Tenth Avenue between Oak Street and Cambie Street in Vancouver is a designated bikeway. It also hosts the welcome mat for many British Columbians who are seniors accessing health care services from the varied parts of the Vancouver General Hospital. Many seniors from outside the Metro Vancouver area also come to this street for specialists appointments at one of the many Vancouver General Hospital (VGH) related buildings along Tenth Avenue. Yes many of these people are the elderly and the infirm, and yes they should be traveling by taxis and accessible bus. But if they are from out-of-town, they may not be able to do that.
And there is the rub-how do you provide reasonable on-street parking for seniors that may be only able to access by car? Is it reasonable to allow people who are quickly going to the Emergency entrance a chance to have metered parking outside the building? And how do we maintain this street as a bikeway without having cyclists “doored” or crashed into?
The City of Vancouver is considering installing a separated dedicated bike lane along this section of Tenth Avenue which would eliminate 70 plus parking spaces, laudable anywhere but which has concerned seniors who are accessing services by vehicles. A petition has been circulating stating:
“Patients, caregivers and seniors with critical health care and treatment needs are begging that access to hugely important street parking remain available on West 10th Avenue behind Vancouver General Hospital. West 10th Avenue is home to the British Columbia Cancer Agency, the VGH Eye Care Centre, the Blusson Spinal Cord Centre, the Mary Pack Arthritis Centre and many other critical services.”
There is a large excavated site next to the new B.C. Cancer Research Facility on Tenth Avenue. It seems that part of that building’s approval was for surface area parking to be installed on this site. That was never followed up on, and that certainly would provide more at grade parking for the area in the time of transition to a more bike friendly route.
The Vancouver Sun has also reported on this issue, which sadly appears to have become a generational issue between senior vehicular users accessing 10th Avenue hospital services and cycling advocates wishing to have a convenient, safe and fast bicycle route. With over 3,000 cyclists and 4,500 vehicles using the route every day Council has referred the matter back to staff for more consultation.
There has never been a bike lane proposal that wasn’t going to bring on the end of the world. The world is still here.
This is nothing more than news-makers making news instead of reporting it, and cheap political opportunity.
You’d think city transportation staff just tossed in a bike lane without working with all stakeholders and finding the best compromise. We sure wouldn’t want injured cyclists increasing the need for medical access.
Having dealt with elder care issues for a period of 12 years, two of whom were in wheelchairs for 12 years and two years respectively, and one of whom needed assistance from others to walk, all of whom were very slow in public places compared to younger people, it’s my belief that mobility for the infirm must be given priority over all other considerations in this district.
That will present a serious design challenge on 10th. I don’t believe removing parking is the big issue there because there are adequate parkades all over. You may pay through your nose for a parking spot, but that shouldn’t result in the preservation of a mere 70 stalls on the street that are not designated handicapped stalls. The provision for safe drop-off zones for the elderly and mobility challenged at the front door of each major health care building on 10th is the central challenge in my opinion. Providing several specialized parking stalls inn each block for wheelchair-equipped vehicles comes next.
I challenge cyclists to get into a wheelchair and try it for your self. Even then, too many seniors do not have the upper body strength to operate a wheelchair up even the shortest ramp. Probably more than half of the seniors visiting their doctor are accompanied by caregivers who are moving at a slow pace with their charges, which complicates the issue.
In that context, placing a bike lane between a HandiDART drop-off zone and the curb will surely result in collisions with cyclists moving at speed. The second worse design response is to place a bike lane on the outside of passenger loading zones where a 3+ m wide space needs to be provided for vehicles with wheelchairs ramps and wide doors. The best solution is to separate these loading zones completely from bike lanes.
Bikes and wheelchairs and slow moving elderly and infirm people should never cross paths. Ever.
As most of the buildings have associated off street parking, why would anyone want to park on the street?
Also, I am a senior and visit my medical and dental appointments by bike. How would I safely access these facilities. How would anybody on a bike safely access these facilities? Already 7% of trips by Vancouver residents are made by bike while 50% are made by car and cycling is the most rapidly increasing mode of transportation. Would you deny all these people riding bikes a safe place to ride – especially to these facilities on 10th Ave? Also, I know lots of seniors who ride bikes and also some that use trikes and e-trikes as mobility devices. I know a young doctor who uses a bike as a mobility device because she has trouble walking more than a short distance. How are these people supposed to safely access these facilities. What about employees who travel to workplaces on 10th Ave? Note that the biggest secure bike parking facility in Vancouver is located at 10th Ave and Willow. How would people safely access this facility?
Yes – seniors with mobility issues need good as to these facilities on 10th Ave but should this be at the expense of making the street unsafe for a large part of the population? Surely we can design a street which is safe and convenient for everyone.
Where are the HandiDART / wheelchair loading zones and handicapped stalls being located? How do they relate to the reconfiguration of 10th and other users? Surely some should remain on tenth near the entrances to buildings. My doctor’s older building on Broadway x Willow is inaccessible to HandiDART. How many cyclists are destinating to the VGH precinct vs travelling through? How many are over 65?
Kudos to you for biking and staying healthy as a senior. But there really isn’t justification to kybosh the access rights of weaker, unhealthy octogenarians requiring mobility aids so healthy cyclists can have priority. You have failed to see their point of view, and the planning and design will be a failure too if cyclists (or car traffic) force other users to give way.
You want to throw stats around? Here’s one: 13% of Canadians are seniors, and that’s growing. VGH is a destination for patients, of which seniors are a disproportionate number and of which a disproportionate number do not have complete mobility.
Surely this can be resolved, but it may require compromise on all sides.
MAB, the divisiveness comes from people like Elizabeth Ball whose proposed solution is to ban cycling on this section of 10th, This is not a bike lane issue but is a project to make the street safe and convenient for everyone – including seniors. I am in complete agreement with accessibility for seniors and like Jeff mentions, the city has set up a great process to make sure that this is top of mind. Let’s move forward together and not make this an issue which divides us.but to make this a safe and convenient street for everyone.
Agreed Arno. Jeff Leigh has some very informative info on this below. Cheers.
The passenger loading zones (for private vehicle drop offs, taxis, and HandiDarts) are being expanded, ie more of them. Many buildings on 10th do not have them today, and of those that exist, there is a lack of ramps and there are uneven surfaces. The passenger zone at the Eye Care centre is a good example of poor infrastructure. More passenger loading zones, immediately in front of key facilities, was a consideration in the joint design workshops. This took precedence over parking for the people representing those facilities and stakeholder groups, as the buildings all have underground parking (including with disabled spots). Parallel parking on 10th is a risk for pedestrians, people on bikes, and emergency vehicles which get blocked by parkers. Add to that the vehicles double parked due to a lack of passenger loading facilities, and the number of crashes and resulting injuries are not surprising. We can do far better at designing a street that works for more people. We have an established transportation needs hierarchy, from pedestrian, through bike, to transit (HandiDart) and private vehicles. Of course access should be provided for people visiting these facilities in private vehicles. But demanding that this includes on street parking shows a lack of consideration for all the other modes.
