About 60 per cent of trips in Vancouver are now made by car. By 2040, the city wants that to be 40 per cent.
In spite of the never-ending debates about cycling, cycling represents the smallest portion of the various modes of locomotion that exist now and that will exist even in the foreseeable future.
Transit and walking are the big leaders, after the car, and will continue to grow by all accounts, especially if the city’s engineers and planners get their way.
For those of you who don’t mainline the city’s website info, there is actually a giant Transportation 2040 plan in the works, due to be finalized, after public input up to July 13. I realize this is a hopeless plea, but some of you might want to look at it and comment now, rather than phoning me up screaming two years from now, saying: “Did you know the city is planning to do X or Y?” Because I will have to say, “Yes, I did. It was recommendation #113. Weren’t you paying attention?”
Of course, with 187 separate recommendations, it is hard to pay attention to all of it. Therefore, as part of the “making things simpler” function that journalists are legally mandated to carry out, here are the things in the plan that caught my interest.
- A pilot “scramble” intersection somewhere on Robson, with more to come if that works. (A scramble stops all traffic and allows pedestrians to cross in every direction. Works best when there is an exceptionally high volume of pedestrians and not a huge number of cars on a major arterial.)
- Improvements to laneways to make them more pedestrian attractive
- Removal of rush-hour parking bans in curb lanes so they can be used more flexibly, i.e. for pedestrians
- More public restrooms, so walkers have places to, um, go while they’re hiking across town
- More rain-friendly designs for sidewalks and public spaces — awnings, canopies, shelters, etc.
- The creation of some pedestrian-priority street sections: Robson Square, Robson, Granville, Hamilton, Mainland mentioned as possibilities
- A “cycling comfort index” to rate streets
- A ciclovia — a big bike festival with streets shut down so people can ride around freely on them. (Went on one in Los Angeles recently — SO fun, but they needed more space. Streets were jammed.)
- Underground rapid transit along Broadway
- Rapid-bus routes along Hastings, 41/49th, Commercial/Victoria, Main/Fraser
- Bus stops further apart on local routes to encourage more transit use. (??? Seems counter-intuitive to me. I take local buses, not expresses, because it drops me half a block from my house.)
- An Arbutus/False Creek/downtown streetcar
- Elimination of minimum parking requirements for buildings downtown, close to transit or that are purpose-built rental
- Encourage developers to separate out parking and housing costs when selling condos in projects
- “Adjust” residential parking permits to discourage too much street parking.
I’m sure you all have noticed others.
56 responses so far ↓
1 Agustin // Jun 19, 2012 at 2:25 pm
I applaud the City for this effort and I’ll certainly be sending in my comments after reading the recommendations.
It’s great to see Vancouver’s growing emphasis on walking, cycling, and public transit!
2 boohoo // Jun 19, 2012 at 2:42 pm
The comment format leaves something to be desired but the plan is generally good. I’m fully behind the street car network, that is something the city could do without translink (right?).
3 IanS // Jun 19, 2012 at 2:46 pm
Frances, what document are you looking at for 187 recommendations? I was able to find various “Transportation 2040″ documents and presentations, but nothing that set out recommendations like that.
A few comments:
The “About 60 per cent of trips in Vancouver are now made by car. By 2040, the city wants that to be 40 per cent” is an “optimistic” way to put it. If you look at page 7 of the Transportation Plan consultation document , where these figures are set out, there are some interesting caveats:
- it seems to cover only trips “originating in Vancouver”. So trips coming to Vancouver from the suburbs seem to be excluded in these figures.
- it also excludes commercial vehicles, such as taxis, trucks, couriers and buses
I expect if one were to factor in the excluded categories, the figures would look a lot different. I also wonder how they account for people who drive into the city from elsewhere, park and then walk somewhere. My guess is that these people appear in the 40%, but not in the 60%. In my view, a more realistic assessment would include these categories.
In that respect, while it’s anecdotal, my perception as someone who has been walking to and from work in Vancouver since 1993 is that traffic downtown is getting worse. FWIW.
“A pilot “scramble” intersection somewhere on Robson, with more to come if that works.”
I’m curious to see how that would work out, but I’ m not sure where they can find an intersection with lots of pedestrians but not so many cars. I sincerely hope it’s not on Robson / Burrard, as Burrard is busy and increasingly backed up these days, in my experience.
