September 20, 2016

Point Grey Road -Work In Progress

City crews and contractors busy replacing sewer system pipes — all part of the plan for PGR II.

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. I think the photos illustrate a point that Council heard and considered in their vote on the Phase 2 improvements, namely that there was going to be significant utility work on this street whatever happened afterwards with the pavement, curbs, and sidewalks. Given the extent of the construction, doing the phase 2 improvements as part of this work made great sense. It isn’t like they are changing existing infrastructure that was ‘just fine’, rather they are digging it up and then putting new infrastructure back, and it is a case of whether that replacement would look just like the old pavement/curb/sidewalk or whether they would take this opportunity to do it better.
    Kudos to the City for improving this route.

    1. There is no association or justification whatsoever for using urgent sewer upgrades as an excuse and cover for building the utter obscenity of an “inland seawall” on a local residential road. The tax dollars spent on concreting an extra-wide Stanley Park sidewalk on non-seaside Point Grey Road that already has 3 sidewalks all over standard width is millions of tax dollars wasted that are desperately needed on the East side and in other parts of the City. There is no counter argument to this fact. Where is the logic? Not just residents of Point Grey Road, but all users of the road express daily the travesty of this wastage and the disgusting nepotism of just paying back Chip Wilson for his Vision and HUB financial support by building him his own Lulu Lemon Venice Beach promenade outside his home, extending his frontage. Indeed, the City attempted to extort $80,000 out of each homeowner to put the hydro poles and utilities underground until BC Hydro got wind of the scheme this past week and shouted “foul!” Why was the City attempting to steal $40,000 or more per Point Grey Road homeowner by lying to them about the cost? Yet another cover-up laid bare. If the City goes ahead and builds the inland seawall on Point Grey Road, knowingly endangering pedestrians and cyclists by narrowing roadways and preventing safe accessibility to driveways, each and every personal injury and death will result in a multi-million dollar lawsuit against the City and its engineers, and Vision will be forced to account for the unnecessary, costly and unsafe infrastructure. Is that where we want our tax dollars to go, defending City Hall fruitlessly for egotistically creating more and more redundant and unsafe roadways, all in the name of bikes? I hope you cyclists have very deep pockets.

    2. All NPA Councillors voted against Phase 2 as a waste of money and unsafe, redundant infrastructure: look at the online live video stream of the May 4, 2016 vote by the City Councillors on Phase 2. Fact.

      1. If the Greenway continues to get great reviews after Phase 2 improvements are completed, those councillors may not thank you for reminding the public of how they voted.

        1. “continues to get great reviews” — from whom? You cyclists only. Phase 1 has received numerous complaints and has a myriad of problems. Phase 2 will be even worse as experts have determined that it will be unsafe. Vancouver is made up of a lot more individual thinkers and users than you bloc of cyclists, and roadways, including Greenways, are not supposed to be intended for cyclists alone; they have to work for pedestrians, motorists and residents also. Councillors who realize this will be reelected. Those who do not, won’t. My efforts are typically thankless overtly; that is nothing new. But, if I can protect my fellow person, that is all the thanks I need.

    3. I agree with Jeff. Kudos to the city for using our tax dollars wisely and for making the roads safe for all users. I would have expected all Councillors to support this project. Those Councillors who expect to get political points by opposing good projects will not get too many votes in the next election.

      1. Arno, Point Grey Road has been declared “unsafe” and “likely to cause casualties” by independent Transportation Engineers, so your support for it makes no sense according to your own comment. Indeed, the Councillors who voted against Phase 2 explained that safety and not wasting money on redundant infrastructure were their primary reasons for rejecting the project. Having these priorities is essential for public support.

        1. How many independent Transportation Engineers prepared reports?
          Did you file them with the CoV?
          Where can we review the reports addressing the safety of the CoV redevelopment plans?
          If the reports had warned of safety issues, Professional Engineers are required by their code to notify in writing the City of their concerns.

