August 8, 2016

Arbutus Update: To Pave or Not to Pave

Don’t you love living in a town where this is a big news item:
Arbutus 6

The City of Vancouver has backed down in a fight over the future of the Arbutus Greenway.
The fracas began after city crews — with little warning — laid an asphalt path along a section of the former rail corridor. The city recently purchased the land from Canadian Pacific Railway.
But the move to temporarily pave the popular green space angered some residents who organized, confronted workers, and even blocked the path of heavy equipment.
Jerry Dobrovolny, the city’s general manager of engineering, met with two groups of residents over the issue on Thursday evening, and later decided on a few concessions. …
Dobrovolny agreed to halt the paving at West 33rd Avenue (crews had been paving southward from 25th to 41st and had plans to pave a path down the entire corridor), where it can connect with a bike lane. A gravel path will be put in between 33rd and 41st, as well as from 10th to 16th.
He also agreed to start a consultation process with residents in the coming weeks on what the temporary solution should look like. When asked how long that would take, Dobrovolny said it depended on how the conversation went. …
When asked if that gave her assurance that the larger consultation process would lead to something she wanted to see, Davidson said it did not, noting that there were competing interests over the site.
That is a point Dobrovolny touched on as well, stating that the city has heard from residents who appreciated a smoother surface. He added that a compromise will need to be struck.

 
Ah, a compromise.
The most critical stretch of the greenway is that between Broadway and, eventually, Granville Island and Kits Point.
Arbutus 7
Without this stretch providing a smooth, safe and connected route, the rest of the Arbutus Greenway is somewhat secondary for active transportation users.
So will this part of the old railbed be paved, or compromised away?
Arbutus 4 (Large)
And if this is the reaction to a bike route, imagine the response, years later, when an actual transit line is proposed.
 

Posted in

Support

If you love this region and have a view to its future please subscribe, donate, or become a Patron.

Share on

Comments

Leave a Reply to AnonymousCancel Reply

  1. Oh the horror, that we should even think of providing a smooth, safe path people with mobility issues in a public greenway corridor. Can’t people with babies push their strollers somewhere else? Can’t the elderly just stay safely inside?

    1. I know, why not lay some tracks from Broadway to Granville Island, connect it to the existing track to Olympic Station to reduce the cars on Granville Island, allow locals to use it for shopping, tourists to connect to the Canada Line and grant those elderly and handicap people a mode to get there?
      Nah, it will never work; it makes too much common sense, and might interfere with the vocal minority of the population who ride bikes….

      1. Myron, I am part of that portion of the population who rides a bike, and I would absolutely love light rail on the Arbutus Corridor. I would even go as far as to say that it should be built there right now instead of the active transportation corridor (or, if possible, side-by-side with it). Public transportation in this city is far beyond underbuilt and the Arbutus / Olympic line is many years overdue.

    2. The “horror” is the continued wastage of taxpayer dollars on redundant infrastructure by the Vision Council. It is our money, people. It’s about time the citizens took it upon themselves to direct the Council as to what the money should not be wasted on. Good for Kerrisdale Residents!

  2. The headline should correctly read, “Eight Citizens convince City of Vancouver to stop paving Arbutus Corridor”. It’s shameful that a few malcontents can derail a TEMPORARY facility. This is why the City of Vancouver can’t have nice things.

    1. You are missing the point — Council needs to consult FIRST, not after the fact, after millions are spent on TEMPORARY measures. What a waste!

      1. I disagree profoundly. Temporary now without all the faffing. Just get it in the ground. Then careful deliberation and discussion about the permanent design. That is the time to measure twice and cut once. All this soul-searching just for a temporary, interim treatment? Painful and embarrassing.

        1. No, carefully deliberate first and DO NOT waste our money on unsafe temporary measures that will be torn out at even more expense.

        2. No, do not “just get it in the ground.” What is the rush about, other than Vision’s time left in office. Have the careful deliberation about the permanent design first and not waste millions on temporary measures that are rushed and unsafe, only to be torn out at our expense again later.

    2. Indeed. It is ridicolous. Pave it. What is wrong with paving it ? Gravel is better for strollers, bikes, skateboarders and rollerbladers ?
      Fine the elderly ladies too to obstruct an approved project.

      1. The project is NOT approved; a temporary measure is not an approved measure. Fine the elderly? Am I still in Canada?

        1. Fine them, independent of age. Sorry did not mean to pick on a certain age group. In this case that happened to be the elderly (non-tax paying) obstructionist person with oodles on time on her hand to annoy & delay a busy paving crew.
          But, as we are so kind in Canada and have so much money to throw around, of course we will not do that. We rather waste tens of thousands of $s on more hearings on why gravel is so much better than a smooth paved path for bikers, baby strollers, roller bladers, wheel chair users etc !
          Common sense is not so common.

      1. I guess it’s mostly an east Van thing then. No, people like the look of the place with the flowering bushes and fresh air and all but the culture is pretty hostile to outsiders or anyone who looks different.

