September 3, 2016

Arbutus Greenway — Another View

I’m promoting a comment, left anonymously this morning by “robotboy44” on the post “Arbutus Greenway:  What’s Up?”.  The writer questions the definition of “Greenway”, and argues that Vancouver has a choice on the Arbutus Corridor between a “bike freeway” and a “nature based stroll”, sort of like Pacific Spirit Park, but nevertheless reminiscent of “. . . the way it was.”
Personally, I feel that we need to ensure that a broad cross-section of the public has the opportunity to visit, ride, stroll or wheel along the corridor before we set a specific concept in …  er… ah…  cement (as it were).


robotboy44 writes:
This is very clearly a partisan space in support of the “bike freeway” position on all things path related, so pardon me for sharing another view, but I will.
It’s a cheap and baseless dig to characterize opposition to the paving as the “creme de la creme”. That kind of comment speaks more to your prejudice than it does a desire for thoughtful discussion and appreciation for a point of view which is not your own, so how about we try here to avoid these kind of assertions and instead discuss the issues.
People were upset about the paving because it seemed wholly inconsistent with the promise to discuss and listen to the people about how to treat the “greenway”. It was called a greenway and references were made to the NY Highline, which is not paved and not a fast bike route, but a leisurely stroll with amazing views. The Arbutus Greenway will never be the Highline because it’s not in NY, it runs along Arbutus. Very different experience, although I should think that does not need to be said. The term “greenway” even implies a more rustic, nature based experience. At least to me.
The previous use of the AB was more rustic and characterful. The feeling from many was that some of that character would be retained in creating the new user experience. Perhaps a kind of Pacific Spirit Park approach with green and a natural feel. On the other hand, biking proponents feel that the logical approach is to make it as clean and efficient a bike path as possible, so that means asphalt. No time for dirt getting on tires or gears.
Other bikers, like myself, really enjoy the more leisurely pace of a path much like the one at Kits Point or Jericho Beach or Pacific Spirit Park. If your goal is to make an active transportation corridor to get from A to B, then clearly asphalt is the way to go, but it’s clear that there are many who did not see the “greenway” in those terms.
So why the upset about the asphalt, which was called “temporary”? Because it felt like a very surprising move given the plan to consult and listen. Also, given the cities spotty reputation with listening, it felt like a decision had been made. In my opinion, people were rightly offended by this move.
I have my views about how the greenway should look and feel, but honestly, If there is true, broad consultation and it is felt that it should be primarily a bike commuter path rather than a more nature based stroll more reminiscent of the way it was, then so be it, but it seems reasonable to hear from the public before paving it. And in the mean time, I hope we can avoid characterizing people with baseless insults about their interests, financial well being or proximity to Arbutus.

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. Despite it being called a greenway, it is first and foremost a transportation corridor and zoned as such. There was a consultation process years ago on the rezoning. So transportion is the primary purpose. This is consistent with other greenway s such as Ontario Street which is primarily residential and transportation yet incorporates green aspects such as plantings benches, trees etc.

    1. I guess the connotation of “greenway” means different things to different people. Despite how it was zoned, it is clearly being presented as something which will be newly designed. Maybe it will be for transportation, but the notion of a light rail train has been as good as taken off the table. The city was very clear about wanting input on any decision about how to build this “greenway” and that could include paving, or not paving. It really depends on the ultimate goal, but as I say, “greenway” is a confusing term which seems to suggest to some, nothing more than “no cars” in order to justify the moniker and to others, a literal green space in terms of surroundings and surface, which paving seems inconsistent with.

      1. Maybe the term greenway is confusing to some, but the city does a good job of describing greenways: http://vancouver.ca/streets-transportation/greenways-for-walking-and-cycling.aspx
        “Greenways provide beautiful urban connections to important destinations throughout Vancouver for pedestrians and cyclists.”
        As for the Arbutus Greenway, here is what the city says about it:
        “Our agreement with CP ensures that residents can continue to use the transportation corridor and greenway as a walking and cycling route. Learn more about the purchase agreement.
        When complete, the Arbutus Greenway will let you walk or cycle continuously from Marpole in South Vancouver to False Creek. The greenway will be a great benefit to the people of Vancouver and a major attraction for tourists.”
        BTW, it is not just the City of Vancouver that uses this definition, it is used by the region as well, hence the name for the Central Valley Greenway, which is another great paved cycling and walking route.

