This week, on January 30, City Council will meet to deliberate on a number of important public space items, including the future of Robson Square, and the proposed extension of the Broadway Subway to UBC. A third, and equally important discussion will take place on the proposed Granville Bridge Greenway – a concept that was first discussed as part of the City’s Transportation 2040 Plan (approved in 2012). The draft concept, as illustrated in the plan, calls for the transformation of two or more middle lanes into a centre-lane boulevard to be used for walking and biking.

Granville Bridge Greenway (Transportation 2040 Plan)

It’s an interesting idea, and one that we continue to feel is worthy of further exploration; however, we are hopeful that it will be possible to study a range of options regarding the best way to enhance active transportation and public space opportunities on the bridge.

City Council is being asked to review the proposed engagement plan. We wrote to offer our support, but asked that they consider the pros and cons of different options as part of the conversation with the public.

The following is an excerpt of our letter:

We are writing to offer our support for the proposed public engagement and design work for the Granville Bridge Connector. The vision as it has been presented thus far is in keeping with the City’s work to date in creating a city supportive of travel by sustainable and active means, as well as ensuring safe, comfortable and universally accessible infrastructure for city residents and visitors traveling to the downtown peninsula.

Reallocating the existing vehicle lanes has the effect of “right-sizing” our infrastructure to ensure vibrant, people-centric (rather than car-centric) neighbourhoods and business areas. This project would use the opportunity of the seismic upgrade on the bridge to move us towards a Vancouver that is healthy, socially inclusive and climate resilient. It is also consistent with the goals of Transportation 2040, of ensuring our infrastructure maintains the number of trips made by vehicles at stable levels, while ensuring people are able to access destinations as the city and region grows population and employment.

We do note that the vision of the centre greenway running between lanes of traffic is a prominent departure from existing walking, wheeling and cycling experiences of other bridges in Vancouver. There is understandable concern about the loss of access to views, the different relationship to moving vehicle traffic, and how connecting to and from the greenway from the street networks, safely and directly on both sides, will work. We urge you to direct staff, as part of their stakeholder engagement, to continue to explore and assess potential greenway alignments that follow the pattern established on existing bridges and to provide a breakdown of the constraints and tradeoffs from the investigations of these options. Ensuring that the experience of the greenway is “legible” and consistent with other bridges may contribute significantly towards preventing confusion or unintentional misuse, reduce reliance on written guidance or signage, and enhance predictability and (potentially) safety.

We do also see the Granville Street Greenway as an unprecedented public space and design opportunity in the city. Depending on the design, the Greenway could become a unique destination in its own right, and an active travel experience to connect with other existing assets such as the Seawall, the future Arbutus Greenway, and (potentially) Granville Island. It would also serve as a long overdue connection for people using mobility devices and all vulnerable road users unable to cope with the large curbs and unsafe conditions (due to the lack of physical separation from motorized traffic) on the existing bridge.

We would strongly recommend that public engagement efforts and design processes for this facility fully address the following:

• any potential changes or upgrades that might be made to the existing paths (should they be kept to preserve pedestrian access to views);
• evaluation of, and options to mitigate, any exposure impacts associated with the centre alignment (such as noise or air pollution);
• best practice and examples both locally (such as the Laurel Street overpass) and from other places and jurisdictions with comparable greenways and facilities.

The design of the greenway also hinges on the number of lanes re-allocated from vehicle space to the greenway. We further encourage you to direct staff to ensure the greenway is a public space that addresses a number of other needs related to “all ages and abilities” travel, such as seating to accommodate physical limits, or shelters, to acknowledge comfort when travelling in inclement weather. Making the greenway attractive and enjoyable by incorporating opportunities for play or programming might also go a long way towards encouraging and celebrating active travel. We see this as a necessary and important objective in building gathering spaces for adjacent communities, as well as in supporting transitioning away from travel by single occupancy vehicles.

The portion of the seawall under consideration dates back to the mid-1970s, and features a series of particularly windy and narrow sections, as well as a variety of surface treatments. It’s also one of the most picturesque areas of the city, and runs adjacent to a number of open spaces (including Charleson Park, Sutcliffe Park, Leg-in-Boot Square and Granville Island) as well as the False Creek south neighbourhood. It’s frequented by locals and visitors alike, and provides stunning views of the Vancouver skyline.

