Early Council: Next Steps for Vancouver’s Active Transportation – May 30

No reply to my inquiries regarding this site’s removal of my two earliers posts. Well, let’s try this again then: this article by Tanya Paz advocates a concern for safety of road users. This same article identifies Councillor Heather Deal as also advocating for the safety of road users. Facts: at the May 4, 2016 Council Meeting, Tanya Paz stated that she was in favour of Phase 2 on Point Grey Road because all roads need to have sidewalks, and roads without sidewalks are unsafe. Fact: Point Grey Road has sidewalks on both sides of the road with a third sidewalk between Trutch and Blenheim. All the sidewalks are the standard, required width or larger to accommodate 2-3 people walking abreast and people with disabilities. Thus, Ms. Paz was incorrect to suggest that Point Grey Road does not have sidewalks. Fact: at the same Council Meeting, Councillor Heather Deal stated that she did not believe the traffic engineer reports (provided by residents) that stated that Phase 2 changes to Point Grey Road would be unsafe. Fact: Councillor Deal has asked for the City to conduct another Safety Study because she was not satisfied with the results of the City’s most recent Safety Study that found Vancouver to be one of the safest Canadian cities for pedestrians with very few pedestrian collisions. Indeed, in the study, no pedestrian collisions were found to have occurred on Point Grey Road, and pedestrian volumes were found to be low. Fact: the Phase 2 plan calls for the existing sidewalks to be removed and a new extra-wide sidewalk and front boulevard to be built, all at a cost of $6.4 million of taxpayer funds. Fact: front boulevards are built to act as buffers between car traffic and pedestrians. As the 10,000+ commuting cars were removed from Point Grey Road in Phase 1, there are no longer the car volumes to warrant a front boulevard buffer. Fact: pedestrian volumes remain low and people with disabilities use the existing sidewalks without incident, so there is no justification for tearing out existing infrastructure to put in an “inland seawall.” Fact: Councillor Deal stated at the May 4, 2016 meeting that although the $6.4 million could perhaps be better spent elsewhere, she wanted Point Grey Road changes (Phase 1 and Phase 2) to be a Vision “legacy.” (Before you censor this posting, please watch the May 4, 2016 City Council video stream on the City website, and you will see that what I am stating here are facts, not anything that warrants your censorship or conflicts with your “Comment Policy” unless your intention is to block truth.)