traffic patterns in and out of the neighbourhood and listen to input from residents to determine how effective these measures are and whether further changes are necessary.”
Serious question:
Do the counters register a “vehicle/bike” if a runner steps on it?
Neither a vehicle nor a bike will be registered in a runner steps on the counter cables.
Richard – I don’t know the study you’re referring to about safety, but my biggest fear when out walking is getting hit by a car when crossing the street. Even jaywalking, I admit. So slowing traffic down does sound like a good deal to me.
I think we could put it to a vote of residents and businesses on a given street – hands up, how many of you would prefer to not have parking out front, ever?
Far better ways of decreasing traffic speed that don’t endanger everyone. Fewer travel lanes and raised crosswalks for example.
Here is some of the research.
Speed choice and hazard perception in complex urban road environments with and without on-street parking
http://arsrpe.acrs.org.au/pdf/Speed%20choice%20and%20hazard%20perception%20in%20complex%20urban%20road.pdf
Vehicle speeds were slower in the presence of occupied on-street parking bays compared to the other two environments; however, the speed reduction was insufficient to compensate for observed impairments in drivers’ hazard perception and slower response to the pedestrian in this condition.
Great post, Price Tags, as always. Loving the comments too. Richard, thank you for the Monash Study – I’ll have a look at that later. There is a plethora of information about now regarding safety and reduced speeds, it’s really a no brainer. @ Thomas Beyer – “People go shopping, not cars”, briliant but the counter argument would be if people drive the cars to the shops, where do they park them? I know, I’m playing devil’s advocate here as I actually completely agree with everything you said.
Understood. Getting people to shops is obviously critical, and that’s why Oakridge or downtown close to transit will thrive ..
parking will happen underground or in rear alley if the “high streets” become more pedestrian oriented, and that is surely lacking right now in Vancouver. Cars rule.
Where do you go with visitors, for example, to get a really nice shopping experience in Vancouver ? S-Granville ? Robson ? 10th ? 4th ? hardly .. none come to mind actually as they are all not pedestrian friendly, green, with flair nor ambiance .. it really sucks in Vancouver ..
The value of Vancouver is its seaside / English Bay seawall .. a block in and its cars, cars, cars .. we can, we must do better than that !
I repeat – take a vote of residents and merchants on a given street. I’m prepared to go with their answer.
If European cities had proceeded like this: The celebrated European pedestrian streets couldn’t have existed…
…and neither the “trams renaissance”
Exactly. Leadership is doing what is not popular. Unfortunately that is in short supply in Vancouver right now, on the left or the right side of the spectrum. Car is king .. a few more bike lanes .. that is “vision” ?
Voony, you can’t have your cake and eat it too: on the one hand, you oppose Frank’s suggestion to listen to the residents and have the City do what the residents want because you say that doing so would prevent necessary changes (like promenades), but on the other hand you applaud Hadden Park residents for impeding the City’s efforts to make necessary changes. You appear to swing with the wind.
And just get a reaction from people who are afraid of change? Sometimes people have to be shown that change isn’t the end of the world.
Here here! Seriously, you reckon taxi drivers were celebrating news about Times Square being shut to traffic? Hell no. Now however it’s seen as a monumental success.
Exactly, yvrlutyens. Resistance to necessary change is futile.
Voony – enough of European examples already. North America has a different history, culture, urban form and street widths, created largely by people who fled … Europe. We have people on this blog pontificating (yes, me included) about the use of streets. A very very valid discussion. I just know I’d rather not have stripped parking during peak hours, and that restoring parking, and/or corner bulges, parklets or, when acceptable to all users and when well “buffered” (i.e., protected), bike facilities, at the curb is my preference over stripping. Merchants and residents would generally support this view. Plus, it is free.
Yes, it is concerning that leadership buckled over the Hadden Park bike lane pushback. Resistance to change of a vocal minority should not be misunderstood as unpopularity by the broad-minded majority. Similarly, unpopularity alone should not shackle elected leadership; otherwise, democracy is an ass.
Nice try Susan.
In democracy, we ask our leader to abide on values they have been elected on.
And you are right,
by trying to pave a park rather than to reduce the car dominance on the streets, the Vision party has not only shown a lack of leadership, but it has also betrayed its own “greenest city” values.