Poster boards detailing the improvements focused on pedestrian and biker safety, especially on designs separating bike and jogging/walking lanes. City staff will be on hand to answer questions and get feedback.

For more details about the plans, check out vancouver.ca/seawall or visit the open house. The event takes place today from 4 to 7pm at CityStudio, 1800 Spyglass Place. You can also provide feedback via a short online questionnaire (deadline: February 19).

As you’ve probably heard, a sizeable component of the discussion is devoted to several new bike lanes that are proposed for the City, including a number in the downtown core.

This is an important step forward for biking in Vancouver, offering further legitimacy and support to cycling as a mode of transportation. However, it also, indirectly, raises some interesting questions about the City’s attention to pedestrian issues and pedestrian infrastructure.

But before we get to that, let’s start by noting some of the many generally favourable articles and posts written about the bike lanes, including CBC and Metro and Vancity Buzz, among others. It’s perhaps equally telling to make note of the articles that aren’t being written. Whereas previous bike lane discussions (Burrard, Hornby, Dunsmuir) have generated all sorts of froth, it’s good to note that the backlash against bike lanes appears to have quieted. Maybe not everywhere, of course, but in a lot of corners. Even former opponents, like the Downtown Vancouver Business Improvement Association, have now come out in support. Cycling infrastructure is rolling forward indeed.

So, we’ll happily go on record noting our support as well. And we will be writing to Council to say as much. For us the new bike lanes do a number of things:

• Increase the accessibility of safe, health-promoting, all-ages, cycling infrastructure for residents and visitors.

• Enable more room for growth. As the numbers show, we continue to see an upward trend in the use of our bike lanes – and more and better infrastructure will propel further increases. Biking is becoming more of a norm for more people.

• Strengthen the network. The focus on improving the connections between already existing routes is key. Fewer ‘gaps’ means better overall connectivity, better access to key destinations, and a resulting increased efficiency for cycling as a mode of transportation.

• Support more spot improvements to elements of cycling infrastructure that need a ‘quick fix.’ (One suggestion: we’d love to see a transparent and trackable means for the public to identify needed improvements).

• Present a well-conceived choice of routes. The choice of future routes – both downtown and city-wide – reflects good planning around design and location.

But, let’s bike-park the cycling question for the moment.

We also think this is the right opportunity to raise a note of concern about the “Five Year Update”. And it’s not a small note. It’s a fundamental one.

Active transportation is supposed to be about cyclists and pedestrians. With that in mind, the staff report being considered on Thursday, should outline a five year plan for both of these modes of transport – and everything else self-propelled and ‘active,’ including wheelchairs, skateboards, push scooters and more.

Its revealing, then, that the aforementioned report uses the word “pedestrian” only twice in its 16 pages. “Walk” or “walking” fares a little better, showing up 17 times in total. Compare “cycling” (59 uses) and “bike” (66 uses) and you get a sense of the report’s priorities.

There’s more. The word “sidewalk” appears eight times, and if you look at how this term is used, the sense of priorities crystallize a little further. Almost inevitably the references talk about the benefits of bike lanes as a way of improving walkability – because they will, in theory, take bikes (and now skateboards) off of the sidewalk. Now, this is good move, to be sure – but there is a lot more that needs to be done to improve pedestrian infrastructure than just the subtraction of cyclists from city sidewalks.

With very few exceptions, everyone uses pedestrian infrastructure – including cyclists, transit users and car drivers – and we think the present report ought to go further and spell out a more tangible action plan for the most essential, most universal, mode of transportation. There’s much that a ‘5 year Action Plan’ might conceivably say about pedestrians; this present report misses an important opportunity.

Which brings us to a more fundamental discussion taking place at Council on today: on the subject of the 2016 Budget. It’s at this meeting that Council will deliberate over the allocation of hundreds of millions of dollars in capital and operating funding, covering every aspect of municipal operations.

