August 18, 2016

Arbutus Greenway — Learning From Experience

We’ll eventually finish the consultation over temporary surfaces to be applied to the temporary paths on the Arbutus Greenway. Hopefully, the result will be that all the public, all ages and all abilities, will have a chance to get onto the paths and check out all 9 km and all 42 acres of the old railroad corridor.  We’ll end up with much more design input.
And then we’ll get going on the major discussion over the final design. In anticipation, it has occurred to me that we are not starting from scratch here.
Aren’t there several places in metro Vancouver where people of all ages and abilities travel on foot, two wheels, three and four wheels along relatively narrow corridors?  Such as the seawalls in Vancouver, Railway Avenue in Richmond, North Shore’s Spirit Trail.  Aren’t these handy sources to mine for a decade or more experience?
So let’s think about these:   what do we like and don’t like; what has worked and not worked; what’s great, what’s lousy. Then let’s go on from there.
It seems to me that the biggest difference to these seawall designs (pix below)is that the Arbutus Greenway will cross several high-speed high-volume motor vehicle arterials.  Intersection designs, as always, will be a major consideration.  (Underpasses, anyone?)

[Ed:  we ask commenters on this post to please limit their comments to 3 per day]

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

  1. the first mistake is to assimilate the seawall to a corridor.
    The corridor term infer the meaning of a “long passage”, which usually has no much view to offer other that the corridor itself.
    The seawall, is a scenir promenade (a different animal calling for different solutions)
    The biggest difference between the seawall and the arbutus corridor, is that on one side of the former, there the sea…and that is what make the seawall a destination in itself…what will make the arbutus corridor a destination in itself?
    that is the first question one should ask, and then the conversation will be right tracked.
    A poster here has explained that the railway trail is useful to “zip back home” but the richmond railway trail is not a destination, the Dyke and Steveston are. The shell road trail is too…

    1. The Railway Ave greenway in Richmond is absolutely a destination for some. There are many users every day out for a walk or a bike ride, who do not go all the way to either end of it.
      The problem with claiming that the Seaside Greenway (seawall) and the Arbutus Greenway are so different is that they are in fact connected, and many users will transition from one to the other, without realizing it.
      Should all the users along the South False Creek seawall be divided into those who are just out for a walk or a bike ride, and those who are going to Granville Island?
      The biggest problems with conflicts between users along the Seaside Greenway/Seawall are where there are transitions between older sections, often without physical separation, to newer sections, built to a different standard. The City is gradually fixing the older sections (South False Creek starting now, Olympic Village to Cambie Bridge partly completed, Creekside Park to the Plaza of Nations looking much better, the Plaza of Nations painted lanes recently completed, etc). It would be a shame to not learn from what has worked and what hasn’t worked, because of an arbitrary call that a path without an ocean view is different than one with. Eventually, we will have a continuation of the Arbutus Greenway along the Fraser at the south end, and it should benefit from these lessons as well.

    2. I will concede that the richmond ave railway is a destination for some locals, not unlike some BC hydro corridors in some other places or my local park; and yes it could be a draw for roller skaters, because it is pretty much the only place to practice it separated of traffic in Richmond; but I will remind people that the city has unveiled much more ambitious plan for the Arbutus corridor:
      https://pbs.twimg.com/media/Cc9zsfwUIAA2JmI.jpg
      Then the problem with claiming that the seawall and the Arbutus Greenway are not much different, is the risk to design a “seawall” for a corridor where there is no “sea”, or put in another term, design a defacto “inferior product”, instead to design a “different product”.
      yes, the Arbutus corridor must be connected to the seawall, but it is a “spur” from it, not a continuity of the seawall (the east false creek section Jeff mentions are seawall “missing link”).

  2. Underpasses. Sure, underpasses and bridges, for the vehicles only though. There’s no reason why, in the greenest resort, where walking and cycling is top of the list of importance citizens enjoying these mobility modes should have to endure declines and inclines, simply to facilitate motorized traffic.
    As we see from the photographs, this is a pleasant recreational resort. These thoroughfares are not expected to used by working people. The industry, including the recent decampment from the city of the last large brewery and, of course, including the train to service the brewery, have just about all moved to the far reaches of the distant suburbs. Only remnants of the Port and some other light industry still remain. The cycling and pedestrian routes are for the young and healthy and the retired, as well as the infirm. These are the citizens of the greenest resort.
    The cost of these underpasses and bridges is unimportant since they contribute to a well connected system for those that like to stay fit and healthy and move at a pleasant speed around the sustainable world-class town.
    Traversing 4th Ave., Broadway, 12th and 16th., King Edward Ave., 41st., 49th., and 57th. then Marine Drive will mean perhaps eight new bridges or underpasses. We’re only talking about a few hundred million dollars.
    The landscape architects in the city could all be employed on this project. We’re looking at around 10 km of world-class urban pedestrian and cycling greenway that will obviously be a showcase for the world. A few hundred million on this too can easily be realized, if creative minds are put to work.
    This will truly be a legacy project, if done right with no expenses spared.

    1. I would agree it would better and cheaper to have stop lights where the priority is given to the pedestrians and cyclists of the arbutus corridor over the cars on those arterials.

      1. And controlled turn movements for the vehicles at the major arterial crossings, with signal phasing, to eliminate right turns on red across a pedestrian and cycling path. The Burrard and Cornwall intersection is a good example of smart design. Coming soon to the Pacific and Burrard intersection.

        1. Yeah, remember when someone had an idea to make a Hovenring type structure over the intersection of Cornwall and Burrard? It turns out that all we needed were some traffic lights and a logical layout. Way cheaper.
          People when they drive will be expecting to stop at Arbutus anyway. If they stopped a couple metres east of it I doubt it would make any difference to their trips.

        2. No gridlock evident. Look up the definition of gridlock. Thomas likes that word as well.
          The goal isn’t to keep only motorists moving, it is to keep all road users moving. So sad that you can’t see that.

    2. “These thoroughfares are not expected to used by working people”
      Ignoring completely the data we have about the mode share for cycling in Kitsilano, at the north end of this greenway, being among the highest in the city. Let’s go with evidence based decision making.

