From the City of Vancouver:
July 15 2016 Temporary pathway installation gets under way next week
The removal of train rails and ties from the Arbutus Corridor was substantially completed this week, ahead of schedule. This paves the way for us to proceed, starting next week, with installation of a temporary asphalt pathway to allow continued use of the space for recreation until construction of the future Arbutus Greenway gets under way.
Canadian Pacific Railway Ltd. (CP) was responsible for all rail removal along the corridor, with the exception of street crossings, as part of our land purchase agreement announced in March 2016. A total of 17 kilometers of rail and 16,000 ties were removed.
We are responsible for removing the rails at street crossings, work which will be completed at a later date.
We are responsible for removing the rails at street crossings, work which will be completed at a later date.
Construction of the first phase of the pathway
The temporary pathway, which will be shared by pedestrians and those riding bikes or on rollerblades, etc. will be installed in sections; the first phase from Fir Street to 41st Avenue is expected to be complete by the end of summer 2016.
The pathway will eventually extend all the way south from 41st Avenue to Marpole. We will let you know when the pathway is open for recreation use.
Permitted use of the temporary pathway will include walking, cycling, rollerblades, and push scooters. No motorized vehicles or scooters will be allowed.
“This paves the way for us to proceed, starting next week, with installation of a temporary asphalt pathway” — The City’s Freudian slip is showing: Paving over green space. So much for environmental sustainability and stewardship. Millions spent in haste for “cementing” this Council’s “legacy” regardless of cost, safety and public consultation.
The paving will probably be over gravel which has been there for over a century.
I look forward to the many public consultations which you’ll ignore and then later claim didn’t happen.
I have been to many “public consultations”; that is not the point. They are lip-service only, as confirmed by Jeff Leigh. Once the City engineers have a design, it is “Final” even though this fact is not told to the public, so citizens are just wasting their time attending these so-called “Open Houses” for “public consultation”, where citizens and residents speak, but the City has no intention of listening. These meeting are just formalities so that the City can say that is has consulted with the public when in fact no “consultation” has occurred whatsoever.
Putting “half” your words in “quotations” doesn’t make your “point” more valid or “true.
Asphalt over an old rail bed isn’t paving over green space. If you’re going to angst about things, at least be accurate about it.
Don: usage of quotation marks is for duly citing the direct speak of others, so as not to commit plagiarism. As I was quoting Jeff, I was duly employing quotation marks for their appropriate purpose, and not to stress a point as “more valid or true,” as you state. Moreover, I have not quoted “half” of my words, as you further state. Quid pro quo: your use of hyperbole does not make what you say valid or true.
The paving of the Arbutus Corridor does not appear, from the City’s renderings, to be only the rail bed but also the area of the shrubbery on both sides of the recently removed rail tracks. Further, I am curious as to whether or not the existing mini-farms and gardens on the East side of the tracks will also be remove; if so, that would be extensive green space removal to be replaced with a concrete walkway.
Wouldn’t a more accurate way to quote Jeff be to actually provide his remarks in context and link to those remarks where they occurred? That’s pretty customary to my understanding.
Those double quotes that are purportedly referencing remarks Jeff made look a lot like scare quotes to me. Some indication that they are indeed intended to be direct lifts from his remarks are necessary to avoid misinterpretation I think. Examples:
– As Jeff notes
– Jeff says
– As he has written
Lots of easy ways to make the distinction clear. Sorry, I’m not buying the defence of double quotes without context as was done above. It’s definitely reads like an attempt to sound arch and dismissive. If one can’t recognize that, the help of a copy editor or some writing classes might be in order.
Sorry, should read “it definitely reads” Wish we had an edit function on these posts.
I remember when the Save Kits Park group claimed that the tennis courts and basketball courts were green. I think they were referring to the paint. By that logic, susan may be satisfied if the new path is painted.
Focusing on the path construction, and not the area around it which it provides access to, is a bit ridiculous IMO.
Jeff, the use of “ridiculous” (name-calling) appears to be a violation of the comment policy.
I am not and never have been a member of the Save Kits Park group, nor do I believe that painted pavement equates to green space. As you well know, I have always supported the construction of separated pedestrian and cyclist paths through Kits and Hadden Parks, which are not residential roads and have ample green space.
The idea held by the group rather than group itself was characterized as ridiculous. We might as well shut ‘er down if we can’t say when we think an idea is kind of dopey.
Chris,
I would agree provide the same rule be applied to all on Price Tags blogs. Most recently, since the change of format, selective censorship on this site is overt.
Rode through the designated bike route/parking lot at Kits beach yesterday. A cluster-you-know-what of motorists fighting for space and not seeing cyclists and pedestrians (as always). Rode past Hadden Park and the other disputed lawn space — no one doing anything within 20 metres of the empty grass and sidewalk (as always). Thanks NIMBYs!
Chris, cyclists and pedestrians need to take greater care when in a parking lot (ie. where cars are). Pathways exist for cyclists and pedestrians for their safety; they would be wise to use them and not risk conflicts with motorist traffic. NIMBYISM is irrelevant to this matter.
