The Price Tags Editorial Board has met at the secret undisclosed location near Lost Lagoon in Stanley Park to ponder and surmise the winners of the 2016 Annual Gordie Awards.
As always, Price Tags values the readers and contributors to this blog, and asks you to provide your valued opinion in each of the following categories.
The 2016 Gordies will be awarded starting Tuesday January 3, 2017 as follows:
Biggest Transportation Events
Happiest Transportation Story
Planning for Big Impact [Positive or Negative]
Most Puzzling Planning Work
Most Polarizing Planning Work
And a special award to : Moments of Courage
Each category will awarded daily starting on Tuesday.
A Happy New Year to Price Tag readers.
Good idea! I nominate the COV for (positive) Planning for Big Impact for finally and seriously starting to address seismic retrofit of unreinforced masonry buildings.
I nominate the 10 lane Massey Bridge as a winner for the “Planning for Big Impact” award as it will spur massive economic and population growth south of the Fraser, and will spur economic growth along the Fraser well past New West and is good for BC as a whole.
Of course it is also very controversial according to a few PT bloggers so it may get two awards !
Happy New Year. May it trump 2016 !
My nominations:
Biggest transportation event: Agreement of the Mayor’s plan 10 year vision, phase I
Happiest transportation story: Opening of the Evergreen extension
Planning for big impact: Massey replacement, due to promotion of uncontained sprawl. Runner up awards to viaduct removal planning, and Broadway subway planning
Most puzzling planning: Burnaby planning to mix people on bikes and people walking along Willingdon, when there is space available to do it properly with separated paths
Most polarizing planning: the temporary path on the Arbutus Greenway. Runner up award to the 10th Ave bike and pedestrian improvements
Author
Reblogged this on Sandy James Planner and commented:
An annual event -awarding of the “Gordies” for Metro Vancouver 2016 events named after Gordon Price, former city councillor and past Director of the City Program, Simon Fraser University.
Judging by the number of comments on blogs the Biggest Transportation Events are anything to do with bike lanes or cycling infrastructure. This issue generates far more commentary than any other civic issue on the blogs I follow, which says a lot about our priorities in the civic discourse.
Actually it does not. It merely shows very narrow audience of this blog, not representative AT ALL of society in our city. Where are the blogging truckers, tradespeople, schoolteachers, soccer moms, seniors or Asian immigrants (both rich and not so rich) ?
Cycling issues are an extremely hot topic in City of Vancouver. In terms of number of speakers to a motion, top item of the last 7 years was Point Grey Road. Councillors even received death threats The proposal to improve the safety of a path in Kits Beach Park by creating separate cycling and walking paths attracted huge opposition. Upgrade of 10th Ave in the hospital precinct attracted lots of press and community feedback and was one of the big issues on Price Tags. The design of a temporary path for the Arbutus Greenway had some open houses and 5 or 6 workshops. By comparison, the upgrade for SW Marine only had a couple of open houses. Cycling issues attract way more controversy than any other transportation projects both on Price Tags and in the broad community. I do find this odd since cycling projects are very low cost and offer significant benefits to the entire community.
I also find it puzzling why something as benign as cycling rubs some people the wrong way. I don’t really get it. I can understand being annoyed by a slow poke in front you and that kind of thing but this is illogical.
Maybe it symbolizes something to them.
This phenomena could be something to study all by itself. It’s almost like racism the level of intensity sometimes.
Tofu had its day too.
It is very much like racism. Unfortunately, our human rights code does not mention transportation mode as a basis for taking action against discrimination and hate speech directed at people who simply want to get around by bike in a safe and convenient manner.
Something like this is needed though. I don’t know how it would work since a cyclist ceases to be one once s/he dismounts. Also many of those against cycling infrastructure (in fact it’s almost a cliché) often start their rants with “Now, I’m an avid cyclist myself but…”.
Aren’t we supposed be past all this by now? I can see back in 2010 or so when many people first noticed the cycling revolution and were surprised at it but they all should have heard of it by now and got over it.
The ranting against bike lanes is not irrational at all.