        2. @Stan Ford:
          I believe the “independent engineering report” constantly being cited is the one mentioned at 20:40 of this video from the the May 4th, 2016 council meeting:
          http://civic.neulion.com/cityofvancouver/index.php?clipid=3494621,005
          As far as I can make out the engineer – Geoffrey Ho – was commissioned to do a report on a single individual’s driveway, wherein he concluded the danger to pedestrians from a car exiting this particular driveway was “relatively higher compared to existing conditions”. Which could mean anything, such as going from 1 in a million to 1 in 999,999. It’s the individual, Arthur Silber, who draws the conclusion this applies to other driveways.
          In the video segment there is nothing quoted from the engineer about the route itself being unsafe or “likely to cause casualties”.

        3. At the council meeting, residents presented a report from their “transportation engineer”. City engineers, in response, explained the responsibilities of P.Engs, and reported on their follow up with the contracted engineer. Some items of note: the independent report did not look at traffic counts, but rather sight lines, and on the driveways, not the streets. The differences were discussed between the engineers, and the private engineer agreed to the public reporting of the summary.
          While the City has the private report, susan has posted that if we as individuals want to see it we need to do an FOI request with the City. Given that the issues raised in the report have been addressed and discussed with the contract engineer, and reported on to Council, that doesn’t seem worth it. Maybe someone else wants to request it, and post it.
          All of this is documented on the City video of the council meeting. But to see it you have to watch susan say all the ridiculous things she is posting here.

        4. What Spartikus said.
          Also, “It’s the individual, Arthur Silber, who draws the conclusion this applies to other driveways.” And it is susan who draws the conclusion that this applies to the roadway.
          A straightforward solution has been discussed for those drivers challenged by backing up their driveways. Back down, drive up. They would have a clear view of any pedestrians when they pulled up before backing in, and improved vision when driving out.

      2. Of course you agree with Jeff — you all advocate only for cyclists, but this narrow-mindedness is not realistic or meaningful because it defies evident diversity; you are not Vancouver, just one minority group.

        1. The widen sidewalks are for pedestrians. Since the vast majority of the Vancouver citizens are pedestrians, the improved facilities will serve all citizens not just a minority.

      3. I don’t see how you see this as using tax dollars wisely. The sidewalks are already wider than standard and are lightly used anyway. Go down there any day, like today, beautiful September day, and you will see barely anyone and if you stop and ask people walking if they feel that trees and shrubs and such should be torn up to make a wider sidewalk, they look at you like you are crazy. I have asked many and never found anyone who feels that there is a need to spend millions doing this kind of work.
        And really, there are road works needed on any number of residential streets, but this is not attended to in favour of this pet project. NPA councillors voted against because they see what so many see, that it is totally unnecessary work and especially when there are other more important fiscal needs.
        As regards engineers reports, really, it doesn’t take an engineer to understand the safety issues in a car backing up blind from an incline into a sidewalk. How is that even a point of discussion? The driver cannot see as he/she backs out because their view is blocked because they are on an incline. And why are they on an incline? Because previously the city mandated that garages had to be built below grade.

        1. I was not making a judgment call on the decision to go ahead with the project. My point is that the majority of our citizens in Vancouver not just for people who bike will be able to use it.

  2. Incorrect, Spartikus, Jeff and others. Independent traffic engineers have done safety and accessibility studies on many of the driveways on Point Grey Road, not just one driveway, and have concluded that they will be unsafe if Phase 2 is implemented. Many other very telling errors in your posts related to the reports confirm that you have not seen or read the reports in question. It is just silly and meaningless to comment on things you know nothing about. You appear foolish. What you could comment on but haven’t is the utter lack of safety/accessibility reports provided by the City for Phase 2. Shouldn’t you wonder why no safety studies were done for the project prior to recommending it to Council for approval? Why aren’t you bothered by that fact? Especially since safety was called into question (putting it mildly) by independent Transportation Engineers. Apparently, you think your Council’s spending $6.4 million on a 9-block redundant sidewalk is more important than a mere pittance of a few hundred dollars on even one safety study to determine whether or not the project will kill people. Priority check(mate).