The route through the parking lot is the suggested path for cyclists Susan. NIMBY-ism is referenced because of the many local residents who raised a great hue and cry over the plan to improve this poor compromise, which sees cyclists having to dodge: cars backing out of parking spots, cars idling waiting for spots, motorists dropping off passengers, and in the most head-shaking occurrence yesterday, the young man driving a marked van while texting. (I’m not going to say which non-profit group he was driving for, lest this poor and dangerous choice cost him his job).
Of course, the real answer is that motorists must take much greater care where they have to share asphalt with other, unprotected road users — but I haven’t seen that to be the case in that locale.
Chris,
Your words: “The route through the parking lot is the suggested path for cyclists” — this is the fault of City planners, not the motorists using the lot.
Further, your words: “cars backing out of parking spots, cars idling waiting for spots, motorists dropping off passengers, and in the most head-shaking occurrence yesterday, the young man driving a marked van while texting.” Except for the driver texting, the other actions of drivers are the correct and normal actions of drivers, so I fail to see what you are complaining about. Moreover, I have seen an increasing abundance of cyclists texting while cycling, equally deserving of head-shaking. What we are in need of is enforcement.
“and not seeing cyclists and pedestrians”.
The behaviour of the motorists I witnessed put people at risk because they were driving in such a manner that the rest of us must give way regardless of circumstance. It’s not the correct action of motorists to bully their way through shared space — because they won’t be the ones injured. This is the existing paradigm, unfortunately largely overlooked by car users too often for comfort.
More enforcement would be welcomed and it should be apportioned according to the volume of scofflaws and their potential to injure others. In other words, let’s get motorist text/driving down to somewhere near zero and then we can worry about a minority of the smaller cohort of cyclists engaging in the same behaviour.
Chris,
Please provide your evidence that it is a “minority of the smaller cohort of cyclists engaging in the same behaviour”; you cannot make such a claim without providing the evidence to back it up. Saying so does not make it so.
Susan: It’s pretty simple really. When you look out for cyclists, is it a case of:
– most of them texting?
– half of them texting?
– I saw a couple of cyclists that one time texting?
Unless it’s at least option 1 or 2, a minority of the smaller cohort of cyclists (as opposed to the larger cohort of motorists) are texting and riding It’s not a ‘claim’. It’s reality, supported by direct observation and reasonable deductions. If you think otherwise, then you need to come up with the facts and evidence to support your unlikely claim. Until then, I think we can safely say without fear of error that texting cyclists represent a risk that’s a tiny fraction of the dangers presented by motorists engaging in the same behaviour.
Also, don’t be posting requesting me to respond to these silly counter-arguments. You’re losing credibility with every post frankly. It’s tiresome and a waste of both our time to argue points that are obvious to anyone who chooses to consider the question without bias.
Right. We shouldn’t fault the drivers who are just doing the appropriate thing in a parking lot. We should blame the system that in the past (and continues today in most places) has put all others as lower class citizens. A system that believed that all trips should be made by car and there should be no accommodation for anything else. We shouldn’t blame people who are merely going along with how things are designed. We should blame the design.
It’s now up to the Park Board to fix this since we now know more about not mixing modes. It’s too bad that they appear to want conflict.
Walked by water’s edge on Kits Beach on Saturday whilst a full-on beach volleyball tournament – with tents, flags, blaring music, inane play-by-play commentary over a loud speaker, a beer garden, sponsor zone, etc – was on. Thank god a separated bike lane was thwarted and the natural integrity of this park preserved. Thanks NIMBYs!
This is so awesome! A paved path will turn this into a super highly used cycling route. The current railway bed is a creosote laden toxic bed of gravel, so pavement is probably necessary to seal off the toxic rail bed . Pavement is also the best option for cycling. Way to go CoV! Can’t wait to ride the new path. I just hope it is wide enough to accommodate all the path users. This promises to be a great recreational, commuter and tourist route. We can now welcome cycle tourists into Vancouver on an amazing rail trail.
They’re making great progress, they were getting ready to pave when I rode my bike down Nanton this morning.
And, the mini farms? Will they be preserved?
Chris,
Thank you for confirming that, once again, you have no evidence to support your negative opinion regarding motorists. I trust you will take your own advice.
What a bizarre assumption. I am a motorist on a regular basis. I don’t engage in self-loathing. I do recognize and acknowledge when there’s a problem with shared road space.
The Kits Beach parking lot has grown more problematic over the many years I’ve been using this recommended bike route. A failure to observe and understand this reality indicates (to me) an unfamiliarity with the area so profound that the only responsible act would be to refrain from comment until a greater knowledge of the circumstances it creates is achieved. But, ‘if wishes were horses’ as they say.
One would think the countless exhortations by police toward motorists to hang up and drive, the expensive awareness campaigns with the same aim, and the numerous instances of texting/talking drivers (these stats available to any who seek them) would be evidence enough of a problem on our roads. One wonders what kind of evidence is required when restating the obvious?