With your focus on people using mobility aids, you should welcome the wider (and level) sidewalks, the raised crosswalks, the curb bulges, and the pedestrian refuges. This keeps getting painted by the media as a “bike lane project” but in reality it is an effort to improve the street for all. With compromises. Just ask the Park Board who wanted to maintain the tree canopy, and the Persons with Disabilities Advisory Committee member, who debated access vs trees at these workshops.
As to the passenger loading zones being beside the bike lanes, this is why the preferred design is for two one way bike lanes, and not a bidirectional bike lane. The latter would create more risk for people unloading, who may not expect a bike coming from the opposite direction. There was also significant effort put into separating the passenger loading zones from the bike lanes (similar to bus islands) with marked crosswalks to access the islands.
When we talk about the rights of the elderly, and the mobility challenged, I am in full agreement. But lets not confuse those important issues with the rights of drivers to have on street parking. There simply isn’t room for all, and there are better parking facilities already available. And this is leaving aside the increase in traffic that happens because of drivers circling the block looking for that elusive spot, thus making it more dangerous for all.
All good points, Jeff. Thank you for that. The process is farther along and more deeply consultative than I thought. I am particularly pleased that the PWDAC has been given a spot at the table along with the other stakeholders.
I also noticed the lack of a decent landing spot for a wheelchair-laden HandyDART in front of the Eye Centre, as well as 675. Most other agencies / buildings have vehicular access to their front doors of varying directness. Still, in my view there should be generous loading spaces for both HandyDART vehicles (reserved) and permit-carrying disabled parking (large enough wheelchair ramps, strictly enforced) in the 600, 700 and 800-blocks.
There is a small park at Heather where some space could be borrowed for a pull out / accessible loading lane if needed.
The intersection at Heather will change as it is proposed to close Heather to vehicles on the north side of 10th, for a half block. Heather will create a T intersection with 10th from the south.
This is part of the traffic calming that will reduced the current 4500 vehicles per day, many of them circling the block.
MAB, I agreed with you 100 per cent until the last point. I don’t believe it’s at all possible or reasonable to expect that two modes will never cross paths in a city. Certainly, people with wheelchairs may also have to cross streets with cars as well as bike lanes, and that can be designed very safely to minimize any conflict.
As someone who has done what you suggested, that is try out a wheelchair for a day through the city, I was amazed at how difficult many older curb-ramps were to use, and how difficult it was to cross a street in the allotted time. By having an island in a crosswalk between the bike lane and the street, however, you can make more space for a wheelchair user to first get to and then wait for the next safe time to cross, or, even better, the next controlled crossing time with a stop light for bikes, too.
I’m not 100 per cent familiar with the proposed designs, but I know how many cyclists use this street and how much safer it would be to have a separated bike lane in those areas where so many different modes come together. I believe a separated bike lane could actually make it more safe for other users, just as the number of all kinds of collisions involving pedestrians has decreased on Hornby and Dunsmuir streets since the separated bike lanes were installed, making the streets safer for all users. I trust that the city staff people will have the same success here in making the street safer for everyone, not just cyclists.
Tessa, yes, those who are in wheelchairs or who have dealt with an infirm parent or child for years, pushing a wheelchair in all conditions, visiting a health unit or care facility hundreds of times, paying steeply for an electric wheelchair, as well as trying to manage the terrible inadequacies of society’s concept of universal accessibility, get it.
I see the best solution as having passenger drop-off and loading zones within each building site, not on the road. Cyclists already contend with driveways and this would be no different. However, there are many older buildings on 10th without driveways and many have completely inadequate loading and parking for people in vehicles equipped for wheelchairs, let alone to the door. Therefore the street is the only other place for them.
If I had to make a choice between a HandiDART loading zone at the curb or on the outside of a curb-placed bike lane, I’d choose the former. There are extremely valid reasons handicapped parking stalls are 3 m wide, and that’s to accommodate a wheelchair lift, the actions of the driver and caregiver, and the line of travel of wheelchair bound people away from the vehicle. It’s best to give them a really wide adjacent sidewalk with a curb letdown in the stall, even if you have to widen the sidewalk into the building property.
“Bikes and wheelchairs and slow moving elderly and infirm people should never cross paths. Ever.”
So you’re striving for the impossible then. Or are you proposing flyovers for wheelchairs? Or for bicycles? This is a city. People cross paths.
And how about the 4,500 cars per day? No concern about them? Nope. It’s bikes that are dangerous. Cars are just fine.
And the infirm and elderly don’t exist in the largest concentration of hospital facilities in the province? Or don’t form a good and growing chunk of our demographic?
Healthy people with little experience in elderly and infirm mobility have no right to dictate terms to people with disabilities. Period.
The most equitable planning process for the 10th Ave hospital precinct would place several people with disabilities and limited mobility at the same table as cyclists, motorists and pedestrians.
“The most equitable planning process for the 10th Ave hospital precinct would place several people with disabilities and limited mobility at the same table as cyclists, motorists and pedestrians.”
You will be very glad to know that is what happened over several days of detailed design workshops. We also had a walking tour to see the challenges. I attended and represented a cycling organization. I sat next to a person in a wheelchair, representing the Persons with Disabilities advisory committee. There were seniors reps. Emergency Services reps. Park Board staff (re the tree canopy). Reps from each facility along this stretch of 10th, from the Cancer Clinic to the Spinal Cord Centre. And a credit union, which has a commercial loading zone at Cambie.
Following this round of design workshops, there were many more meetings on strictly the access issues.
Sometimes the City should get credit for doing the right thing.
Jeff, indeed, I am very glad to read about the inclusive process, and look forward to seeing the updated concepts. Thanks.
MAB. you still have not explained how the street could be made safe for me and other seniors on bikes, trikes and e-trikes and everyone else who wishes to cycle to these facilities and the hundreds of people who access their workplace by bike. You also have not explained why the off street parking is not sufficient.
Elizabeth Ball makes a big deal about a person with brain cancer who needs to visit the Cancer Agency but that facility has both extensive off street parking AND an extensive off street drop off area. And she uses this as a reason to ban safe cycling on 10th Ave because of reduced street parking?
I am confident with ALL relevant players at the table (see Jeff’s comment above) that an equitable solution can be found. My concern was that the special requirements of people with disabilities were going to be forgotten at best, purposely ignored at worst.
These five blocks of 10th that pierce into the heart of the VGH complex require a very well thought out design, which may mean cyclists and motorists would have to slow down and suck up a modicum of inconvenience where there are a limited number of on-street disabled loading bays. Maybe not, if someone comes up with a superior layout.
The rest of 10th? Go for it.
“The rest of 10th? Go for it.”
An excellent plan. At the next consultations, in a few weeks, look for design proposals relating to 10th around Commercial/Victoria, and Kingsway. These will be spot improvements, as the City works to make the entire length of the 10th Ave Bikeway an All Ages and Abilities (AAA) route, per the City transportation plan. More to come in 2017.
What is the intended PRIMARY use of this segment of 10th Avenue? Is it not as a narrow local to gain access to the numerous health care facilities located there, rather than as a road to move through? As a person who has the unfortunate experience of dropping off, waiting for, visiting and picking up family members to VGH and the Eye Care Centre, I can say unequivocally that finding a convenient place to park, both short term and longer, is a fundamental challenge. Removing ever more on-street parking just adds to the anguish many hospital users and visitors already experience.
