A Sunday afternoon expedition, with Brent Toderian (urbanist, city planner and inveterate Twitterer – @BrentToderian), Renee de St. Croix (wife, also a city planner, @Renee_dsc) and me (friend, @pricetags).
We cycled the completed Point Grey Road From Burrard to Jericho (and the beaches beyond), with Brent grabbing a few shots along the way (the ones below are his).
In fact, this is what Brent was snapping in the post below:
.
Brent’s opinion?
The separated bike-lane design details are as good as any I’ve seen anywhere in North America in contexts like this.
.
The transitions to Point Grey Road are very well done, with clear way-finding.
.
The clarity tends to falter when the bike-lanes reach Park Board lands – there’s no reason why changes in jurisdiction should lead to a breakdown in way finding and clarity, especially between City Hall and the Park Board.
.
Overall, the connection for cyclists through to Jericho Beach and the Spanish Banks with the new infrastructure is a real improvement in the cycling network.
We were all Peninsula people: residents of the West End and International Village. Until the NPGR, a cycle to Spanish Banks was intimidating, something better done by car, more of a destination than a place along the way.
Now it’s a connected piece of a bigger network, only 20 minutes or so by bike, on a route that is safe, attractive, and bustling with activity.
.
UPDATE: Speaking of network, The Starfish does an illustrated essay on Bikecouver – the bike lanes of this city.
I agree the weak point is the transition to Park board territory such as Jericho or Kits beach. I guess the PB has been mau-mau’d by the “defenders” to the point where we’re going to have to wait until after the election for anything to change.
I see. Are you expecting to the Vision Vancouver Parks Board candidiates to dissemble on the issue during the campaign, and then ram through what they want afterwards?
Yes very well received and long overdue , also very useful for pedestrians !
But: Cornwall section very confusing too and still too much ” car is king ” along the one km section behind Kits pool .. And of course past Spanish Banks NW Marine drive is also too car oriented on the long climb up to UBC … But hopefully in Phase 2 it will be improved here too on these two sections.
Don’t hold your breath for NW Marine up to UBC. This is Ministry of Transportation jurisdiction. Better start now emailing your MLA, Minister of Transportation and the Ministry itself, or there will be no changes in the next 20 years.
The New PGR has altered my choice of cycling routes, and most times I can hardly believe that it is as good as it is.
Previous to this huge improvement, when returning from east Vancouver errands, I’d always use either 10th and 8th; or else Burrard, Seaside and 3rd. Third was always not preferred, since it is narrow, but at least the cars were mostly low-speed local traffic.
The old PGR was always a never-in-hell choice, since it was narrow and filled with aggressive high-speed commuter traffic. Scary and nasty.
Many thanks to the current City staff and council for the new PGR. It is a treasure for all the city and all its citizens.
My daughter turns eight this coming Saturday, and after weighing up all of her options, decided to have her birthday party at Jericho Beach. Not only is it a location she wouldn’t have otherwise chosen (without a comfortable route to get there), she also insisted on planning a group bike ride from East Van with all of her friends. You can bet I’ll be there with my camera to document it! This little stretch of traffic calming has changed the landscape of Vancouver for the better. Now let’s push *all* municipal candidates to commit to more…
The comment about Park Board lands is dead on. It’s downright embarrassing, not to mention extremely dangerous, that this “greenway” officially includes a 1-block segment through an extremely busy parking lot. How can you call it a greenway and tell people to ride through a parking lot? There aren’t even any chevrons or other indications to distracted motorists to watch for cyclists, merely the signs that unapologetically say “Seaside Through Parking Lot”.
Anthony, Voony discusses below the Jericho Park connection, but I suspect you are talking about the Kits Beach parking lot next to the tennis courts. If so, I share your thoughts that it is absurd. Despite the signs directing cyclists into that parking lot, it is also possible to carry on towards the Kits Beach concession (on a marked shared path with pedestrians) and then to turn right through the lane out to Arbutus. I find this route safer than the parking lot. The Parks Board has been asked to improve way finding signs in this area.
We biked down to Spanish Banks on Sunday. For the most part, a joyous ride. Point Grey Road was absolutely packed with cyclists. On the way back, we wanted to avoid the York hill, so we took the signed route through Kits Beach. I couldn’t believe it directed us through the parking lot. By far the most dangerous part of our bike ride. I had two SUV’s nearly back into me.