As long as cycling was a “dangerous sport” and solely the domain of youngish fit white men, nobody had to make excuses to get their lazy, selfish, polluting, energy sucking, unhealthy butt off the car seat. Once you make bike lanes safe for 8 to 80 year olds there are no more excuses.
It is not irrational. It is completely selfish though.
I find it telling that while Arno and Adanac find bike opposition “odd” or “puzzling” neither seems to remotely entertain the idea that most people disagree with many of the bike lane plans that are put forward.
Oh, I realize people have different opinions and priorities. That’s normal and can be expected. No, it’s the intensity of opposition that’s sometimes strange. Maybe I’m too generous and non-fascist but I don’t think I could ever get all upset about something that doesn’t affect me personally. I live and let live. I guess some people don’t.
The other thing is that the reasons put forward to oppose a plan don’t seem to make sense and are often not even related to the project.
I disagree that it’s most people. I find that it’s a minority opposed. They tend to be the loudest and therefore get press.
Bob, the problem is that some people simply can’t get past their irrational hatred of all things cycling to understand the huge benefits that cycling offers to society, not the least of which is reduced motor vehicle congestion. Cars rule on all the roads – what is wrong with offering a few crumbs to those who enjoy cycling, especially when that very likely will encourage the driver of the car in front of you to consider using a bike for some of her trips?
“…most people disagree with many of the bike lane plans that are put forward.”
Source?
Surveys don’t agree with your position. Check out Insights West (61 in favour, 33 against, for separated bike lanes, in 2013). See what happened when the NPA tried to make it an election issue, and with Point Grey Road. Check out more recent projects. When the latest changes were proposed for the Burrard Bridge, there weren’t any speakers registered to speak against the bike lanes at council. It was a non issue. Five downtown bike lanes, and a public information session. Attendees overwhelmingly in support. South False Creek Seawall upgrades; a very strong consensus from the public consultation phase, in the 80% range IIRC. The Stanley Park Causeway changes were fully supported by the Park Board commissioners, a separate body to council.
Facts matter.
Fake News dominated the recent season, now we have Fake Polls.
Jef says “Facts matter”. OK; the same study showed, a majority thinking that bike lanes are NOT a good use of taxpayer funds, ” whether the bike lanes are a good use of taxpayers’ money (agree 40%, disagree 47%).”. There’s a fact.
Also, in the Fake Poll, leading to Faker Facts is this fact. Insights West respondents are bribed, this study also had a massive 596 respondents.
“Every time you participate in any survey, you will be entered into our quarterly sweepstakes, for a chance to win up to $1000 in cash prizes and/or gift certificates from major retailers like Starbucks, Amazon.ca, Tim Hortons and Canadian Tire.”
Isn’t that exciting. We need another study to give an accurate perspective on who these 596 people are.
However, while the city sidewalks remain dangerous and ice covered, while many bike lanes are clear, we can be certain that the city is gaining the support of thousands more voters. Nobody cares about ice covered sidewalks.
Eric: The Vision platform has consistently included the promise of improving conditions for cycling in Vancouver. They have won the last 3 elections. Surely you must believe that this poll is accurate.
That is pretty funny, Eric. You disparage a poll you don’t like the conclusions of, while quoting another snippet from the same poll. Contort much?
Feel free to provide your evidence that most people don’t support bike lanes, utilizing a poll or data sources that are more robust.
Also, could you respond to the other points, which you (predictably) glossed over?
* Point Grey Road kerfuffle
* Public opinion on the latest Burrard Bridge improvements (news media couldn’t make it a story)
* Public info sessions for 5 new downtown bike lanes (reportedly one attendee against)
* South False Creek seawall improvements, 83% consensus for the proposed design from multiple open house events
* Stanley Park Causeway bike path improvements where PB commissioners supported improvements (NPA dominated)
* Vision re-elections with a clear stated policy on Active Transportation
You are demonstrating the very behaviour that is under discussion. That is so last year. Welcome to 2017
“However, while the city sidewalks remain dangerous and ice covered…”
The topic you are responding to is whether bike lanes are the biggest transportation news of 2016. Are you maintaining that several days of icy sidewalks (and icy bike lanes, and icy roads, incidentally) constitutes the biggest transportation news of 2016? Sounds like an attempt at diversion.