    3. Eric – I ‘m so happy that you are finally seeing the light! 😉
      More advanced cities than ours are actually doing this type of stuff already. Here is a covered moving sidewalk in Rotterdam to carry cyclists to the path at the upper level:
      http://www3.telus.net/arno/DSCN1152.jpg
      Here is a beautiful tunnel in Amsterdam which has artwork composed of 80,000 delft blue tiles:
      http://www3.telus.net/arno/AmsterdamTunnel.jpg
      It should be fairly easy to build a tunnel at 41st Ave or at Broadway as part of the subway project. And such tunnels will help movement of transit, motor traffic and pedestrians so everyone wins. Why is spending billions on motor vehicle traffic OK but a few million on active transportation is somehow wasteful? Especially given the monetary benefit that cycling provides which I posted on another topic.

      1. I know what you mean Arno, when you say “More advanced cities than ours”. Rottedam has over 120 industries in petrochemicals providing 75,000 jobs and wealth to the city. That’s only half of the industry in the port of Rotterdam but the oil refineries, the crude oil terminals and the chemicals companies do bring forward thinking people, companies and cities. And, Heineken is there too.

        1. If you’re utterly destroyed – flattened to the ground, occupied by an evil regime for five years it’s not hard to sell your soul to get back on your feet.

        2. Interesting. According to Rotterdam’s own info, the ‘Rotterdam Energy Port and Petrochemical Cluster’ only provides about 13,000 direct jobs. Including indirect jobs in your claim is misleading when you say it (the cluster) ‘provides’ those jobs. Here is where I got my info (link below). Can you please provide a link to your stats Eric, or explain this discrepancy if you are using the same source? I’m sure you will agree that it makes sense to provide a source for your claims, so people can decide for themselves which perspective is more realistic.
          (page 9 of link below)
          https://www.portofrotterdam.com/en/cargo-industry/refining-chemicals/facts-figures-brochure

        3. Chris:
          “The industrial cluster accounts for:
          Over 13,000 direct jobs
          Over 60,000 indirect jobs ”
          Accounts for, provides, produces, yields, supports, …pick your favourite.
          Would you like to talk about those employed in the six refineries, or those in the outer areas engaged in the connected crude oil and oil products pipelines, or the ethylene and propylene pipelines, or the gas pipelines?
          All high paying jobs in what Arno says is one the “More advanced cities than ours”.

        4. Would I like to talk about it? Not really. It has no bearing on Rotterdam’s cycling infrastructure to me, unless you can make a logical link to same, and show that without that industrial activity those facilities would not have been conceived of or created. Nonetheless, I do think ‘provides’ was overstating the impact of the industry. Certainly I would argue that ‘supports’ and ‘provides’ are barely synonyms. I know it sucks for you to have every spurious claim subject to a fact-check — if I were you I would suggest you consider it the new normal.

        5. One reason for Holland’s relative and relatively recent (30+ years ) wealth is indeed the offshore oil in the North Sea. Ditto in AB and SK and to a eke what lesser but still significant extent BC. Of course, we do not teach this inconvenient truth in school anymore. Industries and their associated products, taxes and employment matter hugely to cities.
          A city can’t live on bike trails and beautiful condos alone.
          Does Vancouver City Council and the many pipeline and industry opponents know that ?
          Btw: paving a bike trail uses evil tar .. Shudder. Greener would be leaving it as is. Is this what we actually mean when we say ” green city “? Or is this just a label ?
          Oil is demanded by consumers, and growing to almost 100M barrel of oil a day – or over a thousand barrels a second. Should we not start there, i.e. demand reduction rather than destroying industries and associated Canadian taxes for healthcare, education and life style enhancements such as this new “green”way ???

        6. It doesn’t suck for me Chris, as you so eloquently put it. I do feel sorry for those that constantly need elaboration of clear comments.

        7. “Of course, we do not teach this inconvenient truth in school anymore.”
          When was this topic in the curriculum of BC public schools (and at what grade level) and when was it removed? These sweeping, opinionated claims must have a basis in fact, or they are little better than misinformation and propaganda. We don’t need more of that IMO.
          It’s easy to conflate a concern over the environment with an extremist ‘no oil for any reason’ position and to try to make resource extraction an all-or-nothing argument. But the reality is that life and opinions are much more nuanced. The reality is that this absolutist characterization misrepresents almost all the people who would like to see a ‘greener’ way of living. How often we see some posters misrepresent sensible, cautious perspectives on environmental health as some kind of neo-primitivist point of view, and attempt to lecture the rest of us on the realities of the economy, industry, and resource extraction… as though the real world and its compromises, slow changes, and necessary conciliations to expediency are beyond our ken. Not so. Not by a long shot. Barracking for change doesn’t equal a misunderstanding of where we are. It’s kind of patronizing in fact, to be told a bike path uses some oil. So does Coffee Mate. And Vaseline. And Lego. What of it? How does it relate to better transportation and more livable cities?
          It’s fatuous to try to suggest that the goal of reducing fossil fuel dependency must mean that person is unaware of current realities or impacts. The difference in perspectives is not that of where we are at, it’s where we wish to be 10, 20, 100, 500 years from now. If one can paint us a picture where increasing oil consumption can be managed without continuing and probably drastic environmental impacts, then do so. Personally, I don’t think it’s possible. That’s a pretty common perspective. Having an antipathy to increased traffic congestion, pollution, and road deaths due to a reliance on private automobiles in no way equals a belief that cities can live on bike trails and beautiful condos. It insulting to suggest anyone wishes it to be so, and disrespectful to the posters who comment here and make no such demands for that kind of a city. It is frankly, the tactic that must be taken when one lacks a strong, logical argument for the status quo, or worse (IMO) doubling down on the current system of energy use. Strong positions and the people who hold them need not misrepresent those with whom they disagree. So when I see somebody attempt that tack, I personally think they are flailing.

        8. Yeah, I think it does suck for you Eric. The continued dismantling of your arguments, claims, and remarks is troublesome (for you) because it exposes the weakness of your claims and the faulty rationale for your positions. Unbiased observers can see that you hold a minority viewpoint (at least on this blog, which is largely inhabited by intelligent, thoughtful, and sensible people) and they start to doubt everything you write. But that’s the risk one takes when trying to get smart people to agree with dumb ideas.