It is fortunate that few incorruptible souls came to remind to Vision that a bike lanes agenda should not be an ideological one trumping anything else….
and Vision loose a lot in this battle, because as I have written here:
“The usual suspects will be against the kitsilano bike lane for the sake to be against a bike lane, they will feel comforted in their battle by being joined by people coming of a quarter which should haven’t been bothered: the defensors of our parks….”
Do you really believe your own nonsense? Bike paths are part of parks around the world just like other surfaces like basketball courts, tennis courts, walking paths, etc. They add to people’s enjoyment of parks and bring more people there. The park belongs to all in the city and can accommodate a variety of facilities. The idea that anyone is “saving” the park by fighting against a family friendly bike path is absurd.
nonsense?
In Vancouver, as in most of the world, cycling is per default prohibited in urban parks (eventually because it is an activity recognized as distracting others, starting by walking or picnicking, and which don’t need a park to be practiced at the difference of others…).
Such rule apply to the Vancouver park, as per the VPB bylaws
Voony, you use the phrase ‘default prohibited’ but it perhaps would be fairer to say that it is a controlled activity, ie it is permitted in designated areas only, including bicycle paths, seafront promenades, etc. You can’t ride bicycles through flower beds. That seems pretty reasonable. To keep this in perspective, the exact same rules apply to any ball game; playing with a ball is only permitted in specific areas. So not only can these much discussed picnickers not ride across to the grass to the picnic tables, but even if they walk they can’t play with a ball once they are there. Is that really what you are promoting?
Voony, the closure of Point Grey Road, which creates a flat and safe bike route together with enlarged parks, the reconfiguration of the Burrard Street-Cornwall intersection and York Street bikeway, which creates safe, separated bike lanes and increased green space, and the planned (but impeded by a few residents) Hadden Park separated bike path, which would have created more safety and accessibility for both pedestrians and cyclists to use the park and path, all were part of the City’s completion of the gap in the Seaside Greenway bike route. This route removed commuter motorists by closing Point Grey Road, diverting commuter traffic away from residential and recreational areas, and reducing the number of lanes for car traffic on Cornwall to discourage commuter traffic next to Kitsilano Beach and its nearby parks, including Hadden Park. You don’t get much “greener” than this plan. What is it about the City’s plan for the “greenest city” that you don’t understand?
Having used the new cycling facilities on PGR, I have to say I do enjoy the convenience. I bike from the PNE to work at UBC several times a week and my most direct route takes me along Cornwall to PGR. I am happy that the city continues to make cycling a priority as it takes me the same amount of time to ride my bike to UBC as it does to take transit, however, in the hurry to get the facility implemented and add the kms to the city’s dedicated cycling facilities, the city forgets quality of infrastructure. The painted bike lane along PGR is just that, paint on a road. The pavement in that lane is chopping, has gaping holes and is terrible to ride on. I’ll continue to use the route, but with the hope that in the future, cycling facilities aren’t so superficial.
Concrete Jungler, I could not agree with you more; here’s hoping that the City will repave PGR for cyclist, pedestrian and other users’ safety. There are some rather significant dips in the road (creeks run under PGR, causing sink holes from time to time) that need to be smoothed out. Last summer, a man on his cyclists hit one of these holes and went flying; I called the City immediately to report the incident, and the City came out the same day and filled in the offending holes.
Voony, I could not disagree with you more. Richard is right. The very local and vocal minority of status quo advocates for keeping Hadden Park as it is have made a tactical error; as a result of insisting that nothing be done, nothing will be done (at least for a while) to that withered, unkempt, underutilized area, which could be beautified, trimmed, fertilized and updated for all Vancouverites, including the local residents, to enjoy. Instead, the funds that were allocated for that purpose will now be applied to other parks in the city. For anyone who has ever walked, run or cycled the existing paved pathway through Hadden Park, there is no question that the path cannot accommodate all would-be users and is a congested dodge-a-thon, with users having to wait, or push past others. A separate bikeway is essential there; otherwise, accidents are inevitable. It is shameful that a few residents (a well-known tiny Kits contingent of left-over 60’s hippies) want to prevent a deteriorated green space from being maintained and beautified for more people to use, and use safely. I believe that the few local residents who selfishly threatened a lawsuit against the City to prevent necessary and attractive improvements (not substantial development) to Hadden Park will regret their efforts to fervently resist change at all costs. What these naive people don’t understand is that their tiny park is of no meaningful consequence to Vancouverites, Vision, the City Council or the Parks Board. That is why the City abandoned their plan for the park when these few residents squawked. Hadden Park’s loss is another area’s gain in funding and improvements, as stated by the Parks Board. Too bad, so sad for Hadden Park and its current passers-through. To all cyclists, I would encourage you to use the current pedestrian pathway through Hadden Park rather than Ogden Street as much as possible so that the locals realize exactly the congestion problem that could have been solved. They blew their chance to beautify that dead space.