I can also say as a person who biked this route twice a day for years, that crossing the busy arterials at each end (Oak and Cambie Streets) is the real hazard to life and limb, for all modes. Due to the moderate traffic volumes and narrow carriageway, as well as parked cars (!), traffic moves very slowly, which allows bikes to mix fairly well. Biking here is not the unsafe condition some commenters would have us believe.
Removing these 77 parking spaces, as seemingly small an impact as it may sound to some ears, is bordering on insensitivity and indifference to many health facility users to a very high degree.
Would you allow an 8 year old to ride 10th? Where then?
Not being insensitive – this proposal must meet the needs of all users. But substitute inconvenienced person “X” as the reason to halt every bike lane proposal. Here it’s seniors. On the Drive it’s destination shoppers from Maple Ridge. On the Burrard Bridge or Dunsmuir Viaduct it was commuters….
We could propose AAA on Broadway instead and be faced with the same complaints and then some. Or 12th. Should we just paint a big huge no-go zone for bikes in a wide swath around the hospital? How about we just don’t improve bike infrastructure anywhere. That’ll solve it.
Let’s hope RV that you never end up in a wheelchair and have to visit a VGH clinic, or take a parent or other family member there via HandiDART.
“Inconvenienced person x”. That is an overly cavalier dismissal of the concentrated numbers of persons with varying kinds of disability who need to see one or more of the hundreds of doctors in the VGH complex.
You are offering a responsibility-free opinion. Why don’t you interview someone in a wheelchair before you offer another one? Better yet, get in a wheelchair yourself for a few hours and try to access several facilities on 10th, then sit down and draw up your solution to this problem?
The proposed designs (to the state I have seen them) will make it far better for someone in a wheelchair to navigate the street. And to be dropped off. For the person driving, there will be a change in that a section of 10th will be one way (westbound) from Cambie, although it will still be two way near the emergency entrance. If I wanted to drive, I would look for an off street spot in the facility I was visiting.
Yes, I have pushed a wheelchair for a family member.
I attended an open house to review and comment on the proposals and could see that staff had worked hard to accommodate everyone. There were certainly several seniors voicing their concerns and city staff were listening and discussing. I don’t believe that staff ignored them.
Have they eliminated HandiDART passenger zones? The article makes no such mention. We’re talking about the loss of on-street parking but there is apparently lots of other parking. There are still several passenger zones in the proposal. Apparently they are often abused by others like couriers and people parking too long. That should be enforced so those who need it can use it. I don’t really have that much sympathy for able-bodied people claiming the need for street parking just because they’re helping someone else. Help them in. Help them out. But why not park in a parkade?
Nobody is “dictating terms” to anybody. City transportation staff have taken their best shot given all the needs and conflicts. You are telling us they’ve failed. But I’ve heard that with every bike lane proposal and they’ve all worked pretty well. The sky has not fallen on those who said it would.
Perhaps the hospital and other medical facilities should be doing a better job of serving their patients’ transportation needs than forcing them to use street side parking/loading in the rain and snow, with uneven pavement, poor curb ramps and steep hills to boot.
You mentioned on-site passenger zones. Well hold them to it and let cyclists have a safe place to ride too.
No, I did not say city transportation staff have failed. In fact, I am pleased to hear about their progress as reiterated by Jeff. I was reacting to your impetuous comment that virtually dismissed people with disabilities as mere “inconvenienced persons.”
crossing the busy arterials at each end (Oak and Cambie Streets) is the real hazard to life and limb, for all modes.
I’m not sure how you can say that, given there are pedestrian/cyclist controlled traffic lights at both intersections. Cars are also restricted from heading north on 10th at Cambie and south at Oak.
As someone who has also regularly cycled 10th b/w Oak & Cambie I will anecdotally observe that there is a lot of vehicle traffic on that stretch including rat runners trying to avoid Broadway that often produces an uncomfortable proximity between automobiles and bicycles.
Some have suggested re-routing the heavily used bike route. But there is no 11th Avenue. You either re-route to Broadway or 12th. Or you force cyclists to cross one or the other to 13th or 7th (pre-existing bike route) to bypass that stretch. It’s not viable. It’s more realistic to attempt to find some sort of design solution on 10th.
It’s more realistic to attempt to find some sort of design solution on 10th.
Amen to that.
People with disabilities need to be at the design table along with everyone else. They are legitimate users of 10th in that area. The VGH district is unlike any other stretch of 10th because of the special needs of many people who have VGH as their destination.
I say that as one who once cycled from main to UBC regularly, using 10th years before today’s crossing signals at arterials.
“I can also say as a person who biked this route twice a day for years, that crossing the busy arterials at each end (Oak and Cambie Streets) is the real hazard to life and limb, for all modes.”
Changing 10th to one way westbound from Cambie will help resolve the intersection issues there. Also, turning restrictions can help even more, for people walking and people on bikes.
At Oak, turning restrictions will improve crossing safety for all modes.
Look for more details in the consultations coming up.
If you’re in favour of stripping parking along 10th Avenue near the Vancouver Hospital and nearby specialized clinics, I suspect that you’ve either not been a patient (of any age) or a person visiting a loved one either hospitalized over a period of weeks or requiring regular out patient care in one of these facilities. I’ve done all of that over the past three years.
Eliminating parking on 10th Avenue will add to the stress of either being a patient or needing to regularly visit a patient. 10th Avenue with hospital and clinics is not a good fit for a bicycle commuter zone. 13th Avenue looks to be a reasonable alternative for commuting cyclists.
14th will likely be a future bike route, and that will make a four block minimum grid with 10th, and complement the Off Broadway route on 8th and 7th.
If 10th isn’t a good spot for a bicycle commuter route, then a significant number of people commuting to work by bicycle in the Health Precinct face a significant challenge. How would you like them to get to work? The VGH Bicycle Centre they are heading to is on 10th.
Hello Jeff Leigh,
I was given a tour of the Vancouver Hospital Bicycle Centre last year; it’s a beauty and it’s commendable that medical staff cyclists have it available when they reach their work destination in the Health Precinct.
10th Avenue is and will continue to be available to those cycling to work in the Health Precinct. But insisting that 10th Avenue with its many health-related traffic demands should become a dedicated thoroughfare for cyclists for whom it is not a destination, just seems stubborn to me.
You have mentioned that 7th and 8th Avenues are – and that 14th Avenue likely will be – a bike route in the future. It sounds to me that bicyclists are and will be well accommodated on nearby streets. Why insist on competing on 10th in the Health Precinct?
Stubborn is not reading what people write and then putting words in their mouth.
But then, try this. Ride 10th and detour to 8th around the hospital. Come back and tell us that’s the solution.
We’re still waiting for your solution to contend with HandiDART and disabled parking and loading. Is it to eliminate these elements altogether so bikes can fly like early traffic over a new 10-lane bridge?
