Based on the concerns expressed to City of Vancouver on the type of temporary surface for the Arbutus Greenway’s pre-consultation period, Naoibh O’Connor writes in the Vancouver Courier.
She quotes HUB spokesperson Jeff Leigh (and regular Price Tags commenter) He weighs in on HUB’s broad and forward-looking view of the Greenway, and the issues of consultation and vision.
Photo: thanks to Dan Toulgoet
“Our goal is to get more people cycling, more often, and whatever accomplishes that is the way we’re going,” he said. “We’re not wedded to pavement or gravel. We’re promoting cycling as a transportation alternative. If our membership comes back and says, ‘We’re just as happy to ride on a gravel path,’ that’s fine. That hasn’t been our experience so far, but we really have to talk to our members and see.”
HUB has discussed ideas for its general vision for the final design of the greenway. The vision talks about the route being a social experience, that it be sufficiently wide for people to ride side-by-side, that it has room for all users and that it respects heritage and different neighbourhoods.
“But it’s at a very, very high visioning level. I think we really need to get to a consultation,” he said. “We look forward to that consultation. These are very early ideas about what it could be. But we see it as an active transportation corridor that we need to have all user groups have a say in.”
Eye-opening footnote: Writer O’Connor on the relevant volumes of concerns expressed to City of Vancouver on the type of temporary surface for the Arbutus Greenway’s pre-consultation period:
Between Aug. 5 and 11, 53 people weighed in by correspondence to the city — 28 expressed support for paving, 15 were against it, four were neutral or offered a suggestion, while six asked a general question.
[Note to self: never underestimate the power of a letter to council and City staff].
Author
[ED: we ask that commenters please limit themselves to 3 comments per day on this post. ]
It is extremely misleading of Jeff Leigh and this site to suggest that consultation with this Council is the answer when he knows perfectly well from his own association with the City’s Active Transportation Team (City engineers) and has been informed by me and others on this site that Vision Council (with City engineers in tow) has repeatedly failed to honestly consult with residents on this and other projects but has a proven history of making changes utterly regardless of resident input, including most importantly safety concerns.
Eesh. This again. Didn’t the NIMBY’s win? Didn’t they get the City to wince away from a temporary bike path because some feelings were hurt? Don’t they now get some “consultation” (i.e., the City does whatever they want) over the installation of a temporary facility? Yet even in victory they are not appeased.
The City should have simply validated their feelings, deflected their embarrassing rationale, and completed the facility with a kind and silent nod. Now it’s 24 months of hosting many hundreds of people’s prejudices and life’s regrets barely veiled as civic concern just to get a gravel path, a bench, and some azaleas. And people have the gall to complain about government with a straight face.
It is a lose lose with this group, I really don’t know what they want. Consult with them and it’s just a sham, don’t consult with them and they’re angry about that.
It’s got to be hard to be that negative all the time.
I emailed the arbutus greenway project and Vancouver 311 service. I did not get a response from either. I guess I should have emailed the councilors directly. I assumed that this decision was going to be made without council input.
Jeff says “we’re promoting cycling as a transportation alternative” but the money is being spent on quite a different thing. To illustrate, a friend was telling me over lunch what a lively bike ride he had on the weekend. Around the seawall down Pt. Grey Road to Jericho. Splendid! But not transportation. It was purely leisure, as will be most of the trips down the Arbutus Greenway. It’s not raking anyone out if their car (or more likely the bus). The money would be better spent on the East Side where Milennials with less disposable income actually need it.
Safe bike routes are needed everywhere. For transportation, for recreation. Probably most people who ride for transportation first biked recreationally.
I agree that the east side needs more things like this (and sort of has one with the Central Valley Greenway).
On your other point there are people who rollerblade 10 km just to get a few groceries. You or I may not be up to doing that but some people are.
I can totally see someone who lives near 37th and Arbutus who needs a few things from a store on Broadway biking down the Arbutus Greenway to get there and back. At certain times of the day it would be the fastest option.
The quote in the article was about HUB Cycling’s main focus being transportation cycling, but that doesn’t mean that many members, myself included, don’t cycle for recreation as well. I went on a recreational ride this morning, using streets such as Ontario, Cambie, the Canada Line Bridge, and Railway Ave. out to Steveston, pretty much all on roads. I went to a meeting around noon, and cycled on the Seawall for a portion, then over the Cambie Bridge and up to Broadway. This is pretty typical, people on bikes can be out for recreation or transportation, and they may use off street paths, bike lanes, or protected bike lanes. It is really hard to draw a line and say this particular route will only be used for only one purpose.