“More public restrooms, so walkers have places to, um, go while they’re hiking across town”
Really? Are people really saying that they’re not walking in Vancouver because there are no public washrooms? Are people really using the public washrooms that are already there?
“Removal of rush-hour parking bans in curb lanes so they can be used more flexibly, i.e. for pedestrians”
Huh? Are they suggesting that people walk on the roads during rush hour? I’d be curious to know which sidewalks they think are not wide enough. The only sidewalks falling into that category, in my experience, are the sidewalks in Yaletown.
“The creation of some pedestrian-priority street sections: Robson Square, Robson, Granville, Hamilton, Mainland mentioned as possibilities”
I take that (and perhaps a few of the other recommendations) as code for shutting down streets to drivers. If that’s correct, I’m skeptical. As a pedestrian, one thing I hate is congestion. It’s no fun walking past a long line of idling, honking gridlocked cars. Taking steps to create congestion is, IMO, the wrong way to go.
“Encourage developers to separate out parking and housing costs when selling condos in projects”
Good idea. Make people aware of the costs and give them choices.
“An Arbutus/False Creek/downtown streetcar”
Good idea. Wasn’t there a politician recommending that in the last election?
“Underground rapid transit along Broadway
- Rapid-bus routes along Hastings, 41/49th, Commercial/Victoria, Main/Fraser”
I don’t know how feasible the underground rapid transit is, but the more rapid transit, the better IMO.
4 Roger Kemble // Jun 19, 2012 at 3:04 pm
I would have thought the most obvious remedy for urban movement of any kind would be to reduce it: i.e. match amenities as close to source traffic as much as possible . . .
http://www.theyorkshirelad.ca/1yorkshirelad/vancouver.re-boot/Vancouver.re-boot.html
. . . first, douse the shiny trinket technocrats. Broadway under ground isn’t going to happen. Suck it up.
Given Translinks financial situation I have my doubts Evergreen will happen: and so it shouldn’t as it replicates Millennium for 90% of its way.
Recognize traditional communities for what they are and bring make walking distances the criteria. Obviously this wont work in every circumstance: but pushing the urban legend that work close to transit attracts the best employees should be dumped in the rain barrel: the last thing the city needs is sprawl by office.
I would be delighted, and I’ll bet 90% of Vancouverites too would like to see communities developed around recognizable unique centers loaded with all the amenities to make life at a human scale:
. . . abandon the mega-mall and its parking. Abandon the massive office building and its parking . . . etc.
. . . some amenities, (hospitals, for instance, be shared) incrementalized work places, recreational facilities, schools, hotels, dentist, drop-in clinics, movies, beauty parlors, and pubs all within walking: surrounded by market gardens relieving Daddy from mowing the lawn.
Oh boy I can imagine the dull thud that will invoke from the status quo . . . human scale is the criteria!
5 Frances Bula // Jun 19, 2012 at 3:07 pm
IanS: It is a little hard to find, but if you go here http://talkvancouver.com/transportation and then look for “detailed draft directions are now online” and then click on that link, you will have hours of reading pleasure.
6 Sylvan // Jun 19, 2012 at 3:12 pm
In most places other than North America, the standard stop spacing for local transit is around 400 metres. While it would be great to have overlapping express and local service on every corridor, that’s just not going to happen in most areas. So then the challenge is to balance transit speed vs. walking distance, and in most cases that means increasing stop spacing.
7 IanS // Jun 19, 2012 at 3:15 pm
Thanks Frances. “Pleasure” may not be the right word, but I’ve located the document now.
8 Bill Lee // Jun 19, 2012 at 3:23 pm
Hmm.
]
Blekkoing “vancouver.ca transport 2040″
brings up
http://talkvancouver.com/transportation
and there is a link on the page saying “Detailed draft directions are now online.” The word “online” is a link leading to http://talkvancouver.com/document/show/190
which is a PDF of 44 pages of 4 megaoctets titled (in its PDF header), ENG_-_STP_-_TP_-_Draft_Policies___Actions_-_2012-06-01.pdf
[ Oh that's a real clear title...
Could you at Transport planning get the Engineering Department to make your esoteric web pages, less … odd, inscrutable, even esoteric?
I would be happy to supply vaseline coated goggles and pleated kitchen mittens to your present web writers so they can experience what the ordinary user sees.
At the Car-free but lots of boozing Commercial Drive day the attendents at the Transport booth had taken their name-tags off, like the police, so we don’t get the names of the villians.
