Loving Bike Lanes

Tags

Cailynn Klingbeil in the Globe writes about changing attitudes within the world of transportation and local street-front retail businesses.

There’s been a sea change in the attitude about cyclists and frankly the value that the cycling community and the cycling consumer is bringing to the marketplace,” says Charles Gauthier, president and chief executive officer of the Downtown Vancouver Business Improvement Association. “Businesses are responding by making it clear they’re catering to them.” . . . .

. . . . Mr. Gauthier’s own organization has shifted its stance on bike lanes. In 2010, the BIA raised concerns over the loss of 170 on-street parking spaces and how that would affect area businesses’ bottom lines. But an assumption held by many merchants – that most customers arrive by car – turned out to be false, Mr. Gauthier says. A 2011 economic impact study commissioned by the city and other associations, including the Downtown Vancouver BIA, showed most people walked, cycled or took transit to get downtown. Just 20 per cent of customers on Hornby and Dunsmuir arrived by car.

Mr. Gauthier’s reference to a 5-year-old economic impact study refers to the Stantec Business Impact Study on bike lanes — largely ignored by our local press when it was published on July 20, 2011.  After all, there was a juicy populist, negative and divisive angle to be pursued — good old “us” vs. “them”.

How things change.  And don’t change, as is the case on Vancouver’s Commercial Drive.

Cyclist.Vancouver

Shops more often; spends more per month

Encroachment Visualized

Tags

Jens von Bergmann has produced a nifty bit of data visualization on encroachment by certain property owners onto city-owned land.  And, quell surprise, he’s pointed his computers at the Point Grey Road area.

The blue areas are private property, and the colour represents land value — dark blue is over $ 10,000/m2; lightest blue is a paltry $ 4,000 – $ 5,000 per m2.

PGR.Encroach

Land value data over satellite map — MountainMath.ca

Check this link to get to the original site and more detail.

Via Twitter:   

Jens von Bergmann@vb_jens Jun 22

Who is encroaching on valuable public land? Check our handy land value over satellite map.

Mr. von Bergmann runs MountainMath:  ” …. an independent Vancouver-based company centered around data analysis, management and visualization.”

 

The Elephant in the Yard-Point Grey Road

8727956

The owners of residences on the north side of Vancouver’s Point Grey Road have some of the most spectacular  views of English Bay and the North Shore mountains, unfettered by public walkways between their properties and the ocean. The City of Vancouver used to have a policy to purchase land along the north side of this street, so that all Vancouverites could enjoy the magnificent views. The intent was to eventually provide access to the beach, which is public in Vancouver.  Margaret Pigott Park is one example of a north side of Point Grey Road private property that was purchased for public use.

109897758

 

 

While the bikeway portion of the Seaside Greenway has been developed along Point Grey Road, the news for walkers has not been as positive. The city sidewalks on the north side of Point Grey Road are often squished beside the curb, with private landscaping from the large houses encroaching on the city boulevard, making the sidewalk feel even narrower. Most of this private landscaping encroachment consists of hedging and trees.

And then came the elephant. Yes, there was an elephant sculpture installed in the front yard of a house on Point Grey Road’s north side. The property owners fenced the elephant in with a handsome black wrought iron fence that encroached on city owned boulevard land right up to the sidewalk.

.b20m-2zcyaawhlv

In other parts of the city, this does not seem to happen. There is a public understanding that the city owns the land that is called the public boulevard, and that this strip of land extends on both sides of the sidewalk. The location of the water service in front of Vancouver properties is an indication of where the City’s land ownership ends and the private homeowner’s property begins.

water-shut-off-valve-lid

Jeff Lee’s article in the Vancouver Sun describes how homeowners on the north side of Point Grey Road are upset with the city’s plans to upgrade the sidewalk as part of a 6.4 million dollar project completing the seawall walkway. This upgrade will mean the city is taking back city land usurped by private hedges and fences to make a sidewalk wide and comfortable, like the rest of the seawall walkway. There will be a 1.2 meter strip between the homeowner’s front yard and the start of the sidewalk.

The City’s plans were originally to place a seawall walk right beside the ocean, in front of the Point Grey houses. This was nixed by the residents, as well as by environmental concerns.

