300 !

teririch @298. Glad you clarified. However, descriptively, your post had validity only from the alley between W3 and W4 to W. 4. Old sidewalk next to an empty lot. I guess a half block of bad sidewalk is reason to cancel the bike path programme. Whatever!
Better get back to photographing the comings and goings at the mayor’s house.

@teririch

311

@teririch phone them again and harangue them. Usually they’re.pretty good about it.

Ahh, waltyss. If I call another pub night, will you come to this one? It would be so much easier to have this conversation in person.

@jenables #309:

Oh, I know.

We have now implemented a $100 fee (refundable) attached to renters that will be used if they dump their mattresses etc in the back – it costs at least that to get junk removal services to collect them.

I have caught people in neighboring houses dragging junk to where our dumpster sits and leaving it there (I mean, really! )

As for the sofa – tis down the alley a bit – another casualty of the ‘move out’.

Here is one for you: Kitty corner to my unit is a young woman – early 20’s – who claims to be all things enviro. One of the strata members caught her attempting to pour paint down the drain in the back way…. yup, there are some real winners out there.

Teri- why would anyone do that? You can drop off your cans of paint at a paint depot, but I don’t suggest trying to take advantage of their “paint exchange” – I tried to do that once and they made it very clear that the paint was “money” and seemed very shocked at the idea that one could pick up free paint.. even though they are clearly listed on the product care site as a paint exchange. Hmmn, I meant to email product care about that..

jenables, are you doing hair without your glasses on again or just sniffing too many of those hair products.
Not the greatest looking building but not bad as far as high rises go with preservation of the old structure and a modified podium. But hideous???
Spare me.
Is there anything you like? I guess because its environmentally friendly and will be built to a high standard, that is a bad thing.
Your mind seems to act like a ball in a pin ball machine, randomly bouncing around and lighting up whenever there is something that Vision may like and you must therefore hate. Its the only way I can make any of your posts make sense.

Welcoming the return to a subject related to the original post.

I don’t think there was a major announcement, or a public hearing, I think this is just part of regular road maintenance by the CoV. There was work done beneath the pavement, the sidewalks were repaired (great!), and when the new pavement was laid down the line painting accomodated bikes and cars, while retaining parking. This is not an uncommon bike lane configuration, and is certainly not an “only in Vancouver” situation.

There is a physical separation of parked cars and bikes, just not a physical barrier.

Yes, drivers have to check for oncoming traffic when opening their doors. Just the same as if the bike lane was in the door zone on the left side of the vehicle. Drivers have the same risk as always, and should exercise due caution. But this way, cyclists have less risk, considering that there is always a driver, but not always a passenger.

Separated bike lanes provide real benefits, but in locations that we can’t justify them, this seems a good solution to me. I drive, walk, and cycle this stretch, and look forward to seeing how it works.

No, there was already a bike lane there, in pretty much exactly to configuration you describe, before paving. It wasn’t a major bike traffic route, partly because there are better options for most trips.

Paint-on lanes next to parking are, imho, the lowest form of bike infrastructure, but better than nothing. I don’t think its great design, but its nothing new. And, I think, better than nothing. When you have nothing, bikes are usually riding in that corridor anyways. A few brave souls will take a lane, which is probably safer for everyone, but taking a lane on such a busy street is the best way to get angry drivers to tailgate, honk, yell, and pass unnecessarily closely. In short, the vast majority of cyclists are biking there whether we like it or not, and delineating the space encourages everyone to be aware of that.

If I had my way though, there would be a separated bike lane. Much safer!

@jenables #313:

I did see the so called ‘design’ of what will yet be anotehr ugly glass tower overlooking the city.

Like I mentioned, I travel a fair bit withmy work – internationally and admire buildings that have at least some ‘character’ to them. Vancouver is cookie cutter architecture – everything looks the same. Sadly, citizens will be stuck with it for decades or centuries to come.

Here is a very good read about the broken trust that citizens have with the planning department:

http://www.garthmullins.com/

Thanks for the link Teri, I heard him speak at the meeting in July and I agree whole heartedly with what he is saying.

@TK #315:

“If the new bike lane is heavily used…”

Unlikely to be a problem, IMO.

“I envision debarking car passengers (and drivers) having to await an opportunity to safely vault across the bike lane between passing bikes.”

It looks to me like there is a bit of a buffer put in to give space for car doors opening and to provide a place for disembarking passengers to stand in the event they have to wait for bikes to pass by.

I think the design is an improvement over the old configuration by which the cars park next to the curb with the bike lane to the left.

Well, jenables, since I don’t know where you are or your name, it’s pretty hard to do, so this is the closest I can come. It’s a pretty accurate description of the way your posts sound.
As I asked in 314, name me a building that you like. I am still waiting. Unfortunately, positive contributions are not your forte. That you have a supporter in gman (hands down the nastiest, least positive poster on this blog) should tell you a lot about the nature of your contributions.