        1. Thanks for that info. So I suppose the term green, in this context, just means non motorized. In that sense, Pacific Spirit Park is not a greenway as it is less about “urban connections” and more about the experience of the journey.
          Still, I think there is a lot of room for interpretation about what a greenway which accommodates cycling and walking, should look like. The initial paving shocked a lot of people and so it could come down to just poor handling by the city.
          Interestingly, a cyclist writes online about the Central Valley GW here: https://averagejoecyclist.com/central-valley-greenway-cvg-guide/
          Note that he describes the unpaved section as one of the nicest parts of the trail, so here another cyclist feels, as I do, that paving is not always the preferred option.
          https://averagejoecyclist.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/06/Central-Valley-Greenway-green-part-750.jpg

        2. I agree with Joe,that the section of the CVG along the river is one of the nicest sections, but in my case I would say that is in spite of the poor surface treatment, and certainly not because of it. As Joe notes, it is rough and not suitable for,road bikes. I take it sometimes, and other times just take Lougheed Hwy, due to the gravel surface on the CVG. It is a trade off, poor gravel surface vs traffic.

        3. Robotboy44, Sure, some people riding bikes may sometimes prefer gravel, but my experience is that most prefer pavement. Also, some walkers may sometimes prefer gravel but my observations are that when there are parallel paved cycling paths and gravel walking paths, almost all walkers use the paved cycling path! This is very noticeable on the BC Parkway and also in Vondel Park in Amsterdam where there is a 6m wide paved cycling path flanked by 2 three metre wide gravel walking path and almost everybody uses the paved cycling path to the point where it becomes impossible to safely pass the groups of walkers.

      2. I thought the term greenway describes a corridor that has many trees, shrubs, flowers or other natural elements. If it was meant to be a natural space there shouldn’t be a path at all. As far as I can tell many, if not most greenways in Metro Vancouver are paved to make them accessible for everybody.
        Not paving a greenway will mainly keep out people with walkers and in wheelchairs, who already have poor infrastructure along streets and few accessible parks.

  2. I agree that people shouldn’t be called names. The initial reaction brought those locals’ voices to the table and I hope that they stay there and continue to have input. They’re not the only voice but they will be living near it so it needs to be something they’re happy with.
    I disagree that it being a transportation corridor and a stroll are incompatible. We have several examples right here in town where the same route serves both (and more) purposes.
    I really liked the unkempt natural look of how it was when the tracks were still there. It was like being out in the country. I hope that look is included in the final design as an aesthetic theme.

    1. Hey, you win some donuts Veggie. Don’t eat them all at once. I wonder who CanadianVeggie is?
      As regards your assertion that I have “opposed every greenway”, sorry, but that is pure nonsense. I opposed the paving of the limited green space I love at Kits Beach Park and Hadden Park, but I fully support any number of bike routes, paths and greenways because I too am a cyclist (and a walker and a driver, by the way). I want good biking infrastructure in the city, but that doesn’t mean that each and every bike route is appropriate or necessary in a city with so many existing designated bike routes on quiet residential streets.
      What CanadianVeggie shows in this comment is an “us against them” mentality. That is, I’m not entitled to a view without being characterized as a person who just opposes everything. Even my post above says that I would be okay with a paved option for AB if that’s where it goes, so how does that justify your assertion?

      1. I fully support any number of bike routes, paths and greenways
        Could you name some? Which greenway have you voiced support for?
        I did a cursory Google search and I could only find you voicing opposition to bike paths and suicide barriers. Funnily enough there is a David Fine in Connecticut who strongly supports cycling infrastructure.
        That is, I’m not entitled to a view without being characterized as a person who just opposes everything.
        One of the major observations I had interacting with or watching the “Save Kits Point” spokespeople in action was that anyone who voiced support for the separated bike path was characterized as “in the pay” of Vision Vancouver.
        No one, in other words, would support it unless they were paid to do so.
        However that is an ancient battle.