        9. @Chris K: emphasis on THIS inconvenient truth.
          The fact is that the economy and associated tax revenues from it matters – and that those that oppose oil and pipeline the most are those that suck on society’s tits the most: social welfare recipients, public servants, teachers, the unemployed, i.e. those that generate less tax revenue than they consume ! THAT is the untold inconvenient truth. We need tax revenue to fund our extremely lavish salaries & pension plans for civil servants, i.e. for doctors, nurses, teachers, professors, city planners, etc .. Only a healthy economy can provide that, and that is more and more difficult not only in BC but Canada-wide with arguments for “social license”, native co$ultation, endless hearings, court cases, national energy boards, subsidy requirements !
          of course, when confronted with this inconvenient truth and perhaps a salary adjustment down to reality, say -25-33% to bring it to affordable levels is utterly opposed.
          Sustainability has three elements: ecological, social and financial. It is the last one of these three that is almost always ignored when industrial activity is opposed or expensive green energy schemes are applauded !
          Vancouver, BC and Canada is on a dangerous path here, and as such has to rely on wealthy immigrants to compensate i.e. make up the shortfall.
          Our current debt levels are unsustainable. This fancy path is just one of many examples.
          Party now, pay tomorrow.

        10. Let me repeat Thomas. Sweeping, opinionated claims must have a basis in fact, or they are little better than misinformation and propaganda. We don’t need more of that IMO.
          Back up your argument with real numbers in real life. You continue to make bold claims without proofs.
          Answer the question about curriculum instead of changing the focus of your sweeping generalizations instead of wandering off on yet another rant about overpaid workers and a seeming disregard for citizen involvement and approval.
          Platitudes about healthy economies may be the ammunition of politicians in need of votes, but I respect your opinions and perspective enough to hold you to a higher standard.

        11. Enough about Rotterdam. This is just one example in a nation that has established cycling as a preferred mode of transportation. There is the Hovenring in Eindhoven and the amazing transformation of Groningen into a city where over 50% of trips are by bike. In Breda, near where one of my cousins lives, there i an intersection of two arterials where one has a choice of taking tunnels or crossing at the traffic lights. They also have a railway/freeway crossing where one can take stairs, elevator or ramp to access the crossing. Near where another cousin lives is a highway crossing in the middle of nowhere which is universally accessible via elevator. In Leiden, there is a network of bike paths and tunnels which come together in a cycling roundabout. We talk a lot about people not stopping at stop signs. In the Netherlands they have very few stop signs and some cities have none at all. It took me a week of riding every day to see my first stop sign and I stopped to take a picture. They know that in order to gain all the amazing benefits that cycling provides to society, you simply have to make cycling safe and convenient. Build it and the will come. We have a lot to learn.

        12. OK Arno, but you brought it up. Honestly though, the only reason I ever went to Hrronigen (Groningen) was to the Rijksluchtvaartschool. We took the train.
          As for Eindhoven, that was fun in the DAF Daffodil. You just put your foot to the floor and waited for the car to wind itself up. The Philips brothers led the way and really created the town, more than any others.

      2. Tunnels and overpasses should be a last resort when other options are not possible – crossing a freeway or a railway with frequent high speed trains for example. Otherwise pedestrians and cyclists are better served by calming MV traffic enough that interactions are safe everywhere.

        1. Yes. And no.
          If you make it bike and pedestrian friendly you’ll get a reversal of those numbers over time. Transit needs some sort of priority but what if 50 bikes and pedestrians hold up 2 cars as happens all over Europe? It’s a no-brainer.

        2. Yes, Europe. Recall that Europe’s cities were often built 500+ years ago, when no one had a car or even a carriage. Very walkable, this now, very bikable.
          I agree that we need to rely less on cars and more on walking, biking or RAPID transit in Metrovan. It is the latter that is unfortunately utterly missing in MetroVan as buses will not lure people out of their cars. Bikes do work in dense areas, but not so much in less dense parts of MetroVan, such as Langley or Surrey, or those that are very hilly, i.e. W-Van or N-Van. How about a toll on Lionsgate bridge until there is no more line-ups ? Say $525 at rushhour, $20 in almost-rush hour, and $10 off peak. That would sure grow interest in a rail link very fast, wouldn’t it ?
          We need to toll roads more and charge more for car use, and that too is missing in MetroVan: no toll for ANY bridges or tunnels (except Hwy 1 PM bridge), no toll for wide 6 lane roads like Granville or Broadway, not even parking fees in residential roads. So “green” !
          But hey, let’s oppose the oil pipelines and LNG development so we hamper our own industries as world oil & gas demand will do whatever it does, regardless of whether Canada supplies an ounce of oil or 2M barrel a day or ssails one LNG ship/day or 0 or 25. Someone else will gladly sell it, for example: The USofA. Under green czar Obama the US increased oil production over 80% form 5M barrel a day to over 9M, and built pipelines several times the length of XL and is now also exporting oil and LNG. Meanwhile XL gets rejected as it disturbs “the climate”. Meanwhile in BC we still “consult”. Beautiful. Are we this rich that we can afford that ? Because eventually we will not !

        3. Anon: If they timed the lights together with the one just after it on Arbutus then it’d be the same as now. Or the intersections of the greenway and Arbutus could be combined somehow.

  3. Underpasses would/could limit the future construction of LRT down the corridor.
    I could see people pushing for underpasses as a covert means of preventing future transit use on the corridor.
    WRT road crossings – there’s a very, very busy unsignalled seawall crosswalk / road crossing at the entrance to Granville Island – which seems to work fine. There’s communication between the drivers and the pedestrians and cyclists.
    For the Arbutus corridor, the same rule as for railways would apply – “do not stop on tracks” – where the tracks are now replaced by the greenway (paint would help).
    The presence of adjacent traffic signals pretty much means that there’s a built-in traffic control system already in place at some intersections (i.e. Broadway has 2 sets of signals).

