Love ’em or hate ’em, bike lanes generate debate
Really, Mr. [Jerry] Dobrovolny [“No consensus over Point Grey Road”, July 11-18]? Because a lot of people believe Point Grey Road between Macdonald and Alma streets is unsafe for bicycles and pedestrians—even though ICBC figures show there was not one cyclist or pedestrian accident there from 2008 to 2012—you’re recommending closing the road to through traffic so that people will think it’s safer? Isn’t that a rather drastic measure to correct a misconception?
Wouldn’t it be better, cheaper, less disruptive, and safer to educate people about the reality? Especially since such drastic measures will mean the diversion of 10,000 to 15,000 cars a day into intersections that really are dangerous—the four most dangerous intersections west of Granville, in fact.
Dobrovolny, the city transportation director, could perhaps better spend his time—and city funds—educating cyclist and pedestrian lobby groups about the real safety hot spots rather than using misperceptions about risks as a rationale for doing the bidding of wealthy homeowners who have been agitating for years to turn a key arterial into a quiet residential street for their own benefit.
This should not be framed as a pro- or anti-bike-lane struggle. We all support safety for cyclists, pedestrians, and cars. Safe, viable, inexpensive, and less disruptive options exist for bike lanes and pedestrian walkways along this corridor. Let’s use them.
> Linda Light / Vancouver
I am opposed to the city’s plan to close Point Grey Road. It is one of the safest stretches of arterial road in Vancouver, with zero bike accidents and very few car accidents over the last five years. The plan leaves the high-crash areas on Cornwall Avenue virtually untouched. And on top of that, it will redirect 3.5 million cars a year to four of the most dangerous intersections in Vancouver west of Granville Street.
I do believe in bike lanes. I think they are very important as our city continues to increase density. Yet city planning staff have no overall design plan for bike lanes, or they haven’t shown us one.
The city continues to design and build bike lanes on a piecemeal basis and bend to the will of TransLink to the point that the bike lanes are no longer safe or efficient. For example, on one stretch of road in the plan for Cornwall Avenue and Point Grey Road, some residents have to monitor and cross an extra-wide sidewalk, a two-way bike lane, and two lanes of traffic just to get out of their driveway. In some cases, they drive out backward. Is that improving safety?
Two-way bike lanes are confusing to cyclists, motorists, and pedestrians alike. A car turning across a two-way bike lane needs to monitor two directions of bikes along with two directions of traffic. This is similar for a pedestrian and inherently dangerous to the cyclist, especially as cycling volumes continue to grow.
What is smart planning? In my mind, our commuter bike lanes should travel down our main arterials. They should be one-way, separated, and travelling in the same direction as traffic. Parking on arterials should not be a priority. It should be sacrificed for the benefit of the overall flow of bikes, transit, and cars.
> Trevor Watkins / Vancouver
Through the over 3,500 people who’ve signed petitions to support the proposed changes along Point Grey Road and Cornwall Avenue, we find that this plan isn’t simply a scheme to build more bike lanes. This isn’t a plan to benefit wealthy homeowners either. This is a plan for residents, tourists, business, and the entire community that will result in increased safety and accessibility.
This plan might tack on a minute to a car driver’s trip, but the benefits are overwhelming. Seawall users will get a safe route to Jericho Beach, pedestrians will no longer need to sprint to cross Point Grey Road, and everybody will get safe access to waterfront parks. This plan will benefit the entire community and all Vancouverites.
> Kyle Zheng / Vancouver
Comments
5 Comments
Jim Howden
Jul 25, 2013 at 6:30am
I think part of the outrage here for some of us, is that being sold out by people you didn't vote for simply confirms suspicions you had anyway. So as much as you don't like what's happening you got outvoted by your fellow citizens.
In this case a lot of us are being sold out by the mayor and councillors that we not only voted for, but tried to convince others they were the right choice.
Having lived in the area a good part of my life some of it within feet of Point Grey Road, I was bemused by the fact that it had 30kph playground signs posted along it, but no playgrounds. I really didn't get a satisfactory answer from either city management or council, but seeing as it had been in place 20 years or so it became a case of beating a dead horse.
However, this move by Gregor et al really ticks me off. The big lie to it is closing Point Grey Road will be beneficial. To whom? The idea that traffic be diverted to Burrard, MacDonald, 4th, Broadway, 12th, 16th, and 10th West of Alma which are already clogged and backed up a good part of the day most of the year and onto their side streets is insane.
The pollution, congestion, and noise will just make bad situations worse for drivers and residents who are already dealing with the ever expanding UBC and residences there.
My neighbours petitioned the city for some traffic calming to protect the children on 17th from speeding drivers avoiding the intersection at 16th and Dunbar. We were basically told to stuff ourselves. Now it'll get worse.
But what do the arrogant ideologues from a couple of special interest groups and council care? We'll see! Remember the HST!
Vancouverite
Jul 26, 2013 at 5:59pm
The bike lane proposal on PG Road is a bad idea all around. We need better transit options, for sure, but the bike lanes that exist already, often go unused or lightly used during the colder rainier parts of the year. Oh, and Mayor Roberts, enjoy your new digs on the soon to be quiet Point Grey Rd.
History
Jul 30, 2013 at 9:22am
History will tell a story of a bunch of people who fought to preserve space for the entitled vehcicle owners. The fact is the number of km driven per capita has been decreasing in North America for years now - younger people are getting fewer drivers licences, fewer still are buying new cars meanwhile the boomers (who have been the symbol of "peak car") are getting older and driving less themselves.
It's time to look forward rather than backward - we don't need Point Grey Road as a commuter route. Those who try and claim congestion and pollution as reasons to preserve the status quo are sadly missing the point. Car travel is on the decline - those frustrated motorists sitting in congestion might just try an alternative to driving, removing themselves from the situation all together.
It never ceases to amaze me the entitlement so many seem to feel towards their "rights" as motorists. The city is literally covered corner to corner in roads yet proposals around changes to a few km to improve the quality of life for everyone draw such ire. Get a grip - we're talking about a fraction of a percent of the available road surface in the city becoming available for use without requiring a multi-thousand dollar piece of machinery. Why we ever let things get so out of whack in the first place I'll never know.
Lee Leeman
Aug 5, 2013 at 3:06am
"Why we ever let things get so out of whack in the first place I'll never know"
AB so LOOT ly !!!
There isn't a horse lane in town anymore.
Lee Leeman
Aug 20, 2013 at 11:07pm
Seriously though, this closure is a carefully chosen move by the zealots at city hall. It gives a lovely stroke to those who choose to join the religion and 'get out of their cars' while punishing those who don't by taking away a bypass to the signal ridden 4rth avenue. The diversion of so much car traffic at rush hour to who knows where, will manufacture further traffic congestion, likely on 4rth ave which is exactly the plan. Don't ever think any of this is about safety or pandering to the rich. It is about the war on cars, period. Now if you just went 1 block south, and had the same traffic rules, bikes only except resident access, there would be no congestion, there would be no outcry and that obviously is NOT what Robertson and the sustainable Taliban want.