397 responses so far ↓

• 1 susan smith // Apr 28, 2014 at 12:44 am

  Jenables, I am not sure to whom you were directing your comment #346 regarding the ICBC disclaimer, but if you were asking me, firstly I do not think it appropriate of you to label the disclaimer “crappy.” Yes, legally, the disclaimer protects ICBC from lawsuits if one were to try to use that data as a factual representation of the conditions of a road when in fact, it does not well represent the conditions of the road. ICBC is forthcoming in its disclaimer, explaining that its data is incomplete, and that the conditions of a road are highly complex, requiring investigative studies by experts, comparative studies, police and other authorities’ data and anecdotal information to provide the accurate description of a road’s conditions. In addition, unreported accidents, un-filed accidents, property damage and near-misses must also be included in the estimation of a road’s danger or safety.

• 2 susan smith // Apr 28, 2014 at 1:37 am

  Jenables, if you are referring to my comment #339 in your comment #343 (asking for stats), it is now Monday, so you can contact the City directly (call 311) and ask for their cyclist traffic counts (manual and tubal) on Point Grey Road. Then, you will have the facts, not hearsay.

• 3 gman // Apr 28, 2014 at 9:03 am

  I would like to give my heartfelt thanks to Suzi and Jeff for their input and showing us that there is absolutely no credible reason to close PGR.Your weak argument and obfuscation have proven how stupid this closure is.Dumb and dumber,carry on.

• 4 susan smith // Apr 28, 2014 at 11:19 am

  gman,

  clearly you have no idea what constitutes clarity versus obfuscation. Do your own research if you don’t want to accept, or can’t understand the facts as they are presented to you here.

• 5 Jeff Leigh // Apr 28, 2014 at 11:33 am

  gman, all this debate is simply responding to Randey’s charge that there was no initial justification for closing PGR to arterial traffic. Pretty soon we will hopefully move on from arguing about whether there was justification (past tense) to whether or not it turned out to be a good idea, based on current data.

  If the volumes of pedestrians and bicycles go up over last year, then we will have a credible reason for the change. The project goals and objectives were articulated by the CoV. Let’s see if we achieve them. If the usage doesn’t go up, then the original justifications should come into play. Then you can call it a stupid closure.

• 6 skippy // Apr 28, 2014 at 8:22 pm

  So the metric used to assess whether the PG road closure was a good policy decision is what?

• 7 susan smith // Apr 28, 2014 at 9:17 pm

  Skippy,

  “the metric” is whether the available evidence supports or not the closure achieving the specified goals and objectives that the City elucidated as the reasons for the closure.

• 8 skippy // Apr 28, 2014 at 9:57 pm

  Yes I agree. What would be the specified goals and objectives? PG road was closed because…???

• 9 Randey Brophy // Apr 29, 2014 at 12:40 am

  Just back from 3 daysout of town and I see there is a need for a new application of BS remover to the nonsense posted by Jeff-I’m not going to answer your questions Leigh and the “person sometimes known as Susan Smith” . First Susan Smith #336 who stated: “Fact: Henry Hudson, General Gordon, Carnarvon and Kits schools are neither on nor near closed Point Grey Road or Macdonald Street. Thus, any suggestion to the contrary by Randey Brophy is a lie. Google-search them for yourself.” another big deja moo from sue another big deja moo from Deja moo sue.. first I never said any of them were near Point Grey road nor that Henry Hudson was close to either Pt G Road or Macdonald street . Read my previous posts yourself yo confirm this. 60 post HUBapologist Jeff Leigh cited Hudson elementary on Cornwall and Cypress as a shining example of the City improving safety by for kids botching up the south end of the Burrard St Bridge..I called that for the lie it was by pointing out Hudsons catchment area does not cross the Burrard st bridge and the bike line on the south border of the school on York will endanger kids..end of claim by Jeff. next in spite of Deja Moo Sues attempt to once again make a fact by prefacing a lire with the word Fact, General gordon elementary Kits high scvhoo and Carnarovn are indeed close to Macdonald st.. My kids went to General Gordon elementary and to Kits . General Gordon is one block west of Macdonald on 6th. Kits kids, like my own east of Macdonald have to cross Macdonald to get to it.Kits high, where my children also attended is 2 blocks east of Macdonald on 10th and Carnarvon is 1 1/2 blocks west of Macdonald on 16th. Do check google as Lying Deja moo Sue has suggested.My children went Genaral Gordon and Kits. I am well aware of where they are in relation to Macdonald as are the parents of these kids who are writing letters of complaint to the city and the papers regarding the increased traffic on Macdonald stemming form Pt Grey road. Jeff in posts 340 and 341 tries his usual BS rationalization of why kids would be endangered..if the idiot had kids who had gone to the school he would understand . I’m not writing the letters to the editor from concerned parents , concerned parents are and their concerns are real and Jeff and Sue should be ashamed of trying to downplay them with their usual lies and slimey deceit.Jeff’s post 347 is particularly slimey ;
  “Jeff Leigh // Apr 28, 2014 at 12:32 am