    1. If you hired an engineer to write a report on multiple driveways, for a few hundred dollars, at the rates a registered professional engineer would charge, it must be a pretty thin report.
      You could resolve all this by posting your report publicly. But maybe you are worried about what it would show. Sort of like Trump and his tax returns.

      1. I did not say that residents paid hundreds; I said that the City could pay hundreds. It is none of your business what residents paid for engineers’ reports. The report is in the public domain; indeed, we want citizens to know that the Phase 2 project is unsafe. Stop being lazy, and get it yourself. I’m not your secretary.

    2. My comment was addressed to your following statement: “If the City goes ahead and builds the inland seawall on Point Grey Road, knowingly endangering pedestrians and cyclists by narrowing roadways and preventing safe accessibility to driveways, each and every personal injury and death will result in a multi-million dollar lawsuit against the City and its engineers, and Vision will be forced to account for the unnecessary, costly and unsafe infrastructure”
      I am very concerned that you holding back evidence that Professional Engineers have written reports that that state that “deaths” will occur. Unless you release them to the public, the future victims and their families should hold you also personally responsible for the future deaths of cyclists and pedestrians.

      1. As already stated, Stan, the information is in the public domain, not hidden, so the only ones to be sued for the injuries and deaths will be this Council and its Transportation Engineers.

        1. The issue isn’t who has the copyright. The issue is whether the report is publicly available. Up until now, you have refused to make it available. What are you afraid of?

      2. If no one can supply a link to an engineering report, then we can only conclude that it does not exist or that its contents are misrepresented. In any case, we can dismiss all statements about safety issues allegedly contained in said report.
        Furthermore, I am confident that city engineers are very knowledgeable about safety issues and that they strive to make their infrastructure as safe as possible for all users. Any statements to the contrary which are not based on factual and publicly available information are slanderous and should not be disseminated.

      1. See presenter Mary Lavin, early in the public presentations at the meeting (2:23:00) , who lives on the south side of Point Grey Road, and was an organizer of the earlier petition to create the greenway but is now concerned primarily about crash dangers, lack of reflective paint on curbs, narrowing the road, overly wide sidewalks, bicycle traffic, and so on, and who thinks that the money spent on the pedestrian realm improvements is a waste. Mary Lavin noted that she hired an engineer to create a report.

        1. I will not speak to the specific concerns of any specific individuals you name; you should ask them directly if you want to know their rationale, but the Petitions by Point Grey Road residents are filed with the City, and the large majority of residents supported Phase 1 (2013) and opposed Phase 2 (2016). Facts on file. Phase 1 was supported to improve safety; Phase 2 is opposed for being unsafe and redundant. The majority of residents have consistently made safety their priority.

  3. For those who don’t know, Phase 1 involved closing Point Grey Road at Macdonald to remove 10,000+ per day dangerous speeding commuter motorists off the local residential road, and created a bike route. However, the City has not properly signed the road for safe passage of all users, yet. Phase 2 involves extensive paving to create an inland seawall promenade that will substantially narrow the roadway, making it unsafe for all users, remove many trees and much landscaping, which is not consistent with Vision’s “green” mandate, and impede safe ingress/egress from driveways on the North side of the road, which has been declared as likely to cause casualties by traffic experts.

    1. The road wasn’t closed, it was closed to arterial traffic.
      It wasn’t to create a bike route, it was to create a greenway. People on bikes, and people walking.
      Phase 2 involves taking advantage of the necessary water and sewer work to replace the paving, standardize the road width, and improve walking and park infrastructure.
      Driveway ingress and egress is improved, as visibility is improved.
      There, fixed it for you.