        1. It is an ancient battle, but there were certainly pretty nasty, baseless things said by the bike path proponents about people who opposed the path too, so it’s not really fair to single out stuff you may have heard coming from just one side. Grey haired, NIMBY, NPA shills… It goes both ways, unfortunately.
          As regards my support for bike infrastructure, I am simply telling you here that I do support it and I have made the point on numerous occasions. I’m not on the streets doing that, but it’s clear that there are enough HUB members and others who do that, so you don’t need me.

      2. My gravatar links to my blog that has way too much personal details on it. There’s no secret who I am.
        I too would love to know what greenway or bike infrastructure you have voiced your support for. It was you and Elvira Lount leading the opposition to the changes to the seawall in Hadden Park/Kits Beach. Then there was opposition to Point Grey Road Greenway. A petition to oppose a seawall along the foreshore along Kits Beach. And now you’re leading the charge against the Arbutus Greenway. I’m sure I’m not the only one who sees a pattern there.

        1. Yes, I opposed the destruction of the stunning Kits Beach foreshore, which is enjoyed by so many who do not want it turned into a paved bike route. I also opposed Kits Beach paving, as is well known. The notion that I am “leading the charge” against the Arbutus Greenway is very surprising considering my publicly stated support for it to be whatever the public chooses. Why do you persist with such things?
          You can find patterns, but to makes assumptions about my wider views, who I am and what I stand for is inappropriate anymore than me making assumptions about your views. I support the general principal of bike routes and safe biking, but it may appear that I am opposed because we have a city admin which, in my view, has a disproportionate position on the subject and they are the ones in power, so I am inclined to comment on what they are doing and the way they represent the need for bike paths. The process the then Vision controlled Park Board used to try to push through the bike path was totally disingenuous and dishonest too, and that was a big part of what the protest was about as well. Of course, I still do not believe that a 12′ wide asphalt path is preferred to green space in a small, heavily used park area.
          Opposition to the Point Grey Road closing was a multi faceted issue, not strictly about a bike path.

      3. My gravatar links to my blog that has way too much personal details on it. There’s no secret who I am.
        You and Elivra Lount lead the opposition to the Hadden Park/Kits Beach improvements. You opposed the Point Grey Greenway. There’s the petition you and Elvira created against a seawall along the foreshore near Kits Beach. And now you’re leading the charge against the Arbutus Greenway. So, I’d too love to know what bikeway or greenway improvements you’ve supported, because I see a consistent pattern of opposition.

        1. Yeah, Twitter is not the best place for substantive dialogue. I find it a frustrating social media platform, so my comment is limited to my view about the letter being very one sided and that’s it. That’s Twitter, right?

        2. And I stand behind my general comment about 5Kids 1Condo’s letter. Again, he characterizes opposition as “the privileged few” who just want their own personal gardens. It’s a baseless and tiresome characterization and I tend to see it coming mostly from one direction. I have never impuned the background of people who’s opinions I disagree with, so why do we hear it so often coming from that side of the argument?

        3. Again, he characterizes opposition as “the privileged few” who just want their own personal gardens.
          That that’s an unfair characterization is your opinion. I think the general public remembers well that this was the neighbourhood that opposed the rapid transit line eventually built on Cambie by describing themselves with terms such as “creme de la creme.” [Cenus data shows that Shaughnessy & Kerrisdale are two of this city’s wealthiest neighourhoods].
          It may be a characterization you disagree with, but it doesn’t make it selfish.
          On that note, I find characterizing statements like:
          “Wheelchairs, strollers, bikes and all manners of active transportation used by people of all abilities should be accommodated on this path”
          and
          “I have a gaggle of kids of my own that I would love to bike the path with – the youngest being 4 yrs old”
          …as an expressions of selfishness to be wrongheaded and misguided.
          Apropos of nothing, here is a picture I took of a woman and her child cycling the Arbutus Greenway yesterday:
          https://www.flickr.com/photos/jamesandannie/29194410690
          The child was heard telling his mother when they hit the paved portion saying “This is much easier!”
          I suppose I could be making that up but I assure you I am not.
          And here is a photo of the state of the path at 10th Ave showing the broken glass that is common on the portions of the path which have had no work, and which Youtube videos that romanticized the “wild” state of decaying railways declined to show.
          https://www.flickr.com/photos/jamesandannie/28858734744