The City Local Area Dis-Planning group was getting more attention. But it is becoming a bar-watch group with 2 more 9 am to 2 am drinking taverns being brought in next month. The Drive, a place that only has private space, private seating and you must buy a drink.
9 Michael Kluckner // Jun 19, 2012 at 3:23 pm
I’m curious that telecommuting, i.e. working from home, doesn’t seem to be part of the debate anymore, yet is more feasible than it ever was for more types of workers. There’s a way to reduce the carbon footprint…
10 Bill Lee // Jun 19, 2012 at 3:29 pm
The Robson street scramble (and why can’t I search the PDF, I am using Acrobat 10.1.3 which is new enough) is :
#/&$(1″0″.$-#().*-(46/”&)&6.&)$-”"$#)*&).+/$($#&)3#$!$!”/&*(/*&44+)#$%($(/&*($#&)3#$!!#2!
,&/+4″.&’1″0″.$-#()..$-&)20″4()0’&-0#(2&)(/*-&..#)2.()04()%*&)’/#*$.3#$!$+-)#)2,”!#*/”.
&).#0″-3#0″-(11/#*($#&)#’.+**”..’+/
Yes, that is a copy and paste above of point 1.1.4 “Pilot a pedestrian scramble on Robson Street in consultation with the local community, “…. etc.
They ain’t numbered 1-187. That is for the secret cabal that Fabula attended just for the illuminati cognescenti who met in the Masonic Hall.
11 Frances Bula // Jun 19, 2012 at 3:32 pm
Roger: One of the planning dilemmas that is becoming increasingly apparent to me is that while everyone TALKS about creating communities where you can live/shop/work/play, that’s relatively easy to achieve with the live/shop/play part but not so easy for the work part. The service workers often can’t afford to live near the fancy restaurants where they are chopping vegetables or slinging beer. Nor can the lower-paid office workers afford the downtown condos that are so close to work. Until that gets solved, along with a few other small problems, I believe that we will still need a transit system.
As for underground Broadway, wait and see. There is really no other option if this city has any claim to being a city.
12 Frances Bula // Jun 19, 2012 at 3:33 pm
@Bill. Ha ha, actually I didn’t get to go to the secret cabal meeting yesterday. Too busy with other things. It’s just the number that Jerry happened to mention to me when I ran into him at city hall while attending the bike motions meeting last week.
13 Paul T. // Jun 19, 2012 at 3:47 pm
Love the idea of a scramble intersection. I’ve seen them in a couple cities and they work wonderfully. For it to work properly IMHO lights at intersections around the scramble intersection should be timed to allow vehicles to wave through. For example if Robson@Thurlow was the test. The lights on Thurlow @ Georgia, Alberni and Haro should be timed so that there isn’t a back up. The same would go for lights on Robson @ Burrard.
It’s a win-win for drivers and pedestrians. Turns for drivers are made easier because you don’t have to contend with pedestrians (since they are held until the scramble) and pedestrian safety is improved because pedestrians have all rights of way when the scramble is on. It’s a great idea.
14 Roger Kemble // Jun 19, 2012 at 4:04 pm
Frances @ #11
Thanqu for your insightful comments: I am probably talking pie in the sky . . . sort of . . . some time maybe . . .
However the one thing that seems to crowd my mind is the impossible debt the city and province is building: always brushed under the carpet while we dream but seldom mentioned.
The debt is one thing but the accruing interest on the debt must be astronomic. We talk wonderful gadgets but seldom about the cost.
I fear many of the decisions we talk about here will eventually be made for us by our financial situation.
Hence sooner or later, IMHO, we will be compelled to retrench into incremental planning.
15 Roger Kemble // Jun 19, 2012 at 4:22 pm
PS Broadway corridor TX.
Tunneling, even part way, would be exorbitant!
Cut and fill, even part way, would be so disruptive the town would come to a halt.
Translink is already having to sell off the family jewels!
16 Tiktaalik // Jun 19, 2012 at 4:28 pm
There’s an election coming up. Perhaps “adequately funding Translink” could emerge as a major campaign promise. Rail for Surrey could grab you 8 ridings. Rail for the valley even more.
17 Chris Porter // Jun 19, 2012 at 4:43 pm
I like the idea of better pedestrian/cycling links across the Granville Bridge.