Jeff; your buddies at city hall must have had an emergency meeting today because Dobrovolny is right now giving a press conference saying that all construction is cancelled and ice clearing is suddenly job 1.
Methinks it’s panic stations.
No attempt at diversion from me Jeff. City honchos are back from holidays and they just happened to notice that there’s ice on the streets and it’s now an emergency.
The Ice Storm of 2016-2017.
History being made.
HUB thinks it’s a kerfuffle.
Don’t attribute comments to organizations that didn’t make any such comment.
It is dishonest.
Apart from the fact that the kerfuffle referred to was regarding Point Grey Road improvements for people walking and on bikes.
The attempt at diversion continues.
We know who’s going to wear this kerfuffle. Lots of great pictures to send shivers down everyone’s spine.
Ah, it’s just because it’s a (relatively) new thing. In a few years when it’s old-hat they’ll move on to something else.
I may be ahead of myself, but I think the biggest local transportation issue of 2017 – good or bad, depending on your point of view – will be the impending demolition of the viaducts. Especially after we finally see the details of the development potential being proposed to pay for this massive structural change in how the city core functions.
Demolition cannot be rationalized in financial terms, or on the grounds of sustainability as it is a complete waste of perfectly good infrastructure both in the air and on the ground, nor can a fairy tale be told about social housing sites as they are next door to one of the biggest point sources of EMF in the downtown, nor can we believe that the stake holders will actually get together when they are in fact in court suing each other, nor can we believe they are coming down when the city has hired the primo landscape designer of high line reuses, nor can we believe that this will work out either as 40,000 car trips today are not going to give way to bicycle-pedestrian users only, nor is the Province going to support the Burrard subway while the city in the meantime contemplates destruction of viable transportation infrastructure for purely, I repeat, purely cosmetic reasons, nor will the province fund a Malkin overpass to Clark for the new hospital when the viaducts could in fact be linked by this new route thus eliminating traffic impacts on the Strathcona neighborhood, nor are the longer travel times to the new hospital supportable by health care professionals, and air quality managers.
I nominate this planning work for the “Most Puzzling Planning Work” that will never ever happen but cost tons of money and create much angst amongst all those involved including the potential end of political careers for some individuals who have utterly failed to be good stewards of the public treasury.
with edits;
Demolition cannot be rationalized in financial terms, or on the grounds of sustainability as it is a complete waste of perfectly good infrastructure both in the air and on the ground, nor can a fairy tale be told about social housing sites as they are next door to one of the biggest point sources of EMF in the downtown, nor can we believe that the stake holders will actually get together when they are in fact in court suing each other, nor can we believe they are coming down when the city has hired the primo landscape designer of high line reuses, nor can we believe that this will work out either as 40,000 car trips a day are not going to give way to bicycle-pedestrian users only, nor is the Province going to support the Broadway subway while the city in the meantime contemplates destruction of viable transportation infrastructure for purely, I repeat, purely cosmetic reasons, nor will the province fund a Malkin overpass to Clark for the new hospital when the viaducts could in fact be linked by this new route thus eliminating traffic impacts on the Strathcona neighborhood, nor are the longer travel times to the new hospital supportable by health care professionals, and air quality managers.
I nominate this planning work for the “Most Puzzling Planning Work” that will never ever happen but cost tons of money and create much angst amongst all those involved including the potential end of political careers for some individuals who have utterly failed to be good stewards of the public treasury.
A most puzzling post, on a topic that isn’t particularly puzzling. Even with edits.
Removal of the viaducts was and is justified financially.
The viaducts are perfectly good infrastructure that are in the wrong place, and not connected to anything. Their resultant value is low. That is before you get to ongoing maintenance costs. I started off wondering why we would want to take them down. Having read all the materials, I support taking them down.