        4. While enjoying a ride on the magnificent paved Railway Greenway in Richmond the other day, I saw an elderly person using an empty wheelchair as a walker slowly ambling along the path. I’m sure he would not be there had the path not been paved. The delay in this project which was engineered by a tiny group is certainly selfish and is affecting the ability of many residents to enjoy the path until a costly and unnecessary consultation process is completed for the design of this temporary path.

        5. Spartikus, you can cherry pick comments to support your view, and I could do that same, but I am saying that it is inappropriate to ascribe baseless views about the background of people whom hold a differing opinion about the Arbutus Greenway.
          I can’t understand why anyone who lives near it would be predisposed to be against the paving anymore than someone who is further away. It’s really just a matter of opinion about how it should be designed rather than a NIMBY or creme de la creme thing. I’m glad that mother and child was enjoying the path. Again, if this is what is determined as the best option, then fine. No one is suggesting that a broken glass based path is a good idea.
          I was offended by his characterization of the opposition and that was what I was reacting to. It’s very nice he wants it to be accessible for all, but you can’t write baseless insults and then get a free pass because you show sympathy for people with strollers.

        6. I’m not saying you distort his meaning. I’m saying that his letter shows vitriol towards people who have a different view, but your quotes do not show that. That’s all. My tweet referred to the fact that he was dismissive and disparaging of other views and in that sense, selfish. I may disagree with you, but I don’t make accusations about your background or intentions and that’s my point here. I am for respectful dialogue, not name calling and I have heard so much name calling directed towards people who have a view about a bike path. None of it fits who I am or some of the people I know who have their views as well.

  3. I apologize re unfortunate characterization but isn’t it equally inflammatory to call a paved multi-use path which allows for maximum accessibility during the consultation period a “bicycle freeway”? I encourage the writer to visit the Railway Greenway in Richmond which is enjoyed by a great variety of people and argue that this is in any way a “bicycle freeway”.
    Wouldn’t even more people be offended if the city had created a temporary gravel path instead, thereby making it less accessible or totally inaccessible to many residents of Vancouver?
    Why insist on an expensive consultation process for a temporary path?

    1. Arno wrote: “Why insist on an expensive consultation process for a temporary path?”
      Exactly! And why halt construction on a temporary path when the consultation for the final solution has already been planned?

    2. The big difference Arno is that the Railway Greenway is absolutely flat. Given any grade there is a large subset of cyclists who will be unable to resist the temptation to see how fast they can go. Just the like the two guys I witnessed on a lycra-clad bro-date who were hurtling down Park Drive from Prospect Point to Third Beach yesterday. It’s just human nature. At least they were on a roadway where the most damage would be caused to themselves, a walkway would be a different story.

      1. So this means that in the final design there should be some separation from the walking part and the cycling/skateboarding part.
        Okay, so that’s one design element figured out.

      2. Bob, so how fast were the cars hurtling down the hill? This is a steep road, not a multi-use path. There are many successful multi-use paths on hills throughout Metro Vancouver. The steepest one is in Hume Park and is probably over 10% grade. Central Valley Greenway Winston Overpass is about 5% grade. No death and injury as far as I know. For Arbutus Greenway, we are talking 2% maximum grade – it us pretty close to flat. Final design will probably be separated between walking and cycling. I predict that by popular demand, even the walking portion will be hard surface. This fear of people riding bikes is really overblown.