    1. There are problems at the Anderson crossing at the entrance to Granville Island. The changes coming to the seawall there will help. A light is still a potential future change. The difference with the arterials is that on Anderson vehicles are usually moving slowly (or stopped in traffic). On the arterials crossing the Arbutus Greenway, vehicle drivers focus on crossing Arbutus, then don’t think of the greenway and are often going quickly.

  4. Honestly the only real problem with what’s been seen so far is the idea of using packed gravel instead of paving for parts of it. Packed gravel paths make riding harder, cause numbness in hands and joints, and is the whole reason Richmond needed to implement Railways Ave instead of just sending people down the Dike Trail. I thought city of Vancouver had figured this one out already but from what I’ve read, maybe not.

    1. Well the whole idea of not having asphalt comes from a belief that it would make cyclists go slower. Not based on any real evidence though. One can certainly cycle fast on gravel.
      Behind that idea seems to be another belief that cyclists can be dangerous to others. Again, except for some extremely rare events there’s no evidence of that either.
      So, probably the solution is to educate people otherwise scare mongers will be out there telling their lies and well meaning people will be unnecessarily frightened.

    2. Sure, the CoV has figured it out. But there are some who claim that paving shouldn’t be included in the permanent path when it is eventually built, and so see paving the temporary path as prejudging the eventual design. When the announcement was made months ago that there would be high quality trails for walking and people on bikes, they presumably didn’t connect that.
      The paving discussion is just a proxy for “don’t develop the greenway” IMO.

      1. Not at all; there you go again, maligning truth. People are not saying “don’t develop the greenway” — they are saying develop it by following proper procedures, best practices, and consulting with residents (by including their input in the design) — which City engineers, as directed by Vision Councillors, have been refusing to do city-wide.

        1. Uh… they just consulted with residents and changed the temporary path in response. To my eyes that doesn’t look like refusing to consult.

        2. The ones who are calling for it to be a natural, rustic, greenway, more like a park, not a transportation corridor, and without a 4 m wide shared path that they refer to as a “clearcut” seem to be actively campaigning for not developing it. Just as an example, the ROW is 66 feet wide. A clearcut would be 66 feet wide, that is the definition.

    3. Re numbness, I know two people who can’t ride on gravel for that reason. Pavement is so accessible, it is really the only option for a paved path. We should put our efforts into the extensive consultation process which will start shortly.

  5. The one picture is from the New Westminster Pier park and is part of the incomplete Brunette Fraser Regional Greenway. Currently the Greenway at the pier park mostly is a dead end, however it is possible to use an elevator/stair structure east of the point pictured and access 4th Street at Columbia and the Central Valley Greenway.
    Users are discussing Railway Avenue as an alternate path to the Dyke Trail and as a commuter route. It actually serves both of these functions and it also allows recreational users to make a loop around Richmond. I visit several times a year with my family to do a nice loop around and visit the destinations along the way, Steveston and the Terra Nova playground.

    1. Apples and oranges: one size does not fit all. If you cyclists believe it does, you are advocating against public consultation, as there is no reason to consult on a given, right Jeff?

  6. In an attempt to get away from the endless navel gazing about Arbutus (how about fixing the dangerous pointy rocks in the trail along the Fraser river that can cause kids to crash off their bikes and get nasty cuts), here’s an article about zoning in Japan.
    Maybe someone can promote this to a place for a real discussion. It’s quite instructive and worthy of debate, if you ask me. (Of course, no-one is, but still…).
    http://urbankchoze.blogspot.ca/2014/04/japanese-zoning.html

    1. There’s a whole lot of cool to japanese zoning … especially in the way it permits (an no-one has issue with it seems) having very disparate scales/uses/architectures next door to one another happily … George Baird has written about this (and spoke last year also). In a somewhat similar way to the Dutch laissez-faire design – design somethings very completely (and study what works – eg: bike path design) but also relies on the personal realization ‘that much of what is built really doesn’t affect me, so I don’t really have any reason to oppose it’.
      A big difference in cultures – there you have a generally conservative people who realize that they don’t like to be told what to do, but realize that part of that social contract also requires them also not telling others not to do.
      Here, you have a generally conservative people (though often not considering themselves as such) who have no problem telling others not to do things either, but also hold on to their own worldview in such a way that _____ will have to be pulled from their cold dead hands.
      I think we have those who live in both camps reading this blog … please ask yourself which one you are, and if your opinion really matters (to you, or to others) so much as to require metaphorical kicking and screaming instead of saying the occasional – ‘you’re right, your way works fine also’.

      1. Yeah, there’s a thing in Dutch culture where if something has become a problem they figure out how whatever is is can have an outlet so that it is no longer a problem. This is a different approach than the reaction of just banning something and expecting that to be a solution.

  7. The difference between the Arbutus greenway and the Seawall is that people walking will want to walk near the water and views. So on the Seawall (and on any bridge for that matter) the pedestrian path should be on the water side. I don’t know if there are particular views or green spaces along Arbutus that should be near the pedestrian side of the greenway.

  8. Today I rode southbound on Arbutus Corridor between King Edward and 37th. The paved section up to 33rd was awesome. Not so the gavel path up to 37th. There is newly laid gravel but it was almost impassable by bike. If I have trouble I would estimate that over 50% of bike riders would find it difficult and kids would probably find it impossible. There goes the accessibility for a huge number of people. Pavement for the temporary path is the only option if accessibility is a primary consideration.

        1. Took a ride yesterday from Burrard to 48th on top of Kerrisdale and back. Indeed paving (or some other hard surface material) is the only way to go. Who in their right mind would advocate for gravel ?
          See pix here: http://www.facebook.com/thomasbeyer2000/posts/10210489597375295
          Road crossings will be expensive to engineer even if only painted and aligned with nearby traffic lights.
          In time we will have benches, bushes, dividers, mini-parks. It will be very beautiful. For now, a paved path is good enough. A new jewel for Vancouver for joggers, walkers, wheelchair users, skateboarders, roller bladers and of course, bikers.