The “primo landscape designer” held a workshop in early December, on planning for the extension to Creekside Park. All the presentations were based on the viaducts coming down. In a similar vein, there were workshops held late last year on the Great Streets design focus (Pacific/Georgia/Quebec); sustainable transportation in the new NEFC neighbourhood; Broadway subway planning; False Creek Flats planning (including the new arterial), and so on. Lots of info out there. No need to be puzzled.
“40,000” car trips a day aren’t giving way to bikes and peds, they are being relocated to surface streets. Ones that connect more than just at the ends.
The province isn’t supporting the rail crossing to Clark. That is a rail initiative, connected to the port. Federal.
It isn’t a purely cosmetic plan, it is a functional one.
The travel time to the hospital needs to be seen from a catchment perspective, not simply a West End perspective. At least the ambulances will use the new surface streets, unlike the viaducts.
I look forward to the replacement of the viaducts. And the Creekside Park extension. And the Georgia extension. And the new NEFC neighbourhood.
Yes a puzzling plan to spend $100M+ to remove functioning infrastructure to create even more gridlock. Where can one read about the analysis of expected reduction in car traffic or where cars ought to go in lieu ? I’ll be a nightmare ! At least they could push a subway through E-Van to Burnaby, re-zone along Terminal Ave, Hastings and Cordova to create denser housing for the new subway, and eventually extend this subway/LRT over to the N-Shore, to form a loop back via newly widened/strengthened Lionsgate bridge. Where is that vision ?
So, yes, add this Viaduct Removal as the most puzzling planning decision of 2016 please !
“Where can one read about….”
Here. See the 2015 multi modal transportation study, in particular. Puzzlement is a predictable symptom of information deficit.
http://vancouver.ca/home-property-development/nefc-documents-and-studies.aspx
See also the Staff report to council, here:
http://vancouver.ca/files/cov/2015-Staff-Report-Removal-of-the-Georgia-and-Dunsmuir-Viaducts.pdf
“I’ll (sic) be a nightmare”
Said about just about every proposed change to streets, every time. Usually turns out to not be true.
The only nightmare turns out to be in the minds of the prophets of doom, saying the world will end.
Jeff – thank you for the links. I just looked again at the 2015 staff to confirm what I previously understood: there will actually be LESS public waterfront park and correspondingly MORE private waterfront development after the Carrall Street alignment is moved east. Compare the plans on pp. 14 and 15 to see what is intended there. I’m not sure why the public have to lose this promised amenity space in return for more (less valuable) inland park space gained, in part, by removing Carrall Street from the vehicular circulation network and counting that road space as “park”. This is poor public policy and just plain silly, IMO.
Just venting. I don’t think a reply is necessary.
Frank: I think a reply is necessary, because I have the opposite impression to yours, with respect to the focus on waterfront park space. I believe that you are looking at the new road network (and paths) when you look at pages 14 and 15 in the staff report. Please take a look at page 22, and the photo below. That shows the reconfigured park (some of which will have paths in it, but which is not fully bounded by those paths). Note the exchange of the more valuable waterfront land to the west, to have a larger public waterfront park. Note the new Georgia Wharf, which will be connected from the foot of the Georgia ramp, by public ceremonial plazas, etc, to the waterfront feature shown in green.
http://i349.photobucket.com/albums/q367/jcleigh/Posts/Expanded%20Creekside%20Park_zpstieeyw4j.jpg
The Carrall Street alignment is converted to additional park, and provides a link back to Chinatown. It is not in exchange for waterfront park, however; the plan shows both.
We should note that the above is preliminary, as the workshops have just started. There is a published schedule for public engagement, and the emerging ideas report should provide some more definition. It is just that if we are going to use the 2015 staff report on the removal of the viaducts as a starting point, I think it is better to use the park map diagram in that report, rather than a schematic of the streets and paths, to understand the likely future park shape.
Yeah, I once thought it was odd and was against the viaducts coming down too but then I found out more about the replacement plan and now am of the opinion that I’m okay either way. If they stay there is going to be a big expense to repair them and for seismic upgrades so it’s going to cost something even to leave them.