      3. Bob – closer to home we have the Cambie Bridge sidewalk and the Canada Line Bridge multi-use path (MUP). Cambie Bridge is very busy with people happily walking and cycling. The biggest problem is the lack of a stripe in order to separate directions but even so, everyone works it out. As far as I know, more bike riders receive injuries on MUPs than do people walking. I recall one death as well. One might suggest that the people who are walking are the hazard.

        1. I think the Cambie sidewalk is approaching a tipping point as a shared cycle/pedestrian path. It often requires pretty constant attention of both cyclists and pedestrians to avoid mishaps. Pedestrians often move unexpectedly as they chat to their friends (and why shouldn’t they), and some cyclists aren’t as considerate as they could be in coming up behind groups.
          It’s interesting how pedestrians now choose between at least three different ways to cross the bridge. Some keep right, which means they have unseen cyclists coming up behind them. Others keep left, so they are more likely to see approaching cyclists and less likely to be clipped from behind (I tend to choose that option when I walk across). And others walk determinedly in the middle, presumably with the idea that ‘claiming the lane’ may be the safest overall approach.
          It still works overall, but possibly only because it’s perceived as a relatively short segment between more separated routes at either end of the bridge. On the downhill sidewalk at the north end just before Expo Blvd however it can get a little hairy, with bikes accelerating down the slope and also having to merge left across pedestrian traffic onto the roadway, while trying to avoid a streetlight pole! Pedestrians sometimes look/feel like deer in the headlights…

        2. I think the Cambie Bridge MUP is well past that tipping point. Improvements are slated to be coming soon, for the benefit and safety of people walking and people on bikes.
          In the meantime, most pedestrians understand to walk on the right. They aren’t facing traffic, on a multiuse path they are traffic. The conflicts occur when the majority of pedestrians are on the right, and there are one or a few on the left, creating conflicts. If there is just one on the left, it is easy to cycle around them. A centre line would help while it is an MUP, but when one direction of cycling is removed a painted pedestrian/cycling divider would help.

        3. The “keep right except to pass” principle “should” work best, because those passing have the responsibility to determine if the oncoming direction is free of pedestrians or cyclists and pull out into the oncoming “lane” when it’s free to do so (i.e. the “middle” is a two-way passing lane).
          That’s what I do when jogging on the Cambie Bridge and shared portion of the False Creek seawall.
          Of course, there are always those who are oblivious to anyone else around them.

        4. On the Cambie Bridge there seems to be two different ways to look at it. One is the usual keep right except to pass. The other is a carry over from the Seawall where you walking is closer to the water (the bridge railing) and cycling is more inland. This works fine except the benches are inland.
          What once worked when the population was lower now no longer does. It needs a redesign. (In fact the entire area up to 7th and over to Yukon and Cypress needs a redesign.)

        5. On the Seawall, walking and cycling are marked as to which side to use, Inland or seaside. On the Cambie Bridge, the markings to keep right are soft instructions, in that the bike and walk symbols are all to the right of the centre point, but there are no arrows which would make it clearer to users.
          It will all be somewhat better with the new dedicated and protected southbound bike lane on the bridge.

        6. The south bound bike lane will help for going south but for north bound cycling many still will used the shared path on the east side.
          I say, remove the benches and put a stripe down the middle. That’ll give us a few more years until something else can be done.

        7. Northbound, agreed, most people,on bikes will not be out on the road. At least if it is unidirectional for bikes there is a case for a centreline and separated lanes for bikes and peds, even if they are only separated by paint. At least until they build a physically separated bike lane in the future as vehicle traffic continues to decline.

      4. Indeed. In fact even where there are separated paths for pedestrians and cyclists, my observation is that the cyclists usually stick to their own side while pedestrians are all over the place and often change directions unexpectedly. I’m pretty sure most cyclists have the same experience and that is why we approach pedestrians with caution.
        BUT – it doesn’t matter who’s “fault” it is that conditions are unsafe – the job of the infrastructure is to minimize the conflicts. And a separated path is the best way to do it. Because at the end of the day nobody should expect that cyclists are going to be simply banned from the corridor.