Despite the fundamental – even existential – nature of pedestrian mobility, and notwithstanding the fact that pedestrians are prioritized in the City’s Transportation 2040 plan, the actual municipal investment in qualitative and quantitative improvements to pedestrian infrastructure has flat-lined in recent years. Last year, the City’s budget for sidewalk rehabilitation was a paltry $1million. This year, the figure is the same… and that’s a million that is meant to fund repairs to a civic asset that is 2,100 kilometres in length.

Of course, there are other line items that support walkability. The 2016 budget proposes $875,000 will go to new pedestrian and cycling signals. An additional $325,000 is allocated for new curb ramps. But at several thousand a pop for either of these types of infrastucture, the budgeted funds will not last long. The curb ramp budget, for example, will cover approximately 60 of the 6000 ramps that are estimated to be needed across the city.

The same story holds for the $275,000 in new sidewalk construction funds. The amount sounds like a lot at first blush, but it actually only means between 3-5 kilometres of new sidewalk will be built.

This is problematic enough for safety reasons. Our pedestrian infrastructure may not need to be perfect (a few cracks, a bit of warping from tree roots and you get the addition of character), but it could certainly stand to see more investment. Character aside, the city does have a lot of pedestrian spaces that are in need of real improvement. The annual budgets have been granting very limited means to meet this need.

Finally, there’s yet another angle to consider: the opportunity – the real possibility – to think of our sidewalks as critically important public spaces, not just corridors for people movement. Key sidewalks, especially on our extraordinary high streets ought to be places for gathering. They ought to be beautiful. They should be a key part of making our civic spaces sparkle.

The City’s Transportation 2040 Plan speaks eloquently about the need to make walking “delightful.” That’s a wonderful word for policy… and we should have sidewalks every bit as worthy of that aspiration.

Alas, if we’re after sidewalk widening and the more generous ‘complete street‘ designs that many city’s are experimenting with, the opportunities presented in both policy and budget are likely be constrained, and driven largely by redevelopment opportunities than a more proactive, city-led approach. Similarly, if we want something more than minimalist concrete, a $1 million “rehabilitation budget” means we can kiss any hope of pavers, cobblestone and decent design treatment goodbye. There are exceptions, of course, but the dollars-and-cents reality of the sidewalk budget makes this an impossibility on any decent scale.

It doesn’t have to be that way, of course. We think it’s time to see Active Transportation priorities (and the associated capital allocations that sustain them) focus more meaningfully on the pedestrian realm. Not at the expense of cycling infrastructure, but as a proper compliment to it.

In the past several years, Council has turned the wheel forward with some incredible investments cycling infrastructure and policy. It’s now time to make similar strides with the same rigorous and game-changing investment in our pedestrian realm.

More information 

:: City of Vancouver: Active Transportation Update and Pilot for Skateboarding in Protected Bike Lanes
:: City of Vancouver: 2016 Budget and Five Year Financial Plan

Earlier improvements to the Adanac Bikeway

On Wednesday, City Council will be deliberating over a staff report on three ‘active transportation corridor’ improvements:

• Union Street (Gore Street to Carrall Street)
• Cambie Bridge (north end to Beatty Street)
• Canada Line (pedestrian and bicycle connection)

The VPSN has written a letter of support, an excerpt of which can be found below:

We are writing to you to express our support in principle for the proposed upgrades to the Union Street as a part of the Adanac Bikeway. The Adanac Bikeway acts as a type of bicycle artery offering a safe connection appropriate for cyclists of all ages and abilities with relatively little interaction with motor vehicles into the Downtown Peninsula and False Creek from East Vancouver and beyond. However, as it is currently configured, the area on Union Street West of Gore is far less inviting to the cyclist and has a number of potential areas of conflict between cyclists and motorists. Reducing these areas of conflict and creating a more legible streetscape in this relatively small section of a much larger system should be a priority.

Although it would be our preference for the 200 block of Union Street to become one way to vehicles to allow for two separated bicycle lanes as originally proposed, we are willing to support the concept of the shared eastbound lane on a trial basis in order to help alleviate the concerns expressed by some of businesses in the 200 block of Union Street. Given that this intersection is considerably influenced by the viaducts, it would be our suggestion that the shared lane be on a trial basis until a decision has been made regarding the future of the viaducts, at which point it could be reviewed.