See page 10: http://talkvancouver.com/document/show/208
18 Transportation Plan Team // Jun 19, 2012 at 4:45 pm
@Bill
Apologies for the pdf glitches, please find a searchable and copy-pastable revision at http://talkvancouver.com/document/show/213
(for what it’s worth, we have traced it back to a CutePDF export rather than Acrobat Pro, which means the file size dropped as well)
Best Regards,
Transportation Plan Team
19 Bill Lee // Jun 19, 2012 at 5:53 pm
@Chris Porter Jun 19, 2012 at 4:43 pm #17
Yes, a nicer place to throw one’s self off the bridge with the pictured flowers and shrubbery.
Who will fish out the bodies when the Coast Guard goes?
July 17, 1955 First jumper. 15 over the past five years.
Short history of G-Bridge http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Granville_Street_Bridge
Similar in HanYu zh.wikipedia.org/wiki/%E5%9B%BA%E8%98%AD%E6%B9%96%E8%A1%97%E6%A9%8B
But what racing street will teens have if it is “calmified”?
20 pacpost // Jun 19, 2012 at 6:51 pm
“Yes, a nicer place to throw one’s self off the bridge with the pictured flowers and shrubbery.”
I’d like to see the person who can jump from the middle of Granville Bridge (as pictured in the PDF file Chris links to), over two lanes of traffic, a sidewalk and a guardrail, and into False Creek. That would be impressive!
21 Agustin // Jun 19, 2012 at 7:46 pm
Hey IanS,
I’m not sure which document’s page 7 you mean, but in the June 2012 Draft Directions, commercial transit is a separate category altogether. So I think that the 60% to 40% goal is for personal motor vehicles only.
Regarding trips originating outside Vancouver, I think that would be interesting to look at as well, but maybe that’s outside the CoV’s jurisdiction? I’m not sure.
Regarding your comments on congestion: increasing road space increases congestion (as we’ve seen in many auto-oriented cities); why wouldn’t decreasing road space decrease congestion in the long run?
22 Bill Lee // Jun 19, 2012 at 8:50 pm
@Transportation Plan Team // Jun 19, 2012 at 4:45 pm #18
Thank you for promptness.
Yes, from 4 Moctets to 1.07 Moctes.
Now if you only dropped colours to 4 bits from 24 bits you would have enough for illustration but save another 30 percent.
And somewhere, someone has the secret 187 recommendation list already extracted from the document. Could you post it, pretty please, as you do with Executive Summaries for slower Councillors.
I was hoping not to extract all the bullet 1.3.1 …10.5.49 points by hand.
And I have to make up some section code, since the points repeat, there are 1.1s, 1.2s in the Cycling , Monster Truck and the Watercraft sections and so on.
Hmm, maybe PS instead of PDF next time.
And I realize that there are a bunch of cybernautic robots at city hall working in binary and occasionally in decimal but you have now renumbered it to 213, whereas before it was 190.
Mere flesh and bone can’t keep up with all the numbers. and 213 isn’t even prime. Have pity and include a few alphabetic titles with some ordinary Josephine or Joe meaning.
“…the word “online” is a link leading to http://talkvancouver.com/document/show/190
which is a PDF of 44 pages of 4 megaoctets titled (in its PDF header), ENG_-_STP_-_TP_-_Draft_Policies___Actions_-_2012-06-01.pdf [ Oh that's a real clear title... ] ” and counting the underscores! Oy!
Praśnāvalī mēṁ vaiṅkūvara parivahana kī sambhāvanā’ōṁ kā śahara kī mahatvapūrṇa jānakārī hai, hama isa sambandha mēṁ apanē vicārōṁ kō sunanā cāhatē haiṁ. Yadi kisī kō kisī sē pūchanā karanē kī āvaśyakatā anuvāda karanē kē li’ē āpakē
प्रश्नावली में वैंकूवर परिवहन की संभावनाओं का शहर की महत्वपूर्ण जानकारी है, हम इस संबंध में अपने विचारों को सुनना चाहते हैं. यदि किसी को किसी से पूछना करने की आवश्यकता अनुवाद करने के लिए आपके
23 Everyman // Jun 19, 2012 at 9:39 pm
Or they could just dub it the Encourage Shopping in Richmond & Burnaby Plan. Count the empty storefronts on South Granville, West Fourth or Robson. Shoppers and merchants are already voting (but not with their feet).