My understanding is that the new Pacific Blvd and ramp up the escarpment to Georgia will have higher motor vehicle throughput than the viaducts have. Another advantage for drivers is that they will have side streets to turn off of instead of being trapped in the viaduct.
But again, I don’t personally care either way. I just don’t like it when people think that there will be no way to drive to downtown after.
It’s okay (and welcomed) to have a differing opinion on the plan but at least learn what the plan is before criticizing it.
@Jeff
“The viaducts are perfectly good infrastructure” ……….. Good, I am happy you have finally been able to see the light. Now let’s connect them to Clark Drive so that they are actually connected to something. Of course you did not read this in all the material because the point of all that material is to “justify” knocking them down before there is a connection to Clark Drive! That would really be a hard sell wouldn’t it?
Way to take a quote out of context.
The whole world is taking down elevated expressways through cities. And you seem to want to build more of them.
The new hospital on the flats will require a new connection to Clark Drive in order to serve the east side of the city. This will require a new overpass across the tracks where Malkin Drive now terminates.
Malkin Drive to Clark Drive is the natural traffic routing for Viaduct traffic to and from the downtown core. This route would allow St Johns Ambulance congestion free access to the new hospital via either the Georgia Street Viaduct or Clark Drive.
Development of this route would also eliminate current heavy traffic impacts on the Strathcona neighborhood particularly along the Venables Street corridor.
Connecting Clark Drive reduces congestion, time delays, engine idling and overall carbon emissions; air quality is much improved compared to the demolition proposal which will cause the relocation of 40,000 daily car trips to the ground plane. City traffic studies predict time delays and congestion with the proposed new plans. This all adds up to more air pollution.
The demolition proposal is a “Public Health Issue”.
“The new hospital on the flats will require a new connection to Clark Drive in order to serve the east side of the city. This will require a new overpass across the tracks where Malkin Drive now terminates.”
Not true. Council has committed to local residents to resolve the traffic issues along Prior/Venables, as part of the viaducts removal and new street design. This is independent of the new hospital. At the same time, the Port wants to increase rail traffic to the port (see the Centerm expansion plans), and are committed to building overpasses to remove the grade level crossings, similar to their investment in Powell. From the consultation meetings, there are three options for where a new overpass could cross the tracks to Clark, Malkin is just one of them.
City Engineering supports a Malkin overpass, which will of course reduce traffic on Venables.
[Ed: comment edited for violation of comment policy]
Many studies have shown that if one builds more roads, then there will be more automobile traffic and if roads are removed, then traffic very often disappears. The removal of the river freeway in Seoul is a prime example. Less roads, less motor vehicles, less pollution, improved health.
Jeff – thanks again for the info. I think the before and after park shapes further confirm my feeling that the shape of the park space was more coherent and “whole” before what looks like gerrymandering for the sake of optics.
What I see, in the preliminary proposal, is more park space (in area), more park waterfront (in metres), more park connectivity around Carroll, connectivity from the new waterfront park to the new plaza at the foot of Georgia, and no private waterfront development in 6c. I guess “gerrymandering” is one word to use, but wasn’t your original concern that the park would be behind the waterfront private development?
Probably easier for everyone to judge when the next draft plan is released.
@Jeff & Frank
Not all park acreage is the same. In this case sunny waterfront park space is being traded off for shady park space when one considers that along the western boundary there is no buffer space (roadway) defining public, semi-public, semi-private and private space. A tall wall of towers will be casting long shadows across the proposed park from late afternoon onwards. The original plan is a far superior urban design that respects the right of the public to access to sun light. It also recognizes the need to secure park boundaries with formal edges that include roads, curbs, and sidewalks that are clearly public in nature.
This proposal should be rejected. It is a shady deal to say the least.
Likewise, the demolition proposal should be rejected on the basis of its utter wastefulness.
Maintain the Viaducts and build the Malkin Connector in order to relieve congestion on Main Street and eliminate traffic impacts on Prior.
Hold a competition that asks the design question; What happens when we keep the Viaducts!
Jolson – I agree that the shape of the original park was vastly superior in many ways, including its simplicity and publicly-owned edges.