The Point Grey residents held a rally on Sunday protesting the installation of the sidewalk, claiming it was an example of bad fiscal spending and citing the challenges residents would have in exiting their properties in vehicles with walkers and cyclists on the city street.

But here’s the point-taking back this strip of city owned land and putting it in public use for walkers is not about today, it is about tomorrow. Anywhere else in the city I would argue we would have dealt with this landscape encroachment on a popular walking street years ago. It would have made sense to have implemented this wider sidewalk at the time of the adoption of the expansion of the Seaside Greenway. The  properties along Point Grey Road benefited from a huge real estate lift the moment this street was designated.  That was the time to negotiate the return of the public boulevard for the safety, comfort and convenience of  walkers, people pushing strollers, and wheelchair users. 

Hopefully future generations of Vancouverites can vision the Seaside Greenway as a stroll, not just a bike ride. How we deal with these issues today by following established city policy and protocol shapes the public realm, our public spaces, and our future place. There will be no more elephant in that yard.

 

 

Vancouver Mural Festival

Tags

This Festival is coming, with a mission to “Transform the way art is seen in our city”.

This summer we will create more than 30 murals on 20 buildings in the Mount Pleasant and Main Street Area. 

Thanks to strong partnerships with the City of Vancouver, Mount Pleasant Business Improvement Area, and Burrard Arts Foundation on August 20th the event of the summer will bring Vancouver’s thriving young art scene out into the open for everyone to see, transforming how art is seen in our city.

But more than murals is underway via City of Vancouver 

Mayor Gregor Robertson will support City staff recommendations that will give a significant boost to Vancouver’s Public Art program. Staff are asking Council to approve $1.5 million to be spent through 2018, $755,000 of which will be spent on projects enabled or installed by this summer. One of the signature projects the City will support is the first-ever Vancouver Mural Festival, the city’s largest not for profit celebration of street art, with a $200,000 grant that will see over 30 murals created in Mount Pleasant this summer.

Previous work involving the Burrard Arts Foundation.

GreMtn_VAG0219

Thanks to the Burrard Arts Foundation:  “Façade 2015” Projection Festival.  Ema Peter Photography

A Machine’s Response to Risk

Whom should I kill?” That is the fundamentally thorny question that researchers are considering in the programming of autonomous vehicles, as discussed in this article in the New York Times.

More specifically, the question of whom to sacrifice in the event of a high-speed avoidance maneuver – the guy in the car or the pedestrian in the crosswalk – is one which researchers are asking in the hopes of framing the car’s understanding and response to situations of mortal risk.

To the majority of respondents of a recent poll of autonomous vehicle passengers, the answer was clear: ‘hit the pedestrians’. This is not surprising, but it opens a whole raft of moral questions that are not purely theoretical. In a world of autonomous vehicles, this situation will arise, as it currently does with humans behind the wheel.

Making a split-second decision of how to avoid injury to oneself and others is a terrible choice for a person to have to make. The first instance of an autonomous vehicle choosing to hit ‘person X’ in order avoid killing ‘person(s) Y’ will be even more contentious; with lingering societal anxiety over agency and moral priority. This will be doubly fraught because the car will have made a pre-programmed decision, with the priority of lives already part of its parameters in a given situation.

Even stranger, it may be possible that an autonomous car’s ‘prioritization parameters’ could be one of its advertised features. Perhaps cars will be set with a standard set of avoidance programming; but for a bit more, you can get one that will put its passengers’ lives first.

It’s all very weird and unsettling, but I’m a ‘glass half full’ kind of guy. Just think how busy it will keep the lawyers.

Heritage Compromise

What elements of a ‘Heritage’ property should be prioritized for the sake of preservation – especially an older suburban one? Is it the structure itself? The grounds and setting? The landscaping? Is it the whole package, to be preserved in its entirely or considered “lost”?

The North Shore News reports on a proposal to subdivide an existing Heritage property at 360 Windsor Avenue into two lots. The subdivision would allow the original 1913 structure (shown below on the left) to be kept while selling off the east side of the property for new development.

Screenshot 2016-06-25 06.37.12

The existing structure (left) and possible new structure (right) – North Shore News

The current lot’s owner, Mr. Donato D’imici, claims his options are either to subdivide the property or sell it off entirely to developers, who would then surely demolish the structure and by right put up a 5,900 ft sq building. The subdivision compromise, in his opinion, retains the existing building and is the lesser of two evils.