        1. If the occasional freak collision happens then you can try to lay blame on individuals but if it happens often or near misses happen often then it’s obviously systemic and you have to look at the design of the place and how it’s been (unintentionally) designed to create conflict. In the past the response to this would be to ban all modes of travel except automobiles. Today that is no longer acceptable. People want their public spaces to be designed so that conflicts don’t happen. They want to be able to go somewhere in a reasonable amount of time without causing a problem to others or others cause a problem to them.

      5. Bob, the slope on this former railway corridor does not exceed 6%, and I doubt the steepest parts arrive even at that. The code allows a maximum of 8% for universal accessibility, albeit with a level spot every 10m. Arbutus Street south of 33rd is far steeper. This helps explain the corridor’s longer and more circuitous route.
        Railway corridors are ideal for universally accessible public greenways. This old industrial corridor is wider than most greenways, and I am confident that there is room for both a decent multi-use path and decent planting along it’s edges.

  4. Regardless of one’s personal definition of this Greenway, it is simply a fact that many people with mobility challenges can not use a gravel path. Having spent some time in a wheel chair I can distinctly remember rutting into gravel and thinking “how the F does someone more challenged than me do this”. I just had a temporarily broken leg and was otherwise young and strong. This btw is not my pet topic. But I think we are defined by how we treat those less able in our world. And it is a sobering reminder that in the building world it isn’t even legal anymore not to make public buildings accessible. I’ts not just a nice-to-have.

  5. The Highline is not gravel and the city has always stated that Arbutus would be for cycling and walking.
    The name calling is certainly not appropriate but it is not great that many in is part of the city don’t seem to consider that other people want to safely use the Greenway. It does not take much research to determine that a hard surface is the best option. There is a duty to be well informed. That’s how we come up with the best solutions and avoid divisive arguements.

    1. Yes. Things should be evidence based and not just because of notions or fears. Are people being “plowed down” on the Seawall where there’s both asphalt and separation from the waling path? There have been none.

        1. The goal of course is zero (In the Vision Zero movement) injuries or fatalities which means two is too many but when you compare to other modes of travel that’s a very good safety record.

        2. As I’ve stated before, I jog that portion of the Seawall each day and was nearly hit by a cyclist who refused to yield not 20 yards from where the elderly gentleman was hit. However, it was clear to me this particular cyclist was a homeless person and mental health was an issue. I strongly suspect this was a factor in the incident cited.
          There have been two recorded pedestrian fatalities in Vancouver caused by cyclists since 2010.
          Meanwhile, in BC, “there are 1.2 motor vehicle fatalities and 18 motor vehicle injury-related hospitalizations per day.”
          http://www.injuryresearch.bc.ca/ http://www.injuryresearch.bc.ca/quick-facts/motor-vehicle/
          Regardless of the statistically minimal incidents between cyclists and pedestrians, separating modes is a good idea.

        3. And the tourist from Virginia, Charmaine Mitchell, that suffered extensive injuries after being whacked by a cyclist while walking in Stanley Park is suing the city.

        4. Fair enough, it’s not many but it’s not many that jump off the Burrard Bridge either and we’re spending millions to force a couple of people a year to find another bridge.

  6. Living so far away in Burnaby, I don’t much care what happens to the corridor. I admit to low-grade irritation that a scrap of pavement in the corner of the region attracts so much attention, as though little exists beyond the boundaries of the City. But that’s not my point.
    I neither agree nor disagree with the substance of robotboy44’s argument, but I do want to salute him for expressing a willingness to listen and to lose gracefully:
    “I have my views about how the greenway should look and feel, but honestly, If there is true, broad consultation and it is felt that it should be primarily a bike commuter path rather than a more nature based stroll more reminiscent of the way it was, then so be it, but it seems reasonable to hear from the public before paving it.”
    I think our society suffers immensely from a lack of listening. It honours this blog when other points of view like this are elevated. (I was particularly impressed when Thomas Beyer, with whom I seldom agree, was made guest editor.) I suspect I am not alone, but comments basically exist to disagree so it is seldom said.