  Jen, if we are concerned about the safety of children headed to school, and I think we should be, why wouldn’t we encourage them to take the safest, most direct route? A quiet street, with a controlled crossing on 4th? I think any parent would. So pulling statistics from a single road (MacDonald) and saying that all the kids use this to get to school is not helping the debate.” What absolute nonsense . What about the kids that llive on 5th 6th 7th and 8th, east of Macdonald..they are not going to go to 4th to cross to a school on 6th and even if they do go to the light at 6th, with an increase in traffic there is going to be an increase in danger from motorists frustrated in a further congested street trying to make time an d running light. The real obvious question which Jeff won’t ask is if we are concerned about kids safety why did we reroute 76-10 cars up Macdonald st in the first place? There are no schools within 2 blocks of Point Grey road. THAT is the issue.So why are we getting added traffic around our schools? For what?Sue is a lying nimby when she says General Gordon elementary, Kits high school and Carnarvon elementary are nowhere near Macdonald. The truth is they are all within 2 blocks of Macdonald and Kits kids, like my own have to cross Macdonald to attend them and they are endangered by the further rerouting of cars up Macdonald, as many parents pointed out at the public hearings and in letters to the sun and province-some of which I’ve copied and posted on this forum- by adding 7-10 k cars per day on Mscdonald and displacing those cars from Pt Grey road which has no schools near it, nor no playing fields. That is the truth and rather than admit it Deja moo Sue and 60 post HUB memeber Jeff want to continue to ignore that kids and west side commuters have been endangered by adding 7-10 k cars t/day to Macdonald which already had 7 times the number of accidents , with previously similar traffic volumes as Pt Grey Road. These are the facts..Trying to deny them or mitigate them just shows how completely misleading and out of touch Jeff and Sue are with the general public interest and anybodies needs except their own. First having tried to deny the ICBC dats Jeff @349 claims it is incomplete because it doesn’t report non reported accidents. So what? As has been pointed out to him many many times, the likelihood of a non reported accident is just as high on Macdonald as Pt Grey Road so the non reported accident is a red herring . The reported accidents show 6 times the number of cyclist accidents on Macdonald as Point Grey road and 7 times the number of motor vehicle accidents. This has been true since 2008. Sue wants to say the latest stats don’t sow that yet- but a) she doesn’t know b) this is the same person who claimed ther wer 4500 cyclists per day in mid
  April on Pt Grey Road- a complete lie and c) until the Burrard st bridge is reopened we do not know what the normal volume effects will be.S uffice it to say that since 2008 the relative accident volumes for cyclists and motorists on Macdonald vs Pt Grey road show clearly the Pt Grey road was not closed down for traffic safety reasons, as Djea moo (same bs we’ve heard before)Sue previously stated. There was no justification to close Point Grey road based on traffic safety concerns at alland anyone with anything past grade 4 reading comprehension can readily discern that. Perhaps though that is why Sue and Jeff cannot. Point Grey road was not closed down for traffic safety concerns. And as Peter Ladner said at the hearing it was not closed down for cyclists either. It was closed off as a political payoff for wealthy contributors to Vision and former politicians who with the aid of an orchestrated 2 year petition of residents in the immediate area only, desired something that was in keeping with visions strategy to increase traffic congestion in Vancouver as a way to justify massive public transit expenditures they want to undertake to further increase developer benefiting densification of the city. Just look at what really has happened in Vancouver under Vision,. massive redevelopement and densification that has been opposed in Strathcona, Grandview-Woodlands, Marpole Oakrdge etc, 25K plate Vision dinners organized by developers and a decay in transit infrastructure forcing those who work in the city to live closer to the city. Folks like Jeff Leigh and “the person sometimes known as sue smith “are demonstratively misleading people at length to further their own selfish interests and ignoring the greater public good..totally pathetic totally and transparently misleading..

• 10 Randey Brophy // Apr 29, 2014 at 12:51 am

  @ Jeff Leigh 354 re your nonsense:
  “If the volumes of pedestrians and bicycles go up over last year, then we will have a credible reason for the change. The project goals and objectives were articulated by the CoV. Let’s see if we achieve them. If the usage doesn’t go up, then the original justifications should come into play. Then you can call it a stupid closure.”

  No, increased pedestriasns and cyclists on PT Grey road are clearly not the metric. The real metric is when the volume of traffic congestion, accidents etc goes up on neighbouring streets as a result of closing Point Grey Road then we will have confirmed that is was a stupid decision.

  A 10k /day artery was shut downin a city that already had the worst traffic congestion in north America? why? it wasn’t becasue of traffic safety concerns and it wasn’t becausee of cyclists..The real metric is not what the closure does to Pt Grey road but rather what it does to the surrounding commuter areas in a city that already has inadequate transportation infrastructure

• 11 Randey Brophy // Apr 29, 2014 at 12:58 am

  @Jenables 342 re @susan smith 344

  Susan please reread my post 292. It confirms that a number of posts you claimed as fact were wrong and reconfirms that your claim of 4500 is hearsay.. do you think anyone is buying your Deja moos?

  Randey Brophy // Apr 22, 2014 at 2:25 pm

  @susan smith 288.. can someone please tell the person sometimes known as Susan Smith that the use of caps does not make a fact a non fact nor a non fact a fact.
  Again as I’ve shown in posts 272 and 247
  Point Grey road was not closed due to traffic safety concerns.
  Point Grey road, for decades, was considered a major traffic artery
  The majority of the 200+ speakers at the hearing to close Point Grey road were against the closure of it. Vision councilor Heather Deal herself confirmed that.
  These are facts (no need to cap the word) and they refute statements the person sometimes known as Susan Smith has made.

  You lose Sue..simple as that..you have been proven wrong.

  Now about the 4500 plus cyclists you claim are using Pt Grey road daily..Again, other than capping the word fact do you have anything at all to substantiate that?

• 12 Randey Brophy // Apr 29, 2014 at 8:08 am

  @susan smith 336
  Here a google map location link to General Gordon elementary
  https://maps.google.ca/maps?ie=UTF-8&gl=ca&hq=general+gordon+school&daddr=2896+W+6th+Ave,+Vancouver,+BC+V6K+1X1&panel=1&f=d&fb=1&geocode=Fae-7wId75Go-CnN0KDErHOGVDFoiYW0lgP5cQ&cid=8212599341295438184

  it is located at 2896 W 6th Ave, within a block of Macdonald, between Macdonald and bayswater…
  so your comment Sue that,
  “Fact: Henry Hudson, General Gordon, Carnarvon and Kits schools are neither on nor near closed Point Grey Road or Macdonald Street. Thus, any suggestion to the contrary by Randey Brophy is a lie. Google-search them for yourself.”

  Is just another one of your lies..

  to sum here are some truths you’ve lied about on this forum:

  Point Grey road was not closed due to traffic safety concerns.
  Point Grey road, for decades, was considered a major traffic artery
  The majority of the 200+ speakers at the hearing to close Point Grey road were against the closure of it. Vision councilor Heather Deal herself confirmed that.
  General Gordon, Kits and Carnarvon schools are all within 2 blocks of Macdonald, Point Grey road though has no schools near it

  Keep the BS coming sue and like Ii said before I’ll keep correcting it..everyone can see who is telling the truth and who is not. You are full of crap..plain and simple

• 13 Randey Brophy // Apr 29, 2014 at 8:12 am

  @ susan smith 336
  Here a google map location link to Kitsilano Secondary
  https://www.google.ca/search?q=kitsilano+secondary&rlz=1C1GGGE___CA570CA570&oq=kitsilano&aqs=chrome.1.69i57j0l3j69i65l2.3938j0j1&sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8
  It is located at
  2550 W 10th Ave, Vancouver,

  at Trafalgar and W 10th within 2 blocks of Macdonald

  so your comment Sue that,
  “Fact: Henry Hudson, General Gordon, Carnarvon and Kits schools are neither on nor near closed Point Grey Road or Macdonald Street. Thus, any suggestion to the contrary by Randey Brophy is a lie. Google-search them for yourself.”