24 tf // Jun 19, 2012 at 10:56 pm
Thanks Frances, that’s very helpful.
The only point outlined that I strongly disagree with is the underground transit along Broadway.
We live in one of the most beautiful cities in the world and there is nothing worse than sitting in a tube travelling underground for 60 blocks – just try the Canada Line.
I was so looking forward to a rapid transit line with spectacular views north south east and west but instead I become a zombie, staring at flashing lights, listening to a robot voice call out each station, glazed over as time passes. If you ever want a dehumanizing experience, take the Canada Line in the tunnel daily.
There’s got to be a better way for our quality of life!
25 Sean Nelson // Jun 19, 2012 at 11:07 pm
@tf # 24 “I was so looking forward to a rapid transit line with spectacular views north south east and west but instead I become a zombie, staring at flashing lights…”
I totally agree. It’s obvious to me that he people who think that elevated transit is an “eyesore” are NOT the ones who use it. The eyesore (and earsore) is those tunnels. I’m convinced that one of the big reasons Skytrain is so popular is the wonderful experience of soaring above Vancouver.
Unfortunately, I can’t see it happening for Broadway, though.
26 Lewis N. Villegas // Jun 19, 2012 at 11:07 pm
…cycling represents the smallest portion of the various modes of locomotion that exist now and that will exist even in the foreseeable future…
Frances
Your other point about Bus Rapid Transit (BRT) puts the discussion in the right framework as far as I can see.
Vancouver’s comparative advantage with every other Lower Mainland municipality (except New Westminster) is walkability.
This is not so much an affront to cycling as it is a vote of confidence to Trolley Bus Rapid Transit. It is also a wink and a nod to the platting of early Vancouver. It is not the kind of effort that has received world recognition—the boring grid should be a violation punishable by law.
However, it is ‘transit friendly’.
Now that we have crossed the threshold where driving is ‘cool’. We have arrived at the place where alternatives to driving—for commuting to work, for example—can be given up yielding an economic advantage.
Of course, my bit is to remind Bulabloggers that it will not mean a “hoot” unless we resolve to build our cities and neighbourhoods as walkable places.
27 Tessa // Jun 20, 2012 at 3:29 am
“- Bus stops further apart on local routes to encourage more transit use. (??? Seems counter-intuitive to me. I take local buses, not expresses, because it drops me half a block from my house.)”
There’s good reason for this. Having bus stops close together means more stops, more delays and a slower bus, which also means more bus bunching, as the variance in the number of stops each bus actually makes is also higher, which means less reliable service. And slower service is also more expensive service, meaning more buses are required to achieve the same frequency. It might mean a slightly longer walk, but it could still result in better, more attractive transit service.
28 Tessa // Jun 20, 2012 at 3:33 am
Sorry, as for the other recommendations, I have to largely agree all around. Especially, I should point out, at the scramble intersection, larger sidewalks and underground transit on Broadway. I know some people would like transit above ground, and ideally I agree, but in Broadway the space isn’t there and the capacity calls for grade separation, and we shouldn’t sacrifice the effectiveness of the service or the the streetscape for that.
That said, I really don’t understand the one on rush hour parking, and while it’s good to see Vancouver planning future transit, the city also needs to accept that translink needs the money to pay for increases in service, including many sources of funding. Property taxes shouldn’t be off limits.
29 IanS // Jun 20, 2012 at 7:43 am
Hi Agustin (#21):
“I’m not sure which document’s page 7 you mean, but in the June 2012 Draft Directions, commercial transit is a separate category altogether. So I think that the 60% to 40% goal is for personal motor vehicles only.”
One of the documents I looked at while looking for the one Frances was talking about was a shorter pdf called “consultation document”. It’s linked on the same site. The small print sets out certain caveats to the 40 / 60 number, which I pointed out in my post. One of my points is that the 40 / 60 number excludes all commercial vehicles, thus giving the impression that the ratio is more favourable to non-vehicular traffic.
“Regarding trips originating outside Vancouver, I think that would be interesting to look at as well, but maybe that’s outside the CoV’s jurisdiction? I’m not sure.”
I don’t think it’s beyond their jurisdiction to count cars coming into Vancouver. They do it all the time, or at least have access to such figures. Again, the decision to exclude such traffic skews the 40 / 60 ratio in favour of non-vehicular traffic.