And perhaps having the funds go to other parks in the city IS of more benefit to “all Vancouverites” than spending yet more dollars in that one corner of the city. You realize that Vancouver is more than Kits and Pt Grey?
bar foo, please provide your evidence to support your comment that the funds are better spent elsewhere. Your use of “perhaps” indicates that you are merely guessing. The City’s Parks Board and engineers conducted studies that determined both the functionality and workability of connecting the City’s Seaside Greenway bike route for continuous, safe travel, including in the Kits and Hadden park areas. What study have you conducted, or are you an engineer, with the expertise to challenge the City’s plan? If so, please provide the data or a link to any data you are using to reach your conclusion that “perhaps having the funds go to other parks in the city IS of more benefit” than to Hadden and Kits parks.
Incidentally, Voony, adding a bike lane to a park to increase its accessibility and usage is not “pav[ing] a park”; a distinct hyperbole on your part. Further, when government officials are elected in a democracy, the onus is on the electorate to be informed prior to the election about whom they vote into office. Yes, we can vote those officials out in the next election if they do not perform as promised or expected, but while in office, we have given them the mandate to make choices for us. Suing one’s government is a traitorous action that should not be permitted unless one can prove deliberate harm inflicted on citizens by that government.
Voony, do you really believe your statement, “cycling is per default prohibited in urban parks?” Have you ever been to Stanley Park? It’s one of Vancouver’s landmarks — the rather large “urban park” on Vancouver’s south shore, with a designated separated cycle path running the full extent of the Seawall. Further, have you read the VPB Bylaws (in the link you provided above)? There is no prohibition of bikes in parks; indeed, the Bylaws state that pathways, including designated bike pathways, are part of the definition of “parks.”
Voony, you have stated, “cycling is . . . an activity recognized as distracting others . . . [such as those] walking or picnicking, and which do[es]n’t need a park to be practiced at the difference [sic] of others.” Your statement appears to be suggesting that you don’t think cyclists should be in parks; have I understood you correctly?
the section H.14 is the one reading the ban on bicycle in Vancouver parks,
I have used the term “per default”, which keep open exemptions, such those in Stanley park… which has also a scenic drive:
What is right for Stanley park, is not necessarily right for Kits:
http://voony.wordpress.com/2013/10/28/some-parks-geometry-considerations/
Which post has been written to answer all the Susan questions.
And you will hopefully understand why I don’t have a problem with a bike lane built in Seaforth Pace Park, as part of the Cornwall/Burrard project, but have an opposite stand for Kits/Hadden
I don’t think there is a reduction of traffic car lanes on Cornwall. Beside it: good things done on the PGR shouldn’t give license to do badly-and betray values on which council has been elected – elsewhere. Instead it should be an encouragement to rise the bar: I believe that the Hadden park debacle will help toward that.
Jeffrey has a point
the Park by-laws also prohibit ball-game…It is drafted to provide a legal ground to help to resolve potential conflicts, not necessarily to be blindly enforced.
With the rise of cycling, it happens such conflicts arise in some urban parks: I have heard that the Montreal Police is routinely fining people cycling illegally in Parc Lafontaine, but I doubt they could fine the biking toddler…
Voony, you use Trout Lake park in your linked blog post, as a comparison to Kits Beach Park. A far more relevant comparison would be to Creekside Park near Science World, which is part of the seaside greenway, and has a similar (linear) geometry. It has a dedicated bicycle path, and multiple pedestrian paths that are not open for cycling. It all seems to work quite well. The improved bike path has eliminated many of the pedestrian/bicycle conflicts that have been evident there over the past few years.
Voony, the VPB Bylaws do not ban bikes from parks; the bylaws state that bikes need to be ridden on the pathways in parks that are designated for bikes. As stated in the Bylaws, it is up to City Council and the Parks Board to determine where those designated bike lanes should be. It is not a decision to be made by a few unqualified residents, who shamefully filed suit against their own duly-elected government.