Lots of interest, it seems, on this one — consultation on the temporary surface to be applied to the Greenway prior to the start of full-blown consultation on the permanent Greenway design later in the year.

City staff have added opportunities on Sept 24.

arbutus

I strongly prefer that the temporary surface allows all potential Greenway users to get onto the Greenway and try it out, so that the broadest possible range of opinions can be brought forward to the final design. I’m in favour of accessibility for all; and I’m against exclusion in any form.

Come to a public workshop to learn about different temporary pathway options and share your thoughts:

  • Kitsilano. September 17, 1 – 3 pm  (completed)
  • Marpole. September 21, 7 – 9 pm
  • Kerrisdale. September 22, 7 – 9 pm
  • Kitsilano. September 24, 10 am to 12 pm.
  • Kerrisdale. September 24, 3 – 5 pm

Meetings are public but space is limited. For more information and to RVSP, please visit Eventbrite. Each workshop will cover the same materials.
View the information boards PDF file (2.4 MB)

Excerpt from the Information Boards:

Many people think about greenways in the traditional sense of nature trails or pathways through natural areas or along waterfronts.  In Vancouver, they are that and much more.
Transportation greenways are linear public corridors for pedestrians and cyclists that connect parks, nature reserves, cultural features, historic sites, neighbourhoods and retail areas.
The future Arbutus Greenway will encourage people to travel by foot and bike—and ultimately streetcar—and improve access to parks and public green space. In addition to being a transportation corridor, the future greenway will also include features such as lighting, landscaping and seating areas to create a welcoming public space.

Comments

  1. I went to the one at the False Creek Community Centre on the 17th. It was well-attended and the audience, thanks to the facilitators, stayed mostly on point. I can characterize it as follows:
    1. The was a clear division in the room on gravel vs. asphalt.
    2. That said there as a pretty clear consensus that that principles guiding the design should be: a) Accessibility b) Safety c) A balance of a) and b) with a balance with nature.
    There was also a strong consensus, at least at my table, that the modes (pedestrian & cycling) should be on separate paths even if this meant a wider footprint.
    When the cost of materials was brought up I had a very strong hunch that Jerry Dobrovolny was secretly happy that the asphalting had halted…because he had just saved himself 30-40% of his budget.

    1. There was a division that’s true: 90% against asphalt and 10% undecided; there was also the definitive statement made that residents did not want just another bike speedway. Not surprisingly, first on all tables’ list was securing safety and accessibility for all users since Vision has such a poor record in that regard. There was also a very clear recognition that the City and its engineers are not to be trusted and that the workshops and open houses are purely a waste of time, taxpayer dollars and effort since the “temporary” asphalt already done is the dictatorship of Vision that it will be both the “temporary” and permanent result. In short, the “workshop” was mere smoke and mirrors, again, with Dobrovolny and Heather Deal present to smirk and lie once again to citizens. What they don’t seem to realize is that citizens have grown very savvy to this Council’s antics; the smug contempt shown to the public is now palpable to all. A fight is brewing, and this Corridor will be no cakewalk. Good luck dictating this one!

      1. So you were one of the attendees then? Why did you even bother going if you believe that it’s smoke and mirrors? Why not just let this dictatorship collapse on it’s own?
        So what do you believe is really behind it?

        1. Unlike you, I prefer to be informed first-hand and judge for myself instead of depending on subjective (seriously flawed) second hand hearsay.

  2. I have to say that asphalt surface is pretty ugly. The whole thing looks like a track running through overgrown grass and my fear is this is what the city will let it devolve to. When you see how poorly places like the Cambie Heritage Boulevard are maintained, it doesn’t make me hopeful this will fare any better.

    1. This was the cheap quick temporary path with no landscaping yet so of course it’ll look ugly. It was meant to get people started using it so that there can be feedback.
      It’s sad though that some people can’t see past this and get lost in a detail and then develop a dogmatic idea that it’s bad because of the asphalt therefore asphalt is bad.
      I understand that change is hard and I miss the neglected train tracks in the countryside look as well but just reacting to the quickly laid path and then fixating on and blaming the surface material is not the way to get that back or to move forward with what is essentially a good project.
      I look forward to the results of the workshops and hope that people get past this one aspect and discover how they can work this future greenway into their lives. In addition I hope that they’re an opportunity to educate themselves on what works and what doesn’t on multi-use paths.

        1. People will come from farther away to try it if they can bike to it and along it. If we just want to build it for the people who have property backing on it, then yes, walking would be fine. Better to make it accessible to a lot more residents.

      1. I think Adanac has indirectly written the slogan for the next Vision campaign.
        ” an opportunity to educate [yourselves] “

  3. It’s romantic to think of gravel. You really don’t want to be cycling in a heavily travelled urban corridor (over time) with gravel. Think for all abilities and all ages. Everyone.
    And all weather..with Vancouver’s rain.

    1. One thing that people seem to be missing is that the crushed limestone road base being used on the pathway does not remain loose and dusty. With rain, it does not turn into mud but rather, solidifies into a pavement-like surface.
      This surface does not carry with it the hazards of asphalt–something we have come to uncritically accept in most applications–is porous, and non-toxic to the environment around it.
      Yes, it takes a few months for the surface to develop, but it is certainly worth the wait, and much less expensive in every way.

      1. Limestone most definitely does NOT solidify with rain. It turns into a pasty slurry that hardens when it dries out. Many city parks divisions stopped using limestone in favour of granite fines, known as rock dust. However, even rock dust does not meet universal accessibility standards after a handful of winter storms here.

      2. The ‘hazards of asphalt’ are while it is being laid. Not once it has been laid, when it is inert for all intents and purposes.
        If permeability is important, use permeable asphalt. Just decide if the cost is worth it. This isn’t a wide expanse of pavement.

      3. If asphalt is that harmful, consider the acres upon acres that have been paved for roads, parking lots, etc. We’ve already been exposed to 10000% of what the harmful affects will be from paving Arbutus. We are doomed! Doomed!

      4. somewhat yes, phfinch
        It is not exactly water, but it is time, that is called the pozzolanic reaction,
        it is what happen on well designed hard packed path, such as this one
        https://voony.files.wordpress.com/2016/08/pistecyclable-vincennes.jpg
        but here , people take bad example to explan we can’t do better…
        any mention of hydraulically bound mixture (triggering a pozzolanic reaction triggering a pozzolanic reaction) to “cement” their hard packed surface.
        any mention of hard packed surface at all?
        Why the public consultattion expose only substandard alternative, based on poor example to explan we can’t do better?

    2. As a child I remember cycling from home along Richmond dykes for miles. As I recall it was a sort of hardpacked dirt and minimal gravel surface that the city must have looked at once a decade. Seemed to work just fine.

