November 16, 2016

The Tenth Avenue Hospital District, the Bikeway, and Parking Spaces

west-10th-avenue-bike-lane-vancouver-general-hospital
Anyone that is travelling by bike going east/west across the city knows what a super cycling street Tenth Avenue is to commute. It is relatively level, has great scenery, and gets you where you want to be. Trouble is that it also goes through the Hospital District between Oak and Cambie Street where the Vancouver General Hospital is with an array of specialists visited daily by many many people who for illness or accident may not have great mobility and may be travelling by car. And there is the rub.
As reported in the Vancouver Sun the City of Vancouver Engineering Department is back to consult this month with changes for this section of street including separated bike lanes on either side of the avenue, raised pedestrian crossings, passenger drop-off zones near arthritis and eye care centres, and improved signage. 
And here is the problem-close to one hundred metered on-street parking spaces will be taken off the street. Price Tags has written about the fact that the loss of these on-street parking spaces was significant to people with mobility challenges and people from out of town, as well as people who may be seeking cancer treatment. The Seniors Advisory Committee of Council has also spoken out on the issue. The new plan being shared this month actually takes out more curbside parking spaces than the previous plan.
I have been reminded by legendary urban designer Frank Ducote that the issue for access to on-street parking is not only one for seniors, but is one faced by many people for many different reasons with the multiple medical institutions along this street. There is also an Eye Centre where sight impaired people come and go.  For many  the at grade parking is seen as a necessity not a luxury, and I am reminded of that when families show up under tragic circumstances at the Emergency  entrance to the hospital. They need access quickly.
Open houses to view the new plans are as follows:
• Nov. 22, 4-7 p.m., Blusson Spinal Cord Centre

• Nov. 23, 4-7 p.m., Holy Trinity Ukrainian Orthodox Cathedral

• Nov. 26, 11 a.m. — 3 p.m., Blusson Spinal Cord Centre

• Nov. 29, 4-7 p.m., Croatian Cultural Centre

45665361-9e57-4f8a-b0a3-aecac71de761-a02337

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 Bob RansfordCancel Reply

  1. I am very concerned about the loss of parking in the medical district. Although these days I am using transit and not driving, I attend the eye clinic and other specialists in the area and know that on-street, surface parking is vital. In the past, when I have driven an elderly family member to appointments at the cancer clinic for some type of procedure or treatmets, there has been a lot of stress about finding a parking close by, only adding to all of the medical-related stress. When I have attended the eye clinic for procedures myself, navigating the area as a pedestrian and waiting for someone to pick me up has required me to be concerned about close auto access to the centre. This is not an area where alternatives modes of transportation are an easy choice. Cyclists will need to make some big compromises with this east-west route to ensure that good access to medical facilities can be maintained.

    1. Just as an example, the Eye Clinic was proposed to get a new passenger drop off and pick up zone, level for wheelchair access, in an earlier version of the plan. Based on feedback from the Eye Clinic and various advocacy groups, that passenger zone was doubled to four vehicles, it was given a wider buffer zone for pedestrian safety, it was provided with a rain shelter for those waiting, and a staging area was created around the corner for vehicles waiting for a short time for pick up and drop off. All of these proposed improvements need to be balanced against adding more on street parking back in, and reducing the drop off and pick up zones. Cycling doesn’t really enter into it. The compromises for and against have to do with those requiring drop off, whether from private vehicle, HandyDart, or taxi, and those desiring to park out front (whether they are patients or not). Note that the Eye Clinic has a parkade accessed from the rear of the building, prominently signed for patient use only.