  3. Well I would encourage everyone to email the COV to get them to pave a smooth path.
    Can someone please explain the advantage of a gravel or non smooth path?

    1. As expressed to me directly by those supporting it, a gravel path will preserve a rural ambience, slow down cyclists, and limit the amount of user traffic on the path. I have also read arguments that paving is toxic and should be avoided.
      I understand the first one. It seems a good justification for not paving the gardens. Gravel is a terrible way to slow down cyclists. The automotive equivalent would be spraying water on the roads during winter to create ice and thus slow down motor vehicles. If we want to reduce users, then we should probably talk about putting fences up deter all users. The environmental concerns about pavement don’t appear to be very well founded.

      1. I agree. I have ridden sections of the Galloping Goose that are not paved and while the hard pack fine surface is better than most, ruts do develop and in the rainy whether they fill with water making them worse. Thus creating a hazard for all users and requiring additional maintenance.

      2. Gravel is an ideal way to slow down cyclists, especially since we are talking about a temporary measure. Gravel is cheaper, faster and cheaper to remove than blacktop, and will keep cyclists moving at a responsible pace so as not to take out pedestrians while the walkway is not duly separated for the variety of users.

        1. If you wish to slow folks down, perhaps on downhills or with cross traffic, put up a few planters or benches.
          Eventually a separation makes sense, like on the seawall, which is paved or has interlocking stones.

        2. Before we answer you Adanac; Would you like to clarify what the word ‘why’ in your sentence pertains too?
          As it is now you are asking for a reason for something that you suggest is going to occur. Is this correct?
          A definition of “take out” in this context would also be appreciated. Mutchly.

        3. Eric; Perhaps you missed susan’s claim that using gravel would slow people on bikes and prevent them from “taking out” pedestrians. Adanac asked susan why she thought that people on bikes were going to “take out” pedestrians. Seems pretty clear.
          When you write “we” are you saying that you are also posting as susan?
          Back on the topic, all this ignores that using gravel instead of pavement reduces control (braking and steering) for people on bikes, thus increasing the risk of crashes. Bikes are more unstable at very low speeds. And the soft spots on the currently unpaved portion don’t help since they grab the front tire. They need compacting before somebody is hurt.

        4. Jeff, Gordon has requested increased brevity yet you are repeating what Susan wrote and speaking for Adanac (or, are we to assume that you are he?), who could have been replying to either of us.
          The use of the nosism ‘we’ is not unusual in journalism. I can provide a comprehensive definition if you need it but, again, we should strive for brevity. You can look it up.

        5. Thanks Susan.
          We’ve been trying to slow down speeding drivers in my neighbourhood for years. Speed bumps, marked cross walks, lowering the speed limit, nothing’s worked so far. The answer was right there all the time!
          Who do I call to have the paved streets replaced with gravel?

        6. I am not Jeff.
          I asked that because I’m starting to get hints that some people have a belief that cyclists are reckless (or something, I’m not sure really.) It doesn’t make any sense as I cannot imagine that anyone would intentionally hit someone else. It’s not what I have experienced either. (And there’s no such thing as a cyclist anyway.) What I have seen though are places where there isn’t enough room for people to move around each other. That’s a fault of street design and education on how to use it.
          Also, I think some people who want to cross a road and a cyclist is slowing down to let them pass, don’t notice the slowing down and misinterpret the intentions.
          Anyway, all of us here should not be wasting our efforts debating the temporary path, we should be debating what the final design should be like. That’s much more productive.
          Can we start a thread about that?
          What would all of us PT readers like to see in the new design?

      3. Perhaps the occasional (fence-) styles along the route.
        These are not uncommon in Richmond paths that enter a highway.

  4. Lots of bike paths in the netherlands (to use but one example) are interlocking brick … slightly bumpier than asphalt, much more reusable/reconfigurable, but much more labour intensive and the city doesn’t seem to know how to maintain it (oly village is a good example) … but it would be the perfect temporary material to cover all of their objections … at a price that would be then objected to.
    I don’t think the ‘green’ argument is the dumbest argument ever … asphalt isn’t in any way green/sustainable/etc … but until there is a large change in the manner by which every single road is constructed, that won’t be changed by one path avoiding it. It would make sense for the ‘greenest city’ to avoid it, but as part of a holistic overall strategy, not as a nimby strawman.
    +1 on the ‘Connect to the train lines’ comment … links the granville island traffic discussions with transportation, with the arbutus line, with the future subway … wow, that is starting to sound holistic to me! 🙂

    1. Interlocking brick is hell on wheelchairs. Any plan must include a smooth path. Concrete would work, although I suspect it would be much more expensive to install and maintain than would pavement.

  5. We should also clarify that the City didn’t decide not to ever pave the temporary path. They decided to consult more before doing so. Presumably that consultation will lead to a decision as to whether to pave or not, for the temporary path. The longer term consultation will lead to a decision as to whether or not to pave the permanent path.