The updates supplied by Jeff indicate that the consultation and design process hits the nail on the head . . . and the wheelchair loading bays will likely be included with provisions for bike traffic. On street parking is the element that gives way.
10th already is a dedicated route for cycling, this doesn’t change that. These changes simply add a separated lane. The route isn’t just in the Health Precinct, it extends from Trafalgar to Victoria. It is the busiest east/west bike route in the City. And that is without separation. Looking at the crash statistics, and daily volumes, people are using it in spite of the current conditions.
Short of banning people on bikes, I don’t think people on bikes are going to stop using it. This is about making it safer for all people using 10th, with people walking and using wheelchairs at the top of the pyramid. Calling this a bike lane project doesn’t acknowledge all the improvements for those modes.
I think the starting point has to be an acknowledgement that the street doesn’t work very well today. People trying to park on the street acknowledge that. People in wheelchairs acknowledge that. People on bikes acknowledge that. It seems to me though that they acknowledge it doesn’t work very well for themselves, while not necessarily considering if it works very well for anyone. This is about trying to improve it for all modes.
The Off Broadway bikeway uses either 7th or 8th, at different points along the route, not both. 14th is off in the future, it isn’t a designated route, but is used by some people on bikes today. One issue with 7th is the elevation change. People on bikes are unlikely to drop down to 7th at Oak (steep hill) and then climb back up to 10th closer to Cambie. If they are heading downtown, they are likely already on 7th. If they are heading to points further east, 10th maintains a more consistent elevation. If one ends up down at 7th and Cambie, and then Main, then Great Northern Way, it is a climb back up to Commercial. People riding will gravitate to the most logical route. This project is addressing the 10th Ave Bikeway from Trafalgar to Victoria. We should think of it in the larger context, and not just as a Health Precinct issue, as important as those access issues are.
S.G. Taylor, there is lots of off street parking along 10th and a huge parkade south of VGH. I don’t understand why able bodied people need to park on the street – especially when visiting a patient. Also, there is a huge parkade beside the Hycroft building on Willow. I’ll bet it is never full. Street parking is such a poor use of public space.
Good points, Arno. Except when someone is assisting a mobility-challenged person and needs a disabled parking space.
Protected bike lanes on Broadway would be a better solution.
Just a reminder there are 2 parkades directly by the hospital: One off Laurel, and the other off 12th (complete with pedestrian bridge.
https://www.google.ca/maps/@49.2605739,-123.1237072,3a,75y,226.04h,95.14t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sMYENZCAvjX6l2wdfgyNoyw!2e0!7i13312!8i6656?hl=en
https://www.google.ca/maps/@49.2617202,-123.1254339,3a,75y,324.11h,90.08t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sZmJnDhmekvUB0OgKAB5xaA!2e0!7i13312!8i6656?hl=en
For access to facilities on the north side of 10th, it is my understanding these will be accommodated.
I’m not going to freak out on that until I see the actual proposed design.
Open Houses to show the next phase of the proposed design are planned for the week of Nov 22. Display boards may be up in advance of that, I’m not sure.
Here is a summary of current off street parking, from the last round of public consultation.
Much of the parking isn’t accessed off 10th, so perhaps some people visiting and circling 10th looking for a vacant street parking spot aren’t aware of it. Better (and more consistent) way finding signage was discussed in the workshops.
http://i349.photobucket.com/albums/q367/jcleigh/Posts/10th%20Ave%20Bikeway%20Existing%20Parking_zpsmstugfwg.jpg
66 feet road allowance has room for (1) two 5 foot sidewalks (2) a 10 foot bike lane (3) a10 foot one way traffic lane (4) 77 parking spots (5) grass & trees
I don’t think anybody is suggesting that bikes not use 10th Avenue here. Au contraire. The question remains, do they need to have a fully dedicated facility in this stretch of 10th Avenue? Put another way, can cyclists not function adequately, if not commuting though at a high rate of speed, while recognizing the very complicated competing uses of this street segment? I think they can and in fact do already.
I think in the past it was okay but with the growth in population and in people cycling what was once working no longer does.
Many cities around the world are recognizing the mobility options are important and that getting more people cycling provides mobility at the lowest cost and also provides many benefits to society. Many people want to cycle but consider current conditions to be unsafe. By increasing safety and convenience , many more people will cycle and that leaves more room on the roads for those that must drive and also leaves more room on transit for people who prefer this option.. The city has wisely recognized that this section of 10th Ave is not working well for anyone and is proposing to make this section safe and convenient for everyone. Kudos to the city for attempting to do the right thing. If you want to make a difference, please involve yourself in the consultation process. I am sure that we can together make this street work well for everyone.
“Put another way, can cyclists not function adequately…”
I think it depends on your definition of “adequately.”
We have a City strategy around Vision Zero. Do we mean it?
We have data on where collisions happen. Do we choose to act on it?
We have statistics on how many people feel safe riding in separated bike lanes vs shared roads. Do we want to make evidence-based decisions in our efforts to grow mode share?
Jeff,
My observation is that cyclists cycle faster on streets with a designated bike lane than they do on streets without a designated bike lane. And for cyclists I appreciate that a designated lane improves one’s safety and ability to commute faster.
Greater speed and a greater feeling of entitlement on the part of cyclists don’t make sense in a hospital zone given the number of individuals with health and mobility impairments who are in the hospital zone for treatment.
It sounds like a recipe for more cyclist /pedestrian collisions rather than fewer.
Jeff, please explain “my observation”. Because as a cyclist I do not find this at all. I generally ride slower in dedicated lanes because I don’t have the pressure of cars riding my ass. The new Beatty lanes force me to ride slower particularly past the Georgian Court Hotel where the bike lane narrows and passengers cross the path.
Separated lanes are much safer. I see no evidence at all that they are faster. If that is indeed the case then the premise of your concern is invalid.
Personally, I ride more quickly on streets without cycling infrastructure, as I find it safer to move at vehicle speeds, with less overtaking. Not all people can do that on specific roads, and none can do it on all roads.
Shouldn’t all road users feel entitled to safer infrastructure?
Physical separation has been shown to reduce crashes. Raised crosswalks, curb bulges, pedestrian refuges, and similar features, all included in this design, are a proven recipe for reducing collisions between people walking, and both cars and bikes. And it is the car collisions that are the high risk ones.
“Greater speed and a greater feeling of entitlement on the part of cyclists don’t make sense in a hospital zone given the number of individuals with health and mobility impairments who are in the hospital zone for treatment.”
I think the dangers associated with a sense of entitlement and higher speeds are exponentially greater when considering people driving than with people on bikes. The travel speeds are higher for motor vehicles, and the consequences of a collision with a vulnerable road user, whether walking or cycling, are simply much graver.
If we wanted to make 10th even safer for pedestrians we would close it to private vehicles and leave it open for transit and emergency vehicles, but no one is suggesting that.
RV, I think your question should be directed to SG, not me.
Oops, yes. My bad.
10th bike lane is clearly emblematic of the power and arrogance of the bike lobby.
This project is important; whatever way it goes.
