Arbutus: Greenway & Future Streetcar | Proposed

[aberdeen5698]

Originally Posted by retro_orange

At this point it's no longer positive to see an increase of %15 in the price of a west side home.

You've got that right, especially when all the other houses in Vancouver have gone up by 25% in the past year....

Of course the downside of your house appreciating in value faster than everyone else's is that you end up paying a larger share of the property taxes in the city.

Maybe I'm naive to ask but why didn't translink purchase the Arbutus corridor?

Because there's no immediate need for a rapid transit line or even an LRT in that corridor, and Translink has far more pressing transit issues that could use the money.

[WarrenC12]

Originally Posted by aberdeen5698

Of course the downside of your house appreciating in value faster than everyone else's is that you end up paying a larger share of the property taxes in the city.

Thanks to owning a condo my taxes have gone down 2 years in a row. Maybe more but I don't have more history in front of me. Hooray, I think.

[aberdeen5698]

Originally Posted by WarrenC12

Thanks to owning a condo my taxes have gone down 2 years in a row. Maybe more but I don't have more history in front of me. Hooray, I think.

You're welcome.

The property tax bill for my east side 67-year old bungalow is over 10% higher this year than it was last year.

[officedweller]

Originally Posted by WarrenC12

Thanks to owning a condo my taxes have gone down 2 years in a row. Maybe more but I don't have more history in front of me. Hooray, I think.

OFF TOPIC -
Definitely hooray for my Yaletown condo too.
Mine dropped $170 this year.
I'm back to 2004 levels (my peak was in 2009 and it's been dropping each year since).

But one condo in my building (same layout as mine) recently sold for 50% above assessed value, so I'll see a jump in assessed value next year.

[GlassCity]

Originally Posted by MIPS

Yet they wonder why so many people hate them so much.

Yeah the cycling community is just terrible. Who the hell are they to advocate for safe roads and the encouragement of a transportation choice that benefits the environment and eases congestion? There's no reason cycling and transit can't coexist. You guys sound like how drivers talk about public transit.

[VancouverOfTheFuture]

Originally Posted by GlassCity

eases congestion

hmmm gotta disagree with that one; important roads that now have bike lanes are more congested then ever before. Dunsmiur is a prime example. before the bike lane it almost never backed up, but now it backs up all hours of the day.

before you throw around a bunch of words trying to make a point, stick with the points that have validity. it will diminish your argument otherwise.

[WarrenC12]

The only thing that will ease congestion in the long run is making existing roads more efficient. That means more people per vehicle (ie transit) or more people able to use the same amount of road space (ie walking, cycling).

Anything else is ignoring physical reality.

[Migrant_Coconut]

Originally Posted by GlassCity

There's no reason cycling and transit can't coexist.

And yet despite there being enough room for pedestrians, bikes AND trams, it's looking more and more likely that the entire Corridor will become just a bike lane - a bike lane, might I add, that cyclists don't want E-bikes to use either.

Originally Posted by WarrenC12

The only thing that will ease congestion in the long run is making existing roads more efficient. That means more people per vehicle (ie transit) or more people able to use the same amount of road space (ie walking, cycling).

True, but getting people out of cars means replacing the convenience that cars provide. That means either LRT or Skytrains, neither of which we're going to see in the near future.

[WarrenC12]

Originally Posted by Migrant_Coconut

True, but getting people out of cars means replacing the convenience that cars provide. That means either LRT or Skytrains, neither of which we're going to see in the near future.

Well I don't think we'll see another Skytrain line into downtown Vancouver for a long time. We might see LRT or a streetcar in the next few decades, but that will surely eat up a lot of road space. Are you saying the CoV should not be building bike lanes today? It's pretty much the only thing they can do on their own dime, and they are very quick to implement.

[Migrant_Coconut]

Originally Posted by WarrenC12

Well I don't think we'll see another Skytrain line into downtown Vancouver for a long time. We might see LRT or a streetcar in the next few decades, but that will surely eat up a lot of road space. Are you saying the CoV should not be building bike lanes today? It's pretty much the only thing they can do on their own dime, and they are very quick to implement.

Sure, but like I said, getting people to not drive means providing a more convenient option than driving. And despite all the downsides, a car is still more convenient than a bike: you can store goods and shopping in it, it's sometimes faster for short trips - definitely faster for long (or multiple) ones - and you don't have to pedal it up and down a very hilly city.
Transit covers most of those advantages, but biking is still mostly for recreation, or for people who live near their workplace... or who have an entire private road all to themselves.