  4. It feels like a very challenging plan to create a “greenway” which is meant to both accommodate cycling, which indeed is better on a smooth path, walking in a rustic and more wild environ, which is better on a more Pacific Spirit Park like gravel path, and also the future light rail??? It’s hard to imagine all modes can be catered for. It seems to me the city should focus on a more realistic vision or have some concept to put forward for the public to weigh in on. So far, it’s been everything from a NY style High Line pedestrian experience to an active transit corridor to a light rail track. I can’t see how it can achieve all three.

      1. As above: “The future Arbutus Greenway will encourage people to travel by foot and bike—and ultimately streetcar” If it’s literally decades away, then the plan is as good as meaningless. What is supposed to happen, tear up everything when they eventually get to light rail? Either the plan is for light rail in a reasonably meaningful time frame, or it should never be mentioned at all, or perhaps we should be planning now for hyper loop stations?

        1. I’m not following this logic. Urban planning consists of setting short, mid and long-term goals. This is no different.
          Vancouverites will get many decades of use of the Arbutus Greenway as a pedestrian & cycling pathway just like they get decades of use of other pieces of infrastructure before they are either renewed or superseded by other uses.

        2. I would think that they would just leave some width there for a tram. Put some grass or other ground cover in the meantime. Not put trees there along there. Easy.
          The width varies for the whole corridor but even the narrowest places might have options.
          It would be cool to have a tram from Science World to Marine Drive. It wouldn’t be as fast as the Canada Line but it would still be useful.

        3. Important to remember that the Right of Way is around 66 feet wide, although it varies. For the temporary path, the City noted that one goal was to manage costs, and the biggest costs are not the surface treatment but rather building the base for the trail. For that reason, the temporary path was put right down the centre, on the old rail bed base. There is no absolute reason that the final path will be in the same location along the ROW, although it might be. We might want a rail ROW left on one side, a bike path offset, a walking path offset from that, and green in between all of this. But for the temporary path, they made it multi use to keep within the current rail bed footprint, didn’t cut down any trees or anything that might be in the way if they moved it, and got it done quickly and at reasonable cost.

    1. Multi-use corridors are ALWAYS challenging to design, but done well, the results can be very positive.
      Studies were carried out in the past that include not just the former CP Rail corridor, but also the adjacent City-owned lands.
      When put together, there is room for walking trails, bike trails, wilderness areas, community gardens–and a streetcar line. The key is integrating these lands so that the different functions can be accommodated.
      Some people think of light rail as being analogous to SkyTrain, but that is far from an appropriate comparison.
      Right now, there are no local comparisons to be made, but a good way of envisioning what a light rail line might look like is to compare the lawned rights of way in use in France.
      The rails are all but invisible with grass, or better yet, with low-growing (no mowing needed!) herbs. There is also no necessity for double tracking (passing tracks will work fine), thereby reducing the footprint even more.
      Another misconception is that light rail needs to be mass, rapid transit.
      More likely, the best fit is a community connector line that will operate smoothly, silently, unobtrusively, and at less frenetic pace than most of our transit. This again is a concept not currently represented in our local transit options.
      Is such a thing decades away? No, not necessarily. Though the ballast has been removed, the engineering and the roadbed is essentially intact (these are the really expensive parts). This dramatically reduces the cost of laying new track.
      From inception to completion, the time is largely determined by how quickly a builder can supply rolling stock.

      1. Is such a thing decades away?
        At the consultation I attended, Jerry Dobrovolny said the permanent path design would last many decades (which is why they wanted to take a few years to get the final design right).
        A streetcar is a billion dollar project. Given Translink’s and the region’s transit priorities it would still be many decades before an Arbutus line was built even if there was popular support.

        1. Your problem was to listen to Jerry Dobrovolny in the first place; he presents only his options, not all options.

      2. The fact is that Vancouver is in desperate need of fast transportation, and Vancouver also lacks a diversity of transportation modes even though they are plentiful and embraced internationally. The Arbutus Corridor, because of its length, directness and positioning is a prime opportunity to for a heritage tramway and/or light rapid transit. Yet another bike speedway is an absurd abuse of this opportunity, and the paving without consultation was a slap in the face to all Vancouver residents. Jerry Dobrovolny presumed acceptance of his “temporary” (ie. permanent) asphalt paving the way he always does, which is to do it by stealth so that when it’s done, it’s done, difficult, a waste, and unlikely to be reversed. His arrogance has no bounds.

      3. Exactly, but at these so-called “workshops”, which aren’t, that the City conducts for show only and at our expense, City engineers provide only asphalt or gravel options for a bike/pedestrian path; they do not encourage, allow for, or acknowledge any other possible options, purposely muzzling any attempt by the public to suggest and discuss the wide variety of actual other uses, designs and alternatives for the Corridor. It is a disgusting abuse of power and utter misrepresentation of all actual possible options for public consultation. The first “workshop” (with the second one tonight) was a disgrace.

        1. These options aren’t set by them, they’re set by the laws of physics. Some options (like rubber football field materials) just won’t work for the intended uses.

      4. The chart showing costs and functionality shows why the other options aren’t feasible for the temporary path.
        I think that what is disgusting is the way you attack others such as the City staff involved. It is shameful behaviour.

  5. I rode my bike southbound along the temporary Arbutus path today. The section from 16th to 33rd is paved. I saw about a dozen pedestrians (2 with canes), 8 cyclists, 3 joggers and a lady with a stroller and two toddlers who were wandering all over the place 🙂 Everyone was on the pavement except a lone male jogger who chose to run right beside the asphalt.
    The section from 33rd to 37th is fairly well packed gravel. The only person I saw was a lady walking her dog. When I reached 37th I saw a cyclist who had stopped to check his phone. It took a bit more effort to ride on the gravel, but I found it well packed.
    The section from 37th to 41st is flat and covered with much looser gravel. I saw absolutely nobody on that section of the path. The narrow tires of my hybrid dug grooves in the soft gravel and a few times I felt the front wheel slip a bit to the side.
    At 41st there are still rails in the street and the section south of there looked fairly wild so I went no farther.
    PS. In a little over an hour of slow riding I encountered 7 different “Road Closed” situations, all but one of them blocking a designated bike route. I’m looking forward to riding those streets when the city has finished repaving them.

  6. I find the level of debate abit strange here for Vancouver on a potentially heavily used urban MUP for sections not to be paved..
    Meanwhile in Calgary.. our city is twice the geographic coverage and more, compared to City of Vancouver. It’s probably closer to Metro Vancouver.
    Yet, a lot of our major bike/MUP paths are paved in Calgary smooth….and large sections probably not as heavily used..especially out in some suburban areas. But that is slowly changing (though glacial at times) when better connections are made to join up cycle track network.
    I’m just giving Vancouver folks a reality check: you have greater density of residents, higher cycling mode share, PLUS an aging population and kids and better weather to stay active year round daily. Please cyclists, don’t think just of yourselves at your most fit/youthful-like stage in life. We all get injured, get frail but still want to remain active safely.