Power? Arrogance? The car lobby continues to rule supreme and has taken over most of the roads in the city. All we want is a safe and convenient place to cycle and 10th Ave was chosen by the city to be the best east-west route in the area because it provides a decent route between Trafalger and Victoria. And many people don’t seem to understand how beneficial it is to society to have for more people riding bikes not the least of which is reduced motor vehicle congestion and improved health.
Let’s not pit car driving seniors against cycling seniors. Lets not pit cars against bikes. The city consultations on this project are very extensive. I encourage everyone to participate in this project in order to make it as good as possible.
As a frequent user of services in the health precinct, I am becoming more interested in this project, and plan to attend an open house.
Among the reasons I prefer grade-level parking to parkades:
1. Usually more light, at the times when I am accessing services. I do not feel comfortable parking in dark parkades.
2. Some of the parkades are difficult to navigate, due to size, layout, or poor wayfinding signage.
3. Cost. It is less expensive to use a street meter for 30 minutes than to pre-pay at the parkade. Also, by using the pay-by-phone technology, one can add time to a street meter.
4. Convenience. When accessing several services, it is helpful to park in a central location, on the street, rather than at a particular building.
When practical, I use public transit to access the health precinct. However, such is not always the case.
Good points. But therein lies the problem as well. Why does the city charge less for on street parking than that charged by off-street facilities? This basically means that we, the taxpayers, are subsidizing the people who choose to park on the street. We have to ask what is more important – the safety and convenience of people walking and cycling or the convenience of people parking their vehicles. Streets are very valuable public space. Should not the primary use be for transportation?
That should be very popular Arno. People have a detached retina or a cancer problem; screw them. Nail those suckers. “Dig deep if you want to park near your doctor, sunshine. This is our road and we’re gonna squeeze you but good!”.
More righteous karma for the bike-warriors.
Oops, yes. My bad.
Ignore previous posting glitch.
Eric, Are those people with detached retinas driving to their appointment? If they’re being driven then they can be dropped off close by. What’s your issue?
A detached retina will probably be treated at the VGH Eye Care Centre. That facility has a parking lot clearly signed “Patients Only”. And with the street changes proposed, they will gain a proper passenger pick up and drop off zone, right out front, With curb ramps, for wheelchairs. And able to accommodate HandiDarts, important in reducing the double parking that will otherwise be even more of a problem when the Willow Street pedestrian corridor is completed, and they can no longer use that temporary lot.
Cancer problems are a tragedy. Fortunately, we have the BC Cancer Agency, and they have 295 spaces in their dedicated parking facility. And a pull in drop off and pick up area.
Something it is getting screwed here, but unfortunately it is the truth. It is too bad that some rely on smear politics to try and argue their points.
Eric, personal attacks are disrespectful and are not allowed by PriceTag comment policy, If you don’t have anything to add to the conversation, then you should not post a comment.
I was simply asking a question. As a society, should we preserve subsidized street parking spots for the convenience of those driving cars or is that space better used to improve cycling safety and encourage more people to ride bikes? We went through this issue at great length on Hornby Street and now everyone wonders what all the fuss was about. Whether or not a person has cancer or a detached retina is beside the point since many people ride their bikes to appointments in the hospital zone, myself included.
I’m sure you are a fine fellow Arno and I’m also sure you have compassion for your fellow human beings. Perhaps you are also right, many people ride bikes to to appointments in the hospital zone, let’s encourage more to do so by installing a MOBI rank instead of those massively subsidized parking spaces.
Even better, we already have MOBI stations around the Health Precinct. At the time of posting, there are 36 MOBI bikes available, spread between four stations (Cambie to Oak).
Eric – Great comment re Mobi bikes. I think you are finally understanding why cycling is so important since it provides mobility choices – even for seniors like me.
Mobi provides yet another mobility choice. Like Jeff mentioned, there are 4 Mobi stations in the area with one on Laurel between 10th and Broadway which holds 14 bikes. You will have to agree that this is much better use of public space than the 2 car parking spots it replaced. I recently attended a meeting which was held in the VGH Cycling Centre building on 10th near Laurel and three people at the meeting made their trip by using Mobi bikes. If they had used cars, they would have taken up 3 precious car parking spots. And cycling isn’t a great mobility choice if it is not safe, hence the proposal to create separated cycling lanes in the health precinct.
And yes, I do have compassion for my fellow human beings. By getting more people cycling, there will be way more space on our streets for people who must drive – especially those seeking treatment for detached retinas or cancer.
I have known five individuals who lived in wheelchairs with a wide range of age and diminished mobility between them.
One is a wheelchair athlete with great upper body strength. She required about 1.5 m of space on the side of her van (3.5 m total parking stall width) to lift herself up into the passenger seat, swing her folded manual wheelchair into the open side door, then transfer to the driver’s seat. She remains very independent.
Another co-worker had MS and less-than-average upper body strength. She also used a manual wheelchair but required help getting into and out of her specially equipped car and in the washroom. She quit work once she was told her co-workers are not trained as professional caregivers. She still travelled and rolled over mountain trails in a special wagon pulled by friends and family, but now relies a lot on the flawed HandiDART service.
Another co-worker had a fused spine from childhood and her mobility and overall strength was greatly diminished. She received a grant to supplement the cost of her $20,000+ special wheelchair that could lift the seat vertically as well as roll along. She too required a very wide parking space for the disabled for her specially equipped van.
All of the above three individuals owned their own vehicles and therein had some degree of independence, but required access as close as possible to the front door of every destination. Permitted disabled parking remains a necessity.
One of my closest elders had a series of maladies that landed her in a wheelchair for 12 years. These included a spinal stroke that paralyzed her from the waist down and diabetes which resulted in the loss of one leg. Her upper body strength is what you’d expect with an octogenarian. She lived in a top line care facility and needed a lift into and out of bed, and was unable to transfer out of the wheelchair without two assistants and a mechanical lift. She was able to obtain an electric wheelchair which expanded her world immensely for about six years, but not without the limitations of the HandiDART service.
Another elder developed ALS and was unable to move much starting midway through her terrible three-year journey. She was not able to push her wheelchair, so she required top line care too, and the constant help of her elderly husband and children to visit doctors and clinics.
If you’ve read this far, you’ll get an inkling of why I get particularly antsy when able-bodied people start demanding public amenities that could impact the less able-bodied. Both the last two elders were exceedingly slow when out in public, and there were unforgivable conflicts with cars, pedestrians and cyclists.
When people talk about the urban nirvana of carving bike lanes from public streets, I always think of the above people and their rights. Where do you put the rights of the disabled on the ladder of priorities? Much has been said about places like Copenhagen where cycling is a premier mode of transportation. Anyone who has read Jan Gehl’s books and seen his work will conclude that he placed pedestrians first when he helped liberate 10 hectares of downtown land from the car. He assisted in the creation of the Stroget. Once pedestrian space was before them, then naturally came bike infrastructure, complemented by decent transit.
I would place people with disabilities on the first rung, even ahead of pedestrians.
I totally agree with you as do city staff. I have seen nothing in the proposals that denies access for disabled people. What I object to is those who want to use this as an excuse to deny people a safe place to ride their bikes. It does not have to be either/or – we can have both and we will all be better off that way.