      1. and what a better way to display its “happiness” at a barrier preventing a whole category of people to acess a facility built supposedly in the name of “accessibility”
        (here is from another angle, notice that is the only access between 16 and 33th, and is an access a bus stop)
        https://voony.files.wordpress.com/2016/08/arbutus_stair_20th_2.jpg
        …In case of some people had still some doubt on the real agenda of the city…
        …and how self centred the local bike fraternity can be…

        1. Ignoring completely that no new access has been constructed from parallel streets up until now. All that has been done is that a temporary path has been paved. The temporary path is fully accessible along its length. The way to get on that temporary path is at a cross street. If you don’t want to use 16th or 33rd, suggest you use King Edward or Nanton. Both have direct access.
          It is a pretty straightforward thing to construct access ramps to the temporary path. But first, we all have to get past protests over there even being a temporary path.

        2. if you can’t use the stair, it is a 600 meters detour to go from the bottom of it to the top (where is the paved section of the corridor):
          This demonstrates that the city has never got the intention to improve access to the arbutus corridor (*), but just wanted to build a cycle track. period.

          (*), if a ramp the city had the intention to built, some foundation work would have been done before laying the cycle track base.

        3. Based on the appearance of those stairs, it isn’t clear that anybody should be using them. It isn’t 600 m unless one’s goal is to simply cross the greenway at this point, and that isn’t possible since there is no access on the east side. To access the greenway, it is 280 m. Quite a distance. But since you are focusing on the bus stop at this location, note that there is another bus stop at 16th, immediately next to the level access to the greenway, and another again at 25th, also with level access.
          If you want to better understand the City’s intentions, perhaps look at where they have provided access, and whether it meets reasonable criteria. Here are two.
          http://i349.photobucket.com/albums/q367/jcleigh/Posts/Arbutus%20Greenway%2044th_zps6vg0evu7.jpg
          http://i349.photobucket.com/albums/q367/jcleigh/Posts/Arbutus%20Greenway%2047th_zpsukfe6dw1.jpg
          Curb cuts, smooth paving, and so on. Seems reasonable. Of course, these accessible entry points won’t be useful until the temporary path is paved at these crossings.
          If you continue to think of it as just a cycle track, you are missing a great opportunity.

        4. Voony, this is a temporary path. Whether it is paved or gravel or beach sand, the stairs at this point are irrelevant. Would you want them to put in an escalator? Surely this can wait for the detailed consultation phase.

        5. Jeff, the 2 curb cut passage you illustrate was pre-existing and are pretty much the only onse along the whole corridor (as well as the blacktopped cross-path…). They have always been very useful, since they allow people to cross the corridor- for bus access, shopping,work,…you name it …and it also enable people to see what the corridior is about.
          I noticed that the rail are still in place there…and still open flangeway (a potential issue for the small front wheel of wheelchair). The city doesn’t seem in a hurry to improve that…
          pretty much all other cross-paths (check desire line on google) have turned from bad to worse.
          then when the city do some curb work on the corridor, like they do actually at Marine Drive:
          https://voony.files.wordpress.com/2016/08/arbutus_corridor_at_marinedrive.jpg
          they don’t bother to put curb cut access (well, since here it could also frustrate a couple of cyclist, I am confident that will be changed soon enough).
          thanks for the link for the accessibility, I didn’t read it yet…the city engineering department neither:
          https://voony.wordpress.com/wp-admin/upload.php?item=46535
          And I appreciate that Arno think that wheeled people can wait the detailled consultation phase before be able to access bus stops and other destinations across the corridor, while cyclist should be granted immediate access to enjoy it…how that sound good to you?
          PS ecalator? do Arno understand what “accessibility” means?

        6. Voony, appreciate your effort to point out inaccessible points along the Arbutus greenway, but it likely doesn’t make much sense to do major engineering work with ramps or landscaping without even knowing the final design of the right of way. The temporary paving isn’t perfect and doesn’t solve all accessibility issues, but it makes the greenway much more accessible in the interim.

        7. Voony:
          “the 2 curb cut passage you illustrate was pre-existing”
          Of course they were. That was the point. You used a picture of what looks like a 30+ year old wooden staircase to claim that the City had nefarious intentions. I showed you access paths that were built in the past several years. along the same road, by the same Engineering department, and which appear to meet accessibility standards. Can’t do much about the rails in that photo, since CP owned them when the photo was taken. At least they are gone now. Think how good the access will be. And those paved paths, with curb cuts, show the way we are headed. They are positive confirmations of an interest in accessibility. I added the link so that you can use it to advocate for better access at the points you notice.
          You are saying that because the temporary path hasn’t had every access point built to the same standard, that there is no access. That is simply wrong. All of the cross streets have level access, and there are bus stops at those cross streets if that is your concern. As logical fallacies go, yours seems like a false dilemma. This is a temporary path. If the wooden staircase was built when the path was paved, or remained in the final design, then you would have a point.

        8. Jeff, I am no saying that accessibility is not improved by the cycle path, I am saying that “the city has never got the intention to improve access to the arbutus corridor but just wanted to build a cycle track” (see the difference?)
          I am not saying that any access point should be up to the highest standard, I am saying that some access point, and more exactly mid block cross-paths, previously granting some sort of infrastucture (the stairs are in fact still in good shape); because they were providing important connection, be to transit or other destinations, (including the corridor itself), relieving resident of long detour on a daily basis has received no consideration of the city.
          in short as soon as an accessibility issue can’t be used to make the case for the cycle track, the city is ignoring it.
          the cost to blacktop the trail can be measured in $Millions, the cost of a ramp is a drop in this budget. on the eastside of this crosspath, just an extra wheelbarrow of blacktop could have gone a long way too…whether the city priority was to improve accessibility…
          A corollary of this is that if people want to be sincere on the accessibility issue, they should focus on real accessibility barriers such as the one at 20th, instead to lament that the below is not blacktopped ahead of public consultations.
          https://farm9.staticflickr.com/8507/29163419825_ef01e8a710_c.jpg

        9. Chris I guess you refers to the picture at Vanness#Spencer: it is this
          https://www.google.ca/maps/@49.2403271,-123.0368586,3a,75y,70.96h,62.29t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1s-d9CL7Hvc_Xz9al96PJP6A!2e0!7i13312!8i6656!6m1!1e1
          I purposely link to a 2014 streetview to illustrates that the accessibility has been made worst.
          It was not the original Translink plan. The city confirmed to me that it was their work (the land belong neither to the city nor Translink,. BC hydro or the Province, is the owner but not sure)…

        10. Voony, the temporary path has only just been started. I am sure that all connecting paved paths would also have a paved connection to the main path. Vancouver is a super accessible city and it is a bit harsh to criticize them for not doing enough.