    1. Give me a break, Jeff. Residents have “consulted” until they are blue in the face, and the current Council has snubbed their noses at the residents repeatedly. “Consultation” has proven to be a very sick joke for this Council. You can’t keeping fooling the same citizens, Jeff.

      1. If what you say is true then why does the input from citizens keep ending up in the final designs? If it’s all just some con game then that wouldn’t be happening.

        1. “input from citizens keep ending up in the final designs” — what city do you live in because it can’t be Vancouver? Citizen input is NOT being included but entirely ignored in the final designs. That is the point.

  6. While the big paved track is better for commuter cyclists (at least those with road bikes), it really makes for a less pleasant walking experience. Pavement like that provides less visual interest and has real “heat island” impacts. In this case, I don’t think we should castigate the community members who were concerned about the change. I think the goal should be to get a beautiful multi-modal corridor that truly serves pedestrians, cyclists and future transit implemented quickly, rather than invest in a rather brutalist “temporary” solution.

    1. I rode it from Burrard to 37th this weekend. There were people walking, people on skateboards, and people on bikes. On the paved sections, of the people walking, I noticed one individual walking in the gravel alongside the pavement. All the others walking were on the pavement.

    2. I disagree. Brendan. On the BC Parkway, sections initially had a paved section for cyclists and a hard pack surface for walkers. What they found was that it, basically didn’t work, as the vast majority of walkers also want to walk on paved surfaces.

    3. Brendan, whenever I see a gravel walking path beside a paved cycling path, most walkers use the paved path. Here is an example of Vondelpark in Amsterdam which has a 6m paved cycling path flanked by two 4m wide gravel walking paths. When I was there, there were times that there were so many walkers that I had difficulty getting by on my bike. Here it is at a not so crowded time:
      https://goo.gl/maps/G3NXtTacUUx
      Notice where the walkers are?

        1. As the self-appointed ‘ideas from elsewhere’ contributor, if you fail to see what elsewhere can teach you, you’re just going to make all the same mistakes … if you follow the good models (which is to say, what works) you don’t guarantee success, but you certainly make it more likely than continually WAG-ing it.

  7. With the Arbutus Greenway we have the opportunity to create the most famous greenway in the world – a Book of Records tourist attraction, for locals and abroad – the longest linear garden in the world. It would get more press than New York’s Highline.
    What citizens have done here over the decades is poignant, charming, and important – a tribute to biodiversity and grassroots engagement. It’s great for all us critters – bees, ‘coons, bats, kids …
    Nobody got paid to do anything here until now with the ashphalters. We don’t need this as a transportation route as much as we need it to embrace nature – to show a new way of thinking.
    It’s a garden path of discovery. There’s nothing greener or greater than leaving most of it alone. Those who have been cultivating the area with all manner of fruit and veg must share the bounty – unlike community gardens that have ‘do not pick’ signs.
    If citizens of the city are beneficent enough to provide valuable land for those who like to garden, then its harvest belongs to all of us. If tourists that explore the Greenway want to pop a tomato into their mouths, or eat some peas – you’re welcome. Thanks for visiting and contributing to our economy.
    It could use lookout points for wheelchair users. It could also use a lot of benches. These will be provided by those wishing to remember their departed with plaques and seating instead of tombstones.

    1. “We don’t need this as a transportation route as much as we need it to embrace nature” —–Incorrect
      It has been zoned for transport and it was a condition of the sale. So unless you want CPR to put the rail tracks down again, forget about changing that part.

      1. Oh, so now the reason for hasty paving without consultation is to thwart the CPR. What nonsense — similar to PAVE IT AND THEY WILL COME.

    2. There will probably be plenty of community gardens in the final plan. What this city desperately needs is safe walking and cycling opportunities which can be provided by wide and separated pedestrian and cycling paths. This could become a world class greenway and a superb introduction to Vancouver for cycle tourists arriving from the Airport, border or Tswawwassen Ferry

      1. Yes I am ok with that, and it would be legal just as long as it is suitable for a transportation corridor. So you would need a pathway.

      2. Right now, it is a dangerous temporary eyesore. Well done Vision. Really masterful planning and engineering. In actuality, it is an international embarrassment.

        1. Anon, I doubt anyone east of Knight Street is paying attention. If they are, then they are stifling a yawn about yet another news piece from Crèmeland.

      3. Yup, all daily 5 of them ..
        Seriously ? From the airport ? From the US border ? Perhaps 5 is overly optimistic a number actually …
        This is an awesome path for Vancouverites (say 98%).

        1. Thomas: Just as a reality check, in June alone there were 26,000 cyclist crossings of the Canada Line Bridge. Similar numbers in each of the past four years. The numbers would be smaller on the other three bridges nearby, but the total number of riders coming across the river is obviously greater than that, as there are some riders on each of them.
          What is your basis for there being only 5 riders per day coming from the south? Your figure appears to be totally disconnected from reality.