You know what? my comment about this “green” building had nothing to do with you, yet you chose to take it personally and insult me for absolutely no reason. there is NO ONE else on this blog who operates in quite the manner you do. Google your own name and you will see exactly what I mean. What on earth do you hope to accomplish by insulting other people? Why do you have such a problem with people who have become suspicious and disenchanted with the current administration?
Fyi, the kind of buildings I like are old, well built and interesting. The kind we have very few of and are losing rapidly here.

This whole thing is weird. People who are apparently to the right of Attila the Hun (Waltyss et. al.) defending Vision as though Vision was a left-of-centre force for change and good, against critics who seem to me to be standing up for neighborhoods and working class citizens against the developers and their political enablers, the latter being branded as reactionaries opposed to all progress.

Me? In the next election, as in the last one, I will be voting for my own slate of the less doctrinaire COPEers plus independents who oppose Vision on the basis of Vision being a pro-developer party of the RIGHT. Didn’t work out so well last time, but next time, maybe. At least the fig leaf has been ripped of Vision, if not the kilt.

God, I wish the left would stop eating their young.

@Don D: #328

Vision may get back in for the simple fact they have completely polarized City Hall.

They have replaced most key positions with ‘yes’ people.

As someone on Twitter mentioned… when was the last time city staff reported anything that the councillors didn’t want to hear.

I pray a strong alternative comes into play – and they need to start getting organized now – not 3 months before the election. Get faces out front so that people get to know them and what they stand for – engage people.

I would imagine we will see a lot of ‘feel good’ initiatives put out over the next while and in run up to the election – ‘vote buying’ might be the term.

The block vote needs to be destroyed and true democracy needs to be secured for all of us.

In all of my years, I truly don’t remember things being this bad.

(Hey, but that is just the thoughts of your friendly neighborhood stalker! 🙂 )

teririch @332. “Vision may get back in for the simple fact they have completely polarized City Hall.”
What does that mean, pray tell? People will vote for Vision because City Hall (the Council?the bureaucracy?the janitors?) is polarized. How does that work?
Is your position that people would not vote for Vision if City Hall were not polarized?
“The block vote needs to be destroyed and true democracy needs to be secured for all of us.” You clearly dislike Vision. Fair enough. But tell me, in your Valhalla, what would “true democracy” look like? We have a city council duly voted in who is mostly doing what they said they would do. Apparently that is not true democracy because they were voted in by a “block vote”, which I assume means that more people voted for Vision candidates that for other parties. They did after all elect every candidate they ran. Why is it not at least possible that a majority of people voted for Vision because they agreed with what they were doing in their first term and agreed with their platform for the second?
Will CoV voters vote for them again? Well, while I am not a great fan of Christy Clark, she made a very astute observation during the election. Between elections, the governing party is compared to perfection; during an election, it is compared to the other guy. As we saw, the Liberal party under Clark, while being a pretty pathetic government, was rightly seen by the voters of this province as preferable to the other guys.
So, the answer is whether a party will emerge (the other guy) that the CoV voters prefer to Vision. There is 14 1/2 months to go. While you wouldn’t know it from this blog, the Mayor and his councillors are actually quite popular and have avoided major gaffes. Will someone else emerge in this period? Possible but I wouldn’t hold my breath.
I would at a minimum like to see an increased opposition, as that is healthy for a government and Councillor Ball is a complete nonentity.

teririch. Your position on Vision is itself notorious. Why not answer the questions I posed which were a reaction to your post?

Richard 241 and MB 244

Sorry I’m out of town and couldn’t respond to your rebuttal faster, but located some of the analysis I did in 2011 (posted to an old bula post) which showed car commuting by tracts:

Yaletown 54%, Coal Harbour 45%.

vs.

Gastown 19%. Stathcona/Chinatown 22%

vs.

Alma 54%

I will double check Richard’s 2011 numbers next month when I’m back in town and have regular access to my files and internet…

However, I see Richard conveniently didn’t compare the tower zones to lower rise East End tracts or older West end tracts, where car commuting is far lower. Since that was the crux of my observation (that socio-economics, rather than towers, are behind car commuting rates), I don’t see how you disprove a theory by citing only half of the equation.

I will admit the 2011 numbers Richard quotes show some improvement over 2006 numbers, however, a financial crisis intervened, which we are only slowly coming out of now, which seems to further support my theory regarding socio-economics of car use vs. other factors.

So, I stand by my assertion that it is a huge leap of faith to be trumpeting as FACT that tower urbanism reduces car use, as MB has done blindly, without reference to ANY numbers other than those contained in wishful thinking.

PS Richard, how many window blinds do you see open on the podium T-Hs? Maybe 5%? Some neighbourhood!