  Is just another one of your lies..

  to sum here are some truths you’ve lied about on this forum:

  Point Grey road was not closed due to traffic safety concerns.
  Point Grey road, for decades, was considered a major traffic artery
  The majority of the 200+ speakers at the hearing to close Point Grey road were against the closure of it. Vision councilor Heather Deal herself confirmed that.
  General Gordon, Kits and Carnarvon schools are all within 2 blocks of Macdonald, Point Grey road though has no schools near it

  Keep the BS coming Sue and, like Isaid before I’ll keep correcting it..everyone can see who is telling the truth and who is not. You are full of crap..plain and simple

• 14 Randey Brophy // Apr 29, 2014 at 8:15 am

  @sue smithh 336

  Here is a google map showing the location of carnarvon elementary

  https://www.google.ca/search?q=carnarvon+school&rlz=1C1GGGE___CA570CA570&oq=carnarvon&aqs=chrome.4.69i57j69i65j0l3.4719j0j1&sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8

  it is located at 3400 Balaclava St, Vancouver\ within 2 blocks of MacDonald

  so your comment Sue that,
  “Fact: Henry Hudson, General Gordon, Carnarvon and Kits schools are neither on nor near closed Point Grey Road or Macdonald Street. Thus, any suggestion to the contrary by Randey Brophy is a lie. Google-search them for yourself.”

  Is just another one of your lies..

  to sum here are some truths you’ve lied about on this forum:

  Point Grey road was not closed due to traffic safety concerns.
  Point Grey road, for decades, was considered a major traffic artery
  The majority of the 200+ speakers at the hearing to close Point Grey road were against the closure of it. Vision councilor Heather Deal herself confirmed that.
  General Gordon, Kits and Carnarvon schools are all within 2 blocks of Macdonald, Point Grey road though has no schools near it

  Keep the BS coming Sue and, like I said before I’ll keep correcting it..everyone can see who is telling the truth and who is not. You are full of crap..plain and simple

• 15 Jeff Leigh // Apr 29, 2014 at 10:06 am

  The name calling is tiresome, Randey.

  Good luck with your campaign.

• 16 Randey Brophy // Apr 29, 2014 at 10:07 am

  @jenables 346 and Jeff Leigh 349

  Correcting Jeff’s misleading comments from post 349:
  ,
  “Claiming fewer accidents with bicycles between two routes with similar motor vehicle traffic doesn’t make sense. It needs to consider bicycle volumes.”

  As Jeff knows ICBC stats are used by the city..the city manager has confirmed this, see my post 247 ,as quoted at the public hearing by the Vancouver Observer:
  “The fact is as reported by The Vancouver Observer live blog at the event, the City of Vancouver uses ICBC stats
  http://www.vancouverobserver.com/politics/bicycle-battle-city-hall-continues-kits-bike-lane-proposal-live-blog?page=0,2
  The city uses ICBC stats . As reported::
  “Now we’re talking about ICBC bike accident data.
  “(City Manager} Dobrovolny clarifies that the city used ICBC data that was not available online . The city staff report included information on accidents between parked cars and bikes, of which there were five on the stretch of Point Grey Road proposed to be shut off to commuter cars.
  The ICBC data has been clear that there were no accidents between moving cars and bikes on Point Grey between Alma and Macdonald from 2008 to 2012.
  by Graham Slaughter July 23, 2013 at 4:37 PM
  ” the City uses ICBC stats”
  The City of Vancouver also acknowledged that the bulk of the traffic from Point Grey road would be rerouted to MacDonald: ” The city acknowledges that the bulk of the 10000 cars rerouted per day from Point Grey road will be routed to MacDonald As reported in the Observer online blog:
  “Councillors now asking Dobrovolny questions about the bike lane proposal. Concerns centre on safety, specifically on the stretch of Macdonald Street between Point Grey and 4th. Traffic will increase from 10,000 cars per day to 17,000.
  Dobrovolny says “it’s absolutely a legitimate concern” for residents’ safety, but other residential streets in Vancouver have handled higher volumes of traffic.
  by Graham Slaughter July 23, 2013 at 5:26 PM

  A number of points can be found here. first the city has said that traffic will increase from 10o00 to 17000 cars per day on Macdonald and that it is a legitimate concern. The 7000 increase per day is not a “worse case” as Jeff has described in this forum. It is the expected daily norm.