    3. Another local garden/park for the rich who already have big yards. Or a transportation corridor that can benefit the whole city. Hmmmm…

    4. Getting press is not the issue; using our tax dollars as we the citizens want is the issue. And, we need to have our input heard. Jeff isn’t kidding when he says this stoppage of blacktop is just temporary; I assure you it is. Dobrovolny is reacting to the immediate pushback only. For the current Vision Council, it is just another pet project done deal unless citizens revolt on an on-going basis all the way to the ballot box.

      1. ‘Suz’, why don’t you put an equal amount of time and effort into describing what you would do with this corridor? Of course, most of us will expect you to turn it into a political pulpit before you can say, Mayor Moonbeam, save those creosoted ties!

  8. A bit of a history lesson. About 20 years ago, when the Cypress Bikeway was being proposed, many living along the route were strongly opposed to it, claiming that cyclists were a hazard and were going to injure or kill pedestrians as they go screaming through the neighbourhood. These ridiculous arguments were made by people who should know better, including many who introduced themselves as doctors and nurses. (Cars in the neighbourhood didn’t seem to create this same threat.) Many suggested that the Arbutus rail corridor was a much better place to put the cycle route. (I don’t know if they realized that CPR would never allow this or not.)
    About ten years ago, when public discussions were being held over the future of the corridor, many suggested a pedestrian and bike path would be great. The photos presented all showed paved paths. I didn’t hear any objections. The only objections I heard from some was they did not want LRT or other rail on the rail line.
    Later, the city designated and zoned the rail line as a transportation corridor. Again, I didn’t hear anybody object to a paved pedestrian and cycling path. Many like the idea of it being used for sustainable transportation.
    So, it seems a neighbourhood that had at least three opportunities to comment were in favour of the corridor being used for transportation. It only seems that know that it is being used for its zoned and intended purpose are people objecting.
    My final comment, if it is a transportation corridor, then it needs to be paved for the same reasons why we pave our streets and highways; because it is smoother and safer.

  9. This is a temporary path put in for the benefit of all so that people can view the corridor as preparation for participating in a lengthy consultation process. A paved path will allow everyone to safely access including mobility impaired people. A handful of nimbys should not be allowed to divert this process and should instead voice their opinions during the extensive consultation process. This is a democracy after all.

    1. Arno, firstly there is no “extensive consultation process” for one to “voice [one’s] opinions” at. You are dreaming if you really believe otherwise. Secondly, our city is far, far, far from a “democracy” right now with the current Council. Indeed, they are violating basic human rights and are being formally so accused. And, thousands of people is not “a handful.” Nor are they “nimbys,” but people from all over the city who oppose wastage and safety hazards.

      1. Well, we’ll need the results of the next election to see if your personal judgement is correct. If so, then you can be the first to bring them before the International Court of Justice in The Hague for “violating basic human rights” for building part of a path.
        Meanwhile, let the consultation be completed.

  10. I don’t think a gravel path will keep away bikes, but it will keep away people with wheelchairs and walkers. Also strollers unless designed for off road. I rather walk on gravel paths than asphalt, but I’d encourage everybody to try walking them with a walker or accompanying somebody in a wheelchair before they oppose paved paths.

    1. This is not the issue; the issue is the wastage of money on a temporary paved path that will be torn out ultimately. Do you want to pay three times the money for paving, tearing out and then repaving this path?

      1. Temporary as in 5 or 10 years? The city has invested significant money to purchase the railway land for transportation and other public benefits. It would probably be a waste of money if they didn’t make it accessible and usable as soon as possible, for the largest number of people possible. If you want to know whether something is money wasted you also need to include the foregone benefits if the path is not built.

        1. Yes, build the path. No one is saying don’t build it. But, build it right the first time with due consultation and citizen input. Conduct the required engineering and neighbourhood studies. Build a path that is safe. Don’t throw together an expensive black-topped temporary speed path for cyclists only, to the exclusion of all other users due to the safety hazards created. How is that equitable or even rational? How is that fiscally responsible when it is going to be torn out soon after, again at wasted expense to taxpayers?

        2. A paved path is usable BY ALL, including wheelchair users or kids strollers, but also rollerbladers, skateboarders, bikers, runners and walkers. In time, it makes sense to modify it here and there, add benches, flower pots and small gardens.

  11. The city is pretty good at consultation. Point grey road had significant consultation. Unfortunately a few vocal members of the public complain of no consultation because they were not sided with. Doesn’t mean the consultation didn’t happen. I am constantly asked about city plans via talkvancouver and in person surveys of users and through traffic counts. Way more consultation than the massey tunnel replacement for example.
    Additionally, the voting booth would appear to show that residents are very happy with Visions actions and plans and reaffirm that regularly.

    1. William, define what you mean by “significant consultation” for Point Grey Road; the fact is that residents were given only 2 weeks to respond to the Final Recommendations for Phase 2, and the South side residents were not contacted about them at all, so provide your evidence of “significant consultation” because you can’t.