On the plus side, the route is definitely attracting new riders. A neighbour and his 4 year old son were gushing about the bike ride to Jericho they had just finished, amazed how safe it was and that the little guy was able to bike that far. Their minivan might spend more time in the parking lot now.
I find the whole project to be well done overall. Even the process, while there were some bizarre points was handled pretty good. I think everybody was given a chance to comment however they did. Changes were made. Practicalities were catered for but the purpose was still met. And now we have something good.
Some of it is very well done. The intersection of Burrard and Cornwall is amazing. The joining of the two parks near Macdonald is really well designed too. There are some odd things but overall it’s working very well.
I was out with a friend on Point Grey Road and he asked “Where’s the bike lane?”. I said there was no bike lane in the plan. It’s a traffic calmed regular street. He wondered why we were continually told that they were putting in a bike lane there. I wonder too.
Andrew Ferris guess that the “PB has been mau-mau’d by the “defenders… ” and I is guess it is exactly what Vision wants Andrew and the public believe in.
As a matter of fact, the built cycle path alignment has never been presented neither into a public consultation neither into a public city council meeting.
What has been presented is that:
http://vancouver.ca/files/cov/point-grey-cornwall-public-consultation-phase2-1-west-of-alma.pdf
the bike lane was supposed to seamlessly connect with the Jericho park trails, most noticeably with the trail connecting to 4th avenue and the one going straight to Spanish bank.
Andrew Ferris is right to be upset about the built bike lane kibosh, but he is absolutely wrong when he incriminates the PB. The onus of this kibosh belong fully to City Hall where somewhat someone decided that a turn right into the grass toward the concession stand to potentially generating conflict with pedestrians, rather than following the cyclist desire line (away of the shore for most) was a good idea.
Andrew and Anthony, rather than to accuse gratuitously, would like to find out who is this someone from city hall, responsible for the change in plan, and publicly shame him like he deserve it (if no more!)…but it seems easier to accuse some vague “park defenders” who bear no responsibility in this kibosh than to find out it is a dirty and nauseous politic trick coming from Vision backrooms, isn’it?
Voony:
“As a matter of fact, the built cycle path alignment has never been presented neither into a public consultation neither into a public city council meeting”
There is more information on that specific alignment that the built bicycle path is intended to connect to.
The drawing you link to is from May 2013, and shows an initial design. There was public consultation over the months. There was a request during that consultation to retain more on street parking at the end of Point Grey Road. It was designed as angle parking, to accommodate more vehicles. It wouldn’t make sense to route the bikes behind those parked cars, as the cars would be backing out into the bike path.. The July 23 2013 presentation to council described that issue, and noted that the bike path would be routed into the park to accommodate the parking, subject to Parks Board approval of a new alignment. I recall there were a great many speakers at that July 23 (++) public city council meeting, so I think there was a chance for community feedback. I think what we see in the as-built is an indication of that new alignment. What we aren’t seeing is the parks board delivering that path, and I agree with Andrew that due to the controversy over paths in Kits Park, it is likely on hold until after the election, when any resolution will have to be presented and debated.
Jeff,
The staff report for the July 23th public council is here http://former.vancouver.ca/ctyclerk/cclerk/20130723/documents/rr3.pdf
you would like check the recomended final design figure 2…
and the power point presentation is there http://vancouver.ca/files/cov/seaside-greenway-completion-york-bikeway-2013-jul.pdf :
which path the park board was supposed to deliver? If so, where is the public consultation mentioning it? Do you know something the general public, and even park board menber, doesn’t know?
not sure what you are talking about…
What we are seeing is not what has been presented as the ” recomended final design” at the city council. period!
Voony;
In addition to the staff report which you link (which lists the change in the bike path as the first bullet point on page 12), there is a more detailed map here (the link is in the staff report):
http://vancouver.ca/files/cov/Point-Grey-Cornwall-Public-Consultation-Phase2-1-West-of-Alma.pdf
This shows that the greenway through Jericho Park is not in fact away from the beach, but rather along the beach. It is only a question of where to cut down (northwards) to that path. It is reasonable to assume that some cyclists will be in fact heading to the first beach, so access there makes sense. Since the additional street parking was installed, subject to Parks approval, it is only logical that the ramp would be constructed to that new path at the same time. Otherwise the bike route would end up in the parking lot.
What we are seeing is a lack of Parks Board delivering what was envisioned, exactly as Andrew notes.
Agree there wasn’t sufficient public consultation about the parks sections. But it is clear that this issue was presented at a public CoV meeting which included hundreds of ensuing speakers (both for and against).