  7. I’m one of those who thought the City was unwise in starting to asphalt the AG without separating bikes and pedestrians. It is potentially very fast for bikes in some places, and unsafe for the mixing of bikes and pedestrians in some locations as well given the grades. It seemed an odd choice for an ‘interim design’, and I’m speaking as a daily cyclist albeit an older one.
    But the idea that the AG would not ultimately be a reasonably efficient transportation corridor for bicycles (i.e. paved) seems unthinkable to me given its potential. Surely separating bikes and pedestrians, to varying degrees in different locations similar to the Seawall, is a reasonable approach.
    I suspect the majority of pedestrian users will likely opt for paving on the pedestrian side as well, but that’s to be seen. But there’s no reason why the design on the pedestrian side can’t be softer, in surface and/or edge treatments. The opportunity for regular seating areas and a more engaging and interactive landscaping approach on one side of the right-of-way makes for a very interesting design brief. And on the bike side, we’re only talking about 6-8 feet of asphalt, used by largely silent bicycles – not exactly a ‘freeway’.

    1. The beginning of the second paragraph would have been better phrased as:
      ‘But the idea that the AG would not ultimately INCLUDE a reasonably efficient transportation corridor for bicycles …’ 🙂

  8. I got my first chance to ride part of the corridor today, from 37th down to around 12th. I personally was looking forward to some nice, calm downhill riding away from traffic. One concern I’ve read on this blog is that it would turn into a “cycling highway”, and having now rode it, I can say that is pretty much a red herring. There are just too many streets intersecting the route to get up any substantial speed, even on the paved parts. Even when the corridor does have the right of way you have to be cautious. I almost got hit by a car that blatantly drove through a stop sign around 32nd. I guess cars are not used to having anybody on the arbutus corridor and just ignore the traffic signs around it; hopefully that will change as more people start to use it. Near there I also almost got hit by a dog off leash; I wonder dogs off leash will be allowed in the final design.
    The gravel from 37th down to when the paved section starts is horrendous, like driving on ice.
    I was also surprised how unfinished everything was; between 16th and broadway there is an intersection almost every block, with big gaps and dips near the road making biking almost impossible. I recall a picture of one staircase on this blog as an example of, I don’t know what exactly — lack of accessibility? — but now having ridden it, it’s clear that this is still very much a work in progress, gravel or no. Anybody with accessibility concerns will be hard pressed to go on any of the non-paved parts at all, or even cross many of the streets where the gravel or pavement is unfinished on either side.
    Before riding on it, I was dreaming of the kind of greenway they have at the lower Seymour reserve, out to the fish hatchery. A beautiful, paved road that is closed to cars and is used by all sorts of people. But clearly, this is a different sort of greenway, intersecting many busy streets. You are never going to be away from traffic for long, paved or no. Hats off to the designers of this route; they have their work cut out for them.

  9. Gulley, the road crossings will indeed present a very significant design challenge. This is where brightly-coloured markings, textured paving, pedestrian-scale lighting, signage and new signals at major crossings will become essential.

  10. Underlying the debate regarding the design of the Arbutus Greenway will be the debate in 20 years time when the corridor may be built out with a streetcar or LRT route (i.e. “transportation” and “greenway” corridor (not just bike or pedestrian corridor).
    The Arbutus corridor zoning bylaw lists “transportation” as (i) rail; (ii) transit; and (iii) cyclist paths (but excluding motor vehicles and SkyTrain) and “greenway” as pedestrian paths (including urban, environmental demonstration, heritage and nature trails) and cyclist paths.
    http://former.vancouver.ca/commsvcs/BYLAWS/odp/ac.pdf
    Hopefully the reintroduction of rail transit will be at grade (because that takes advantage of the consolidated right-of-way which eliminates many of the road crossings and helps keep the capital costs down.
    If you think the sh!t is hitting the fan now, wait until rail is re-introduced.

    1. And the exclusion of SkyTrain is where the creme de la creme comment is relevant. It will be a miracle if rail of any type is re-established.

    2. I’ve thought that it would have been better for the lands to lay fallow in the hands of CP (until needed for transit use) rather than be “developed” as a public amenity by the City.

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