  9. Not sure I would claim accessibility has been made worse. There is still a mid-block curb cut at that location (at McHardy), and both ends of the block. Certainly the path is much improved for all users with pavement instead of gravel. Slightly different to be sure, but given there is no sidewalk on the north side of the street one might easily argue the new arrangement is safer, as is encourages people to use the off-street path or north side sidewalk to travel east or west at that location. There’s no public amenities like bus stops or stores between Rupert and McHardy, so what specifically would you say makes the new set-up worse?

    1. Again, I am a bit surprised we have to argue about this:
      * the gravel vs blacktop debate is not about accessibility but rolling comfort and/or personnal taste.
      * a stair is a plain barrier to a wheelchair.
      as soon as a wheelchair user can’t enjoy the same level of connectivity as a walker: the place is not accessible enough,…and in this example, it has been made worse, since the stair free access on Spencer has been gratuitously removed:
      why not have built a ramp instead of a staircase ? How people can try to justify such thing in 2016 ? (the city planner I have talked humbly recognized the city “botched” the job great time,…)
      the view that the wheelchair people can use McHardy access and then roll on the street – no sidewalk on the north and sidewalk on the south is not useable by wheelchair (mighty utility pole)- while bragging that the path has been made better for “other” (cyclist), is in my view not acceptable.
      …It is also and alas a view too many people take on the Arbutus corridor.

      1. I think we’ve had a few people who speak from experience maintain that pavement is better than a gravel path for people using wheelchairs.
        “why not have built a ramp instead of a staircase ?”
        Good question.
        “the view that the wheelchair people can use McHardy access and then roll on the street”
        That’s not what I said. Please reread my comment.
        Again, define how access at this location is made worse — and what it is that people would be accessing here?
        “bragging that the path has been made better for “other” (cyclist),”
        Please don’t put words in my mouth and mischaracterize my remarks. Thanks.

      2. “I am no saying that accessibility is not improved by the cycle path, I am saying that “the city has never got the intention to improve access to the arbutus corridor but just wanted to build a cycle track” (see the difference?)”
        No, because I think you are seeing actions and then reading intentions into those actions that aren’t there. It is only your opinion that the City wanted only a cycle track. If you want to use the staircase as proof, then consider that if the City had built a ramp there, you would have called it a bike ramp. It is not accessible to bikes now, which doesn’t help your claim that it is only a bike path. If you find a sign that says pedestrians and others are not permitted on this multiuse path, then I will agree with you, it is only a bike path. Until then, you are grasping at straws IMO.
        “the gravel vs blacktop debate is not about accessibility but rolling comfort and/or personnal taste”
        Not in the opinion of those most impacted. It isn’t just wheelchairs, but also walking aids, and for many seniors and others, simply walking. I learned this at many sessions with representatives from those groups, for similar paths. I know more about bike paths than other paths, but I do know that if there is a paved bike path and a gravel walking path, side by side, people gravitate onto the paved path. Why do you think that is? Also, I watched people with bikes dismount and walk across the gravel. Why do you think that is? I suggest it is because they are not confident riding on gravel, that they know there is less traction, and more risk of a crash. We should design for all, not just for confident cyclists such as yourself.

        1. If anyone who lives in the Netherlands were to read this they’d be shaking their head in disbelief at such a crazy notion that this city is favouring cyclists over others. It’s just nonsense. Compared to what they do over there, the few things here are peanuts. The City spends a lot of effort to include all modes.
          Another crazy idea they’d say is the idea here that only some people are or ever will be cyclists. Over there nobody is a cyclist because everybody cycles.
          It really looks like Voony is suspicious and seeing things where there isn’t anything. Looking at an unfinished temporary project and reading into it a conspiracy.
          The city’s priorities clearly show pedestrians as the first priority and staff and designers have to follow that. Don’t believe me? Then look around at other projects. Some suspicious people said that the Cornwall and Burrard intersection was a way to have cyclists “lord over” motorists and transit users. Now that the project is done you can see that motorists are very well served (and it’s better to drive there than before) as well as pedestrians. The main difference is that it’s a saner more civil junction where cycling and walking are better. Cyclists are not oppressing any other mode there.
          If you think that cycling isn’t deserving of anything and that the taxes that people who cycle pay are worthless, then ask yourselves just how you got that notion. Who put that idea in your head and when? Is there anything to the idea? Would it serve you better to let go of that idea?

      3. Voony, you have this completely backwards. City has been making amazing strides in terms of making the city accessible from building codes to almost sidewalks on most streets with most of them having dropdowns. Surely new infrastructure should be as accessible as possible. By your argument, we should not put in any new infrastructure until all the old stuff has been upgraded to today’s standard. The city is showing their commitment to accessibility by the planned paving of the temporary path.

    2. No Jeff:, the city uses a consequence of an action to pretend it was the original intention (accessibility), and I challenge that, because whether it was the original intention, the project could have focused less on cycling improvements and more on overall accessibility improvements…you disagree on that, fine, casual observations say another story…
      Then to repeat myself n+1 time, accessibility ≠ blacktop
      https://voony.files.wordpress.com/2016/08/gwl_trail_princegeorge.jpg
      the above trail has been designed with and for the concerned people with mobility challenge. Fact is that gravel/hardpacked trail complying with ADA accessibility standard are failry common in Norh America.
      That people could not like hardpacked surface, for a host of reasons, is another story, but it is not an accessibility barrier (when ADA compliant) – a simple step (greater than 1″ by ADA standard if I remember correctly) is a barrier, plain and simple. If people prefer blacktop over other surfaces, they will have the opportunity to voice their preference at the consultation (what is wrong with a public consultation?)
      if we follow your logic (accessibility = blacktop and “people prefer blacktop when the option exist anyway”), we should then pave Stanley and many other parks: why you and HUB are not lobbying to pave those parks? (it looks you could get great support,… at least from the pricetags followers)
      However, I have already answered to this later point on my blog