  Jeff then goes on to say that even though vehicle traffic was the same on Pt Grey Road and Macdonald ,with the latter having 7 times the number of accidents, with similar traffic volumes, the relevant bike usage stats between Pt Grey road and Macdonald bike stats aren’t relevead. The ICBC stats do showshow 6 times the number of cyclist accidents on Macdonald as Pt G road but Jeff says it is not conclusive becasue even though vehicle traffic was similar between both roads they didn’t measure the relative number of cyclists..Again this is an old trick. If the data doesn’t support your cause first say it doesn’t exist as both Jeff and “the person who sometimes calls herself sue smith ” have tried. Then when they are shown that the specific data does exist, try to put holes in it by saying it is irrelevant because it missed something important.
  The problem Sue and Jeff have though is that the city has already said on record they use the ICBC data and it does show 6 times the number of bike accidents on Macdonald as Pt Grey. What to do? First Jeff tries to say hmm it doesn’t show non reported accidents. And that is true; by definition it is an accident report stat. But as I’ve pointed out, people in accidents on Macdonald are no more likely to not report them than those on Point Grey road. So the 7 to one magnitude of greater accidents on Macdonald clearly shows that from a traffic safety route Macdonald is clearly the more dangerous route doubly so when you consider that Macdonald, unlike Point Grey Road goes past schools and playing fields-Jeff and Deja moo Sue spent a lot of time trying to discredit the proximity of Macdonald to schools..Sue saying the 3 schools are nowhere near Macdonald in Deja Moo post 336 and inviting people to check it out on google maps..all the while hoping no one would because when you do check it out on google maps, as I’ve shown in posts 361 362 and 363 with the google map links included, you do see, as I’ve said that all 3 schools are within 2 blocks of Macdonald and, unlike Point Grey Road, kids then are crossing Macdonald twice a day to go to these schools in the morning and come home at night. My own children went to General Gordan and Kits and I’ve coached many a soccer practice at Carnarvon and dropped kids off afterwards.
  Sue and Jeff come from the “big lie ” school. Sue especially has made 5 claims in this forum that are demonstrably not true. She feels if she puts a liein CAPS that will make it a truth. Jeff is a little more smarmy, pretending he actually cares about the truth but his 60 plus posts use terms like “refute”, “charge” etc to label facts which he doesn’t like.. His commentary is a little sneakier but the goal is the same as Sue’s, simply to mislead..Jeffs’s latest attempt 2 post 321 was to cite 2 pocket parks on Point Grey road between Macdonald and Alma as proof that there were playing fields. Ii pointed out they were on 50 x 120 foot lots reclaimed by the city and in no way are playing fields and in no way equated to the 600 plus kids at Gordon and Carnarvon many of whom as my kids did have to cross Macdonald twice a day to get to school, as mine had to, nor does it equate to the 12oo kids going to Kits many of whom are also traveling across Macdonald. Jeff also tried to say in his post that the 2 parks east of Macdonald Margaret Piggot and Trafalgar should be included in the mix. When I pointed out that they were not located west of Macdonald and that is where Pt Grey road has been closed, he stopped trying to peddle that BS.. The salient point for “the person who sometimes calls herself sue smith ” in post 333 though, was not that jeff had misled about the location of those pocke parks, parks but instead that in dismissing Jeff’s claim I’d misspelled Pigott. Yep Sue, that is the heart of the issue alright..Sue obviously is getting too much sun by positioning herself as the Walmart Greeter for Pt Grey road when she counts her wildy claimed”4500 ” cyclists each day and calling her neighbour Nelso on Point grey road a “convicted felon” becausee he doesn’t share her views regarding the closure of it.

  Unable to dismiss the stats from ICBC that the city uses and which clearly show 6-7 times the number of accidents on Macdonald as Pt Grey Road, with previously similar traffic volumes, Jeffs last stand is to say, well the number of cars were equal but nobody counted to see if the number of bikes were.. This however doesn’t stand up as well becausee there were 6 times the number of accidents involving cyclists on Macdonald as Point Grey road. Does Jeff Leigh seriously expect anyone to believe that is because there are 6 times the number of cyclists on Macdonald as Pt Grey road? If that was the case then the bike lane should have gone up Macdonald instead of Point Grey road.

  Again, once you examine Jeff and Sue’s claims they simply don’t stand up. Here we have a public road closed for no reasons related to traffic safety or cyclist issues at all. In fact by closing it they have rerouted traffic to a street, Macdonald, that is 6-7 times more dangerous for cyclists and motorists plus unlike Pt Grey road, goes past 3 schools.
  And now, rather then address the ICBC data which already confirmed it was a dumb decision to close the road, they are hoping and praying they can now manufacture increased cyclist usage data on Pt Grey road to justify it. sue is already wildly claiming 4500 cyclists on average per /day in April, which has not been substantiated and which is almost 8 times higher than the quoted 600/day in aug 2012. That one was called BS by all and sue has even backed off that claim..Telling people to call the city for the data rather than telling people where /how she got it. when people call the city as has been posted here by others..they find no record of it. Again as with her attempt to say General Gordon Kuis and Carnarvon schools are nowhere near Macdonald and to see for yourself on Google maps again it is the big lie..they are within 2 blocks of Macdonald and noone can find the Sue cquoted 4550 cyclist/day data on Pt Grey Road for April. Deja moo.

  You have to step back and ask yourself why is the City of Vancouver ignoring data, which they use, that clearly said it was a dumb decision from a traffic safety standpoint to close Point Grey Road and now after spending money closing it are trying to find out if there was any incremental cyclist or pedestrian benefit. That is not a rational way to spend taxpayer dollars.

  And try as he might @ Jeff Leigh 354, voluminous HUB poster Jeff Leigh will not reformat the evidence by trying to claim the relevant metric will t be increased cyclist usage on Pt Grey road. The relative metric clearly is increased accidents and congestion in the areas affected by the closure of Pt Grey Road.. And proponents of closing Pt Grey Road are already at a 6-7 to one disadvantage there based on the traffic accidents on Macdonald before an addiitonal 7K+ cars/day were rerouted there..

  I encourage everyone to simply read the posts in this forum and ask yourselves who has been proven wrong..As others have said previously it is game..set..match.. Jeff and Sue are attempting through deceit and lies, to defend a indefensible decision which was not in the public interest and can’t be justified based on existing accident statistics which the city admits to and should have taken into consideration.

  The closure of Point Grey road is a travesty, plain and simple and as mentioned will be looked upon in years to come as a textbook example of civic corruption.

• 17 Randey Brophy // Apr 29, 2014 at 10:12 am

  @jeff leigh 365 the lies and deceit are even more tiresome..tell your masters that you ‘d be better off trolling your 60 plus HUB posts elsewhere because on this site I’m calling you on every one of them

  Game..set..match

• 18 Jeff Leigh // Apr 29, 2014 at 11:53 am

  @Randey #367

  Well, if you are counting words, you certainly win.

  HPDL: 24 posts; 4,004 words
  Susan Smith: 36 posts; 5,404 words
  Jeff Leigh: 62 posts; 9,284 words
  Randey Brophy: 51 posts; 21,085 words

  Not counting this post.

  Good luck in your campaign.

• 19 susan smith // Apr 29, 2014 at 12:42 pm

  “Skippy” #358, the City summarizes the goals and objectives:

  “Project goals
  •Encourage people of all ages and abilities to get around their city through active transportation (any mode of human-powered transportation, including jogging/running, inline skating, skateboarding, wheelchairs, strollers, etc.) in a comfortable, convenient, and enjoyable way.
  •Address existing safety issues along Point Grey Road and Cornwall Avenue by reducing the volume and speed of vehicle traffic.
  •Create a walking and cycling route that is safe, convenient, and comfortable for people of all ages and abilities.
  •Make the intersection of Burrard Street and Cornwall Avenue safer and more direct for pedestrians and cyclists.”