We don’t have to guess how they deal with patients and bikes in Copenhagen. Here is a street view at a small hospital in Copenhagen.
https://goo.gl/maps/BaDEgWztqFk
Looks a lot like the plans for 10th Ave, though I believe that we will have superior accessibility for disabled people.
Here is another hospital. Notice that they pushed the disabled spots into the bike lane but they did not divert it 3 blocks down a steep hill to 7th Ave. This way the bike lane is actually used both by bikes and by disabled people to access a vehicle.
https://goo.gl/maps/iXrLSugxpPE2
Nice solution.
Arno, You have much greater faith in Vancouver cyclists than I do. After having almost been struck this afternoon by a cyclist riding on a sidewalk where I was a pedestrian, the thought of cyclists and the disabled sharing a bike lane make me cringe.
And the small Copenhagen institutions on bucolic streets that you link us to above bear no resemblance to the busy Health Precinct around Vancouver Hospital.
It isn’t proposed that cyclists and the disabled share these bike lanes, unless they are disabled cyclists. Pedestrians will cross them at marked (and sometimes raised) crosswalks.
People shouldn’t be riding on sidewalks unless it is signposted that they should do so (as it is in some spots). That said, we will be more successful in getting them off sidewalks if we ensure there is proper infrastructure available.
S.G., you have much greater faith in motorists than you should. How many fatalities and serious injuries from being hit by cars or being hit by bikes?
S.G. There is a certain portion of the population that misbehave. Here is a video I made of attempting to cross Kingsway on foot. On this one crossing, 17 drivers failed to yield. I could have been killed 17 times if I wasn’t hyper vigilant.
Note that I was wearing a bright yellow jacket and it was a sunny day.
Arno, we all know why. The reason the drivers were surprised was that everyone else crosses less than a few seconds away at the perfectly good, pedestrian controlled crossing, less than 30 metres west at Dumfries Street.
It is Perry Street and the nearest traffic light controlled ped crossing is 143m away in one direction and 107m in the other direction. Anyway, this is totally irrelevant. The point is that I am legally allowed to cross there and many drivers refused to yield the right of way.
What I find disturbing is that there are some who claim that people riding bikes are the biggest hazard when the fact is that in collisions in Vancouver involving cars and bikes where blame has been assigned, it is the driver that is at fault 90% of the time. I got crashed into on two occasions by drivers who claim not to have seen me in spite of wearing bright clothes on a sunny day. In both cases the driver was at fault and the attending officer did not even write a traffic violation ticket.
I make it 190 m to Dumfries, and 220 m to Miller, measuring on Google Maps. I have experienced similar issues crossing at this street. The last time, I was walking my bike, and had drivers accelerate past me similar to Arno’s experience.
I am amazed at Eric’s rationalization. Apart from the disinformation that it is 30 m to a controlled crossing, apparently it is OK for drivers to ignore the rules of the road if they think that people should use a different crossing. This is a legal crosswalk, although not a painted one. Once a pedestrian is half way across a busy street however, there is no excuse for not stopping.
I’ll take my camera along next time I cross there.
Arno; Vancouver drivers are aware that the most common accident is when a vehicle impacts another from behind. This is one reason all vehicles have rear-view mirrors, as well as side mirrors.
When traveling along any arterial roadway with frequent pedestrian controlled intersections the sight of someone crossing in the middle, less than 100 meters from a controlled light (Leigh is measuring in feet) causes all drivers to seriously consider what’s behind, as well as what’s in front. For their safety, as well for others all around.
That’s the type of stunt you might get away with in parts of the third world. India and Vietnam come to mind. I wouldn’t try it in the US or much of the western world.
Eric, Do you actually want to be taken seriously or are you just posting to annoy?
Eric: “…someone crossing in the middle, less than 100 meters from a controlled light (Leigh is measuring in feet)”
Balderdash, on several counts.
Perry, the access road to Famous Foods, is in the middle of a four block stretch of uncontrolled intersections (three with legal crosswalks), not the middle of a block.
I wondered how accurate Google Maps was, even using the measure function. I can actually get more accurate using VanMap, and with that app the distances are 185 m (not 190) and 204 m (not 220). Since you mention feet, that is 608 feet, and 670 feet. Not sure how you came up with your measurements. Hopefully not the same way you estimate distances when driving.
Maybe this will help resolve it for you. Meters and feet, same map.
http://i349.photobucket.com/albums/q367/jcleigh/Posts/Perry%20to%20Miller%20controlled%20crossing_zpssfy19ygt.jpg
RV asked “Do you want to be taken seriously?” Apparently not.
Anyone who goes to Famous Foods from the south side of Kingsway knows that the closest and safest crossing for normal people is at Dumfries, not at Miller. Go there and watch for a while. Crossing at Perry is for those brave souls that love to just walk out in the middle, between controlled crossings, knowing that they are in the right and that the law is on their side. Hey, I’ll keep my fingers crossed for you.
Perhaps you’re heading for Pho Thai Hoa and want to nostalgic about crossing the street in Vietnam:
Eric: “Anyone who goes to Famous Foods from the south side of Kingsway knows that the closest and safest crossing for normal people is at Dumfries”
So people on bikes are not normal, apparently. Otherwise, how do you suggest they travel from Dumfries to Perry, two blocks on the wrong side of the road? Ride on the sidewalk, or salmon against traffic? Both are unacceptable. Crossing at Perry is for those who don’t feel safe riding down Kingsway, and don’t want to ride on the sidewalk. The safe way to do it is to walk your bike across, slowly, giving way to the drivers who refuse to yield even though you are halfway across the street, in the legal crosswalk.
Now that we have that image in mind, it is easy to see why we need more protected bike lanes. Kingsway is on the list for many cyclists.
Jeff, you really try to push a point, don’t you? You say balderdash. Well, you are wrong, again. The city has installed many clear signs on both sides of Kingsway with large red circles with an angled ‘no crossing’ line and a pictogram above the wording, “Use West Crosswalk at Dumfries”, at the intersection of King Edward. This leaves Perry and Welwyn, which are both indirect crossings, no paint on the roadway, because of the angler of Kingsway. Neither crossing at either street is direct, both have a slight jog which makes them unsafe for normal pedestrians.
For those pedestrian trying to prove a point because they can’t be bothered to walk one block to a controlled crossing we can only send our best wishes.
Be certain that no wise parent or school teacher would risk their children with such dangerous behaviour.
Also be certain that no driver would either be so flippant, as you suggest, to consider any pedestrian as “collateral damage”. The last thing any driver wants is to hit a pedestrian but, as we’ve been learning in our dialogue on automated vehicles, in any potentially dangerous situation all eventualities are considered in split seconds and swerving, braking and even speeding up can be utilized at avoid collisions, as well as the inevitable selecting of the least damaging collateral. Seeing a big truck in the periphery of ones’ rear-view mirror can make some people nervous and possibly impulsive, even if pedestrians are wandering across the road.
As I’ve said before, good luck. I’m sure god is on your side.