      1. No I wouldn’t. We had an election, the incumbent was elected again signalling the public’s approval of their policies. We will have another election in a few years and go from there. 2 weeks seems like plenty of time to respond.

        1. Well William, when you are away on a two-week holiday and return to find that you did not know about or have time to respond to proposed major changes in your neighbourhood, perhaps you will rethink what “seems like plenty of time.”

  12. This strip of land is one of the most valuable in the world. What is its highest, greenest, best use? What are the legal obligations re. making it a transportation corridor? What should be done to put it on the world stage as an exemplar of forward thinking? So many cities look to Vancouver for inspiration. Is there inspiration in macadam.
    Being jealous towards those who live adjacent is not helpful. Yes, it’s their backyard and they can reap rewards. The same can be said of the fabulous East Side where new zoning pumped values into the stratosphere. Life’s not fair.
    Look at the Pacific Coast Trail. People reserve and pay to hike there. Would tourists be interested in the Arbutus Corridor for hiking? It’s a good trek if you do the whole thing. Eat at the Milltown when you’re done. Take a picture.
    What about a pub tram like they have in Helsinki – standing room only – would it be popular here? No, tourists would rather take pictures of the Steam Clock.
    There’s an opportunity here for big forward thinking, not selfish small-mindedness.

    1. “Big, forward thinking” takes time, studies, patience, fiscal responsibility and the willingness of City Council to listen to all public input, not just the interests of cyclists. This will require an election and/or a Vote of Non-confidence in the current Vision Council.

      1. Nonsense. I’ve seen the city modify designs to the detriment of cyclists because of the conflicting needs of other modes.

  13. Simply lifting the rails and leaving piles of dirt, holes and “crap” would have encouraged exactly zero new users to the route. In that case the “extensive consultations” would have included only the few people who previously used the route. It would have been a complete and total waste of money.
    Smoothing it out a bit might have encouraged a few newcomers, but they would not be all ages and abilities and their numbers would still be small.
    By paving the path, thousands of people of all ages and abilities are encouraged to get out and try walking or rolling along. Thousands who otherwise would never have been to the Arbutus corridor.
    So when the public consultation finally takes place we’ll have thousands upon thousands of people who’ll be able to give informed feedback.
    The sooner the paving recommences the better.

    1. I agree with David. I wonder how many of the naysayers have seen what Richmond has done with their portion of the Interurban line. It is paved, highly used by many different types of modes and is very safe. It shows how nice the Arbutus corridor can be.

    2. Where are the “thousands” you claim are using the paved path to date? I’ve seen a handful only over many hours. Provide your evidence of “thousands.”

    3. David, prove that “thousands and thousands” of people’s feedback will be heard; this has not been the case to date with the current Council. The facts are that the Council does not consult or listen to citizens.

      1. It is not a fact, it is your opinion. Just because they didn’t do what you wanted on Point Grey Road does not mean they didn’t listen. There are almost always design changes as a result of the consultation process.

  14. yeah, it is not like as if the Burard separated bike lanes could be extended south (providing indeed a superior access to the corridor) ,and/ or Fir/6th avenue treated a la York/Point Grey street mode…why one would like do that when you can lay down ever more asphalt?
    regarding the accessibility canard: look at this horrendous vsion:
    https://voony.files.wordpress.com/2016/08/beaverlake.jpg
    the Vancouver park board call this trail “accessible”…and to add insult to injury, it is even supposed to be not allowed to cyclist …but who cares?
    What a pain that Vision has been wiped out of the VPB, hopefully good candidate will promise lot of blacktop to make our jewel more accessible…
    did I qualify the accessibility as a canard (in the context of the balcktopping of the corridor)? Yes, I did and I give the reasons here

    1. How, and look at the mess they have done in Prince George:
      http://www.ckpg.com/2016/07/23/81226/
      That is what happen when you don’t have access to the HUB and Pricetags blog experts…you have to rely on shaddy organization such as the sci-bc one with questionable knowledge of the topic to design an accessible trail .. what a pain in the ass it must be for those poor folks?

    2. Voony, I challenge you to get in a wheelchair and try to ride a kilometre — or even 100m — on that forested nature trail at the end of the year after two and half months of monsoon rain, let alone the six really wet months of winter, and the three pretty wet shoulder months.
      And why do you compare a forested nature trail to an urban greenway? The two are as unlike as cats and dogs.

    3. Prince George? It’s freezing cold and snowy there in winter. I doubt that trail will have any wheelchair traffic on it after October 15th. There is no comparison to the metre of rain we get here in the winter months on average.
      Universal accessibility is an admirable goal for the Arbutus Greenway, and that dictates a paved surface. Asphalt is ideal because it’s cheap, easier to maintain, and flexible. You can carve it up, shape it, bend it, place seating nodes and drinking fountains all along the route, and have islands of planting and yes, even allotment gardens and trams.