      1. The primary cycling paths in those parks are already paved, Voony. Check out the seawall. Why would you treat the Arbutus Greenway differently? It isn’t a park, rather a transportation greenway, but we could compare the two.
        I don’t think it necessarily needs to be paved, it needs to have a hard surface. Paving is a lot cheaper than concrete, and appropriate for a temporary multi use path. The City has recently paved an expanded seawall path (for people on bikes and people walking) along the north side of False Creek, in between Creekside Park and the casino. It is a temporary path, until those lands are developed. Paving was no doubt cheaper than other hard surfaces. Then there is the south False Creek seawall, in between Olympic Village and the Cambie Bridge. New pavement, welcomed by a lot of users. People had to go off the path onto gravel to pass until it was widened. New wider paths coming soon to the False Creek seawall from Cambie Bridge to Burrard Bridge. The public support for that was overwhelming, check out the consultation summary with the feedback from the open houses.
        So yes, hard surfacing paths has received broad support. The opposition has been very small and localized.

      2. I had a look at the GWL trail in Prince George. I wonder why you are using this as an example for a multi use path in Vancouver, and specifically for a MUP which you keep referring to as a bicycle path, when the GWL trail doesn’t allow any bicycles? Apparently it isn’t for all?

      3. The Arbutus Corridor is a transportation corridor that connects the oldest communities in Vancouver and to Richmond. The temporary paved path is a heuristic technique to generate interest and comments. So far the trial has been successful in generating ideas and comments from a small number of citizens. I can hardly wait until all the citizens have their say.
        From a future design point of view a temporary paved corridor will allow engineers to measure the usage in order to guess the final design volumes. That means all users. The volumes and type of users will vary greatly over the length of the corridor.
        This will be a “complex” final design because it involves many different type of users and local design themes along the corridor. The only effective way to approach a complex final design is to initially probe-sense-respond. That is construct a temporary path; observe the usage, look for minor localize problems, encourage feed back from all citizens; and then modify the alternatives. Understand that not everyone will be happy with the final built corridor but hope the majority at least understand the issues.
        Pray that this procedure will result in a world renowned green transportation corridor for all Vancouver citizens and visitors that we all can be proud of.

        1. A old adage said:
          build it and they will come
          and here is why the Stan Ford reasonning is flawed
          Build a bike lane and you will attract many cyclists (that is the reaosn to build bike lanes in the first place, isn’it?)…
          Build a pedestrian promenade with benches and many accesses , you will eventually attract many pedestrian (and especially the one with walker which can hardly walk more than a couple 100meters without needing a rest)…
          What you build commend the result (be relative volume and type of user).
          …Or put in another angle, imagine what could have observed the designer of the NY high line, if they have started to pave all the stuff: a paradise for skate boarders? … who else could have been there to rest on a piece of tarmac void of benches and other niceties? …and still…
          The city approach is just reducing the field of imagination for potential uses of the arbutus corridor (as well as destroying its existing atmosphere):
          according to the city plan, more than 60% of the corridor could have been black topped at Kerrisdale…what is the point to do that?
          does it will allow people to experience the corridor as below?
          http://www.estense.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/05/tango-mura-420×280.jpg
          by the way that is Ferrara, what is considered the Italian bike mecca, more normally their city wall, (their equivalent of the Vancouver seawall) looks like it:
          http://www.visitporiver.it/root_pagine/PG_109/fotogallery/20101101131309bici%20a%20ferrara.jpg
          (I could picture well the above in Kerridsdale)
          However I hope you get the point: the city is trying to favour a certain outcome, and thanksfully, enough citizens have recognized the gross city strategy to have it stopped..
          That said, if London experience is an indication , it is clear a N-S bike “highway” is required in the area, but many alignment possibilities exist for such facilities, and not necessarily in the middle of the greenway hindering its potential for other and more recreational use more inline with the contemporary definition of a greenway.
          so yes, the corridor is long, allowing for many different experience, and let’s hope the public consultation is open enough, to get the best of it.

      4. I am glad you finally recognize that the hard packed trail in Stanley and other park – especially Brunaby central park – are accessible (and many are enjoyed by cyclist). – ditto for the Arbutus corridor
        If many people think the arbutus greenway as a linear park, it is possibly because that is the general understanding of “greenway”, and mainly it is what the city has also “sold” to its citizens:
        https://pbs.twimg.com/media/Cc9zsfwUIAA2JmI.jpg
        Do you means that was a “bait and switch” trick? chocking!
        The GWL trail is a “unversally accessible” trail, and effectively it is common such trail don’t allow cycling (I provide a reason in my blog): I used this example because it is in BC, very recent, and specifically designed with accessibility in mind.
        accessible for all ≠ accessible for all activities.
        the main difference between a wheelchair user and a cyclist, is that in the later case it is a transportation choice, in the former it is a “physical constraint…”.
        Restraining a transportation (be cycling or motoring) mode doesn’t prevent the user of this mode an access by other means (feet), so yes the GWL is accessible to all.
        That said, You and I know in Vancouver, a cycling ban bylaw will not work and we will need to find a way to accomodate cyclists in some ways to ensure maximum comfort for the people with impairments.

        1. Not sure if you are referring to me in your response, Voony, but my definition of hard surface includes pavement, concrete, or paving stones. Gravel isn’t on the list. You could stabilize a gravel surface with the sort of products that some posters were suggesting as an alternative to pavement, but those products are synthetics, eg vinyls, are spray applied, and have a limited life before reapplication is required. Expensive, due to the maintenance requirement, and not more environmentally friendly than pavement, which can at least be recycled. But good in some low traffic areas if a particular look is desired and the cost isn’t important.
          Take a ride up Hanson Trail in Stanley Park. Gravel. Dangerous. When it was proposed as a detour route during path construction by MoTI on the Causeway, the contractor responsible for the traffic management plan inspected it, and I went along. They considered it unsafe. Which is why an alternate path on Pipeline Road and Park Drive was signposted during construction. Professionals worry about liability for recommending unsafe routes.