You can't build your way out of congestion, but you can't demolish your way out either. Build more bike lanes and people stay in their cars and increase gridlock on the now narrower roads. Or they try and find shortcuts through side streets that aren't supposed to handle high volumes of cars, which (understandably) irritates the residents. My advice to City Council? Get cars off the road with fast, frequent, reliable transit, then you can build all the bike lanes you want. Doing it the other way around is putting the cart before the horse.

[aberdeen5698]

Originally Posted by Migrant_Coconut

Build more bike lanes and people stay in their cars and increase gridlock on the now narrower roads.

Actually, build more bike lanes and more people bike - that's the reality of the past few years in Vancouver. And those cyclists aren't driving cars - isn't that a good thing? They're not even contributing to the crowds on transit, which helps to make that a more viable option for some folks.

If you provide reasonable options for people, then they'll take advantage of them.

[Migrant_Coconut]

Originally Posted by aberdeen5698

And those cyclists aren't driving cars - isn't that a good thing? They're not even contributing to the crowds on transit, which helps to make that a more viable option for some folks.

Sometimes they make transit slower. I can't begin to count the number of times our bus was behind a slow-moving cyclist at Broadway & Stephens and didn't make the light. Or two days ago, when a guy and his bike pushed his way into an already crowded Canada Line train. Neither the passengers nor the people who could've boarded instead were happy.

Bikers even have reserved spaces on the train to put their bikes - they're absolutely contributing to the crowds.

If you provide reasonable options for people, then they'll take advantage of them.

But you need to make cycling a reasonable option. I hate to repeat myself, but a car can carry groceries and/or shopping (even furniture), and both cars and transit can cover multiple long-distance trips in a short amount of time. And neither require you to pedal them. The bike is still mostly a recreational or short-distance vehicle because of this. An increase in the city's zipline infrastructure will definitely mean more people using ziplines, but that doesn't mean I'm going to commute by zipline!

So building a bike lane on a quiet street makes sense, since it separates the long-distance commuters and the sightseers. Replacing an existing lane down a busy street (which Vision is doing more and more) only irritates both biker and driver.

Edit: Go ahead and post a rebuttal, but let's get back to whether or not Arbutus should have a streetcar/tram/LRT sharing the corridor with pedestrians and bikers (IMHO, yes).

[Kisai]

Originally Posted by Migrant_Coconut

So building a bike lane on a quiet street makes sense, since it separates the long-distance commuters and the sightseers. Replacing an existing lane down a busy street (which Vision is doing more and more) only irritates both biker and driver.

Edit: Go ahead and post a rebuttal, but let's get back to whether or not Arbutus should have a streetcar/tram/LRT sharing the corridor with pedestrians and bikers (IMHO, yes).

Arbutus just needs something on it to prevent encroachment by the NIMBY's who would take over with gardens again. Fence it in, put a twin bike/foot path. Then in 20,30,50 years run the Skytrain down it once common sense prevails, or dig it up and run a subway under it. There will never be a streetcar down it once the rails are gone because nobody will want that in their backyard, and the loss of the bike path would cause an uproar then.

Basically, if nobody is going to foot the bill to put a street car down it -NOW-, it's not going to happen ever, because it won't ever be cost effective to re-install the rails.

[WarrenC12]

Originally Posted by Migrant_Coconut

But you need to make cycling a reasonable option. I hate to repeat myself, but a car can carry groceries and/or shopping (even furniture), and both cars and transit can cover multiple long-distance trips in a short amount of time. And neither require you to pedal them. The bike is still mostly a recreational or short-distance vehicle because of this. An increase in the city's zipline infrastructure will definitely mean more people using ziplines, but that doesn't mean I'm going to commute by zipline!

So building a bike lane on a quiet street makes sense, since it separates the long-distance commuters and the sightseers. Replacing an existing lane down a busy street (which Vision is doing more and more) only irritates both biker and driver.

Edit: Go ahead and post a rebuttal, but let's get back to whether or not Arbutus should have a streetcar/tram/LRT sharing the corridor with pedestrians and bikers (IMHO, yes).

What streets downtown should qualify for bike lanes then? Aren't they all busy?