    2. Bob writes: “Cyclists will need to make some big compromises with this east-west route to ensure that good access to medical facilities can be maintained.”
      Why is it that some people look at this as either/or. Why pick on the cycling aspects of the plan? I agree that access for disabled people should be a priority, but this does not mean that safe cycling options must be removed.
      Note that the VGH Cycling Centre is located near Willow and 10th and has secure parking for 174 bikes. This could represent 100 less cars. Don’t the employees that use this deserve safe access? What about seniors like me who travel to their medical appointments by bike. Don’t we deserve safe access? What about everyone who cycles on this street to get to other destinations. They are all helping society by staying healthy by getting their daily exercise. They are leaving room on all or our streets for those who must drive. They are leaving room in parkades and are not using precious on-street parking.
      We must be careful what we wish for. If everyone who currently cycles starts to drive, there will be total gridlock. I don’t see how anyone could be against providing a safe space to cycle.Cycling is a solution which improves mobility for everyone and enhances our transportation system – even in the hospital precinct.

  2. In an interview yesterday, the interviewer used the phrase “the convenience of able bodied cyclists vs the safety of elderly and disabled people”. I think this is an unfortunate phrasing, designed to provoke strong feelings, and that it doesn’t get at the issue. Access on foot will be greatly improved. Access by car to the new pick up and drop off zones will be improved with the proposed changes. Parking on the street will be reduced, greatly so directly in front of some key facilities along 10th.
    But the reality is, the street isn’t working well today for people using many different modes of transportation. It is unsafe and uncomfortable to walk on many sections of it, even worse to cross it with speeding vehicles, and worse still when mobility aids are being used. It is dangerous to ride a bike on, evidenced by the crash statistics relative to other routes in the city. It is difficult for emergency services to access the ER at times, and the obstructions aren’t cyclists, they are vehicles double parked due to a lack of loading zones, in the process of parallel parking and blocking passage, or simply stopping in the middle of the street because they don’t know where to go to allow the ambulance by. It is bad for essential commercial deliveries, to the extent that VGH has a flag person on the street just to get cars to stop long enough to let trucks access the loading docks. And it is bad for parking, as evidenced by the lack of open spaces, people circling the block looking for that elusive space, and thus making the congestion and safety issues even worse.
    Yes, the number of impacted on street spaces is climbing. That is because of the public consultation. People are asking for more drop off and pick up zones. Different people than those asking for parking, but patient representatives nonetheless. Those zones, off of 10th but close by, are in that count.
    The facilities along 10th largely have parkades. Some visitors may not be able to access them if they have overheight vehicles, but those spaces are prioritized for patients and those displaying placards, which the street spaces aren’t. Given the lack of available spaces, it is currently unlikely that someone is going to find a street space right in front of the building they are accessing.
    There is another surface parking lot that the health authorities are apparently required to pave and open as a condition of their development permit. It would add surface spaces opposite the Cancer Agency. Completing this work would bring the surface spaces up above the current count. Those spaces are under the control of the health authorities, and aren’t right in front of the affected buildings, but they would allow non-priority parkers to be shifted and accommodated, freeing space for priority parkers.
    If people want to create more on street parking spacers all along this stretch, then a decision has to be made about all the mature street trees that are planned to be retained. Retaining them was a clear message at the early consultations. Some are now asking them to all be removed. That is a potential choice for people to make.
    In a discussion with an advocate for the elderly, we were talking about the parking that was available, and the over 4000 inventoried spaces (off street). That represents 96% of the currently available parking. The street parking managed by the City represents 4%, and half of that is potentially impacted. I pointed out, and she agreed, that if we wanted to improve parking (priority spaces, spaces close to appointments, etc) then we should probably focus on the group that has 96% of the inventory, not just the group that has 4% of the inventory.
    There is another suggestion that a bikeway shouldn’t be added to this street, that it is inappropriate. Well, it has been a bikeway since 2004. That is despite the lack of improvements. If the bikeway line was erased from the maps, would bikes disappear? Or would they continue to ride here, just not as safely? Do we want to go to the extent of banning bikes? And if we do that, and want to make it safer for pedestrians, especially those unsteady on their feet, shouldn’t we consider restricting vehicle movements? Those are the crashes that are injuring people.
    Of the 3000 bike trips per day on 10th in this section, 1000 involve destinations at the hospital. If we discourage that mode, they may turn to vehicles and end up competing for the limited spaces that are there today. That would be a step backwards.
    No easy answers, but I don’t think that framing this as able bodied people on bikes vs seniors and disable people is helpful. We could wave a magic wand and erase all the bikes today, and it wouldn’t solve the issues on the street.