Of course not everyone agrees, with one neighbour railing against the subdivision as a threat to “imperil” the neighbourhood with density. Likely there was a lot of this apocalyptic kind of talk at the Council hearing. As recently posted in PT, this ‘end is nigh’ sentiment around the topic of density, whether in the form of a townhouse or a carriage house, comes from a place of real and hysterical fear.

Screenshot 2016-06-25 06.42.31.png

The neighbourhood – 360 Windsor on north side, just to the right of centre

Whether your inclination is to dismiss or empathize with this fear, it should still be acknowledged that the suffering is real. But as you can see from this Google aerial, the rest of the neighbours are clearly not burdened by undervalued structures on their overvalued lots. Being right is easy when it’s not your decision to make.

So what’s more important? The building or the lot? Preserving the pastoral feel of a street where it still exists, or retaining that cute little house you couldn’t pay a contractor to build anymore? Is this a reasonable compromise or a terrible precedent?

Paying For It – Lessons from New York

In 2008, the single most publicized element of NYC Mayor Mike Bloomberg’s PlaNYC – an $8 Congestion Pricing cordon around Manhattan – met an abrupt and ignoble death in the legislative hospice known as Albany. It was a sound plan technically, but politically, there were problems.

Chief among these were cries of inequity from the outer boroughs who felt that ‘walling off’ downtown with an $8 fee was “elitist”. Unlike the iconic East River bridges, the bridges connecting further-flung areas of the city have some pretty hefty tolls already.

Screenshot 2016-06-23 21.26.48

Williamsburg Bridge – no toll

Screenshot 2016-06-23 21.28.11

Queensborough Bridge – no toll

Screenshot 2016-06-23 21.29.29

Verrazano- Narrows Bridge to Staten Island – $16 toll (I’m not kidding)

Screenshot 2016-06-23 21.35.31.png

Cross Bay Bridge to the Rockaways – $4, with $2.50 rebate for residents

These folks were not down with being asked to pay another $8 to cross onto the precious island of Manhattan, despite the fact that none of them drove there anyway, and their dutiful elected representatives in City Council and Albany obeyed.

OK. Move forward to 2014. The Metropolitan Transit Authority, who everyone hates in a good year, is still strapped for cash. Transit is suffering. The city and state each claim they’re too broke to fund basic maintenance, let alone expansion and improvements. Everyone kvetching. Sounds familiar.

Enter the Move NY Plan. It’s about as catchy as PlaNYC, but with some lessons learned in optics and equity. The plan still calls for a congestion pricing cordon south of 60th Street in Manhattan, but spreads the load with variable-rate pricing and more importantly, reducing tolls to the outer borough bridges. Despite the reduction in these tolls, it is a net gain in revenue of over $1.2B per year, which could be used to further bond up to $15B in projects.

Screenshot 2016-06-23 21.48.26.png

A more equitable plan – Streetsblog

In addition to outlining where the money is coming from, the plan sponsors have been equally clear about where the money is going to. This includes plans to address under-served areas in those same outer borough areas that will see their bridge tolls reduced.

Some of these are extensions of existing BRT routes, but larger ticket items such as the Triboro commuter rail line and Utica Avenue subway line, too. Without this plan, these big-push projects are nothing more than lines on a piece of paper. A gleam in a blogger’s eye.

Which gets me thinking about objections to road pricing to help fund Translink. Clearly none of us pay enough in taxes to fund our road network. If we did, there’d be no toll on the Port Mann. If we all paid enough, the province would have simply bought it outright. But they didn’t have the money, so they put the bridge on layaway. The imminent Massey Bridge is no different.

These bridges’ tolls are essential to reimbursing the cost of their construction, plus interest. In order to guarantee against the same toll-avoidance behaviour that goes on with the Port Mann and Patullo bridges, would the province be willing to place tolls on more or all of its bridges – in a more equitable manner – so that everyone pays a little rather than only a few paying more?

Screenshot 2016-06-23 22.20.43.png

Annacis Hwy Bridge – a $2 toll to keep the Massey folks honest?