        2. Jeff, yes it was an answer to you – that is the reason I prefer to use the “hard packed trail” terminology over “gravel”,- and also why I like to use the Burnaby central park example (since I believe the trail surfaces there are of overall better quality than the one of Stanley park – and Stan Ford will notice this pak is in the earth of a dense urban area)
          I plan to write a post on the French experience about hardpacked trail where I will provide the reference supporting the below assertions:
          1/ an asphalted road could be recyclable, but an asphalted road can’t be built integrally of recyclable material, so that it’s environment impact is negative (and since blacktop is not thermically neutral, some people think it has ongoing negative environemtal impact). Hard packed surfaces can be built integrally of recycled material and are generally recognized much more environemtally sustainable.
          2/ French seems to extensively use hydraulically bound mixture triggering a pozzolanic reaction to “cement” their hard packed surface; in short many hard packed looking surface, could be in fact techniclly considered as concrete and their life cycle cost are in the same range as asphalt.
          that could be the case of this one (Paris, Porte de Vincennes)
          https://voony.files.wordpress.com/2016/08/pistecyclable-vincennes.jpg
          notice, this one has “no loose gravel”
          or this one (a beach in Brittany)
          https://voony.files.wordpress.com/2016/08/beach_kerlouan.jpg
          An effort to enable wheelchair user to go right into the beach…Something curiously not possible yet in Vancouver…
          again there is a whole gamut of hard packed surface, and such ones shouldn’t be refused on ideological ground or limited anecdotical experience, but it looks you don’t do that…at the end the trail bed bears more responsaibility that the wearing surface on the long term behavior of a trail…Also, again the point I make is that the surface choice should not distract of the experience while still granting accessibility. That point made, I am not advocating for a specific surface.

        3. Eric, now that is getting into the realm of propaganda. I have never seen anything in any of the Vision city literature that they were interested in racing. They tend to talk about multi-modal transportation, liveable cities, 8 to 80 and stuff like that.
          I disagree that “we all know”… the people I talk to look at the facts and not false beliefs like this.
          Besides, traditionally the racer “Fred” types you’ve pictured are against separate cycling infrastructure. They just use the common roads and would ignore a greenway.

      5. The GWL trail is located in an entirely different setting. It is located 30km from Prince George and is the middle of a forest area. People drive to it and then walk and experience a 0.5 km long forest trail.
        The Arbutus corridor will likely have thousands of users per day and it is located entirely in a dense urban environment. Gravel would be rutted and would need constant repairs to be keep it safe. It must be hard surfaced to be safe for all users.

        1. Well, if there are problems with cyclists and pedestrians on the same path, there is a solution at hand. It was posted here by a poster named susan smith, on Nov 7 2014 at 2:49 pm, discussing a similar situation with a plan for a new paved path at Kits Park. Yes, this is a greenway and not a park, so there should be even more focus on transportation on the Arbutus Greenway, but the issue seems similar:
          “There is no question that separating the cyclists and pedestrians is essential for safety. Where there is enough room to paint a separation, that will be done to fill in the gap of the Greenway. Where an extra path needs to be built for cyclists, that will be done. A pathway through a green space to provide access to that green space is a no-brainer, and it will be done. To suggest that parks should not have pathways for access by all is discriminatory and asinine. What is the point of having green space if it cannot be accessed by everyone?”
          The thread is here:
          https://pricetags.wordpress.com/2014/11/07/green-party-no-more-bike-paths-in-parks/
          There are other gems in that thread as well, all on this topic of building paths. I note these two, also by susan smith:
          “An elected party is given the mandate by the electorate to make changes to the city. There is no requirement for the government to take such matters to court or engage in endless consultation with citizens; if government opts to consult, you should consider yourself extreme lucky and cooperate to get the job done to everyone’s best advantage.”
          “…consultation is a privilege, not a right, and an elected government has the mandate of the public to act on its behalf without endless consultation”
          And that isn’t even getting into the “bike lane Taliban” discussion in the same thread.
          The internet is forever.

    1. Eric is correct in his rendition (photo) of what the Vision Council wants our pathways to look like; Jeff Leigh has confessed in print that he and HUB want cyclists to be able “to ride side by side” on the Arbutus Corridor paved path, and Councillor Deal has stated at a Council meeting that she wants “cyclists all over the road.” Those of us who live on a bike route can provide extensive first hand testimony and video evidence of the excessive speed of cyclists on paved pathways. The current Council refuses to erect “Cyclists Keep to the Right” or “Cyclists Ride Single File” signage which would help to maintain order and equity of shared use space. Readers with a conscience can reach their own conclusions.

      1. You cannot equate a park with a residential street and a democratic government with one that is not. They are not one and the same no matter how much you would like them to be. I support separated bike paths and pedestrian paths in parks only where the volume of cyclists and pedestrian traffic requires them for safety. Otherwise, separated paths unnecessarily remove green space. On city streets, not parks, cyclists travel on the road and pedestrians on the sidewalk; clear and safe separation for the two transportation modes. We do not have the volumes of cyclist or pedestrian traffic to warrant the Arbutus Corridor being used exclusively for either or both modes of transportation. It is expensive, redundant infrastructure on prime land that could be used for housing, sustainable gardens or rapid transit, in short NEEDED components of City Planning. However, if the City insists on this misuse of land, as I am sure this Council will, separation of use is essential, such as with an inexpensive painted line, as is not paving, in order to slow cyclists down for the safety of pedestrians. Further, my concern for safety of both cyclists and pedestrians on the supposedly temporary path that the City has partially paved on the Arbutus Corridor is based on the utter lack of separation, yes, between the two primary types of users and the inevitable conflict that we see on such pathways, as in Kits and Haddon Parks. It is a dangerous concept to view a residential and commercial street as the same as a park; they are separately and distinctly regulated for their obvious differences. The current City Council’s trend to construct extra-wide paved park-like promenades involves extensive green space removal for unnecessary, repetitive, costly infrastructure in only the most affluent areas of the city. This behaviour is not fiscally responsible.

      2. Equity of shared space and your complaint is about bikes??
        I live on a bike route and by far the most dangerous user is the car driver. It’s just a lowly east side bike route though so I get that it’s not the same.

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