  7. I attended the second consultation session tonight. All seven tables were full. I thought the exercises went well. Some good discussion.
    One person at our table who lived along the greenway wanted a straw poll for our table at the end to see who was for pavement/gravel, and who was for separated/not separated. Our table voted all for paved, and separated. Of the 7 tables, pavement was the overwhelming preference I heard, with a split on separated or not given that it was temporary (but separation for the permanent path).
    Sounds different than the first session that susan apparently went to (although the reports I have from other attendees at that session don’t match susan’s report, so maybe she wasn’t there).

    1. I’ll match my multi-media records against yours confidently, Jeff. The first session was almost unanimously against asphalt paving and in favour of gravel or other options not suggested by the City, as well as keeping a heritage and natural gardenesque aesthetic, the opposite of the City’s largely concrete and highly commercial “conceptual” rendering of the Corridor (or is that the “final” design rendering in your opinion — rhetorical question). There were also more than 7 tables at the first session, full, and the expressed determination to prevent another bike-only speedway. Too bad for Vancouver that Vision has every intention of ignoring its citizens; so great that Vision will be out before the Corridor gets built.

      1. Please post the multi-media records you are relying on for your summary of the first session. We all need to be fully informed.

    2. I was at the second workshop and I concur with Jeff. I have also heard that for the first workshop they ran out of time so did not get a report back from tables regarding table consensus. So no one know what the overall consensus was, however I am sure that we will see the results in the consultation report.

  8. No, other options (beyond gravel or asphalt) were not even considered: no other options were provided by the City, listed, budjeted or described. The public is not simply going to take Jerry’s word for it that other options are not viable; he needs to provide the evidence, the data. Why hide truth, if it is.

    1. No, other options (beyond gravel or asphalt) were not even considered: no other options were provided by the City, listed, budjeted or described.
      This is false. The sign boards at the meeting showed 5 other options:
      http://vancouver.ca/files/cov/arbutus-greenway-boards.pdf (pg. 7)
      It was also proposed from the floor that pedestrian path could be gravel and the cycling path asphalt. This was accepted by Mr. Dobrovolny and our table used that as a fifth option.

      1. No, Spartikus, when the public was asked to consider and vote on surface options, only gravel or asphalt were provided as vote options, and when the public suggested other options, Dobrovolny dismissed them without explanation, cost analysis or any data.

        1. You claimed no other options were provided by the City.
          That is clearly false.
          If you have a favoured material, please state what it is. Otherwise this is just noise.
          This is the temporary path. I, for one, appreciate that we were given a educated choice, rather than outlandish.
          Dobrovolny dismissed them without explanation
          Also false. Someone suggested woodchips, and Dobrovolny said that would present accessibility issues.

      2. On the second night’s presentation, we heard about some participants proposing gravel surfaces with binding agents. The issues relating to these treatments (which are made up of things such as vinyls, and which are spray applied) were presented. Biggest issue was that they are designed for dry climates, and keep dust down, but don’t stand up to wet climates. We also saw the chart with the alternatives, which apparently susan missed.
        We weren’t asked to vote on surface treatments, but rather to comment on positives and negatives for each, with concerns and suggestions. Some tables took it upon themselves to vote at their own tables, but it wasn’t part of the agenda.
        The binding agents proposal is interesting. It was being promoted by Elvira in several posts as an alternative to “toxic asphalt”‘, apparently without the understanding that it is a petrochemical, spray applied, and needing regular reapplication.

  9. A couple things I don’t get. One is this fear of asphalt that some people have. It’s used all over the place including the Seawall in this very city and it does not attract hordes of fast cyclists who then proceed to plow down pedestrians. Nowhere in the world has there ever been hordes of cyclists plowing down pedestrians.
    The other thing is a belief by some people that so-called cyclists are getting special treatment over the interests of other modes. It’s completely absurd. This city spends way more money providing for motor vehicles and pedestrians than the relative crumbs that go to cycling.

    1. The seawall is great, but the cycle path is separated from the pedestrian path, so that would have to happen here, but bike advocates really like 12 foot wide paths, so not sure that would be satisfactory to those who press for such things.
      In terms of the city spending way more money for motor vehicles and pedestrians, that’s because there are way more motorists and pedestrians than cyclists. Like 95% not cyclist, so why does it seem wrong to you that so much more is spent on those 95% who do not cycle?

      1. I don’t know where you are getting your data for “95% not cyclist”, it seems very low.
        Data from this year shows that 7% of all trips in Vancouver are made by bicycle. If you just look at trips to work, it climbs to 10%. Now think of all the people who have a bike, and ride it, but don’t commute to work with it. The number obviously goes much higher. You are likely thinking of an older data point for 5% mode share for cycling to work, and mistakenly assuming that that means that nobody else owns or rides a bike. That is poor logic.
        If we want to think about how to meet our targets for increased mode share, consider that 30% responded that they would like to bicycle more, in the areas covered by the Arbutus Greenway. What is holding them back? In most cases, safe infrastructure. What is the highest preference for improved bicycle infrastructure? Safe paths, physically separated from motor vehicles.
        Here is a vote for evidence based decision making, instead of emotional attacks.
        And the seawall is not yet separated for pedestrians and bikes everywhere, but it is being worked on. Looking forward to the new South False Creek paths, with work just starting now.

      2. robotboy44. I didn’t say it was wrong, I said that the idea that there is preferential treatment to cycling is false. Of course it’s going to cost more to provide for motor vehicles, that’s their nature. I support the subsidy to motor vehicles. We all benefit from goods being delivered, many benefit from personal mobility and there are other benefits. I want that subsidy to continue. What I don’t like is when a tiny percentage of our transportation budget, (lower percentage than the current mode share) is said to be too much.
        So basically I’m against people saying things that aren’t true.

        1. Adanac, thanks for clarifying. I have no issue with spending on bike infrastructure, I just take issue with wasteful spending on unnecessary anything and sometimes, that includes bike lanes. It would include spending on roads if I thought they were wasteful as well.
          Jeff, the studies I have seen are really questionable and based on self declared use by cyclists, who, quite understandably, have a vested interest in seeing that the stats are as high as they can be. If you have a study which shows how the data was collected, please let me know.
          “30% responded that they would like to bicycle more” is a vague and pretty meaningless figure. I could respond that I would like to lose a little weight, but I’m not about to do anything about it. And your view that those people are only held back by lack of “safe” cycling infrastructure is baffling to me. This is such a safe city to cycle in with it’s grid of quiet, pretty residential streets almost everywhere. I am a casual cyclist and I have no issue at all with getting around in Vancouver. Who are these terribly frightened people who find our quiet leafy streets an impedance to their stated desire to “cycle more”? I really don’t get it.

        2. The data is widely available, promoted regularly, and includes discussion about the methodology used. There are many different studies, and they show similar results, and trend lines over multiple studies. Apart from the absolute numbers, think about the rates of change over the last few years. Think about the neighbourhood differences. Think about the age differences. And consider that not everyone is exactly like you. If you are still baffled, we can meet and I can explain.
          Here is one study to start:
          http://vancouver.ca/files/cov/Transportation-panel-survey-2015-final-report.pdf

        3. It’s well documented. Some studies refer to those people as “Interested but concerned”, others call it “Latent demand”.
          https://www.portlandoregon.gov/transportation/article/158497
          http://www.peopleforbikes.org/blog/entry/here-are-the-first-ever-national-findings-about-interested-but-concerned-bi
          Talking to people I know some say that they would never bike “in traffic” but they’ll go on the Seawall. Everybody’s different.