  For the full set of City objectives and goals for the closing of Point Grey Road to commuter motorists, click on “Documents” and then “Final Staff Report” on the following City website:

  https://vancouver.ca/streets-transportation/point-grey-cornwall.aspxor

• 20 susan smith // Apr 29, 2014 at 1:02 pm

  The area of Macdonald Street that has seen any increase in traffic on it since the closure of Point Grey Road is just 3 blocks between open Point Grey Road (East of Macdonald) and 4th Avenue. These 3 blocks of Macdonald Street are North of 4th Avenue. 6th Avenue is South of 4th Avenue and nowhere near Point Grey Road.

  Similarly, 10th Avenue is nowhere near Point Grey Road. Schools in Kitsilano are also nowhere near the 3-blocks of Macdonald Street that have seen an increase in commuter traffic since the closure of Point Grey Road. To date, there is no evidence that schools or school children have been in any way negatively impacted by the closure of Point Grey Road. Indeed, the additional pedestrian-controlled crosswalks just installed within these 3 blocks and the 45 second timed traffic lights just configured at cross streets on 4th Avenue East of Alma have only enhanced the safety for all pedestrians, cyclists and motorists using Macdonald Street and 4th Avenue.

• 21 susan smith // Apr 29, 2014 at 1:13 pm

  I spent time on the weekend walking along the pedestrian/cyclist pathway through Kits and Hadden Parks; it was teeming with pedestrians, dogs, skateboarders and cyclists. Some cyclists were on Ogden, but many were on the pathway. Poor Hadden Park (the greenspace) looked as dead and desolate as ever.

• 22 susan smith // Apr 29, 2014 at 1:16 pm

  I spent time on York in the past two days; very few cyclists on it so far. Maybe the numbers will pick up. So far, cyclists are continuing East from closed Point Grey Road down Cornwall to Kits and Hadden parks.

• 23 Randey Brophy // Apr 29, 2014 at 3:39 pm

  @susan smith 370..who said 10th ave was near Point Grey road? not me.
  You did say though @ susan smith 337 that “General Gordon, Carnarvon and Kits schools are neither on nor near closed Point Grey Road or Macdonald Street.”…
  In fact as I’ve shown you are wrong “General Gordon, Carnarvon and Kits schools are all within 2 blocks of Macdonald st.. now you are trying to twist out of it by saying the only traffic increases hon Macdonald has been from Pt grey road to fourth and are saying the schools aren’t near that..
  As has been pointed out to you many many times until the Burrard st bridge is reopened you will not be getting meaningful traffic stats, for obvious reasons,

  You would get some credibility, perhaps if you admitted you were wrong in saying in deja moo 337 that General Gordon, Carnarvon and Kits schools are not near to Macdonald Street…

• 24 susan smith // Apr 29, 2014 at 4:03 pm

  Obviously, the proximity of any school to Macdonald Street South of 4th Avenue is irrelevant to the discussion at hand: the 3-block span of Macdonald Street that has seen any increase in commuter traffic due to the closure of Point Grey Road is North of 4th Avenue, with the increased traffic turning left or right on 4th Avenue, not proceeding South on Macdonald.

• 25 Randey Brophy // Apr 29, 2014 at 6:37 pm

  @susan smith 374

  as pointedout to you many many times “As has been pointed out to you many many times until the Burrard st bridge is reopened you will not be getting meaningful traffic stats, for obvious reasons.

  Anyone who seriously believes that all of the 7k cars rerouted to Macdonald are turning right or left at 4th is nuts..

• 26 susan smith // Apr 30, 2014 at 11:27 am

  The extensive multi-lane reconfiguration of the Burrard and Cornwall intersection (aimed at providing faster and smoother traffic flow for a higher volume of cars), Macdonald and Point Grey Road intersection to single-lane traffic, and the closure of Point Grey Road West of Macdonald (preventing commuter motorists), was designed to result in Burrard carrying much of the increased traffic from the closure of Point Grey Road as well as 4th Avenue and the other major arterials (Broadway, 12th, 16th, 25th…). Point Grey Road was being inappropriately used as an East-West route for commuters who wanted to avoid the traffic lights on the major East-West arterials. Not running North-South, Point Grey Road was not being used to commute South of 4th Avenue.

• 27 Bill Lee // Apr 30, 2014 at 12:31 pm

  Hmm.
  How much money? Our interest is piqued.

  HUB Board of Directors applications open

  To: HUB-Vancouver(at) yahoogroups.com,
  “HUB-Burnaby(at) yahoogroups.com” ,
  “HUB-NewWest(at) yahoogroups.com” ,
  “HUB-NShore(at) yahoogroups.com” ,
  “HUB-PM-MR(at) yahoogroups.com” ,
  “HUB-Richmond(at) yahoogroups.com” ,
  “HUB-SurreyWhiteRockNorthDelta(at) yahoogroups.com”
  ,
  “HUB-Tri-Cities(at) yahoogroups.com”

  Do you know someone that believes in bettering cycling and wants to be a
  part of making positive change in a dynamic and engaging local organization?

  *HUB’s Annual General Meeting will be held June 21, 2014 and a number of
  Board Director positions are up for election*.

  HUB’s priority skills & experience this year are:
  – community/ government network & experience: a priority need in 2014
  – volunteer and member engagement: a priority need in 2014
  – fundraising experience or skills: a priority need in 2014
  – local bicycle advocacy, campaigning experience: a priority need in 2014
  – public/ media relations and strategic messaging
  – communications and marketing
  – business/ operations management
  – non-profit governance experience
  – financial skills or expertise (current Treasurer is standing for
  re-election)
  *More detailed information and the application form are here

  docs.google.com/viewer?url=https%3A%2F%2Fbikehub.ca%2Fsites%2Fdefault%2Ffiles%2Fhub_board_application_2014.doc>.
  *Applications are due before May 23.

  Heather Harvey, Membership Coordinator, HUB: Your Cycling Connection
  Website: bikehub.ca | Cellphone: 604.729.1336 Email: happyheatherjoy(at) gmail.com

• 28 Frank Ducote // Apr 30, 2014 at 2:06 pm

  Susan and Randey – let’s call this p—ing contest a draw and move on, shall we?

• 29 susan smith // Apr 30, 2014 at 2:18 pm

  Bill Lee,

  If you are directing your comment toward me, I am not affiliated with HUB.

  Frank Ducote,

  I am not taking part in any “contest.”