      1. That is what I said, the road was closed to the 10,000+ speeding commuter motorists and was made a bike route, facts. Obviously, if it was made a bike route, the road was not closed to bikes. I never said it was closed to all modes of transportation. And, yes it was made a bike route; it is now a designated bike route, which was not the case prior to the closure of the road to commuting motorists in 2013. People walking has never been an issue on the road as there are 3 sidewalks, all more than the standard required width. The only problem in the past for pedestrians was crossing the road due to the 10,000+ speeding commuter motorists daily. That is no longer the problem due to the 2013 closure; the problem now for pedestrians is the thousands of cyclists riding erratically on the road daily with no enforcement of the rules of the road. As a result, pedestrians still have difficulty crossing the road safely. Phase 2 will only put pedestrians at greater risk by narrowing the roadway, congesting the cyclist traffic for no safe crossing of pedestrians, and by positioning the redundant new sidewalks immediately next to driveway entrances with no safe buffer zone. Indeed, these are the two Phase 2 elements that independent Transportation Engineers have declared unsafe.

      2. Narrowing the roadway to a consistent width reduces crossing distances, making it safer to cross. Look up corner bulges and the reason they are used. The addition of the new raised crosswalks in Phase 2 will further improve the safety of people walking.
        Your rants are simply nonsensical.

      3. susan, you keep referring to and focusing on Point Grey Road being a bike route. While it includes a bike route, you are overlooking the intent of the 2013 Council decision, to create a Greenway. By way of contrast, York was made a bikeway, in the same 2013 Council meetings. A Greenway is more than a bikeway. It may not be convenient for you to acknowledge it, but the decision in 2013 created the Greenway for active transportation, and the top of our transportation priority pyramid is walking, followed by bicycling. When you call it a bike route, and ignore the Greenway component, it sets you up to attack the pedestrian realm improvements which were the clear intent all along. This council is following through on the 2013 decision. With Phase 1, we saw greatly increased bicycle volumes along this stretch, and some increase in walking volumes. With Phase 2, we are investing in walking, and can look forward to increased usage.

      4. The numbers:
        With Phase 1, people on bikes went from 600/day to 2700/day (weekday) and 3300/day (weekend). Five times.
        With Phase 1, people walking went from 600/day to 900 day (weekday).
        So, how do we get the number of people walking to increase, with all the benefits that brings? Well, we could connect the parks, provide more benches, remove the driveway curb cuts that get in the way of a level surface, widen the sidewalks, and trim the overgrown hedges.
        That is called Phase 2.

  4. There are hundreds of thousands of Vancouverites all across the east side and all the way down to the the Fraser that are so overjoyed that Vision and its Bike wing HUB are spending these millions of taxpayer dollars to enhance the enjoyment for all, along one of the wealthiest streets in the city.

    1. Yes, Eric,
      It is, frankly, embarrassing that this Vision Council and Jeff’s HUB seem to think that only a 9-block stretch of roadway in one of the most affluent areas of the city is so deserving of redundant and luxurious extravagance worth multi-million taxpayer dollars. Vision must really owe Chip a lot for his campaign support to perpetually ignore the urgent needs of the rest of this vast and growing city. Corruption is alive and well.

    2. Eric, we are talking of the Seaside Greenway which is an amenity to be enjoyed not just by people in the area but by people from around the world and yes – even people who live on the east side of Vancouver. City council has been working hard to upgrade the Greenway to make it safe for the high volumes of people which this Greenway attracts. If only park board would get onside, we could have a super world class walking and cycling amenity. Kudos to city council for seeing the bigger picture.
      This is certainly not a luxurious extravagance. By the increase in health from more people walking and cycling, the investments made in the Seaside Greenway will quickly get returned to we taxpayers. Can one say the same for expenditures which encourage more car use?

    3. Thanks, Eric, for being so outraged on my behalf. REALLY appreciate it.
      I live on the Drive. The last couple summers, I have been biking out to Jericho and Spanish Banks at least 3-4 times a month. More than I ever did in the past. Why? Because the extension of the Seaside Greenway along Pt. Grey Road has made those amenities more inviting and more easily accessible to everyone in the city. Including those in my neighbourhood.
      I get that folks such as yourself don’t like the extension of the Seaside Greenway, or any pedestrian and cycling improvements for that matter, and try to twist it in to some kind of east vs. west class war BS.
      But spare us, please. The entire city has benefited from this excellent amenity. Get over it.

      1. If someone is unable to “get out of their driveways without killing pedestrians and cyclists”, then they shouldn’t be behind the wheel of a car.

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