There’s certainly a compelling case against this, mainly that some of these bridges have already been tolled and paid for. But thinking regionally, could this be worked to the province’s advantage? The region gets a windfall of transit funding and the province gets some guarantee that its $4B bridge will actually be paid off on schedule.

Lastly, I’m curious to know what ‘blue sky’ projects PT readers would promote with, say, an extra $500M/year in transit funding. There are the obvious ones (Surrey Light Rail, Broadway skytrain/underground extension, etc.). But what other big, exciting projects further on the horizon? If equitable tolls and/or road pricing becomes a reality, what are we looking to plan for and build in 2026?

An Inevitable Upgrade

In a logical response to some issues with the recent installation of fare gates, Translink is installing special gates for disabled riders who can’t tap in/out of the system. It’s a sensible move, given publicized issues with the current system.

Screenshot 2016-06-23 20.13.13

A rendering of the new gates – Vancouver Sun

As a recent PT post demonstrates, the current system is not without its detractors and supporters – and people who think the whole idea of fare gates was another provincial sop to the moral panic of ‘fare dodging’ by those who rarely even take transit.

There’s some truth to that. An estimated $7M a year lost to fare dodging under the old honour system vs. $250M+ for the installation of the existing and new gates. This does not include on-call maintenance costs in perpetuity.

Screenshot 2016-06-23 20.38.27.png

The existing gates

The gates for disabled riders will have a more powerful sensor to read a rider’s Compass Card. This won’t stop some ne’er-do-well deadbeats from hanging around the new gates waiting to slip in behind someone who’s legitimately activated them, as prompted the post linked above.

But to paraphrase one Vancouver Sun commenter, ‘why not just install these more powerful sensors at every gate so that tapping in/out is not necessary?’ It’s only money.

HOT and Bothered in Toronto

Ontario announced an expansion of its High Occupancy Toll (HOT) lanes on the 427 in Toronto with a similar pilot project on the QEW, the Star reports. Unlike the  electronic tolling system on the 427, the QEW pilot will be a low-tech sale of 1,000 permits at $180 each for drivers of single-occupant vehicles to use the existing HOV lanes whenever they choose. More information is linked here.

How this will be enforced is not immediately clear. Will cameras pick up single-occupant vehicles in the HOV lanes, check those plates against the list of registered permits, and forego a ticket where there’s a match? Will drivers risk being pulled over by OPP and let off after showing their permits? Or will it be the honour system?

bb_ci-hov-mannequin30_103

The current, more informal HOT scheme

There is no shortage of critics of this pilot project. One predictable dissenter is Conservative MPP Michael Harris who claims the inclusion of these single occupant vehicles will reduce the quality of the HOV lanes to the point of rendering them useless and thus counter to their whole purpose. It is therefore nothing but a money grab.

He’s wrong about the numbers (1,000 vehicles, even if all travelling at the same time, will have virtually zero impact on the HOV lane’s operations or speed), but not wrong that it’s a ham-fisted approach that will likely not provide any measurable improvement to either the ‘normal’ or HOV/HOT lanes.

A dynamic pricing model would work better by posting capacity-based prices on the use of the HOV lanes for single-occupant drivers. It would make a lot more money and be more responsive to the balanced needs of revenue and car poolers.

Alternatively, the province could just tell single-occupant drivers to buck up. If their time was so much more precious than everyone else’s they could use the HOV lane as part of a legitimate carpool. But that’s never going to happen. At present, the QEW pilot program is: 1) a small money making scheme, and 2) an experiment to see how many more permits can be incrementally sold before the HOV lanes actually do start to fail.

Closer to home, HOT lanes are not high on the current provincial government’s list for revenue generation – unless/until it’s discovered that yet more money is needed for the Massey Bridge. However, should the NDP take over next year (this is a theoretical question), would they be amenable to HOT lanes as part of a transit funding package?  What do you think?

Translink Fare Survey

For those who may not have already know, Translink is currently undertaking a review of its fare system and wants your feedback. This includes a fare survey open until June 30th.

It’s an opportunity to list your priorities regarding fare equity, the zone system, and the general pricing between Translink modes. Should they do away with the 3-zone system and go to a flat fare? Should services in areas with infrequent or slower coverage charge less than Frequent Networks? Should they continue to charge less for off-peak service?

Let ’em know.

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 7,605 other followers