Some businesses have voiced their concern over the removal of on-street parking on Union Street as well as the change in traffic patterns. The perception that the installation of bicycle infrastructure creates negative impacts on local businesses has been frequently shown to be inaccurate. For example, a 2009 study in Toronto found that the removal of on-street parking in favour of a bike lane would have few negative effects on businesses and that they may actually benefit from lane re-allocation. In fact, it was determined that only 10% of those businesses’ patrons drove and that those that arrived by foot and bicycle visited more often and spent the most money per month.

Alleviating the fears of businesses will be crucial for the continued success of the Adanac Bikeway and other bicycle infrastructure throughout the City. In addition to the works on the Adanac Bikeway, we are also in support of the proposed Cambie Bridge to Beatty and Canada Line connections which we believe will help to increase bicycle and pedestrian use while improving conditions for transit users, pedestrians and cyclists.

Thursday November 17
7:00pm til late
Chapel Arts
304 Dunlevy St. Vancouver

The Vancouver Area Cycling Coalition is throwing a party in the name of keeping the bike love coming!

Music, art, and drink inspired dance moves. Become a member and for the love of self-propelled transportation! learn who bike-friendly candidates are in the upcoming elections and VOTE on November 19.

$2 entrance fee, $5 suggested donation –or better yet! become a VACC member.
There will be free valet bike parking

They’d LOVE to see you there!

Another good public space related press release from the City of Vancouver… this one on the proposed Hornby Street separated bike lane (designed to provide a connection between the Burrard Bridge and Dunsmuir bike lanes).

At the same time, some interesting numbers on the numbers of riders using the Dunsmuir separated lane.

A good opportunity for folks to provide input and to let Council know about their thoughts on this new cycling infrastructure. There’s a website survey, as well as a public information session taking place mid-August.

City launches consultation on downtown bike lane;
Ridership on Dunsmuir sets new record

The City of Vancouver invites public input on the development of a separated bike lane in the Downtown core to connect existing lanes and provide greater separation between cyclists and vehicles.

Under the proposed plan, a separated bike lane on Hornby Street would connect the existing Burrard Bridge and Dunsmuir Street separated bike lanes and also connect with the seawalls in Coal Harbour and off Beach Ave. on the English Bay end.

An information session will be held on Wednesday, Aug. 11 between 11 am and 7 pm in the rotunda of the Pacific Centre Mall at Howe and Georgia streets. City of Vancouver staff will be on site to provide information, offer survey cards and receive feedback from the public.

Surveys will also be mailed to businesses and residents along Hornby to solicit feedback. For more information on the proposed plan, visit Cycling – City of Vancouver. To fill out a survey on the proposed bike route visit Vancouver.ca/hornbysurvey.

The consultation runs from now until mid-September.

When considering which street to implement a north-south separated bike lane, City staff evaluated factors like safety, truck and transit use, existing bike routes and use, traffic flows as well as the presence of on-street parking and loading zones. Staff evaluated Burrard, Thurlow, and Hornby streets.

Hornby Street is the preferred option for a cross-town separated bike lane because:

• it already has a one-way bike lane;
• there is high bicycle and medium vehicle use of Hornby;
• it has no transit routes; and,
• it is not a designated truck route.

The consultation for the route comes amidst significant growth in the use of the new separated bike lane on Dunsmuir and the Burrard Bridge milestone of one million cyclists across the bridge on July 7, just six days short of the bike lane’s one-year anniversary.

Counters also show 2000 cyclists are using the Dunsmuir lane each day, up from 500 a few months ago, a 250 per cent increase.

About 30,000 bike trips a week are being made across the Burrard Bridge this summer.

The City is committed to becoming the greenest city in the world by 2020 and bike lanes are an important way to help reach that goal. The increased use of separated bike lanes shows cyclists prefer a protective barrier between vehicles and cycling traffic.

As more people get out of their cars and onto a bike or walk, the city will enjoy improved air quality, less traffic congestion and reduced greenhouse gases.