“Regarding your comments on congestion: increasing road space increases congestion (as we’ve seen in many auto-oriented cities); why wouldn’t decreasing road space decrease congestion in the long run?”
It seems to be article of faith that more roads = more congestion and I don’t take issue with that. But why would reducing capacity reduce congestion? I certainly don’t want to turn this in to a biking issue, as cycling is apparently by far the least important mode of transportation, but the report on bike lanes recently relied upon in support of the “decision” to keep the bike lanes indicated (IIRC) that car use remained the same on the bike routes and that there was some increase in congestion and travel times.
I reiterate, as a pedestrian, I’m not in favour of increased congestion.
30 Lewis N. Villegas // Jun 20, 2012 at 8:00 am
@ Tessa
“Bus bunching” on Bway is partly due to the fact that we are running a local bus and a B-Line bus on the same lanes. Not only that, but there are also other lines that turn on Bway and run on the same lanes.
Broadway Subway
I’d love to see a subway on Broadway, too. However, the last proposal I saw from Translink made it a choice between train-in-the-sky and LRT.
Given the financial constraints—and the penchant for Translink to go-ahead and build Evergreen Skytrian—it seems as if Broadway BRT is the last standing option we can fund.
That, or we stay with (the badly planned) buses.
You would never run a railway (i.e. subway) that way. Maybe we should start planning bus routes as if they were rapid transit, rather than sedan delivery.
That extra block people have to walk for a bus will help to curve the disturbing trend to obesity in our population. For those who find walking the extra block a physical hardship, the dart concept can pitch in.
31 Lewis N. Villegas // Jun 20, 2012 at 8:03 am
Ohhhh….
and ‘good’ urban design that makes walking that extra block BOTH rewarding AND a pleasure.
32 Tessa // Jun 20, 2012 at 9:50 am
@Lewis:
Two points: First, the bus bunching I’m refering to is not on Broadway but on routes like Fraser, Victoria, Main, etc. Those buses come very frequently and stop very often, and are prone to bunching. It really is an everyday problem.
Second, Translink’s options do not include any above-ground skytrain beyond Great Northern Way. The option is between Skytrain (or another form of fully grade separated rail, though to not have it connect to the millenium line would be foolish), LRT and buses, or a combination thereof. So no train-in-the-sky as you suggested. Of that, venturing into my own opinion here, think we are foolish to choose anything that does not at least extend the Millenium Line through to Arbutus and connects to the Canada Line, furthering the network effect.
33 Julia // Jun 20, 2012 at 10:29 am
Everyman #23 – not only are the businesses voting, so are the customers. It is less hassle to wait in line at the border than to venture downtown.
Until we can go back to 1 income households we must assume one wage earner is likely going to commute to a job. Easy transportation will be required. We are not about to move every time our job changes.
34 Raingurl // Jun 20, 2012 at 10:39 am
- Improvements to laneways to make them more pedestrian attractive. (when you say laneways, do you really mean alleys?) Seems to me you have to get the urinators out of there first! Have you ever walked from Woodward’s to Army and Navy through the alley. The rats and the urinators are fighting for space!
35 Raingurl // Jun 20, 2012 at 10:41 am
- Underground rapid transit along Broadway
Don’t even mention rapid transit in Vancouver until the Evergreen Line is complete! Get another B-line and tell everyone to suck it up, princess!
36 Raingurl // Jun 20, 2012 at 10:47 am
- More public restrooms, so walkers have places to, um, go while they’re hiking across town
Most hotel lobbies have restrooms. I personally use the Hotel Vancouver quite often. St. Paul’s Hospital has one by the emergency room. Victory Square has a wonderful, clean and supervised restroom. Even Main and Hastings has one (clean and supervised) but I haven’t ventured into that one because Carnegie Centre has a clean one that is above ground.
37 Raingurl // Jun 20, 2012 at 10:49 am
- More rain-friendly designs for sidewalks and public spaces — awnings, canopies, shelters, etc.
Well, this is a must because you know what they say……….If you don’t like the weather in Vancouver, wait five minutes!
38 Bill Lee // Jun 20, 2012 at 12:26 pm
Can o’ peas.
Yes, what has happened to the Bay store canopy. I thought that lovely 1930s steel all around out over the sidewalk would be the standard for the city one day.
I expect that the large (extends over the street) canopy being built at the (ex-slickety-Jim’s) site on Main at Broadway will be the usual dry glass overhang.