        4. I will take a look at those studies, thank you. The one I have read I believe came from the city and in that case, the stats were based on what appeared to be cyclists providing the data.
          Adanac, those people who would never cycle in traffic, but would use the seawall, seem to be distinguishing between commuting and a scenic leisure ride. As I say, there are plenty of delightful cycling options which avoid any semblance of traffic in Vancouver without ever using a designated bike lane. Why won’t these potentially interested cyclist not get on their bike and enjoy this easy to cycle city?
          https://www.dropbox.com/s/nu3wbj9oq9sz8m9/IMG_3453.JPG?dl=0

        5. “Why won’t these potentially interested cyclist not get on their bike and enjoy this easy to cycle city?”
          Some will. But when we ask others, they tell us that it is because of not feeling safe. Some of that can be speeding motor vehicle traffic. It can be car doors opening into their path. It can be busy intersections. It can be motor vehicles not maintaining a safe distance (offset) when overtaking. It can be the unintended consequences of helmet laws, which teach people that riding a bike is somehow unsafe, when in fact it isn’t.
          But does it matter? Is it right telling people that they are mistaken, and they should just go ride whether or not they feel safe doing so? Why should their opinions not count? Would the promotion of active transportation be served by saying “This works for me, and if it works for me it is fine for all of you”
          When safe infrastructure has been built, it gets used. A lot. The City is not having to advertise new bike routes in an effort to get people to use them. One poster, probably Eric, asked if induced demand applied to bike lanes. Off course it does. They get busy. Look at the growth statistics, we don’t have to guess at it.
          The City has published targets for mode share for each transportation mode. It is a long term strategic plan (2040) with interim goals. We are collectively working towards it. If you have other ideas on how to promote cycling and walking, other than the activities currently under way, by all means present them.

        6. Well, we are going to have to disagree on this one. I think the number of people who want to cycle, but don’t because these quiet side streets are not safe enough for them are really not going to get on their bike because there is a bike lane, which might also frighten them due to the every increasing number of cyclists racing along as biking gets more and more popular. Even with numerous bike routes, cyclists still have to bike to them, so what then?
          As regards use, again, I just don’t see it. I have been down at Point Grey Road on a beautiful sunny fall morning at prime commuting time and there is barely a bike in site. Today, a friend posted on Facebook these pictures of the new bike route on Beattie. He noted that it was virtually empty and so took a few pictures. Yeah, a little September drizzle today, so is that what you mean by “used a lot”?
          https://www.dropbox.com/s/jnmy1kxssn4ioql/14358672_1452072228142384_7119995064035723571_n.jpg?dl=0
          https://www.dropbox.com/s/wk13wq92mxh9fel/14441012_1452072201475720_8651694201996550791_n.jpg?dl=0
          Arno, I am not saying we should not be forward thinking and build infrastructure for transit, but the advent of the car was transformational. Bikes have been around for even longer and the fact is, there is a ceiling as to how much of the population will use bikes as their mode of transport. It can increase, but it will plateau because it just isn’t for everyone, or even most. That’s obviously just my opinion, but that’s what we are dealing with here because yours are also opinions. “More people will cycle and less will drive”. I don’t see it happening in any significant way. Cycling could double to 10% and it would still be 90% not cycling. Cars may have plateaud because they have reached saturation point. Much like sales of iPhones are not growing at the same rate as they did before. Everyone has one.
          In terms of “lots of room for everyone”, many drivers would disagree, siting bike routes which choke traffic and create rat runs of one way systems. Motorists are not so happy with the traffic and associated idling, contributing to emissions in this “greenest city”. It’s just not as simple as “win win”.

        7. “Cycling could double to 10% and it would still be 90% not cycling”
          Now that is telling. You claimed above that 5% ride bikes, and 95% didn’t. You were shown real data, and it was pointed out that beyond that, your calculation method was incorrect. You said you would look at the data.
          Then you posted again with another reference to 5% and 95%.
          If you just want to make stuff up, you could save everyone some time and post it on vanpoli.

        8. I’m not making stuff up, Jeff, these are entirely real figures from the CoV. I will find the link for you, but please trust me, I read them. (In fact, it was a study quoted some time ago in another Price Tags discussion) I have not yet had a chance to review the links you sent, but I will. In any case, aren’t you being a little pedantic about the exact figure? Surely you understand my point, that cycling, even by your quoted number of 7%, is way less than not cycling, which is 93%, and if that doubles, well, I don’t really have to do the math every time. Why don’t you respond to the substance rather than focussing solely on the nuance of the details?
          And by the way, I engage here because I am interested in discussing the issues with people who have a different view. My views are not intransigent and not black and white. I am a cyclist and I know many other avid cyclists who concur with my views as well. Not everyone is a paid HUB member. If I just posted in VanPoli you may accuse me of talking in an echo chamber. So sorry for not towing the popular line here on this site.

        9. I am sure you did read the 5% figure, as it was a few years back, but you are misquoting it. It is that you don’t understand the figure.
          The current figure is 7% of all trips, in the City. The current figure is 10% of trips to work are by bike. But those are trips, not people. You are taking the 5% number, and saying it is the % of all people who ride bikes, and calculating that that means that 95% don’t ride bikes. That is absurd, you are confusing the data. And when corrected, you do it again. The 5% or 7% isn’t the issue, it is your not understanding that % of trips is not % of people.
          Start from the 10% of trips to work. Assume that is 10% of people, for a moment. Now, can you imagine that there are any people who own, rent, or otherwise ride a bicycle but who do not report it as their primary means of transportation to work? You, for example? Me? Do you know anyone else who owns a bike, but doesn’t use it as their primary means of transportation to work? It is easy to see that the % that cycle, at least some time, is far more than 10%. The figures are in the report, when you get a chance.
          Or, you could just read the report and see that in Kitsilano, the northern terminus of the Arbutus Greenway, the data shows that 36% of respondents report cycling at least twice per week. So, 7 times the 5% you have quoted twice now.
          Is pointing out an error of over 5 times being pedantic?