    4. MB, I have already answered to your objections on my blog.
      if you still believe that blacktop is the only reasonnable choice for universal accessibility, then what are you waiting to advocate for a permanent paving of the Stanley park trails?
      the fact that the trail is in a forest is beside the point, but that gives me the opportunity to introduce you to the “promenade de la ficelle”, a greenway in Lausanne (Switzerland):
      http://www.husler-associes.ch/storage/app/uploads/public/571/4d5/6de/thumb_151_900x580_0_0_crop.jpg
      It doesn’t look very rollerskate friendly, and the architects (Husler) doesn’t apologize for that. Here is what they have to say about it:

      This corridor has always been seen as sa ecluded space used by its residents as an escape of the city,. Suddenly program more urban uses (such as rollerskating…), could in our meaning trigger negative reaction and protest…


      Arnie has the right word to describe the Vancouver approach in a similar context: brutalism…

  15. The bicycle is the ultimate freedom machine. Amongst its many benefits is that it allows users greater choice of routes. Mensa recommends taking different routes to keep the mind fresh and engaged.
    This is rarely possible in a vehicle. Motorists wind up on the same heavily traveled roads every day – in the pit of aggressive or clueless drivers; the tailgaters; jockeying for position with lane changers on the side. Marine Drive, King Ed., Kingsway, Hwy. 1 … these are not happy illuminating places – everybody trying to make time, beat the traffic, catch the light.
    Is it necessary to turn the Arbutus Greenway into a slick bicycle arterial – are there alternative routes? There are other routes – and it’s more interesting for a cycling commuter to mix them up – bicycle culture vs motordom mentality.
    Burnaby’s Central Park is great for cycling. It is hard packed unpaved. The speed limit is 10kms and cyclists must yield to pedestrians. It’s a great model.

    1. Again, more forested recreation trails being used to incongruously counter urban multi-use trail routes. These are different animals.
      Burnaby also has probably over 50 km (and growing) of 4m asphalt urban trails all over the map. While Creme Brulee Westsiders have conniptions over a simple trail in an historic industrial rail corridor, Burnaby is planning to add the same thing in a linear park paralleling Willingdon Ave north of Brentwood with a special urban design treatment including 200 new trees, two pocket parks, public art and hopefully someday a town square at Hastings in the historic Burnaby Heights neighbourhood.

    2. When I come through Central Park it is on the BC Parkway/Urban Trail under the Skytrain line. I looked up the City of Burnaby website, and they state that cycling is not permitted in Central Park other than on the Urban Trail. Their trail map is labelled for walking and hiking. So it seems that those gravel paths are for pedestrians.

    3. yes, there is Cycling Etiquette signs on pretty much all of the Burnaby central park entrances suggesting otherwise:
      https://voony.files.wordpress.com/2016/08/burnabycentralsign.jpg
      but that is besides the point.
      The fact is that people and cycling of all age and ability enjoy the trails , by feet wheelcahir and bike (as I have documenetd on my blog)…..
      in fact many people like to ride on hardpacke/gravel trail, and that includes a colleague of Jeff at Hub:
      http://images.glaciermedia.ca/polopoly_fs/1.2061527.1442507446!/fileImage/httpImage/image.jpg_gen/derivatives/landscape_804/hub-burnaby.jpg
      He explained to the BurnabyNow that a rare unpaved section of the central Valley Greenway, the stretch along the Brunette River – is his preferred part. Many agree!
      recently Chris Bruntlett has mounted some video promoting cycling in Stanley park: why they have included many shootage of trail sections if that is so hrrendous?
      The bottom line is that some people see the Arbutus corridor as a greenway able to provide a trail like experience to people of all age and abilities, what is sorely misisng in Vancouver proper.
      That the local cycling fraternity heavily present here has a different opinion is fine: they just need to understand they can’t impose their agenda as “fait accompli” and recognize that other people have different need than them. They also need to advance valid arguments to justify blacktop (and the Hub argument that the corridor should be a bike speedway is a valid one) instead of fallacies.

      1. Voony, I don’t think it is fair to say that the HUB position is that the corridor should be a bike speedway. The reason for paving is to promote use by the highest number of people. If some want a gravel walking path, that’s fine, I am referring to the cycling path. If there are to be both, with different surfaces, then we need to consider separation and how to get people to use the appropriate section.

    4. Arnie is a rare voice of reason on this thread and I have liked pretty much his comparison “bicycle culture vs motordom mentality”
      In fact this local bicyle culture (or rather “lack of”) is something I try to document on my blog…
      I am kind of baffled to see the amount of energy spent by the local cycling community to build bike paths at the expense of pedestrians and greenspace (something I have already noticed in the case of Kitsilano beach). It is a radical departure of the cycling culture I know from Paris.
      To be sure, Vancouver is not much different that many cities in regard of blacktop…in France too, blacktopping of bikeways can upset people as illustrated by this article but in the case I link, the local cycling community is siding against blakctoping because it “ruins the rural cycling experience”
      As Arnie said: “bicycle culture vs motordom mentality”

      1. In Surrey, a greenway is defined as a paved path, usually 4m wide. It runs adjacent to streets or off street, off street is better. Does that take up green space? I guess a little, but passing over lawn or in this case a old rail bed is hardly a real detriment to green space.
        My complaint about the paving along arbutus is that it’s dead straight. Put a little meander in that thing for some visual interest even if it’s just temporary.