Eric: “The city has installed many clear signs on both sides of Kingsway with large red circles with an angled ‘no crossing’ line and a pictogram above the wording, “Use West Crosswalk at Dumfries”, at the intersection of King Edward. ”
Correct. No such signs at Perry. No pedestrian crossing at King Ed. A (purposeful?)distraction, since there was no discussion of crossing at King Ed.
“This leaves Perry and Welwyn, which are both indirect crossings”
Perry and Welwyn are not indirect, they are direct. There is no jog. The crosswalk is the straight line extension of the sidewalks on the side streets, per the MVA. The jogs are at Dumfries, and Miller.
“one block to a controlled crossing”
No, two blocks, now that you understand that King Edward is not a legal crossing, per the first point. Be consistent.
“30 metres west at Dumfries Street.”
No, 185 meters. You are out by a factor of 6. Perhaps you were using fathoms instead of feet.
“less than 100 meters from a controlled light”
Closer. It is still 185 meters. Maybe in the next post you can acknowledge the actual distance.
An able bodied walker may have no issues going 185 m, and back the same distance, just to cross the street. How about someone with a walker? How about a wheelchair? We started this thread talking about access across streets for those who are not able bodied. We also discussed people on bikes. You haven’t answered how the cyclist is going to cross Kingsway at Perry. Ride on the sidewalk for 185 m each way? Or walk their bike? Those are unsafe/illegal, and absurd, respectively.
The reason to keep pushing is that you refuse to acknowledge your ridiculous errors when called out. You double down on the rights of people driving not to be inconvenienced by having to slow down when someone is in a crosswalk, (crossing, not “wandering”) excusing the speeding and tailgating that make it hard for them to navigate the apparent obstacles of pedestrians in crosswalks, all the while referring to people on bikes as “entitled”.
You call crossing the street in a crosswalk “dangerous behaviour”. This is an improvement, actually, since you earlier called it “a stunt”. But it clearly illustrates why streets must be improved (including 10th through the Health Precinct). Because crossing a street in a crosswalk should not be dangerous behaviour.
The City of Vancouver says, under Walking Safely:
“If there aren’t any pedestrian crossing lights, wait until it is safe to cross.”
Anything else is a reckless cavalierly stunt because you can’t be bothered to walk a block, especially when carrying a camera to try and prove a point.
That’s all we need to really consider. Without all your hyperbole. Now you want to throw in “speeding” and “tailgating” too, to try and bolster your silly case. What’s next, you are certain that all drivers are drunk and on the phone?
When the vehicle in the near lane stops for you and waves one across a crosswalk, it is as safe as it is going to get. Then, one proceeds slowly, watching for other drivers who may choose to ignore the stopped vehicle, and the pedestrian in the crosswalk. One takes each lane as the corresponding vehicle stops. It is slower, but safer. This is not recklessly cavalier, this is standard practice. I am not certain that all drivers are drunk and on the phone. But some may be. You said above that some drivers can’t stop in time. So it could be speeding and tailgating, as I suggested, or distraction, as you bring up. Doesn’t matter.
And cameras aren’t carried, they are worn.
The point was well proven. You just keep digging deeper in an attempt to justify dangerous and entitled driving behaviours.
Eric, I hope you don’t drive a vehicle. The only reason rear ending might be an issue is that people are illegally driving too close to the vehicle ahead. In any case, I was quite visible to most of the drivers but they simply refused to obey the law. How can you suggest that I was performing a stunt? I was simply trying to cross the street at a legal crossing.. Isn’t it the drivers that are performing stunts by driving too fast, tailgating and not yielding to pedestrians? How can anyone suggest that this is OK?
And if there are so many drivers out there that deliberately break the rules simply due to their high level of entitlement, is it any surprise that the city is working hard to protect vulnerable road users from these maniacs by building a network of protected cycling lanes?
…and, stealing bikes is a crime, just as is driving too close is illegal, so you leave your bike unlocked and the city is working hard to ensure nobody steals your bike.
Wishful thinking Arno. Good luck!
I have thought for a long time that you were behaving like a troll. Now I am convinced.
Sorry if it went over your head, Arno.
I’m reminded of this gem from ICBC, teaching us “How to Drive Smart (sic)”
Strategies: when an animal is in your path
If an animal is directly in front of you:
• Check your rear‐view mirror to see if there is a vehicle behind you, or if you can stop suddenly.
• Assess the risks and decide on an action. Can you stop safely? Can you steer around the animal? Would it be better to hit the animal or risk a crash?
• Slow down but resist the urge to slam on your brakes when you see an animal. This could send your vehicle out of control.
• Leave a wide margin when you drive around an animal. A frightened animal may run in any direction.
• If the animal is large and you can’t stop in time, brake firmly and steer to strike the animal at an angle. Let up on the brake pedal just before hitting the animal.
This will cause the front of your vehicle to rise and reduce the chance that the animal will come through the windshield.”
This is what we are taught.
The discussion is about hitting pedestrians in crosswalks.
Eric equates pedestrians with animals, recommends evaluating whether it is better to hit the pedestrian or risk being rear ended, and if you decide to hit the pedestrian, strike the pedestrian at an angle and let up on the brake pedal so the pedestrian doesn’t break your windshield. Because it is what he believes he was taught.
Words fail.
Enlighten us Jeff. Show us the law you say applies to drivers and pedestrians in uncontrolled and unmarked intersections on arterial roads.
Remember The Motor Vehicle Act, 179 (2)
A pedestrian must not leave a curb or other place of safety and walk or run into the path of a vehicle that is so close it is impracticable for the driver to yield the right of way.
Pedestrians that persist in believing that they have the power of Moses should be advised of the risks.
BC MVA Part 3.
119(1) Definition of a crosswalk. Arterial is irrelevant. Perry has a crosswalk.
179(1) Yield ROW to pedestrian in crosswalk
179(2) Yield ROW to vehicle when it is impracticable for that vehicle to stop. Not inconvenient, impracticable.
179(3) Yield ROW to pedestrian already in the crosswalk, ie pedestrian has left the curb
You quote (2), above, but it doesn’t apply except when the vehicle can’t stop, ie pedestrian jumping in front of a moving vehicle. In the clip from Arno, and in my example, vehicles had stopped, crosswalk was occupied, so see (1) and (3).
Perhaps better just to use:
144(1) Driving without due care, without consideration for others, speeding, etc.
Moses doesn’t enter into it. I am well aware of the risks. We are just watching you twist yourself into knots trying to blame everyone except the at fault drivers.
This is why you won’t get taken seriously when you argue against safer road infrastructure projects.
Cue the enlightenment.
Wrong again. Perry Street at Kingsway has no crosswalk. It’s completely unmarked.
I’m glad I looked because, at first, I thought perhaps you knew what your were going on about. I checked the law and no, you are wrong. Wrong on all four.
I am happy to accept corrections but errors, no.
By the way. You might think that animals are below humans. I think they deserve the exact same level of reverence and deserve nothing less that the same respect. This superiority and differentiation over animals mentality is one of the faults that still lingers in some stubborn segments of society. It’s changing and this is only for the better. Take my advise Jeff, give full respect to all animals.
Well, you can lead a horse to water, but…..
I gave you the reference, above. BC MVA 119(1). It is good that you are happy to accept corrections.