• 30 Frank Ducote // Apr 30, 2014 at 6:39 pm

  Sure seems like it, Susan.

• 31 Randey Brophy // May 1, 2014 at 11:57 am

  @susan smith 376 re “Point Grey Road was not being used to commute South of 4th Avenue.”

  That again is simply not true.. you are saying then that the 10k cars that went east on Point grey road, and turned south on Alma then all turned right at 4th? That is absurd..

• 32 Randey Brophy // May 1, 2014 at 11:58 am

  @susan smith 376..that should read “you are saying then that the 10k cars that went west on Point grey road from Macdonald and turned south on Alma then all turned right at 4th? That is absurd..

• 33 susan smith // May 1, 2014 at 12:42 pm

  If one drives East on Point Grey Road, one cannot turn onto Alma because Alma is West, not East, of Point Grey Road. If one drives West on Point Grey Road and then turns South onto Alma, one will turn right at 4th Avenue; one will not turn left at 4th Avenue and Alma because that would be backtracking to the East on 4th Avenue parallel to the just-travelled Point Grey Road, heading West. Why would anyone travel backwards (East) on 4th Avenue after having just travelled West from Macdonald to Alma (10 blocks) on parallel Point Grey Road? That is absurd. Further, cars that are heading South would stay on Macdonald, heading South, and not come onto Point Grey Road at all, since it runs East-West, not North-South.

• 34 Randey Brophy // May 3, 2014 at 4:43 pm

  @susan smith 383 as I said in my post 382, posted some 44 minutes before you posted your post 383

  “that should read “you are saying then that the 10k cars that went WEST on Point grey road from Macdonald and turned south on Alma then all turned right at 4th? That is absurd..’

  You are just trying to confuse the issue, in your latest bleat post 383.

  The issue is that with the same amount of car volume 10k/day Macdonald, where the Point Grey Road traffic was diverted to, already had 6 times the cyclist accidents and 7 times the motor vehicle accidents that Point Grey Road did, plus unlike Pt Grey Road, Macdonald is a crossed by kids attending elementary and high schools in Kits. So Pt Grey Road never should have been closed for traffic safety concerns, as you erroneously claimed it was, because the simple truth is Pt Grey Road is demonstrably 7 times safer than the road, Macdonald street, that the Pt Grey Road traffic was dumped on.

  First you denied the stats, then, when you had to accept them you then spent a few posts trying to deny that General Gordon elementary, Kitsilano High School and Carnarvon elementary are close to Macdonald street. As I showed by simply copying google maps in my posts 362 363 and 364 they are all withing 1/2 to 1 1/2 blocks of Pt Grey Road. So you were shown to be wrong again

  So now, having to accept that Macdonald had 7 times more higher accidents than Point Grey Road and that it does, unlike Pt Grey Road, have to be crossed by kids going to/from 3 schools in the community, your last stand at defending your NIMBY turf is to say well it doesn’t matter that there are schools close to Macdonald St because the schools are at 6th 10th and 16th and Macdonald and all the former traffic on Point Grey Road is turning at 4th anyway.. THAT is total absolute nonsense. Virtually anyone travelling formerly westbound on Point Grey Road was turning southbound onto Alma-they had no choice they either turn south or they end up at the Jericho beach parking lot. To say they are all turning onto 4th from there is nonsense, a completely ridiculous statement..if they lived further south in Kits or Dunbar they were going straight through, past 4th southbound as you well know. The point being they are all now going straight through as well at Macdonald-thanks to Point Grey Road being closed and further endangering, by doing so, the kids crossing Macdonald to go to/from school .

  You are not fooling anybody with any common sense or a basic knowledge of traffic patterns in the area.

  Yours is a continual stream of lies which I continually disprove..

  As I mentioned in post 292:
  Again as I’ve shown in posts 272 and 247
  Point Grey road was not closed due to traffic safety concerns.
  Point Grey road, for decades, was considered a major traffic artery
  The majority of the 200+ speakers at the hearing to close Point Grey road were against the closure of it. Vision councilor Heather Deal herself confirmed that.

  These are facts (no need to cap the word) and they refute statements the person sometimes known as Susan Smith has made.

  I think it is fairly obvious to anyone who lives in the area that the majority of cars that formerly headed south on Alma, having transited Point Grey Road from Macdonald to Alma were not turning west on 4th. Just as the majority now forced to travel southbound on Macdonald are not turning west on 4th either. They are passing schools on a street that already had 7 times the number of accidents as Point Grey Road.
  Point Grey Road should never have been closed Its closure endangers west side motorists and Kitsilano schoolchildren.

  You should be ashamed of yourself Susan Smith-or whomever you really are , because you’ve already admitted Susan Smith is not your real name- for being so blind that you can’t see the effects of what you have done. You’ve been exposed on this forum as having continuously attempted to mislead people. You simply have no credibility.

• 35 susan smith // May 4, 2014 at 9:35 pm

  We will see in very short order who has/have been telling the truth on this blog, particularly regarding the impending bike lane future in Kits and Hadden Parks as well as the benefits for the users of now closed, shared-use Point Grey Road. In the meantime, I have no intention of feeding the trolls.

• 36 Randey Brophy // May 5, 2014 at 2:52 pm

  @susan smith 385.. then do everyone a favour and shut up..

• 37 Chris Keam // May 5, 2014 at 4:27 pm

  Please don’t try to speak for everyone Mr Brophy. I have no problem with Ms Smith’s (or anyone’s) comments in an open forum and I would point out that it has been the Hadden Park protestors who have been caught providing false or erroneous information about the original proposal, so I would suggest the moral high ground is hardly your exclusive preserve by any stretch of the imagination.

• 38 Randey Brophy // May 5, 2014 at 10:44 pm

  @Chris Keam 387..Speaking of speaking up why haven’t you answered my question from post 181? Let me repeat it for you:

  “.. Now since I’ve increased your awareness please do the same for me. According to Linkedin a Chris Keam was a former Media Relations and Communications employee for
  HUB: Your Cycling Connection

  Is that you? Because I’m always fascinated how the most prolific pro bike path/lane posters in these forums- you’ve made 18 posts so far in this one – depict themselves just as regular members of the general public instead of stating up front they have a vested interest in or are employed by bike lobby groups. I think people should be up front in whom they represent- don’t you?- so their voluminous posts are not misconstrued as representing, as opposed to drowning out, general public opinion . I know when I approached the public and Parks Board in forums and meetings for funding for youth soccer facilities and fields in my community I was always quite up front that I was a representative of the youth soccer community. Again if you are the Chris Keam mentioned in Linkedin as being a member of/employee of HUB I am puzzled why you and others like Richard do not say up front who you are and who you represent in these forums.”