        1. They are designed for bikes, whether in parks or not. There are plenty of paths that are for the benefit of peds only. Geeenways in the surrey context are designed for bikes.
          They can be used by peds of course, but they are not for the benefit of peds alone.

  16. Who were the sustainability and environmental consultants on this Arbutus project?
    What Carbon Credits were purchased to offset the tons of bitumen/tar/oil laden goop?
    This glorious bike freeway is going to be a signal of what can be done quickly to the rest of the world.
    Vancouver will now be supporting the Kinder Morgan Trans Mountain Pipeline so more bitumen asphalt bikeways around the world can take advantage of this fine Canadian product.

  17. @ Jeff – that was a startling bit of misinformation. I just got back from Central Park and made a point of checking out the signage. The Cycling Etiquette poster states that all the gravel trails can be used except where there is a sign to dismount – the only place I saw that was at the playset.
    You just can’t make your own trails through the brush. You also can’t ride abreast, or race. There are a several signs posting the 10kms speed limit. Again, you must yield to pedestrians – that precludes dinging, donging, or tinkling.
    To call these gravel trails is a misnomer. They are more akin to a hard clay surface – easy to cycle even with thin tires – not the least bit dangerous. Returning home, we cycled along the paved part. It felt like Hwy 1.
    The serendipitous bit about this trip is that I picked up a book at the Prittie branch (they have a great architecture section) called Where we Want to Live. I cracked it open randomly on page 169 and saw that it was about projects on old railway lines. If I come across something germane, I shall contribute.

    1. More info:
      Bike Routes and Urban Trails in Burnaby:
      “Urban Trails are usually asphalt trails separated from roads and traffic. Urban Trails are intended for shorter distance recreational cycling or cycle commuting. Often, Urban Trails are shared with in-line skaters, joggers and pedestrians. Urban Trails are also intended to provide greenway corridors throughout the City”
      Sounds like Arbutus.
      https://www.burnaby.ca/Things-To-Do/Explore-Outdoors/Bike-Routes-And-Urban-Trails.html
      The 2016 Burnaby Bike Map is linked on that page. Every bike lane, bike path, and urban trail. The only one showing in Central Park is the Urban Trail under the Skytrain.
      Burnaby also publishes a park and trails guide, including Central Park.
      https://www.burnaby.ca/flipbook/Parks_Trail_Guide/index.html
      Note that the published recommendation is to take transit, walk, or ride to Central Park, and then enjoy a walk on the trails. Cycling appears to be permitted in only 5 parks, perhaps those are the ones with paved paths (I only know 3 of them, and they have paved paths).

  18. Either the individuals who put up the cycling regulations (the biggest one is at the Imperial entrance) and posted speed limit signs throughout Central Park were demented, or the website is incorrect.
    A salient point about the hugely popular High Line – it took go go go New York a decade to open the first part. Why is it that here heavy equipment was brought in before the ink was dry on the purchase document? It’s as though there were workers waiting in the wings. “It’s easier to ask forgiveness, than to get permission.”
    Cycling is not permitted on the High Line. It should probably be the same for Arbutus. It’s a want – not a need.
    The High Line is in a dense urban area. Arbutus is sparse. Are there towers planned?And there already is a beautiful bike route running parallel: Cypress. This idyllic bike route does get used, but it’s not busy, and it’s a more direct path to Burrard.
    Someone commented about salivating over the sight of new asphalt on Arbutus. That’s peculiar.

    1. Cypress still has lots of cars (I’ve been nearly hit several times by cars going too fast and trying to turn in front of me, or not looking when turning onto cypress, or not looking when they cross cypress) … Cypress also has lots of street crossings, cypress has lots of stop signs. Cypress also has a few steeper hills.
      Arbutus has none of those. I know what I would use if I lived in that area.
      And as for density, um, this seems dense: http://www.arbutuswalkliving.com/ … ditto all the nearby buildings on Broadway, ditto the buildings which will appear with the Broadway line. Ditto all of the 3-4 story condos and apartments, ditto the mansions which are in fact multiple apartments.

      1. Really, you’ve almost been hit several times. Really. Not once, not twice, but several times. Wow.
        I’ve cycled Cypress lots of times – with a 6-7-8 year old. There is no safer bike route.
        I regularly cycle from Main St to the Burnaby border with two kids – that’s Kingsway territory – and there’s no bike route. If you can’t handle Cypress then you and Susan have lots in common.
        Whinging about Cypress!? Seriously?
        This little Arbutus development you link is promoting walking – all the more reason to not have cycling on the greenway. It takes literally seconds to get to the Cypress bike route. There’s no need to duplicate.
        I’m amazed that someone would whinge about Cypress.