        10. Robotboy44 – You are tossing out lots of tired arguments, Very few general traffic lanes were upgraded to accommodate protected cycling lanes downtown. Outside of Burrard Bridge, only about one traffic lane in 5 blocks of downtown Vancouver was used to make the Hornby and Dunsmuir protected bike lanes. A lane on Dunsmuir Viaduct which had already been closed for 2 years for construction was also upgraded to a two way bike lane. A few more blocks of traffic lane were recently upgraded to bike lanes on Smithe and Nelson. Motor traffic was shown to be minimally affected and people are now parking closer to their destinations. Elimination of many parking movements further help to improve traffic flow.
          I note that in your picture of Beatty, there are very few cars on the street.
          The big problem with driving a car is not the bikes in the bike lanes but the car which is in front of you. The only way to get rid of this car us to encourage that driver to walk/bike/take transit.
          In 2015, 7% of all trips by Vancouver residents were made by bike while 16% were made by transit and 50% by car. Now imagine what would happen if these bike trips were made by car – we would have complete gridlock.
          It is true that not everyone wants to ride a bike, but there is certainly lots of latent demand. A recent insights west survey showed that 10% of commute trips by Vancouver residents were by bike and that 17% of the respondents listed cycling as their ideal commute mode. There may not be one ideal transportation mode but I hope that we can agree that the provision of mobility options makes it easier for people to get around.

        11. Those pictures posted above are really funny. They’re meant to show empty bike lanes but show empty roads and sidewalks too.
          Every day I could take pictures of Seymour Street without a moving car on it. Every day I could take pictures of Burrard without a car on it.
          What’s your point?

        12. You could indeed take pictures of these roads empty of cars, if you game was to try to find the exact moment when they were, but I am doing here is posting pictures which indicate what I see on a broader basis. I did go to PGR last year at about this time of year and took photos of empty bike lanes from about 8:30 to 9. I figured that would be typical for people heading to work for about 9. It was a moist, but dry day and lovely out. It was virtually empty. The odd bike, but not many.
          On Friday, I happened to be at Beatty St and although I did not have a chance to take pictures, it was completely unused. I didn’t stand there for an hour, but I was there a few minutes and not a single bike passed. When was that? About 5:30pm. So if the idea is that the bike lanes might be empty when it’s not peak times, how is 5:30pm on a Friday not peak time?
          To be clear, I support bike infrastructure, but I resist the assertion that more and more are needed and that there are vast numbers of bikers just chomping at the bit to use them all, because, as above, they just don’t all appear to be used. I was on Burrard yesterday on my bike and the new bike lane being done there is great (north of the bridge) and of course the bike lane on the bridge is great.
          I just wish the bike lobby (like HUB and the ATAC) could take a measured view rather than a kind of political view of advocating for all and every bike lane and effectively trying to drive cars out (not literally “drive”, but you know what I mean).

      3. Robotboy44 – For many decades in the city’s history, there were no cars but lots of people got around by bike and streetcar. By your argument, we should not have done anything to accommodate motor vehicles because there are almost no motor vehicles back then so why pander to these newcomers? Unfortunately, we did the opposite and overdid the motor vehicle option at the expense of other modes.
        One of the jobs of city council and staff is to provide mobility for the population. They realize that by improving cycling infrastructure, more people will cycle and less will drive. This is by far the least expensive way of providing mobility. Unfortunately, the city does a poor job of tooting their horn (I mean ringing their bell) on this but people should be overjoyed that the city is investing taxpayer dollars wisely by investing a few dollars to improve cycling infrastructure. Cycling is now by far the fastest growing mode of transportation while car use is plateauing. Thanks to more people cycling and taking transit, there is still lots of room on the streets for those who must drive. This is a win-win all around.

        1. The auto industry systemically removed any alternative and infiltrated city planning and had sidewalks narrowed, bike lanes removed, entire parts of cities including people’s houses were removed to force everyone to buy a car and make them rich.
          It works for some places and some people but forcing everyone to use a car for every trip only creates gridlock. The notion that every single person can use a car for every single trip goes against the laws of physics and of geometry. There is no room.
          In recent decades people all over the world have desired to have more choices in their mobility and to provide some balance away from the 20th century’s imbalance.

    2. So the 5% is actually in the study you refer to above, but it is merely the previous years stats. Now it’s 7%, but as I say, I am less concerned about the detail of 5 or 7 because they both are very similar in this context. You also tell me that I misunderstand the stats, but you were the one referring to 7% and so that’s what we are talking about. The study shows that as a percentage of mode share. 36% of Kits people saying that they bike twice a week, but I’m not suggesting that there are not all kinds of people who hop on a bike now and then. My point is that those people, and most cyclists, are happy enough with biking on roads that we have, which are quiet, safe and easy to ride on.
      As far as this study, I can’t agree that it can be assumed to be accurate. It consists of a fraction of the population and is not random, but is only people who specifically agreed to participate and self report the information. Anyone who was asked had to be of a mind to participate and that in itself means they are a certain type of person. Not saying that makes them more or less likely to be representative, but it does not fill me with confidence about the representation of the study. And by the way, studies and polls are routinely wrong as much as right, otherwise Mulcair would be prime minister and Christy would be back at her talk radio job.
      Again, I’m not saying that this one has to be wrong, but you seem to point to this study as a kind of absolute confirmation, even to the point that you stress that it’s not 5%, but 7%. The likely margin of error alone makes that difference as good as meaningless.
      So we can pour over studies (and this is the only one I am aware of pertaining to Vancouver), but what I am getting at is that I just don’t accept that there is a massive pent up population just waiting to cycle, but for the lack of bike infrastructure. At best, there is a modest percentage of people who do not cycle, but might. Most people who want to cycle, do, but many just won’t, apart from incidental trips to the store, or school.
      I see many bike lanes virtually empty at peak times. The picture I posted above was taken at noon, not 6am, but I have observed routes during morning and evening rush hour as well and I don’t see the volume, especially on a day with a little drizzle, but even lovely, sunny September mornings. I agree that this is also not a scientific study, so yeah, it’s my observations, and forgive me if I am repeating myself a bit. I am losing track with this thread.
      To be clear, I support bike infrastructure and safe biking, but I just feel that Vision’s and HUB’s approach is, in a number of cases, excessive to the point of divisiveness with some of the projects and approaches. Of course, we are just never going to agree on that.

      1. robotboy44;
        Thank you for reviewing the study.
        “I am less concerned about the detail of 5 or 7 because they both are very similar”
        Agreed, 5 or 7 isn’t the issue.
        “I’m not suggesting that there are not all kinds of people who hop on a bike now and then.”
        But that is exactly what you suggested, when you wrote:
        “there are way more motorists and pedestrians than cyclists. Like 95% not cyclist”
        You went on to say:
        My point is that those people, and most cyclists, are happy enough with biking on roads that we have, which are quiet, safe and easy to ride on”
        But that isn’t what the study showed. And it isn’t what the research shows. And if it was true, then when new protected infrastructure was built, we wouldn’t see large increases in people riding on that route. Check out the 5 times increase on Point Grey Road, as an example. That doesn’t seem like it was just a coincidence.
        You apparently believed that only 5% of people cycled regularly, and now you have data that in Kitsilano, it is about 7 times that (using the twice a week metric). That is quite a gap.
        If you don’t like the study, fine. It seems like it may not fit with your belief system, and I understand that. Do you have a reason to discount it other than a general distrust of published data? Recall that it isn’t just one data point, there are multiple studies with trend lines, and there is a lot of information on the methodology. And the same trend lines can be seen in cities around the world. It isn’t like this is anything to do with Vancouver specifically, or any one particular civic party, as you seem to be implying.