    1. An excellent and articulate comment, Jeff. Thank you for clarifying that a good balance is being strived for. I am happy to see loading zones and spaces for disabled parking permit-holders has priority over non-priority parking. I’m reminded of the lazy drivers who will fight for a spot next to the door of their gym. It’s highly illuminating that the current on-street parking comprises only 4% of the precinct’s parking inventory.

  3. Post
    Author
  4. This section currently is no longer working for the amount of movements on it. I agree with Jeff, if bikes didn’t exist this area would still not function well.
    I think in the future the cycle route will be thanked for giving the push that caused improvements to this area.

  5. If a senior can drive to the hospital, surely he or she can park in one of many parkades in the area. (I wonder how many seniors are among those parking on 10th–anyone can park on the street.) Yes, the street parking is at times marginally more convenient, but it also leads to cars slowly cruising along 10th looking for a space, or taking time to parallel park, and clogging the street.
    There are over 4000 parking spaces in the area, and city planners found hundreds available when the street parking was full. Streets are primarily for moving people, in cars, on bicycles, or pedestrians (on sidewalks), in my opinion. If it’s not inconvenient to allow parking on a street, fine, but if it is, then parking should go elsewhere. The 10th Avenue bicycle route is a very important artery that provides for the transportation of hundreds is not thousands of people.
    PS-I’m a senior.

  6. My experience with 10th Avenue parking as a patient and as a caregiver for my late wheelchair-bound wife is that it’s simply a non-starter, even today, because there are never any spaces available anyway. What difference does it make if there are no parking spaces on the street or if there are 100 full spaces?
    What the area needs is more parkades that are reasonably priced and more and better drop-off zones for the mobility impaired. On-screen parking, no matter how many spaces there are, is completely useless because it will always be the first to fill up.

    1. That is the problem. Finding those spots is like winning the lottery, not likely, but could happen. So, there is likely a lot of circulating traffic looking for the magic ticket. If the on-street parking was priced closer to the parkade prices, then more people would be willing to use the off-street facilities, but instead they are looking for the cheaper and in some cases, more convenient option.

      1. City Council passed the parking meter changes last night (all in favour except Councillor De Genova) so the variable rates should do something to address the lack of available spaces. It will also bring prices in high demand areas such as this up towards the off street parking rates, if not above.

    2. If I were running a hospital or other medical facility, I would have to think long and hard when looking at budgets and having to decide how to price parkade parking. If I price it too low, then costs related to parking would have to come funds which could be used, for example, to extend operating hours. If I were in charge, I would be inclined to not subsidize car parking at hospital parkades.

      1. I did some research earlier on in this consultation process for 10th Ave. There were many references to cancer patients by those expressing concern during various consultations, and I heard several times that it was too expensive in the Cancer Agency parkade.
        The Cancer Agency has an excellent web site that directs patients where to park, and explains how to access the parking, understanding that many visitors are already stressed. They list $3.50 per hour, and the street parking is currently at $3 but is likely to rise with the new meter parking strategy just approved. That will make the parkade cheaper. The parkade also has disabled spots, designated patient only spots, and a 15 minute drop off zone out front for those who want to drop a patient and then go park in their parkade. And right there on the web site is a reference to who to see for financial assistance if the cost of parking is a financial hardship.
        An acquaintance worked until recently at VGH, booking patient visits. I asked her about parking. She told me it was always part of the patient discussion around a first visit, and that they directed those who could walk the block to use City Square. $3.50 an hour, but the first hour is free with a $3 minimum purchase.
        Apparently the health authority has had a legal obligation (part of a previous development permit) to open a paved surface lot opposite the Cancer Clinic for 10 years now. Lack of funds, I presume. I heard of a plan this week whereby someone else would pave and open it, on a lease back, saving the health authorities the up front cost. Seems like a good approach.

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