        1. I used to live at 3rd and Larch, I would bike down 3rd and turn on to cypress for a couple blocks before heading over to Burrard at the corner near the Rocky Mountain Flatbread.
          Cars don’t seem to like those little slow-the-f-down bumpouts, between 3rd and 1st, also, they often turn right on 2nd and go over a couple blocks to skip the frequent traffic at Burrard/4th. These cars don’t really like stopping at the stop signs on either side of Cypress. So yes, when you use that route almost every day for several years, you have issues even on Cypress, maybe only if you do it at peak commuter time – perhaps not when you were doing it with your kid, but cars don’t often look very well in the dark winter rainy mornings when everyone is running late. Shocking I know.
          The thing is, my comments were precisely NOT whinging, they were statements of fact, an on street bike route will always be less safe than a separated one, and pointing out the manner by which it is less safe isn’t out of line. The rest of Cypress might not have any of these issues (no idea, I rarely use the rest of it), but some do.
          In the Netherlands*, there is quite nice data about how much safer each incremental separation makes a bike road … and each one seems to ~halve the number of accidents between cars and bikes. So yes, even though those at arbutus ridge are seconds from Cypress, they would still be better served by something safer, and you know what? They might like not playing with cars … there might be some people living there who aren’t so confident playing with cars as you or I, and might NOT bike even with the ‘bike haven’ Cypress nearby. Cypress certainly isn’t an AAA bike route (*I know it gets a bit boring that people always seem to bring up bike data from the netherlands, but they do an excellent job at studying and quantifying things, unlike most other places which do neither … their data might not be 100% applicable, but it certainly establishes the right ballpark.)
          And finally, I never said for a moment that I ‘couldn’t handle’ Cypress, I have biked and raced more places than I need to – to know that which is good, but also recognize the manner(s) by which it is still imperfect, and the manner(s) by which another route/design might be better. You’re welcome to come ride with me sometime and I’ll show you what I’m talking about, you’re welcome to refer to it as the tour de whinge, be a sport though and do try and keep up.

        2. “there might be some people living there who aren’t so confident playing with cars as you or I”
          This is key. New cycling infrastructure is not, by and large, being built for those who cycle now. It is being built for those who want to cycle, but are held back. Certainly, those who cycle now will, by and large, benefit from new infrastructure. But the goal is to increase mode share, and that means targeting the section of the population who are interested in cycling, who would like to, but who are nervous.
          Most people posting here and elsewhere as cyclists use their own experience as a metric. I do it to, I understand that. But we aren’t the target audience. And with more people cycling, we benefit as well.
          There is a wonderful greenway down Railway Ave in Richmond, along the corridor that the Interurban used. I was happy to see it paved. Until a week ago, I had never ridden on it. I travel down Railway Ave on a bike up to 6 times per week, and I watched them build it, watched it get more users, walking and cycling, and saw it become part of the community. I rode it recently on a ride with friends, at low speed, just to see what it was like. I probably won’t ride it again, but I am very glad it is there. It is introducing a whole new set of people to cycling. Many of the users are families with small children. I think it is a good example of what the Arbutus Greenway could be like in terms of users.

      2. Near misses on Cypress has been my experience as well. One that I got on video was coming north on Cypress, across Broadway. The southbound vehicle waiting to turn left gunned it as soon as one of the two pedestrians in the crosswalk cleared her intended lane. I was watching, covering my brakes, and braked hard. In the photo grabbed from the video, we are both moving. I stopped within a meter of her rear door. She never looked up.
        I think there are many safer bike routes than Cypress.
        This is a difference between an off street path and a shared (calmed) roadway.
        http://i349.photobucket.com/albums/q367/jcleigh/Posts/GP030005-0001_zpsbwulqphn.jpg

        1. Those helmet cams do wonders to turn anecdote into data. Thanks!
          (I’ve had that instance also, but can’t remember if it ever happened on cypress specifically, so didn’t mention it above)
          @Arnie Carnegie, is that enough data for you?
          The issue shouldn’t be a competition of who bikes the most shit roads (you should definitely have a better option for your Main St to the Burnaby border route also), it also shouldn’t necessitate people being ‘bike path green’ with envy at one person’s relatively safer route than another’s.
          We should all have access to safe routes … and by all I mean absolutely everyone who might ever potentially ever maybe even ever think of using the route ever, even if they don’t know it yet. All-all. Its a matter of equity, we’re all in this together.

  19. But vancouver “loves” aerial trains, so the new tram line will be elevated and weather-protect a thin unused cycling line, and the vastly popular wider jogging trail

Subscribe to Viewpoint Vancouver

Get breaking news and fresh views, direct to your inbox.

Join 7,284 other subscribers

Show your Support

Check our Patreon page for stylish coffee mugs, private city tours, and more – or, make a one-time or recurring donation. Thank you for helping shape this place we love.

Popular Articles

See All

All Articles