119(1) Defines crosswalks.
(a): refers to marked crosswalks. OR
(b): (“crosswalk” means) the portion of a highway at an intersection that is included within the connection of the lateral lines of the sidewalks on the opposite sides of the highway, or within the extension of the lateral lines of the sidewalk on one side of the highway, measured from the curbs, or in the absence of curbs, from the edges of the roadway.
Of course it is unmarked. And no less a legal crosswalk.
If you are having trouble visualizing what 119(1) says, one of the four crosswalks that exist at that intersection is shown here:
http://i349.photobucket.com/albums/q367/jcleigh/Posts/Perry%20Crosswalk%20across%20Kingsway_zpsiko8clw7.jpg
It is worrisome that someone who professes to drive in BC doesn’t know this.
You are welcome.
I agree that you are correct. Crossing at that point seems to be legal but I wouldn’t do it. Neither would most people, and I’ve seen many crossing at Dumfries, which is the safe thing to do.
179 (2) is certainly something for drivers to keep in mind if pedestrians do rashly walk out. For situations like this, stunt.
https://s.yimg.com/ea/img/-/161103/581a68307bc29_2016_11_02t21_48_21.233z_640x360.jpg
“Perry Street at Kingsway has no crosswalk. It’s completely unmarked.”
Should be grounds for removal of a license if you don’t know this crucial road rule about unmarked intersections (that it’s legal to cross and peds have right of way). And people who don’t know it are lecturing others about road safety. Frightening.
Don’t get too excited, Chris, just remember that in Vancouver is an increasingly large number of drivers that are visiting the city, from all over the world. Many jurisdictions do not allow pedestrians the latitude they have in BC. Cross with caution.
No worries Eric. I don’t trust motorists one bit when it comes to crossing the road. Having said that, perhaps you should be asking for cross-walking advice instead of giving it — until you’ve familiarized yourself with the actual rules of the road instead of the ones you appear to have made up from your wishes and dreams.
Did I miss something? How did a very focused discussed about the hospital district escalate up to all the evils of big nasty roads, which nobody is disputing in the first place. Straw dogs, people.
While not specifically about the Health Precinct, the discussion is illuminating. It shows that some drivers consider pedestrians cautiously crossing at intersections to be performing stunts; that hitting pedestrians can be evaluated as acceptable collateral damage vs being rear ended; and that despite this, bikes should be considered more of a danger to pedestrians than motorists. Nothing firms up the resolve to push for more safe pedestrian and cycling infrastructure as much as listening to some motorists rant about their entitlements.
As the city grows in population it will be increasingly less easy to get around. Twenty years ago there were fewer people existing so fewer wanting to cross the street. Fewer wanting to drive so less competition for space. Good times back then. Those days are gone and never coming back.
Any solution is very difficult and much of it involves just accepting that it will now always take more time than it did. That’s hard to face so selecting something to blame it on is attractive.
It’s good to analysis and deconstruct these points of view.
As the city grows in population it won’t be necessary to travel as far to work, shopping, services and amenities. You may not need a car at all. Good times ahead. The car friendly old days are gone in Vancouver and there’s not anything that anybody can really do about it. (But you can move to Nanaimo or Kelowna if you pine for it.)
You don’t need to accept that it will take more time than it did. That’s only the case if you cling to the old ways of doing things at a scale in which it no longer works.
There is always more than one way to deconstruct these viewpoints.
This whole discussion started with Elizabeth Ball trying to get political points and media attention by irresponsibly driving a wedge between seniors in cars and seniors on bikes and more broadly between motorists and those who prefer to cycle. This is not just irresponsible but also discriminatory. This is not just about accessibility for seniors but has more to do about using this as an excuse to stop a project which aims to make cycling safer.
It is illuminating to see what lengths some people will go to to justify their entitlement to free or subsidized street parking and to drive irresponsibly and dangerously and this demonstrates why the city is making such efforts to create safe places for people to walk and cycle.
I am sure that Elizabeth Ball is losing support as she desperately tries to firm up support from her demographic which includes many old white people who are diminishing rapidly as a demographic. The NPA does not seem to understand that if they want to survive as a party they need to garner the support of younger people and stop their intense opposition to cycling. Especially since the DVBIA is now firmly supportive of cycling.
Arno – I am happy that this project has finally received more attention for those of us not previously informed about it. If that is due to Clr. Ball, good for her.
I’m very sorry that, yet again, a discussion in this this city is reduced to ageist and racist charges, as you are now doing.
deleted as per editorial policy
More attention and public information, including as to the depth of the public consultation done to date, will happen at the next round of public meetings, and through on line feedback, starting the week of Nov 22nd. It isn’t due to Councillor Ball’s motion, which was an attempt to subvert the public engagement process and discard all of the work done to date by a lot of people, both staff and volunteers. She was asking for the bike lane to be moved to 7th/8th, and not improved. All because a group of individuals didn’t get their preferred solution, which was to remove bikes from 10th. Consultation doesn’t mean you always get your way, it means a chance to be heard.
Don’t criticize NPA councilors on this blog. Got it.
Frank wrote: “I’m very sorry that, yet again, a discussion in this this city is reduced to ageist and racist charges, as you are now doing.”
Please explain how advocating for a safe street for all users and especially people who are disabled is “ageist and racist”. Note that I am a senior, so how can I be accused of being ageist. And racist? Who mentioned race? Surely people like Elizabeth Ball and some on this comment section who are against the proposed separated bike lanes are the ones that are being discriminatory
RV – wtf? How did this conversation devolve into party politics? Nobody here is promoting or defending either the NPA, certainly not me.
I criticized Councilor Ball for spreading misinformation and employing cheap politics. I didn’t mention the NPA until I was deleted for doing so.
Frank, you accused me in a previous comment of being ageist and racist. I responded that I was a senior so how could I be ageist? Also, I never mentioned race so how could I be racist? Please clarify or retract your personal attack.
Arno – I take “many old white people” as the example of my claim. Did you not use that phrase in a negative way to pigeonhole those you (seem to) disagree with? Sure seemed like it.
If you meant it differently, then the fault is mine.
I did not mean my statement to be negative, but simply as an observation. As I noted, I too am an old white man. This is the second time in a few months that Elizabeth Ball has attempted to stop a cycling project because of her concern for the elderly.
Can’t say I’ve ever tasted clog. How is it Arno, a bit woody?
Since we are discussing biking and a hospital I would like to share an article posted in Bloombergs today. The leading paragraph is as follows:
Adding bike lanes makes a city healthier—even for people who never climb on a bicycle.
Bicycle lanes have been a contentious issue in many U.S. cities, pitting motorists who say there’s no room for more bikes against two-wheel enthusiasts preaching the health benefits of leaving the car at home. But if you lay down enough bike lanes, something magical begins to happen: Non-riders begin to benefit from cleaner air when the network of bike lanes gets complete enough that people start riding bikes to work instead of driving.
The full article can be found at http://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2016-11-07/this-bike-lane-can-save-your-life
To healthier Vancouver Citizens!
Great post! And what better location could we choose for a safe cycling route than through the health precinct.
Author
Reblogged this on Sandy James Planner.