  And if you are a Hubbite maybe you can answer some of these questions for me too..I asked Jeff Leigh but he refuses to answer:

  From post 275:
  Turning to election issues for a moment shouldn’t HUB have to register with Elections BC?
  http://www.huffingtonpost.ca/2014/04/21/bc-election-advertising-rules_n_5186695.html?1398106124&ncid=tweetlnkushpmg00000067

  The Election Act requires any person or group that intends to advertise during an election campaign to first register with Elections BC.
  The law broadly defines election advertising as any “message that promotes or opposes, directly or indirectly, a registered political party or the election of a candidate, including an advertising message that takes a position on an issue with which a registered political party or candidate is associated.”

  and from post 325 :

  “Since any reasonable person would deduce that HUB, a taxpayer funded bike lobby group, is actively hijacking this and other forums;

  Do you believe that HUB with its obvious bias should be funded by taxpayer dollars?

  Do you believe that HUB with its obvious political bias and financial ties to Vision should have to register with Elections BC?”

  I’m very interested in getting the perspective of a former Media Relations and Communications employee for HUB: Your Cycling Connection, on these issues.

  As you say you have no problem with anyone’s comments on an open forum and damnit you’re right,neither should I.Even if Sues already lied in denying :
  1.Point Grey road was not closed due to traffic safety concerns.
  2.Point Grey road, for decades, was considered a major traffic artery
  3.The majority of the 200+ speakers at the hearing to close Point Grey road were against the closure of it. Vision councilor Heather Deal herself confirmed that.
  4. ICBC stats show Macdonald, with similar traffic volumes as Pt Grey road, had 6 times the number of cyclist accidents and 7 times the number of motor vehicle accidents as Pt Grey road

  And even if Sues further lied in claiming that:

  1. Macdonald Street is not close to elementary and secondary schools in Kits
  2. There were on average 4500 cyclists/day usung Point Grey road between Macdonald and Alma in April
  3. Someone named Susan Smith spoke at the Public Hearings on Point Grey Road

  Sue, like you, has the right to keep dishing up this baloney just as I have the right to keep exposing it..

  Thank you Chris Keam for shining this brilliant beam of participatory democracy into this forum..

  As you can see some “False and erroneous statements”that you mention have been caught and exposed by myself time and time again on this forum…Do pray tell though which ones you are alluding to re Hadden Park, the 55 foot wide strip of land, bordered by the seaside bike route on the south and a shared bike path on the north that Hub wants to put a 12 foot paved bike path through..

  Can’t wait for this one..

• 39 Chris Keam // May 6, 2014 at 8:02 am

  I do not represent HUB, nor does membership in the organization have any bearing on my comments… anymore than a membership in the BCAA would mean an individual’s opinion on an automotive topic would be an official position of the organization.

  As for a brief contract that I took on some four years ago, for a specific purpose that is clearly mentioned in the LinkedIn profile you refer to, it’s obvious it has no connection to this topic or any of the comments I make, any more than your comments Mr Brophy, are a reflection of the position of your previous clients or employers.

  My comments are my personal opinion only. But you might consider your repeated personal attacks Mr Brophy, and tell us how that squares with your protest group’s suggestion that cyclists should be working with you to find mitigating solutions? Who wants to try to find common ground with those who repeatedly spread misinformation, both about individuals and the topic under debate?

• 40 Chris Keam // May 6, 2014 at 9:20 am

  “Again if you are the Chris Keam mentioned in Linkedin as being a member of/employee of HUB I am puzzled why you and others like Richard do not say up front who you are and who you represent in these forums.”

  I have repeatedly stated that my opinions are my own. You can choose to believe or not, but if you suggest that I represent any organization with my comments you are spreading misinformation. Even in the quote above we see you promulgating a falsehood (intimating that I am an employee of HUB) and choosing expediency over integrity in perpetuating a useful lie once again.

• 41 Tom McCartney // May 6, 2014 at 9:43 am

  You know the thing is i don’t know if those speaking against the HP & KBP Bike paths all are a bunch of NPA political flacks who are against it being a Vision plan and all, or if you just have some weird thing against Bikes as a recreational activity or if your just a bunch of selfish Nimby’s who want to keep the park to yourselves and your particular recreational choices.

  And you know i really don’t care, i have sat back here in East Vancouver listening to both perspectives to determine in my own mind what was what and which of the two competing avenues should be pursued.

  When you intentionally obfuscate facts on the ground and the reality of a situation you lose all credibility and your positional points are no longer taken seriously.

  You say there are already 3 bike lanes in or by the park.
  Facts no matter what it is called officially by the city the street Ogden avenue seaside path is just a street with one riding one’s bike in and amongst traffic, there is no bike lane there in reality, not even a painted one, nada, no matter what anyone calls it, this is what it is and you should be honest about this and not call it a bike path.

  The one at the beaches edge is Not a bike path it is a pedestrian path with NO room for bikes at all from restaurant all the way up the hill to the Hadden park Bdy, usually walkers are 4 abreast, it is packed in the high season 5 months of the year, so you can’t count that either.

  The one that goes just this side of the street on the westernmost third of Kits park is too narrow, is used by pedestrians also and not viable unless that section is made bikes only, widened considerably and runs into a new bike path in Kits park which was proposed by the PB.

  The reality is that there is NO bike path within either park.

  I am talking about Kits park getting a bike path now not Hadden park although the agreement signed by the parties involved merely suspends the matter for the moment and can be revived at any point in time post election and yet allow it to go before the courts, it is not a commitment by the VCC or the PB to Never to do, not at all.

  As you all know the legal machinations in regard to Hadden park have nothing to do with KBP nor will you have any legal recourse to preclude the PB from putting a bike path through it, if they want it, it will come and it will be, simple as that.

  You also say the path is going right through the middle of either park, just looking at it shows this is not so.