  10. The point is that the vast majority of people in the City are not daily bike users, far from it. The vast majority are not commuting by bike and are not even recreational bike users. Everyone here agrees on this. That being the case, infrastructure should be built based on actual need and preference for the majority. It is plainly idiotic to create gridlock for the majority by taking up motorist roadspace for a very small minority of cyclists; it is very poor planning and purely self-interest to ignore and defy the citizenry at large. “Build it and they will come” holds true only when there is the desire for that mode of use. Historically, the desire has not been toward cycling regardless of safe passage. City planning must not be based on the fantasy of the very few but on the needs and demands of the many. Those who opt to cycle have been managing to do so for centuries without huge swaths of roadspace being specially allocated for them unnecessarily to the detriment of the social majority; if bicyclist volumes and usage warrant a separate bike lane on a particular road, fine, but otherwise temporary trendiness should not be permitted to dictate expensive and permanent infrastructure.

    1. It hasn’t caused any gridlock. Cycling infrastructure is the solution to gridlock. Gridlock is caused entirely by too many cars. It will not be solved by giving more space to them. This has not worked anywhere. It can only be solved by having alternatives; transit, cycling, walking, skateboarding, etc. If all the people who are now taking up space in a car that are only going a few blocks to pick up milk, were able to easily cycle instead there would be tons of room left for those who need to drive for their trips.
      Sorry but support for cycling is widespread and common. The people who cycled in the past don’t need much as they just use the current roads. It’s the other people, up to 60% who this is for. They’ve asked for it and every time they get a bit it’s well used.
      Whenever it was built they came.

      1. Adanac, a lot of drivers feel that the bike lanes in the city have caused much more traffic and congestion, people who drive for a living frequently say this. You conclude the more bike lanes will equal less cars, but that is wishful thinking and, in my view, unrealistic. By all means, let’s get more people on bikes, but don’t believe that this is going to get less cars on the road. There really is no reason to assume this. The biggest factor would be better public transport.
        And who are those people driving a few blocks to get some milk? Maybe they are elderly or have shopping too heavy for them to carry. You are so keen to make sure that Arbutus is fully accessible to all abilities, but if someone needs to drive a short distance, these same people now offend you.
        As regards “well used”, why do we see these empty cycle routes, as above? I have been on King Edward and have never ever seen one single bike on that dedicated lane. Not even one, and I pass there often.

        1. People driving short distances doesn’t offend me. I don’t really care what someone else does with their time and money. I’m thinking more in a collective sense. If there were more options to choose from we’d have the ability to decide for any given trip how we would do it. If everyone is only given one option then they’ll all “choose” that one and then things are too full. A transportation system needs to be multi-modal to be resilient.
          I agree that transit serves more people. We need more of it.

        2. I’ve never seen King Edward with anything resembling serious traffic congestion. So what if it has a bike lane that isn’t well used (yet)?
          More public transit is absolutely part of the solution to this city’s traffic ‘problems’… because the real problem is too many cars. That’s not on cyclists and it’s illuminating that this small investment in infrastructure is deemed expendable when it’s not the problem — and I’m hearing your solution (rb44) is to help motorists continue to clog our roads.
          Not only is this approach biased toward motorists, it won’t even work.

      2. “a lot of drivers feel…”
        That sounds like Trump saying “A lot of people tell me” Data please. The data that has been published so far doesn’t show this.
        “The biggest factor would be better public transport.”
        You would think so. You would likely be correct if you looked at Metro, with longer commuting distances. But within the City, which is what is under discussion, it isn’t transit but walking and cycling that is growing as a percent of mode share. See the linked report.
        “why do we see these empty cycle routes”
        Because they are built for peak loads, and it is easy to find examples of less than peak. This same situation applies to roads, buses, water pipes, electrical service, and so on. If you want to get a sense of use, look at volume counts, not anecdotal photos. The City has made it easier by publishing those counts.

        1. If I post a picture of the residential street outside where I live (a car hasn’t passed by in several minutes)… what should one infer from this snapshot? That there’s no need for automobile infrastructure. What about when I post a pic of Rupert Street or 29th Ave, empty for hundreds of metres at regular intervals? What does it mean? Because if it means something must be done when cycling lanes are unused at a particular point in time — it must mean something similar for cars right?

        2. Hey, please don’t equate my comment to what Trump says. That’s contrived and a low blow. Downtown, I have heard from drivers who feel that the blocked roads cause congestion for them. Yes, it’s anecdotal. The city has not done any survey on how people feel driving downtown with the newer bike routes, so that’s all we have.
          As I have said before, I have observed some bike routes at peak times. Some are barely used or just not particularly necessary when alternatives exist which are safe and quiet. King Ed, PGR, in particular. I posted that picture as an example of a downtown bike route at a time I would have expected to see it in use. It would be more useful to check at morning or evening rush hour too, but the photographer said…
          “The curb lanes are now exclusively for bikes and are blocked off with concrete barriers. The adjacent street also has two-way bike lanes – as do most of the arterial streets downtown. Bike lanes are not a bad thing – don’t get me wrong. But does every street downtown need its own bike lanes? Would lanes on alternating streets not suffice? Is there no concern at all at City Hall over how congested these planned, deliberately created bottleneck roads have become?”
          So he pointed out that this one is empty a lot of the time he observed it.
          Chris, there are any number of roads which are quiet at various times, but they are still needed for access and peak times. If I told you I needed to build a new road when other roads already exist and that road was then empty a lot of the time, you would be right to point it out. I am being told that more bike infrastructure is needed because otherwise, people can’t bike in this city safely and I take issue with that view. I support needed bike infrastructure, particularly in busy downtown streets, but not all and not to the extent espoused by HUB, who’s members advise the city.

        3. Robotboy – Most downtown protected bike lanes were created by upgrading street parking lanes to one or two way bike lanes. For Beatty, no active travel lanes were compromised. Note also that the downtown area has a huge surplus of off-street parking. So again, the bike lanes are not the problem but are a solution. These people riding bikes are not driving cars, so there is more room on the streets for car traffic – not just on the streets with bike lanes but on all downtown streets.
          With respect to travel times, the city did an extensive study on Burrard Bridge/Honrby both before and after upgrades for improved cycling. They determined that there was no net effect on travel times for BB and that drivers took only one minute longer to travel to the north end of Hornby. Also, they determined that drivers are now parking closer to their destinations. Note further that traffic into the downtown core has been decreasing for decades and now is at levels not seen since the 1960s. The business community is loving the bike lanes and they are asking for more.
          Finally, no one is talking about bike lanes on all streets, but there should be a decent grid. There is currently no safe and convenient way to cross downtown fromScience World to Stanley Park Causeway by bike, so this should certainly be a priority.