As for Arbutus, yes I think it should have rail at some point in the future, but it's so far down the list of priorities that it's hardly worth discussing today IMO.

[IanS]

Originally Posted by aberdeen5698

Actually, build more bike lanes and more people bike - that's the reality of the past few years in Vancouver. And those cyclists aren't driving cars - isn't that a good thing? They're not even contributing to the crowds on transit, which helps to make that a more viable option for some folks.

If you provide reasonable options for people, then they'll take advantage of them.

Ironically, the latest numbers from the City of Vancouver seem to indicate that the (very minor) increase in cycling as a mode of transportation has come almost entirely at the expense of transit use. So, yeah... let's get people off transit and onto their bikes.

http://council.vancouver.ca/20160504/documents/pspc2-presentation.pdf

I do agree that there is some PR, or branding, benefit to be had for the City in its "Greenest City" PR efforts, but I don't see that the bike lanes, and increase in bike use, is doing much to alleviate congestion. From my experience downtown, it's quite the opposite.

[Migrant_Coconut]

Originally Posted by WarrenC12

What streets downtown should qualify for bike lanes then? Aren't they all busy?

Current network seems large enough to me - definitely larger than the SkyTrain network.

As for Arbutus, yes I think it should have rail at some point in the future, but it's so far down the list of priorities that it's hardly worth discussing today IMO.

Not today or tomorrow, more like a decade down the road. And we won't get to discuss it at all if the entire thing gets turned into a greenway.

Originally Posted by IanS

I do agree that there is some PR, or branding, benefit to be had for the City in its "Greenest City" PR efforts, but I don't see that the bike lanes, and increase in bike use, is doing much to alleviate congestion. From my experience downtown, it's quite the opposite.

Pretty much this. Every time I end up on Burrard Bridge (driving or walking) at any given time or day, I see a small logjam of motor vehicles and about two bikes a minute.

[AMTDGT]

Originally Posted by GlassCity

Yeah the cycling community is just terrible. Who the hell are they to advocate for safe roads and the encouragement of a transportation choice that benefits the environment and eases congestion? There's no reason cycling and transit can't coexist. You guys sound like how drivers talk about public transit.

We sometimes drive, we sometimes walk, we sometime take transit, we some times take our bikes. Our issue is with some, not all bike lanes,. IMO the COV does not listen to local residents because they have their bike agenda. So be it. We are adults in a democracy and eventually we will vote the bums out.

The real issue we have with the "Biking community", is there appears to be in our experience, ZERO enforcement of the rules of the road with respect to bicyclist in the COV. That is whether we are walking, biking or driving a car. Enforce the rules, which may clean up the arrogance of some of these biking folks and maybe, just maybe, there will be less resistance to bike lanes.

[logicbomb]

Originally Posted by Migrant_Coconut

Not today or tomorrow, more like a decade down the road. And we won't get to discuss it at all if the entire thing gets turned into a greenway.



Pretty much this. Every time I end up on Burrard Bridge (driving or walking) at any given time or day, I see a small logjam of motor vehicles and about two bikes a minute.

We should probably stop discussing it since the ENTIRE ROW will get turned into a CYCLING GREENWAY.

There's a reason why you see many groups in the USA fighting against the rail-to-trail corridors now...because no level of government will ever consider converting it back for rail/transit purposes once the rails are ripped. It's the lack of foresight and planning that screws things up. The Galloping Goose ROW is a bike corridor that will never be converted for passenger/commuter rail service and Kelowna did the same by converting the KPR corridor into a bike trail.

[Porfiry]

Originally Posted by Migrant_Coconut

Not today or tomorrow, more like a decade down the road. And we won't get to discuss it at all if the entire thing gets turned into a greenway.

I don't understand your point at all. A cycle path requires 3 meters of space. There's ample room for everyone.

As for the political climate when rail transit might be needed - in 2 or 3 decades - who cares?

[Migrant_Coconut]

Originally Posted by Porfiry

I don't understand your point at all. A cycle path requires 3 meters of space. There's ample room for everyone.

As for the political climate when rail transit might be needed - in 2 or 3 decades - who cares?

Reread the last two pages.

Having bikes, pedestrians and streetcars sharing the Corridor is definitely the best solution, but there's concern that a loud minority of cyclists are wanting to have the entire 10-20m width all to themselves - and that City Council might be coming around to their side of the argument.