  The Hadden part would run right alongside of the current path on the northern most edge of the green space of Hadden park till it enters KBP, there it would west on the most norther edge of KBP till near the bottom of the hill at which point it would cut across a short space right up to a few meter from Ogden avenue, then it would run right just this side of the Ogden a few meters away from it parallel to it going west the rest of the way right on the southern most edge of KBP, NOT right through the middle of it as you all keep stating with this being the case for over 90% of the KBP part of the new bike path.

  These are the facts, saying otherwise does not make them so as they are incontrovertible facts on the ground.

  The reason for the need of the proposed path is still there and will only increase, this will make the issue unavoidable and impossible to simply go away as much as you would wish it to do so.

  It has to be addressed in some manner in the near future, i am not saying the proposed bike is the only direction this can go in, BUT the status Quo is simply not acceptable and as they say down south, that dog just Ain’t gonna hunt.

  You have three options, the PB one, a separated bike path on Ogden, Arbutus, and Cornwall that runs into the new one that starts at Trafalgar or a widened side by side paved bike and pedestrian path being created at the beaches edge.

  Your going to have to choose one and try and mold it into something that you all can live with, this is not something you all can simply ignore and act like it will just go away.

  When you say Bike highway or freeway and endangerment it sounds disingenuous when one can reasonably expect the conduct, volume and speed on the bike path to be very much what one encounters on the seawall on English Bay, coal harbour or or False creek which is a leisurely recreational process, the warnings of doom by you all can’t be taken seriously as the example i have laid out are there for all to see.

  Nor is the interactive interface of a bike lane with the children’s playground, tennis courts, basketball courts or any other conceivable recreational activity going to be any different in HP or KBP going to be in any way any more dangerous or Different then it is on the Coal Harbour, English Bay or False Creek seawalls.

  When you attempt to use figures or data from January to attempt to mitigate the concerns of traffic in the area one as well can not take your position seriously as the traffic in the high season is what is relevant and the determining factor involved.

  All i am saying is that we are talking about a 28 km seaside path with a big hole in the middle of it vie these two parks that will have to be filled one way or another to bring about a safe continuous, paved separated bike path for these 28 km. Saying one is a cyclopath for wanting to bike in a safe secure context is neither credible nor constructive.

  This issue is not going away anytime soon, it is going to be exponentially maximized with the improving weather with the reality of the situation being put into clear relief for all to see.

  I am just saying that as you can see by recent statements and motion’s by both the PB and other organizations this is anything but over and the issue will have to be addressed, hopefully in a manner of compromise that all parties involved can live with.

  A Bike lane is going through all of Kit’s beach park and will be in place within a year so you all might as well get used to it.

  There is not legal recourse present to preclude this from being brought about.

  If the Polls are correct Vision will easily be re-elected and they will put a bike lane into kits park if they want to which they clearly do and nobody can stop them………….Tick…………..Tock…….Tick……..Tock.!!

• 42 Tom McCartney // May 6, 2014 at 10:37 am

  About the seawall extension being extended to Jericho from Kits both the city transportation and PB staff are both continuing to work together in regards to studying options, researching and planning re where, what, how much, when, how long, ecological and legal access ramifications etc. as they have been doing the last 23 months.

  There has been nothing in the media or from VCC stating otherwise and i might add the comments by it’s manager merely stated that this was a long process and that it had nothing to do with the Point Grey Green way project due to alternative chronological realities.

  Riparian rights are unique in every location unto itself in comparison to any other location one might reference.
  What you can do legally on one beach you can not do on another and vice versa.

  There is no indication that this is a Preclusionary reality in relation to this project.
  If you say otherwise then BACK it up.

  There is ZERO reason to believe that the beach, foreshore, marine wildlife and ecosystem will be affected in any detrimental way just as it was not where any of the other present seawall extensions have taken place.

  A seawall extension is a long drawn out technical process but it will be done and should be done, this fact when it becomes reality will be welcomed by the vast majority of Vancouverites, over 95% i am sure.

• 43 Tom McCartney // May 6, 2014 at 10:44 am

  Before Point Grey Road was closed to all but local traffic it was used as a glorified parkway for those west of it to access the downtown core and beyond in a more timely manner then Macdonald and other arteries allowed.

  That is why they were there and why the traffic volume was what it was.

  Now that PGR at several points has had green space and parks extended over and past PGR reopening it to non local traffic is permanently no longer possible unless you want to tear up this new extended green space and parkland up by the roots.

  This would obviously not be done by ANY party in power, hence the rational for non locals using PGR is gone for ever.

  As PGR is no longer a faster alternative for those wanting to get from UBC to downtown core and is far slower then the alternatives no non local traffic would use it even if the official closure was lifted.

  Face it that ship has sailed and is on it’s way to Oz and it isn’t coming back ever.!!

• 44 Randey Brophy // May 6, 2014 at 12:49 pm

  @Chris Keam 389 and 390 thank you for finally answering, the question I asked you on April 18 in post 181. Now as for “personal attacks” what “protest group” are you alleging that I belong to in post 389?

• 45 susan smith // May 6, 2014 at 1:55 pm

  Regarding post #388,

  All of the assertions made by the poster of #388 in reference to me, which he has numbered 1-4 and 1-3, are 100% false, and I will be formally holding him accountable for them.

• 46 skippy // May 6, 2014 at 7:37 pm

  Bill Lee @ 377 and JL @ 180
  Interesting to note that an entity that professes on line and in its tax filings with CRA that its focus is education, when soliciting online for applicants to its Board, the text of the posting as noted above makes no mention of education but instead focuses entirely on lobbying/advocacy and administration duties.

• 47 Gerhardius // Jun 5, 2014 at 7:42 pm

  Rather late here and might have missed a comment covering this but the entire Point Grey Road / kits parks bike path was a brilliant move by Vision. They manipulated the “useful idiots” of HUB and other bike boosters into supporting a plan that was intended to enrich some important sources of campaign money and even the mayor himself. All the claims about it being a “long standing” plan miss the reason why it was never implemented like many other “long standing” plans. The important thing was getting people outside the 1% who live along Point Grey Road to make the “demand.” Naturally the plan makes no sense without a path through the parks, but Vision made a brilliant move and sacrificed their biking friends.

  They won lose votes over the decision, the bike boosters are a single issue bunch and will forgive this defeat. They don’t care about development, as long as the city mentions something about bikes in their plans they are thrilled to be recognized. Vision is already searching for another group of motivated single interest voters for this fall, hence their mobile “city hall” only in certain neighbourhoods determined by census info.