Bay used to be such a good physical store. The new owners have done a nice job on the Doulton Terracotta frontage, but we miss the awning/canopy.
( And that it had a post office for those weekends when tourists would be downtown pounding on the Central Post Office doors. “The Central Post Office closed on weekends! How uncivilized”
39 Bill Lee // Jun 20, 2012 at 12:36 pm
RE: Tessa // Jun 20, 2012 at 9:50 am #28
Bus bunching and fewer stops.
Having had to use the old 34 Hastings Express for some time, No stops for 5 km from Main to the Kootenay Loop, I know that it can be a problem.
We get used to stops every 2 blocks .3 km, but once every kilometre 6 blocks as on Broadway will be a bit much, since the Broadway stops at least meet a north south line as the street railway network was designed for.
On a regular north south route there are complete deserts of blocks if only stops every 1 kilometer. Would merchants object? What about the school riders?
And there is a current late-night policy of letting-off-on-request-anywhere for safety anxiety reasons for passengers.
40 Jay // Jun 20, 2012 at 1:06 pm
If Translink is considering wider stop spacing, I wonder if they are also considering dedicated bus lanes in the median of the street, and signal priority as well. Buses on Fraser, Victoria or wherever would operate more like a tram, making them a more attractive option for drivers. Same performance as a tram (except capacity), just far less expensive.
41 MB // Jun 20, 2012 at 1:18 pm
@ Everyman 23
Or they could just dub it [Transportation 2040] the Encourage Shopping in Richmond & Burnaby Plan. Count the empty storefronts on South Granville, West Fourth or Robson. Shoppers and merchants are already voting (but not with their feet).
Try Main Street.
42 Guest // Jun 20, 2012 at 1:25 pm
Bill Lee @38
The Bay is replacing the old oppressive (but functional) 1940s(?) awning with historical awnings at the main entrances and glass awnings over the woindows between.
The new awnings will allow pedestrains to look up and see the sky (and the restored building) rather than painted steel.
They are also re-opening the clerestory windows above the awning that were closed up when the old awning was installed.
The Bay is also looking to lease out its Concourse (basement) and SkyTrain levels not occupied by TopShop/TopMan – about 60,000 sq ft.
There’s a render of the awning here:
http://www.pbsrealestate.com/ftp/hbcretail.pdf
43 Guest // Jun 20, 2012 at 1:32 pm
BTW – the Post Office is now on the lower level of the London Drugs at Granville & Georgia.
44 MB // Jun 20, 2012 at 1:48 pm
@ Julia 33
It is less hassle to wait in line at the border than to venture downtown.
To whom do you refer, the majority who live 50 km from the border, or suburbanites who live only 10 km away?
I’ve never been remotely tempted to spend time and money getting to a deal on the other side of the border. Nor has any friend, neighbour or relative that I know of.
It’s too expensive to get there.
45 MB // Jun 20, 2012 at 2:03 pm
@ Tessa 32
… we are foolish to choose anything that does not at least extend the Millenium Line through to Arbutus and connects to the Canada Line, furthering the network effect.
Thank you for correcting Lewis’s misconceptions on the options actually proposed for Broadway. I did the same thing a few months back and copied the link to the study options, which he obviously never read.
I would suggest the subway should continue all the way to UBC not just because of the daily ridership by students, but also because UBC is the second largest single employer in BC next to the provincial government. It is literally a town at the end of the line that doesn’t deserve to be continually shortchanged by a transfer penalty at Arbutus any more than at Granville in the 80′s when I was a student.
There are other issues that kills surface rail or BRT for me on Broadway, not the least being a lack of a real cost vs. benefit and engineering analyses, and the presence of so many closely-spaced signalized cross streets.
A subway with improved #9 trolley bus service and widened sidewalks with special treatment fro pedestrians will go a very long ways, in my view, to reafirm Broadway’s importance a regional centre and to secure a lower energy footprint as well.
46 Mira // Jun 20, 2012 at 2:13 pm
Hard times for Vancouver ahead!
Lunatics are in charge of the Asylum!
Maybe we shall do something about it, as it seems that too many in the planning department are reading too much science fiction… for their own good.
47 MB // Jun 20, 2012 at 2:16 pm
Regarding the proposed goal to reduce car traffic from 60% to 40%, I don’t find that unreasonable due to externalities, like higher fuel prices.
Does anyone care to estimate what the price at the pump will be in 28 years? In 8 years? I didn’t think so.