I suggest your tirade against the city is misplaced. I would give them an A for what they have accomplished. The issue is what the Parks Board have failed to deliver, both at Jericho and at Kits Park, and as the blog posts suggests, there is a lack of coordination between the city and Parks Board. Maybe we should be discussing whether having a separately elected parks board creates challenges to that very necessary coordination.
Jeff, if you believe so that “the park board has not delivered”, you would like point the City Hall’s request to the Park board to build a “new bike lane” on Jericho park.
What has been approved again is that: http://former.vancouver.ca/ctyclerk/cclerk/20130723/documents/rr3.pdf
Many requests to the park board…but don’t see the one relative to Jericho beach!
and in lack of the “new bike lane” condition on Jericho park, the bike lane should have proceed as per the map you provided (by the way it is the one I provided too, but at this time you criticized), instead to kee the angled parking (what a ridicule nonsense, to make thing complicate and want to pave the park in order to save a couple of angle parkings when there is a huge parking lot across the street !)
So certainly the critics to the city are well pointed in that instance.
My link isn’t the same map, it shows a different alignment through Jericho Park running west from the end of Point Grey Road. Yours shows it away from the beach, mine shows it along the beach. The map I linked is the more detailed one listed in that staff report. They are both labelled May 2013, which is confusing.
I agree that the angle parking creates unnecessary conflict. But I wasn’t the one who requested it. And the realigned bike route is to accommodate that request. I wouldn’t have done it, but the joy of public consultation is that we get everybody’s input, not just what we ourselves would have done.
Since Thomas Beyer talks apropos of a phase 2 for the Point Grey road:
Phase 2 should be to close Point Grey west of Wallace to all motor traffic (the Jericho parking lot can be accessed thru 2nd avenue) save for a laneway (normally 20ft wide) access for emergency truck and to the brock house (where the only parking should be for disabled persons …and even I am not sure it is necessary…electric scooters can cover great distance nowadays! )…and this part of Point Grey given up to the Park board (the Point grey road end up abruptly to Jericho park too, but it exists into the park as a right of way actually, so it wll be just an eastward extension)- that obviously include the bike lane and its potential routing thru the park, as well as the surface treatment (should it be hard surface, or blend more with a park surrounding?…gravel should be an option!)
If we are planning future phases, I would vote for a paved separated path through the park, and also along Spanish Banks beach. Faster riders will use the road most likely. A paved path would also be useful for skaters, etc. I don’t know if some consider the crushed gravel recently applied to be greener than pavement.
That gets us to the base of the hill to UBC, which Thomas mentions. Now we need to focus on the Ministry of Transportation and Infrastructure (not CoV) and have them improve that segment. It is not practical to use the sidewalk up the hill as they have it signed. I just take the roadway, but many would no doubt be more comfortable with physical separation.
Voony you were one of the serial doom and gloomers who exaggerated the bike path so I will simply say I find you unpersuasive.
Really? Which bike path you are talking about? may you point to some of my comment /post putting me in the “serial doom and gloomers” camp?
On the PGR one: here is an example:
http://voony.wordpress.com/2013/10/16/the-bike-lane-vs-the-park/#comment-1173 …
How about the use of your linked blog post title “Bike Lane VS the Park” instead of a more positive “How Pedestrians and Cyclists can both use the Park Safely.” Or referring to “destroying parks,” “bike freeways,” and the photo of the spray painted route (when the engineering consultant contract to hire a design team for the bike path hadn’t even been awarded yet). All this helped to manufacture controversy and polarize people.
Jeff Leigh has done a good job pointing out your alarmism. Quite telling that you continue to chase me after I specifically called out no one in my initial post.
“the photo of the spray painted route (when the engineering consultant contract to hire a design team for the bike path hadn’t even been awarded yet)…” :
Ah really the 2D alignment of the bike lane was not already designed:
http://former.vancouver.ca/fs/bid/bidopp/RFP/RFP-PS20130532.htm
history revisionism?
Controversy has been manufactured by those not wanting to hear of a bike path solution on the edge of the park rather than in the middle of it and not by the title of my blog posts
Not revisionism. Just reading the entire bid package (which is for the services of a design team to do detailed design, as I stated) and not just looking at a single line on a map used for bid purposes.
It is notable that the single line drawing in the bid package shows the path alongside Arbutus.
I like the part in the bid package about how the engineering design services will be evaluated for innovation, reductions in environmental impact, and alternatives to the base bid.