        4. robotboy44
          “please don’t equate my comment to what Trump says”
          It was pointed out that you are using the same style of making claims without any backup. If you don’t like what that looks like, perhaps reconsider making claims that start out with phrases like “many people say” and “I heard that”. It’s your call.
          “The city has not done any survey on how people feel driving downtown with the newer bike routes”
          Agreed, I am not aware of any studies on feelings of drivers, whether on good days or bad days. But as Arno pointed out, there are studies on the effects of the new bike lanes. Should the City be called out for studying actual impacts instead of perceptions by the vocal few? To keep it in balance, I am not aware of the City studying the feelings of people riding bikes, but similar to motor vehicles, they studied the effect of the changes, in this case increased ridership. Seems consistent, studying effects instead of feelings.
          You didn’t like the numbers in the study you were provided. But you continue to use anecdotes to try and refute the findings in the study. Read a different study, there are lots of them. Do your own study. But some things to keep in mind. The study you were given had thousands of responses. It wasn’t a one time survey, it was a trip log. It was balanced to be representative geographically, by gender, by age, by access to a vehicle, and so on. The numbers are statistically significant, within a 95% confidence level. Against this, you show a photo and suggest some sort of equivalency. This is, frankly, nonsense. I am reminded again of a US political candidate who has an aversion to data.
          You comment that King Edward is lightly used. I agree. It is an example of a street repaving project, and as part of the repaving, painted lanes were put down. In many cases, directly in the door zone. I have ridden it four or five times now, just to complete reports on how well it works (not well, IMO). I wouldn’t choose to ride it. This is a great example of why we need better infrastructure. Calling something a bike lane does not create great infrastructure. Separation, additional space, protection at intersections, these are the things that create better bike infrastructure, and which result in increased ridership.
          “But does every street downtown need its own bike lanes?”
          This is an absurd question. It is as if every street downtown is getting a protected bike lane. When we get a minimum grid established, then it would be a good time to have that discussion. I challenge you to count up the km of protected bike lanes in the downtown peninsula, and the km of streets. Compare the two. What do you think the % is? You must think it is high, if you are quoting words like “all.”
          “not to the extent espoused by HUB, who’s members advise the city.”
          You say this like citizen involvement is a bad thing. HUB has a significant number of members. And a very large number of followers/supporters. Those members joined HUB, they tell us, primarily to create a stronger voice for improved cycling in Vancouver. It is the number one reason, from member surveys and interviews. When we see something, volunteers contact HUB members and supporters and point out that if they want improved infrastructure, they need to speak up. Many respond and do so. So if Council hears from a few drivers who are concerned about parking spaces being reduced, and then from a very large number of HUB members and supporters, who request change, should Council not listen to the voices they hear? I think it is called being responsive to an engaged group of citizens. And it helps a lot if the changes being requested are in support of agreed and published City objectives, such as increasing active transportation mode share.
          Could you provide an example of when you have supported increased bike infrastructure, and what you did to demonstrate that support? Thanks.

        5. That’s right, not every street downtown needs a cycle lane (and nobody is asking for that anyway.) There does need to be a network for it to be useful to people. About a 500 M spacing for the basic network with a few minor ones in between. Cross connectivity is needed as well.
          Motor traffic has changed in the past twenty years and now cycling in it is scarier than it used to be. I think it’s ironic that drivers complain about something that they have caused the need for.

        6. Honestly Jeff, if you feel it’s appropriate to equate my comments with Trump, then I have no interest in continuing this particular discussion with you. The decent thing would be for you to apologize and move on, but instead, you double down. So that’s all for now from me on this thread.

        7. @robotboy44
          If motorists can have a reasonable expectation that there will be a massive over-capacity for 20 hours a day, to create the conditions for safe and reasonably timely travel for the peak periods, then why should a cyclist (or pedestrian, or transit user) be denied the same privilege?
          The real question is why all roads weren’t built with bike lanes when first laid. Now we have to fix a century of screw-ups.
          “Motor traffic has changed in the past twenty years and now cycling in it is scarier than it used to be”
          Absolutely. I have some 45-odd years under my saddle and the behaviour of some motorists has become something verging on lunacy at times. The toxic attitudes on the roads I see daily is terrifying to vulnerable road users such as cyclists.

  11. Jeff, you say Dobrovolny’s asphalt-paved path is “the temporary path [that] was put right down the centre” and “was made multi-use.” But, the so-called “public consultation” “workshops” that have just started are supposedly for the purpose of deciding what type of “temporary path” to create. At least, this is the claim that the City and its engineers are making to the public as the purpose of the workshops/public consultation. So, why are you using the past tense, implying that the “temporary path,” which Dobrovolny has already largely paved with asphalt has already been built? Are you admitting that the workshops are a waste of time and money because the “temporary path” has already been created by Dobrovolny?

    1. Susan, your problem is that to you everything as all or nothing.
      The new path has been constructed for about 2.3 km, and paved for a portion of that, to 33rd. The corridor is about 9 km in length. So the temporary path has been built (past tense) for 2.3 km, or less than a third of the way
      The rest is yet to build. Future tense.
      See how that works? No conspiracy theory necessary. And it is so much more civil than slandering and libelling people
      We heard that they don’t plan to change the portion of the temporary path that has been built already. We also heard that they intend to continue to build the next stages directly over the rail bed, thus saving additional construction costs and not having to cut trees, but that the permanent path won’t necessarily be in the centre like the temporary path is.

  12. There are many designs that could be implemented into this defunct Arbutus rail route. They range from wild to paved, with permeable pavers, wood walkways, interlocking pavers, slabs, etc., and all the way to crushed gravel, winding paths, a western arboretum, display gardens or community gardens, sculpture gardens, gardens for children, water gardens, etc., on and on.
    The clever ideologically driven city communications departments and their sycophants have narrowed the narrative to an absurdly simple; paved or not.
    Any consultations will be interpreted to reflect the original plan the city made and justified by suggesting that interested residents made the choice.
    This is not new. This administration has perfect this style of reverse consultations based on their desperation to get done what they want while they are in because they know they have the minority viewpoint and they tell each other that, yeah, that’s the right decision, screw democracy, we’re in charge now.
    Just before the last municipal election Roberson apologized for just this attitude, saying that in the future things would be different, if given another chance. He said they would listen. Then they went right back to being exactly as they were before.
    ?

      1. It’s not that at all. Some feel that the notion of a “greenway” implied a more nature based stroll more in keeping with the way it had beed for some time. The city even suggested that as an option when they referenced the New York High Line, which does not even allow bikes and is not paved, as such. So when the city went and paved the full width before the consultation, some saw this as an affront to the process and indicative if the cities reputation for faux consulting. Badly handled move, in my opinion. Whether it is ultimately paved, entirely cobblestones or, as Arno imagines, gravel and banana trees, is beside the point right now. We just need to hear from the public, as the city made great hay about doing.