What we can take to the bank is that the world supply of cheap oil has been in decline since its 2005 peak, some 35 years before the clock turns to 2040.
Therefore, the price at the pump in 2040 may not even matter because even with new exporation, nothing can make up for the loss (or should I say waste?) of this crucial finite resource in quanity or in affordability.
In this light, transit is more than imperative, and the 40% goal may be widely exceeded as the economic impact of much higher energy prices and scarcity have an effect.
48 MB // Jun 20, 2012 at 2:51 pm
Guest 42
I’m disappointed the new glass awnings at HBC will not offer anywhere near the rain protection the old ones did. I think the minimal sidewalk coverage needs to be bumped up to something like the old HBC or like the canopies at HSBC.
49 Jay // Jun 20, 2012 at 3:03 pm
@ MB – “Does anyone care to estimate what the price at the pump will be in 28 years? In 8 years? I didn’t think so.”
I’m willing to make a small wager that in 28 years gas will be cheaper than it is today. My prediction is that electric vehicles will outnumber gas powered vehicles. Environment saved!
50 MB // Jun 20, 2012 at 3:19 pm
@ Jay 49
There are currently about 1.5 million cars in Metro Vancouver. Let’s say we electrify oh, say, about 375,000 of them (only 1/4), where will the extra electrical generating capacity come from?
You’d have to dam the Fraser, Skeena and Nass rivers in several places just to keep some Lower Mainlander’s cars juiced.
A slight challenge there, wouldn’t you say?
This is why I believe available energy and its cost will ultimately dictate that we need to reclaim our cities from the car and provide more energy efficient transportation.
I refer you to the laws of thermodynamics:
http://www.emc.maricopa.edu/faculty/farabee/biobk/biobookener1.html
51 Tessa // Jun 21, 2012 at 7:51 am
@MB 45
I completely agree that UBC as the terminus would be ideal, thus my use of the words “at least.” I think anything less in the Central Broadway corridor would be a disaster, whereas one of the combo options appeared at the least workable.
52 Everyman // Jun 21, 2012 at 9:06 am
@MB
Main Street is one high street out of several. The fact that the others have so many vacancies is indicative of where people are (not) shopping. Why would I bother with downtown when just five minutes more gets me to suburban shopping areas with just as much selection and ample free parking? I go see a movie at Riverport over dealing with the traffic and extra expense of the Scotiabank cinemas.
As to oil prices, they’ve been falling steadily for months.
53 Raingurl // Jun 21, 2012 at 11:06 am
LOL@EVERYMAN. You counting backwards? Or is it forwards? You’re living under a rock, good man. I was shaking my head when the gas prices hit $120.00. Now I’m doing a complete Linda Blair swivel everytime I drive by a gas station (on the bus!)
54 Raingurl // Jun 21, 2012 at 11:07 am
WOOPS! I really did mean $1.20…….I imagine I’ll be dead by the time the gas price hits $120.00!
55 Guest // Jun 22, 2012 at 12:22 pm
MB @48
I suspect that the previous awning atrracted undesirable elements (people camping in the alcoves, prompting installation of steel grates across then) which were/are incompatible with HBC’s new upscale image.
(also like the bike couriers who congregate under the HSBC’s awning each day)
I have also noticed that the bus stops have been moved to the blocks east and west of The Bay.
Most notably to 701 West Georgia (which has little awning protection), even well before the awning project.
The bus stops to the east may be due to the awning project and will probably come back to The Bay’s frontage.
So it looks like the bus stops will be more evenly distributed across these blocks rather than crowding the sidewalk solely in front of The Bay.
56 Bill Lee // Jun 25, 2012 at 12:45 pm
@Bill Lee // Jun 20, 2012 at 12:26 pm #38
An answer from Olivia Lovenmar
Dear Mr. Lee,
Thank you for taking the time to email us your concerns. As one of our loyal customers, we greatly appreciate your feedback regarding our current appearance.
In regards to the canopy, we have removed the old over-hang in an effort to further improve the look of our store and restore it to its previous integrity and heritage. A new canopy will soon be put in place. We expect the majority of our renovations to be completed by early fall, once again giving us the opportunity to focus on our store windows.
Thank you again for your email and best regards,
Olivia Lovenmark, on behalf of Stephane Ledoux, Vice President of The Bay Downtown Vancouver
Leave a Comment