        1. I see. So they figured a simple cheap path was okay since it was temporary but found out otherwise. It’s good that they’re now finding that the temporary path matters to people as well as the permanent one.
          You know I think this reputation for faux consulting is a bum rap. From what I’ve seen they seem to listen to everyone and feedback ends up in the designs. They listen to people far more than past governments or governments in other places. Some distrust of government is good to have generally but when there is no evidence of anything wrong going on, people should not project their suspicions onto it.

        2. You know I think this reputation for faux consulting is a bum rap
          Yes. They immediately stopped paving when some objected and are now holding consultation meetings for the temporary[!] path.
          But this is obvious to reasonable people.

    1. Eric – The city simply wants to put in a temporary path to allow people to check out the corridor in order to better imagine what the final Greenway will look like. You should attend the consultations if you want to provide your ideas. In the end it could be a meandering gravel path in a forest of banana trees if that is what everyone wants.
      It does appear that almost everyone now wants a paved temporary path so that is accessible to as many people as possible. No conspiracy. No hidden agenda. They are simply trying to find out what people want.

      1. Oh, I understand now, Arno. So they put in a, partial, temporary path because we didn’t know anything was there. Sure. We’ve been going up and down Arbutus thousands of times and we never knew there were train tracks all along that route. They laid down an asphalt racetrack just so those gardeners all along the route could go and stand there and imagine and think about what they wanted. Just so they could include in their dreams the joy of a one-lane black top in mint condition.
        Can I take my Porsche down there for a run? It was made for that.
        Your faith is humbling.

      2. The City didn’t seem worried that we didn’t know it was there, rather they wanted informed input and so wanted people who only knew of it to actually go out and experience it, improving the quality of the input. Shots taken from afar aren’t as valuable as informed opinion, they seem to be saying. Seems pretty reasonable. There were many at the consultations, and who have written in to those collecting input, noting that they had not been along it in years and now had done so.
        There is no asphalt racetrack. And there are no gardens along the portion where the new path has been built to date. Go on out and take a look at it.
        Did you not attend the consultations Eric?

        1. Usual spin. Right out of Communications Central Directives. Now it’s called a “new path”, when it’s plain for all to see that it’s a black strip of bitumen and gravel – asphalt. The only reason it’s a partial strip is because of the outcry at the outrage and the city quickly switched off the pouring machine.
          We are so happy to hear that the City is sharing with you all the written responses, Jeff. You really are a powerful insider.
          How is it you know so much about the toxic lifecycle of new asphalt? Jeff, why would I need to go out and look at new asphalt, when I can see it in any parking lot anywhere? You think it looks nice with a destroyed community garden backdrop and I might like it too?
          We’re still waiting for your response as to why you think we need a traffic ‘regulator’, as you call it, for traffic stuck at the bottleneck on the 99 southbound leaving the city. You do realize that on Friday the traffic was backed up and stationary, all the way back on to the Oak Street bridge, before 2pm and the counterflow three-lane configuration does not start until 3pm.
          You say that the northbound bottleneck “regulates” traffic entering the city, what is the benefit of the southbound bottleneck, regulating the traffic going to Tsawwassen, or something?
          You seem to have all the answers but we’re still waiting. Are you stumped?

        2. So, that means you didn’t attend the consultations Eric? That’s unfortunate.
          The City hasn’t shared any of their written input with me. There are groups collecting input that aren’t connected with the City, as you know. I am familiar with some of them. Those are the comments I have seen. But the City report will be out October 15th IIRC.
          What do you want to know about asphalt? The details of the low temperature application to reduce emissions and energy costs during laying of the pavement? The recyclability?
          Happy to discuss the Massey issues with you, but perhaps you could take that to a thread on that topic, as our hosts have requested.

      3. Different people want different things. Just pave the damn thing – END TO END PLEASE – and have it accessible. Leaving some sections gravel is an insult to bikers, wheelchair users and those that walk with canes or with walking disabilities.
        Benches, fancy rock work, road crossings, line paintings, artwork, new trees & shrubs, signs .. all that will come in time but costs loads of $s .. and will be debated endlessly anyway.

    2. We are talking about a temporary path which was designed for maximum safety and accessibility balanced with reasonable cost in order to enable the largest number of people to access the corridor so that they could make informed comment on the final design. We rarely see consultation on road projects but this project will see up to 2 years of extensive consultation.
      What is really disturbing is all this money wasted on consultation for a temporary path. In any case, a majority of people appear to want it paved and some even want a wider path so that there can be separation of wheeled modes and walking. It looks like the city made a wise choice to begin with.

  13. So far I have heard from people who attended the first 4 consultation workshops. In 2,3 and 4 there appeared to be at least 70% support for a paved temporary path in order to make the path safe and accessible to most people.. It is odd that on the first night someone suggested that there was 90% support in favour of gravel. Very odd…

    1. It shows that the initial reaction wasn’t so much against asphalt but against a big sudden change in appearance. The picturesque neglected “look” it once had was gone. People missed that and reacted to what was now there. With further reflection and information people have moved past that and are working on what they want to see next.

      1. You are exactly right. The reaction was largely due to the city telling everyone that they wanted to hear from the public and then, before hearing from the public, they go and pave the thing. That’s was handled very badly. I was at the consultation and I agree that most want paving, but that safety and speed is a concern and most felt there should be separation so that it is not overwhelmed by bikes going fast and intimidating elderly and people just walking.

        1. I think the City probably had the best intentions and just assumed that everyone would simply just love it. They were then surprised at the reaction. I think now that they eventually handled it well judging by how people for the most part are now pleased at the process.

        2. They are handling it well now, but “best intentions” is not an excuse for common sense. So obvious to me that going in and laying down asphalt before any consultation would result in the upset that happened, especially after the whole stink when CP started ripping out gardens, which, ironically, the city was also upset about.

    1. Moderation is happening, just from watching.
      Moderators know the IP addresses, and the users with multiple identities.
      Posts are seen to be being deleted, with the side effect of deleting posts that respond to the deleted posts. That isn’t as good IMO as editing out the comments and noting that the comment doesn’t meet the commenting policy, but it is likely much less work for the moderators.
      At some point, spammers will figure out that it isn’t worth it.

      1. Now if we could just get a truthiness filter, so bizarre claims like Sweden has eliminated cash could be flagged as utter b.s. — and the posters subject to some reasonable ‘time-out’ until they decide facts count for something… the quality of the conversation would reflect the great comments that are the norm here.

        1. That’s a faulty analogy. It’s not a terribly long book. You might read it so you don’t look foolish invoking it in this instance.
          More of a call for people to display a measure of integrity and post accurate, non-inflammatory comments that aren’t absolutely preposterous claims.
          One has zero problems understanding why you might fear such an atmosphere of grown-up, responsible dialogue Eric.

  14. The plot thickens. Thank you for elaborating. What you say you yearn for is a truthiness filter as well as non-inflammatory comments. The last thing we want is chronic inflammatory discourse. Integrity too must be paramount.
    All neat and tidy, while we sip our tea. Should keep the old blood pressure down too, eh. Hear, here.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *