ADMINISTRATIVE REPORT

Date: April 12, 2002
Author/Local: M. Scholefield/

604-873-7916
RTS NO. 1771

CC File No. 5757

T&T: April 30, 2002

TO:	Standing Committee of Council on Transportation and Traffic
FROM:	General Manager of Engineering Services
SUBJECT:	Kent Bikeway

RECOMMENDATIONS

A. THAT the Kent Bikeway be approved as detailed in this report;

B. THAT speed humps be installed in the 1700-1900 and 2200-2300 blocks of E. Kent Ave. North, subject to Council approval of the 2002 Residential Speed Hump Program; and

C. THAT funding of $995,000 be provided for the implementation of the bike route, from Streets Basic Capital Unappropriated Account Group SCA2E-UNAP (Bicycle Network), subject to approval of 2002 Streets Basic Capital Budget.

D. THAT commencing in 2003, the Signal Maintenance Budget ($3,500), the Streets Maintenance Budget ($1,500) and the Signs Maintenance Budget ($1,500) be increased , subject to the 2003 Operating Budget Review.

COUNCIL POLICY

Council approved the 1999 Bicycle Plan which outlines the goal to develop the bicycle network to ensure a grid of bikeways approximately 1km apart.

Council approved the 1997 Vancouver Transportation Plan that emphasizes the need to expand the network of bikeways as a top priority and ranks cyclists second priority after pedestrians.

Council approved the recommendations of the 1992 Bicycle Network Study in which the major recommendation was the priority to integrate bicycles on local streets through the construction of locally integrated bikeways.

SUMMARY
Since 1995, Staff and cyclists have identified the Kent corridor as an important link in the City's Bicycle Network. The proposed 7 km Kent Bikeway has both local and regional significance. It will connect three of the city's existing cycling routes (the Ontario, Sunset and Fraser Lands Bikeways) and will provide improved connections for commuter and recreational cyclists between Burnaby, Richmond and south-central Vancouver. This route will also connect to the recently approved north-south Inverness Bikeway.

The proposed bikeway consists of a combination of on-street facilities (on Kent Avenue South west of Crompton and Kent Avenue North east of Crompton) and bike paths. As part of the bike route development, Staff are proposing to install a cyclist/pedestrian activated signal at Ontario Street and SE Marine Drive, improve sections of rough roadway, install street lighting in key areas where there is none and install speed humps on several sections of Kent Avenue where there is a documented speeding problem.
The total cost for the Kent Bikeway project is estimated to be $1,192,000. Translink has committed to providing $197,000 of funding, pending approval of the project by Council.

PURPOSE
The purpose of this report is to document the community support for the proposed Kent Bikeway and to seek Council approval and funding for this project.

ROUTE DESIGN
The Kent bikeway passes through 3 different land use areas:
· The industrial area south of Marine between Ontario and Argyle;
· The residential neighbourhood between Argyle and Kerr; and
· The industrial area between Kerr and Boundary which is, with the exception of the Weyerhauser plant and several other small businesses, mostly undeveloped.

A map showing the overall routing of the proposed Kent bikeway is given in Appendix A. The bikeway begins at the end of the Ontario Bikeway at Marine Drive and Ontario Street. The route then proceeds south to Kent Avenue South and continues eastward along the Kent corridor to Boundary Road. At Boundary Road, cyclists have available a number of connections to City of Burnaby cycling routes. The Kent Bikeway will also provide a connection between the new north-south Inverness Bikeway and the Knight Street Bridge southbound on-ramp via Crompton Street. Cyclists travelling northbound on the Knight Street Bridge will be able to access the Kent Bikeway via Borden Street.

Table 1 details the location and type of facilities proposed for the entire length of the route. Traffic volumes and speed along these sections are also provided.

Table 1. Kent Bikeway Routing and Facility Type and Traffic Studies

STREET				TYPE OF FACILITY	Traffic Volumes (veh/day)	85th % speeds (km/h)
Ontario	SE Marine	to	Kent South	shared lane on street	1800	48
Kent South	Ontario	to	Main	3.5 m 2-way bike path (300 m)	-	-
	Main	to	dead-end east of Fraser	shared lane on street	1500	54
	dead-end east of Fraser	to	Crompton	3.5m 2-way bike path (700 m)	-	-
Kent North	Crompton	to	Argyle	bike lanes	3800-5300	50-65
	Argyle	to	Duff	shared lane on street	1400	58
	Duff	to	Portside	3.5 m 2-way bike path (240 m)	-	-
	Portside	to	Boundary	shared lane on street	800-2800	51-61

IMPROVEMENTS PROPOSED ALONG THE BIKEWAY
A number of improvements are proposed along the bikeway to improve cyclist accessibility, safety and comfort.

1. Cyclist/pedestrian-activated signal on Ontario St. at S. E. Marine Dr.
A new signal is proposed to assist both pedestrians and cyclists in crossing Marine Drive safely.

2. Partial closure in the 700 block of E. Kent Ave. South
Kent Avenue South becomes a dead end in the 700 block, just east of the AirCare facility. Although adequate parking is provided for employees and visitors on the AirCare site, a number of vehiclescurrently use the dead end for parking. This parking will be prohibited as part of the bikeway to allow cyclists to pass through the dead end to a new cycling path. An eastbound partial closure just west of the AirCare exit driveway will prevent motorists from accessing the dead end for parking. The partial closure will allow cyclists and service vehicles (waste collection and emergency vehicles) to pass through.

3. Street Lighting
A total of 69 street lights will be installed along the bikeway to improve cyclist visibility and to provide cyclists with an improved sense of security, particularly through the industrial sections of the route (from Ontario to Argyle and Kerr to Boundary), which experience less activity in the evenings and on non-business days than typical residential areas.

4. Road Improvements
A number of areas along the proposed route, particularly through the industrial area, have very patchy and rough pavement surfaces. Along with several local improvements initiated by the Streets Branch, some bikeway funds are proposed to improve the road surface along a number of sections including:
· 100-200 East Kent Avenue South;
· 8100-8200 Crompton Street;
· 1300-1900 East Kent Avenue North; and
· 3100-3200 East Kent Avenue South.

A number of improvements at the 7 oblique spurs that cross the route are also planned in order to make these crossings smoother and safer for cyclists.

5. "Collector" speed humps in the 1600 block of Kent Ave. North
Since the Kent South road alignment becomes private property just east of Crompton Street, the bike route must move to Kent Avenue North at Crompton Street to continue eastward. The Kent Avenue North road right-of-way between Crompton and Argyle is relatively narrow at 10 m and has relatively high traffic volumes (5300 vehicles per day) and speeds (85^th percentile speed of 65 km/h). As such, speed humps are proposed as a means to reduce speeds to the 50 km/h speed limit and make this busy section of road more comfortable and safe for cyclists.

Speed humps are recommended in the Transportation Association of Canada Traffic Calming guidelines for streets that act like collectors and carry higher traffic volumes than what is typically found on residential streets. At a length of 7 m, the proposed humps are much longer (although not higher) than a conventional 4 m speed hump. The design resembles that of a raised crosswalk, except that the ramps are longer to accommodate the speeds. Placed at 125 m intervals, these collector humps should effectively reduce the 85^th percentile speed to 50 km/h.

6. Residential Speed Humps
As indicated in Table 2, speeding is an issue along the 1700-1900 and 2200-2300 blocks of Kent North. Standard residential speed humps are therefore recommended for these blocks, to be installed as part of the 2002 Speed Hump Program.

Table 2. Locations At Which Speeding Was Identified

Street	Hundred Block	Between			Speed Limit (kph)	85th Percentile Speed (kph)
Kent North	1700-1900	Argyle	and	Victoria	50	58
	2200-2300	Portside	and	Elliott	50	61

Note: The 85^th percentile speed (85^th % speed) refers to the speed exceeded by 15% of the vehicles recorded during a speed check. When the 85^th percentile speed exceeds the maximum posted speed limit, this is used as an indication of a speeding problem.

PUBLIC CONSULTATION
Council's Bicycle Advisory Committee and their Bicycle Network Sub-committee have been consulted at various stages of the bikeway development. Each of these groups has expressed strong support for this project.

In October of 2001, advertisements for a Kent Bikeway Open House were run in five local newspapers (including Momentum, Vancouver Courier (east/west and downtown editions), Ming Pao, Sing Tao, Georgia Straight, and Indo-Canadian Voice). In addition, residents and businesses from Marine Dr. to Kent South, between Ontario and Kerr, were sent an invitation to the Open House. The invitation provided general information about the proposed bikeway routing and the type of improvements being considered along the route. A copy of the Open House invitation is given in Appendix B. The Sunset and Victoria-Fraserview/Killarney Community Visioning Committees were also invited to the Open House. A project website and online survey were set up to provide information and an additional forum for feedback.

The Open House was held on November 5, 2001 at the Moberley Arts Centre. Detailed information about the bikeway routing and a number of specific proposals were presented. Interested parties were given a survey to provide feedback about the specific proposals and the overall concept of the bike route. Approximately 36 people attended the Open House. Attendees consisted mainly of local residents and cyclists with an interest in the route. Although no member of the business community attended the open house, Staff have been in consultation with all of the businesses that will be directly affected by the proposed bikeway to discuss design options for the route. If the project is approved, Staff will continue to work with the businesses to manage construction and operation issues related to the bikeway.

Two traffic calming proposals for the residential area were presented at the Open House:

1. Speed humps in the 2200-2300 blocks of Kent North (between Portside and Elliott) where staff have observed 85^th percentile speeds of 61 km/h; and

2. A closure at the rail crossing between Kent South (2100 block) and Kent North (2200 block), which is located at Gladstone Park.

As a follow up to the Open House, a survey outlining these proposals was sent to 1144 residents in the area between SE Marine Dr. and Kent South, between Argyle and Elliott in January and early February of this year. A total of 376 responses were received, producing a response rate of 33%. In addition, two billboards, which provided information about the proposed road closure, a link to the project website and a contact telephone number, were posted facing each direction of traffic at the proposed closure location. A copy of the survey is given in Appendix C.

The survey results have been divided into two categories. Table 3 summarizes the results based on all of the surveys, e-mails, on-line surveys and phone calls received about the bikeway project. Table 4 summarizes only the results from local residents. Both of these tables produce the same conclusion. The proposal for speed humps is well supported while the closure proposal response was divided, with a majority of respondents indicating that they do not support a closure at this location.

Table 3. Summary of Traffic Calming Survey Results from all Respondents (Resident and Non-Resident)

Traffic Calming Proposal	YES	NO PREFERENCE SPECIFIED	NO	TOTAL
Speed humps in the 2200-2300 blocks of Kent North	258	78	57	393
	66%	20%	14%	100%
Road closure at rail crossing between 2100 Kent South and 2200 Kent North at Gladstone Park	156	20	223	399
	39%	5%	56%	100%

Table 4. Summary of Traffic Calming Survey Responses from Local Residents* Only

Traffic Calming Proposal	YES	NO PREFERENCE SPECIFIED	NO	TOTAL
Speed humps in the 2200-2300 blocks of Kent North	221	73	47	341
	65%	21%	14%	100%
Road closure at rail crossing between 2100 Kent South and 2200 Kent North at Gladstone Park	123	13	195	331
	37%	4%	59%	100%

* Note that local area residents include those people living from SE Marine to Kent South, between Argyle and the dead end east of Elliott

A total of 56 % of respondents and 59% of local residents opposed the closure. 86% of the residents living east of the proposed closure opposed this measure. Their primary concern related to the steep grades of Elliott, Nanaimo and Portside and the difficulty residents would have accessing their homes when the roads are icy or snowy. The ability to safely exit the neighbourhood via Kent Avenue, at all times of the year, was identified by many residents as a top priority.

Understandably, the majority of residents to the west of this closure, many of whom do not have to deal with the same steep hills during snowy or icy road conditions, did not share these concerns. There was strong support (75%) from the residents to the west of the closure to implement the measure as a means of addressing their concerns about vehicles from outside the neighbourhood short-cutting along Kent to avoid Marine. Comments from surveys are given in Appendix D.

While a closure that reduces vehicle traffic along a bike route would be a benefit to cyclists, it is not an essential component for the bike route to be successful. It is important that a diversionary measure such as this closure be both functional year-round and well-supported by the neighbouring residents. Based on the survey feedback and the fact that 59% of all local residents opposed this proposal, Staff do not recommend that the proposed closure be implemented.

Despite the division in the community about the proposed closure, many residents expressed support for the bikeway project itself. This area already has many scenic recreational cycling routes along the waterfront and many residents expressed support for any additional cycling facilities in the area.

Through the surveys, staff received complaints about speeding in the 1700-1900 blocks of Kent North. Staff followed up with speed checks in the morning and afternoon peak periods as well as a 24-hour count. Consistently, an 85^th percentile speed of 58 km/h was recorded for the 50 km/h zone. Staff therefore recommend that speed humps be installed in these blocks as part of the 2002 Speed Hump program.

ROUTE SIGNAGE
The signs will be similar to the system of signs that has been successful on other bike routes in the City. All are based on the use of clear internationally recognized, standard symbols with minimum wording. The route markers will be placed approximately 2 blocks apart with signs and stencils placed near the intersections. As well, replacement street name signs that include a bicycle logo and new bicycle pavement markings will be installed along the length of the new route.

CONSTRUCTION SCHEDULE
If approved by Council, construction of the bikeway will begin in the summer/fall of 2002.

FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS
The total cost of the Kent Bikeway including route signs and pavement markings, a signal, road improvements, street lighting and traffic calming measures is $1,192,000. Translink has committed a contribution of $197,000 towards this project. The remaining city share of $995,000 is available from the Streets Basic Capital Unappropriated Account Group SCA2E-UNAP (Bicycle Network), and is subject to approval of the 2002 Streets Basic Capital Budget. Table 5 provides a breakdown of the estimated project costs.

The following annual operations budget increases, without offset and subject to the 2003 budget review, are requested:
· Signal maintenance budget ($3,500). Estimate based on standard cost for all City signals;

· Streets maintenance budget ($1,500). Estimate based on additional street sweeping and manual sweeping required on new bike paths and at partial closures; and

· Sign maintenance budget ($1500). Estimate based on sign replacement costs over life of sign and repair of damage.

This is an expensive cycling route, more costly than any other that the City has built. However, many of the improvements that are proposed (such as paving, lighting, and speed humps) will be of general benefit to the broader community. These are improvements that would have been required eventually as this area of the City has a large amount of undeveloped infrastructure.

Table 5. Kent Bikeway Project Budget

Funding Area	Estimated Cost
Asphalt paths	$282,000
Road improvements	$305,500
Traffic calming measures	$89,000
Property acquisition/lease agreements	$100,000
Spur crossing improvements	$50,000
Cyclist-pedestrian signal	$85,000
Signs and road markings	$26,000
Street lighting	$148,500
Other improvements along bike paths	$106,000
TOTAL	$1,192,000

CONCLUSIONS
The Kent Bikeway will complete an important link in the City's Bicycle Network. Not only will the Kent Bikeway connect four other bikeways within the City's Bicycle Network, but it will also provide an important regional connection between Vancouver, Burnaby and Richmond. The Bicycle Advisory Committee, participants at the open house, and residents in the area have expressed strong support for this bikeway project. Staff therefore recommend that the Kent Bikeway, as detailed in this report, be approved.

* * * * *

APPENDIX A
PROJECT OVERVIEW

APPENDIX B
OPEN HOUSE INVITATION DISTRIBUTED TO RESIDENTS AND BUSINESSES IN OCTOBER 2001

APPENDIX C
RESIDENT SURVEY

APPENDIX D
SURVEY COMMENTS

Street	General comments:
St George St.	This letter is to register my support for the proposed new bikeway along the Kent Avenue corridor. I tried last Summer (during a week day) to cycle from Ontario St to Burnaby using Kent Ave. and it was hell (mostly because of huge truck traffic... Although I will be unable to attend the Open House on Nov.5th, I think the City is doing the "right thing" by extending its network of cycling routes. I commute to work daily by bicycle (along Ontario St, from Mount Pleasant to the Oakridge area), and these 25 minutes (each way) rank as one of the highlights of the day - everyday, rain or shine. - Thank you as well for adding bicycle-friendly traffic lights at 10th and Main in the last few days! - When can we count on having the 10th Avenue route designed as an official Bike route? - What about linking 10th Avenue with 6th/7th Avenue along a north-south corridor (St George St?) - Can something be done to better link South-East False Creek with Chinatown and downtown? Having to cross Quebec St (and all the concrete) is not fun... Look forward to hearing more good news
Aqua Dr.	Too many people go along Kent to bypass traffic on Marine and they don't go slow. There are lots of children around and bicycles.
Argyle St.	First, please try to clean Victoria Drive from 41st to 45th Avenue, the front and back alley.
Argyle St.	It's wonderful to see the City of Vancouver make an effort to make Vancouver more 'bicycle-friendly'! Hopefully, more routes will be added in the future, as Vancouver certainly lends itself (with its climate and natural beauty) to this activity which can be enjoyed by all age groups.
Balsam St.	Would be great to get the land from CP for the path. Close Kent Ave. between Kerr and Kinross.
Bartlett Crt.	Bike routes have their benefits. They may encourage more people into cycling. However, I prefer riding main routes like Broadway, Kingsway and Southwest Marine Dr. which obviously parallel the subject Kent route. What I don't like with these bike routes is their inferiority complex - inferior to automobiles. For example, look at this Kent route: stop there and dog leg here and there. On the other hand S. W. marine Dr. goes smoothly. What I'd like to see is the attitude change. Main roads should be maintained not just for cars. I hope City engineers will have a shift in mind that automobilesare not the only user of roads. Time and time again I see ignorance of maintenance crews when doing road repairs. Many times there is no space for cyclists to go through, though consideration is paid for cars. And debris and gutters and metal caps are all located on the shoulders (if they exist) which are dangerous for other users than automobiles. Even though this is not City of Vancouver jurisdiction, I'd like to see #1 freeway and # 91 and its connectors allow bicycles on their shoulders. The shoulders are wide and not utilized at all. There might not be many cyclists who want to ride those noisy freeways, but as a principal there should be a choice, not a prohibition.
Beatrice St.	- No objection to proposed bikeway. - I would like speed humps on Kent North between Argyle and Victoria.
Beatrice St.	Very good idea to give bikers a route they can travel without being threatened by cars. I fully support this issue.
Beatrice St.	If it would give me further opportunity to oppose, I would go to Council.
Burnaby St.	1. The new bike trails and the shared roads all have many dangerously angled railway crossings. The Kent improvements will be in vain if these crossings are not improved to prevent wheels getting snagged in the tracks. 2. This route goes through several uninhabited areas: This could become an unsafe area, especially at night , unless the cycle route is well lit. 3. The existing Kent Ave. road surface is in very poor shape in several places and needs to be fixed. 4. The planned route has several sections shared with trucks and cars, most of which are driven way above the speed limit (Vancouver City data). More separation of bikes and vehicles is needed.
Chandlery Pl.	I live in the Fraserland neighbourhood. I am writing in support of the proposed Kent Bikeway. I approve of this project. In fact I would like to see an additional phase: continue eastward along the water to New Westminster Quay. I would also like to see in the future the Kent Avenue Bikeway extend westwards from Ontario to Cypress.
Coral Reef Pl.	Closing the road between Kent South (2100 block) and Kent North (2200 block), effectively strands the residents with no APPROPRIATE exit/access to Marine and North of Marine. First of all, cutting our access means no access to Victoria for those residents at the 2200 North Kent and therefore, cannot take our children to school. Secondly, during the winter when it snows or it's icy, we have NO WAY out of this area, as we are unable to get up the hills. In discussions with many of our neighbours, they also have not received any mailings including thisone. As for us, this is the FIRST indication we have had with regard to this most outrageous closure proposal. However, we are not surprised since when we discussed this issue over the phone with your representative, for all [intents] and purposes, we do not exist; as according to your "files", there is NO housing/residents above 2200 block Kent North. May we suggest, rather strongly, that perhaps you update your files or better yet, take a walk through our neighbourhood and explain to us, how we are to access Marine and North, if this closure happens.
Coral Reef Pl.	The proposed road closure would in effect "trap" us and other families in a small area with the only real access to the rest of Vancouver being the lights at Elliott and Marine Drive. Currently, our only way in and out when conditions are snowy or icy, is by using Kent South. The City does not properly maintain the steep hill to Elliott and Marine in these conditions, and often it is not usable for days. How are we to make it to our jobs? Also, the intersection at Elliott and Marine does not allow one to drive straight through, so if you want to head north and this is the only access point, it will be very inconvenient. I do agree with installing speed humps along Kent North. This would improve the safety for our children and also, I think, eliminate the "short-cutting" without the necessity of the full road closure. Thank you for your help with this and please don't close that road.
Coral Reef Pl.	Dear Melina! A ROAD CLOSURE BETWEEN 2200-2300 is GOOD (not 2100-2200). If you take away Victoria from us, it is almost impossible to turn LEFT on Marine into six lane traffic and on ELLIOTT, WE CAN'T GO STRAIGHT ACROSS - BRILLIANT! School is up the hill and I have four children. I'm lost if I have to go to Burnaby. First, if I want to go across KNIGHT ST. BRIDGE. PLEASE BE RESPONSIBLE. And, in icy conditions, we just hit hydro poles. The bike walk way is PERFECT and long overdue.
Coral Reef Pl.	Re:#4: I drive a Ford Explorer 4x4. After the last snow storm, there was only one way out of the Portside to Elliott, South of Marine Drive area. The hills are too steep to drive on during snow or ice; all traffic had to drive to Victoria South Kent. If you close this section of the road, how will the traffic exit form this area? We also use Victory Drive Light; to make a left turn onto Marine safely. I support the idea of a bike route, not at the expense of safety but for my family. Why not make the section of 2100 E. North Kent the same as, Elliott to Jellicoe? Use the North Kent as the main road and have the bike path to the south.
Coral Reef Pl.	If the road is closed, there will be no way to get out in the winter when it snows!!!!
Cypress St.	Talk to Burnaby to extend the route through Byrne Park to the incinerator and the bike route up to the BC Parkway route.
Duff St.	Re: #4: I live on Duff and we get a lot of traffic coming down from Marine. If you do the road closure, we will have even more traffic because everyone east us will have to use Duff to access Victoria and Kent. I doagree that we need to slow the traffic down on Kent but I do not feel closing Kent would stop or slow down the traffic on Duff Street. Re: #5: I think the speed bumps would slow the traffic down and I believe they could work on Kent (2100-2200 blocks) as well as the 2200-2300 blocks.
Duff St.	I would also like to see additional speed humps along the north side of Kent, between Crompton to Gladstone Park, to slow down cars and increase safety for bicycle and pedestrians, especially in the high density residential areas.
Duff St.	We live on Duff St., just north of Kent at Victoria. The proposed bike path excites us as we would find it very useful. Because we can't attend the meeting next week, we were wandering if you could send us more details about where the route would go and what time lines there are for the project. Thanks.
Dumfries St.	There should be a bikeway on Kent! Traffic should be slowed as many families live and walk and enjoy the park. Speed bumps are a Godsend to us in the neighbourhood of Fraserview, for many years now.
E. 49th Ave.	Ontario Street = 3 schools with parking lanes on both sides. My suggestions = parking only on one side.
E. 15th Ave.	Re: #1: I think it's important to provide infrastructure to link the bike network together. Re: #2: We need to make the streets safer for cyclists and bike boxes, after some public education. Will be of use in many areas in the City.
E. 54th Ave.	It would be difficult for Handy-Dart vehicles to make it up the steep hills during snowy weather.
E. Kent Ave. North	Unless a traffic light is installed at Marine dr./Nanaimo St. or Marine Dr./Gladstone St., it will leave the only viable access to Marine Drive at Elliott Street, during rush hour traffic. For those of us who live near Marine and Elliott, we know how numerous the traffic accidents at that location are, and would like to have another viable access to Marine Drive. We are already locked in by the closure at Jellico St., so I strongly disagree with the closure at the 2100 block!
E. Kent Ave. North	- I support the idea of a bike route. - I don't support closure because I can not get up the hill during icy or snowy weather and I usually have to go to Victoria.
E. Kent Ave.North	It is snows, there are no level streets to exit from this area. The streets east of Fraser are too steep toget to Marine. It would create a very dangerous situation for those of us south of Marine. The way to slow traffic and block off the area, is to stop traffic in an easterly direction and still allow westerly traffic flow, south by blocking off south Kent at Argyle. This would in effect, solve the traffic problem in the area. Most of the traffic is going home at night in an easterly direction, from the industrial area. North Kent, between Victoria and Argyle, is one way.
E. Kent Ave. North	We use Kent quite regularly, as we have friends and family living along Kent Avenue. It creates more difficulty if we have to travel on "dangerous" Marine Drive when visiting three to four blocks away on Kent Avenue (by car). We would welcome speed humps anywhere along the residential routes of Kent Avenue. We agree that cars travel far too quickly here. As a young family, we walk along Kent regularly and anticipate biking here as the children grow old enough to bike with us. Any traffic claming measures would be great here!
E. Kent Ave. North	Re: #4: This is a bad idea, as it will eliminate a vital egress route for all residents south of Marine Drive, east of Gladstone Park and west of the 2400 block. All these residents will only be able to access westbound Marine by Elliott. There are no other lights on Marine for these residents to use. As there are a very large numbers of people living within the boundaries described above, this will create a huge problem in morning rush hour as most people want to go westbound on Marine to get to work. The light at Marine and Elliott is a very long light for Marine and short for Elliott. This means that there will be gridlock on Elliott, trying to turn west. This problem is compounded because the traffic sign prohibits going directly north on Elliott, through the light. I agree that the Kent bicycle corridor should be supported and that traffic should be slowed down on Kent south, west of Gladstone Park. The proposal below to install speed bumps is a good idea. Inconveniencing large numbers of residents by blocking access, is not. Re: #5: Slowing traffic along this route is a good idea, as many people drive too quickly. Speed bumps should also be installed on Kent South from Gladstone Park, west.
E. Kent Ave. North	As a resident living at Victoria and E Kent North, I generally support a road closure between Kent South and Kent North, at Gladstone park. But in doing so, it raises a number of other concerns. Most specifically, it will result in an increase in traffic at the intersection of Marine and Victoria Drive. This is a precarious intersection at the best of time, due to a number of factors including: a) high volume of traffic travelling east and west on Marine; b) excessive speed of cars travelling east and west on Marine; and c) regular (i.e. daily), instances of cars running red lights at Victoria on Marine. In an effort to make the Fraser Lands area safer for everyone, I respectfully request the followingchanges be given some consideration whether or not the Kent Bikeway Traffic Calming Measures go forward: 1. Turning Arrow Signals for Intersection at Marine and Victoria There are currently turn bays for cars travelling east and west on Marine at Victoria, but due to the reasons a-c above, the opportunities to turn safely are very limited. This is more so for westbound traffic wishing to turn south down Victoria, due to the added volume from the Knight St. Bridge. Further, looking forward to the current proposal for a Wal-Mart down the road at Marine and Ontario, I can only envision an increase in traffic along this east/west Marine corridor. Therefore, I request a turn arrow signal be installed at this intersection to give residents and visitors to the area, a degree of safety when turning. 2. Turning Signal for Intersection at Marine & Elliot (east & west traffic) As above, there are turning bays at this intersection, but due to the same reasons above, this is a difficult intersection to turn at from Marine for north and southbound traffic. And, if the Traffic Claming Measures are instituted, this intersection would become their 'main route' to enter and exit their neighbourhood. Therefore, I would respectfully suggest a turning arrow signal be installed at this intersection. 3. Marine & Elliot Intersection (northbound traffic) There is currently signage that does not allow residents travelling northbound up Elliott to cross Marine. Signage currently dictates that you must turn left or right at Marine. As one of the main shopping areas is at Elliott/Clarendon and 49th, would you consider removing this to allow local traffic from the Fraserlands area to travel northbound up the hill? Further, as it stands now, all traffic from Marine can currently turn left and use this road, without restriction. Therefore, I think the residents on the south side of Marine should again be afforded some access, since their ability to drive within the neighbourhood would be restricted, if the Gladstone Park road closure between Kent South and Kent North proceeds. Lastly, I generally support the concept of speed bumps to slow down traffic in the area, I don't think they would necessarily be needed at 2200-2300 Kent North, if the road closure at Gladstone Park proceeds though. I think it would be useful at the 2200-2300 Kent North, Only if the narrowing at Gladstone Park was NOT instituted, then it would be a useful tool to slow down traffic on this portion of Kent Avenue. Further on this point, if it came to be that speed bumps were the only course to be used as a traffic calming measure, then I would ask that you consider installing speed bumps at other locations along East Kent North and East Kent South, in the 1900-1800 blocks, due to the short-cutting of cars, traffic and speed f I think it would be preferable to see speed bumps used in the 1900-1800 blocks, even if theGladstone Park road closure was restricted to bikes and emergency vehicles. Reasoning being, the proposed road closure will force westbound traffic wishing to re-route around the backups at the Knight Street Bridge, down Victoria (instead of coming north down Elliott), onto either East Kent South or North, thus the speed bumps would assist as a deterrent for those wishing to do this and at the very least, reduce the speed which is a high priority to residents in the area. I am happy to clarify any of the above comments and thank you for taking the time to consider them. Please do not hesitate to contact me. Thank you.
E. Kent Ave. North	Hello I totally agree with encouraging cyclists and providing them with a safe route off main streets. Not sure at all, though, that this initiative ought to be at the expense of residents of the area. I live at 2505 E. Kent and travel the route you suggest be closed at least twice each day, coming and going from work and form shopping. Closing this route will force me and others like me who live east of Nanaimo, to turn up onto Marine to head west and then drive down at the first opportunity. This idea angers me for the added time and risks I will have to assume. I think I understand that you really want to stop the steady stream of people who use Kent to avoid the Nightmare of Marine Drive. I don't blame them really, I would probably do the same if I had to travel that scary stretch; 90 km./hr. and many stops. But, for the sake of stopping them, you compromise our safety. Please reconsider this plan. Create a bike path that doesn't interfere with the Kent meander. Selfishly, closing this street will completely change my way of life. I bought my house on Kent, on the river, four years ago; after living the previous fifty years in Kerrisdale and I continue to shop on the west side. In all this time, I have never used Marine; the advantage, I think, of the greater good. It occurred to me this morning, as I drove around the corner from Kent North and Kent South (all alone, by the way, at 6;30 am, and on my way to Crompton for the Knight St. Bridge; THAT'S another topic of issue!!), that making that corner a dead-end will effectively isolate our community as Kent is blocked half-way to Jellicoe on the east as well. On the days that I am home, I am aware of MANY vehicles who fly along Kent, heading east from Elliott, only to be met by the barricade and have to turn around, or, in the case of emergency vehicles or delivery trucks; back up all that way. I shudder to think if I ever needed an ambulance or fire truck, how they would know the street only has one access with a traffic light up at marine Drive. Use speed bumps on Kent South, by all means. Extend Kent North, west to Victoria and use this as the primary route, but DO NOT BLOCK the street! Re: #5: I am in favour of the speed bumps ONLY. I think these will go a long way to discourage the "short-cutters". As my adult sons say, when they come for Sunday dinner, it's Marine and the Knight Street Bridge access that should be fixed up; NOT our ONLY neighbourhood street. Our neighbourhood is along the river; like our road. Please do not break us apart! Perhaps by making Kent North continue from Argyle to the Park?
E. Kent Ave. North	Re: #4: How will I access Marine during snow and ice conditions? Currently, I would rive to Fraser along Kent which is flat. This proposal would only allow me to come and go via Elliott. I will feel boxed in. The City has already reneged on many promises originally made to the "Fraser lands" community, i.e., a school, marina, shops, etc. I would be interested to compare property tax revenues from a decade ago to now in the Fraser lands!!! Thanks.
E. Kent Ave. North	While we support the development of the bicycle network and efforts to calm traffic along Kent Avenue, we are opposed to the road closure. We live on Kent Avenue, east of Elliott. The closure of Kent would mean that our only available route would be via Elliott. This would be a real problem during the winter, when it snows. On many occasions, over the last few years, it has been impossible to climb Elliott, to Marine Drive. We have had to go to Victoria Drive and sometimes, even to Fraser Street, where there is less of an incline, in order to leave the Fraser Lands. For us, this is an important safety issue that must be addressed. Would there be a way to limit traffic between Victoria and Elliott to "residents only"?
E. Kent Ave. North	I use that crossing (Kent North to Kent South and vice versa), at LEAST four times per day, often six or eight times, without it, I would have to go in the WRONG direction first, each time I leave home; OR, wander through the residential area between Kent North and Marine drive which I will probably choose to do and still use Kent when travelling west, form home and east coming home (my daughter's home is at Nanaimo, above Kent and I chauffer grandchildren to and from school).
E. Kent Ave. North	When we have snow in the winter, Elliott St. is too slippery to get up to Marine Drive. Area residents go along Kent to Victoria or Main St. to get onto Marine Drive. Kent is a dead end at the end of our street, east of Elliott Street. The closure that is proposed will leave no access to Marine Drive when it snows and only one light access. Could it be possible to use other means to stop short-cutting. There could be more speed bumps from Victoria to Portside Drive. Another measure that could be used is a round-a-bout like those used in Mount Pleasant and Kitsilano. If there were two or three of those, as well as speed bumps, they would totally eliminate short-cutters and get the speed down. Residents don't speed through the neighbourhood.
E. Kent Ave. North	The concern arising from closure of the road is that residents between 2200 and 2500 block Ken North, are "trapped" with their only access (to Marine) being via Nanaimo or Elliott. In both cases, these roads have very steep grades and are virtually impossible to drive up (north) to Marine, even with four wheel drive and snow tires (as I have), in heavy snowfall. Unless I have access to Kent westbound, so that I can proceed to Fraser, I would be immobilized in any winter snow storm. Also, although the information indicates that emergency vehicles would still have access, I am concerned that the access would be slowed or impeded, which leads to concerns about risks to residents of this area.
E. Kent Ave.North	Re: # 3: I deal with bike riders downtown every day and although I drive responsibly, I am constantly frustrated by bike riders who seem determined to play Russian roulette with the traffic; they simply cannot maintain the same pace (or choose not to), and thus become stubborn obstacles to the flow of traffic. Many ignore the light, or block right turns by stopping in the middle of the pedestrian walk overs. Kent is dark and busy enough; adding more bikes to the mix will be a mess. Re: #4: I drive Kent every day to avoid Marine. Marine is the "faux" expressway of Vancouver South; this City doesn't want expressways, "so we don't end up like Toronto", yet we have high speed three lane "city streets", like Marine, that end up functioning as expressways, without the design features and controls that could make that safe. I want an alternative. Kent gives me a way to get at least as far as Elliott before I have to do one last block of high speed to get to Jellicoe and turn south. Even signalling and slowing down to turn at Jellicoe, I have people leaning on the horn behind me because they have to drop below 70 or 80 km./hr., or more for a few seconds, that is reality. So since the Marine situation is not likely to ever change, I do not want to have Kent obstructed further. I know it's very fashionable to promote the bike as the alternative to the evils of all those driver who either don't bike to work or don't want to waste their lives on transit; I am a taxpayer, I work full time, I am never going to bike to work. I am never going to inflict transit on myself and I am a driver which, contrary to what seems to be the prevailing view, NOT a problem; just a part of the reality of living in a City. Reality; not some planner's dream world. Re:# 5: You probably got the idea that I am against restricting Marine or turning it into a bike pipeline because someone thinks people are going to be biking to work downtown from Surrey or New West; don't believe it.
E. Kent Ave. North	- I feel that closing Kent would isolate the three blocks from Gladstone to Elliott - in the event of snow, there would be no way that I could leave my home, due to the only exits being up steep hills. Most vehicles can't make the climb. - I suggest that you open up Kent North, between Portside (Gladstone) and Victoria, and make it a one-way westbound and change Kent South to one-way eastbound. This would ease congestion in front of the condos and allow better sharing of the road with bikes. - I would support stop signs being put up on Portside and Nanaimo, when they "T" intersect with Kent North. - I am definitely against speed bumps - there are rarely cars parked along that section and see no need to add congestion, or increase frustration of drivers. - I would support building a sidewalk along 2200-2300 Kent North.
E. Kent Ave. North	If you close the road, we would not get out on a "o" degree morning, as the roads are too steep. Open up the Kent North road, i.e., one-half block of under-developed road.
E. Kent Ave. North	Another request is to provide lighting along the Gladstone park pathway. The bikeway east of Elliott should be paved. Current limestone topping requires annual maintenance now. 1) During snow and icy weather, those of us who live below Marine Drive and between Elliott and the proposed closure, would not have a passable route out. (The steep hills down to Kent are often too icy to navigate in such cases.) 2) We have children who go to school up Elliott and north of Marine Drive. If cross traffic on Kent is terminated, then N/S traffic on Elliott at Marine Drive, should be permitted. This would allow south side residents, who drive to the school LEGAL! This is our CONDITION to support closure! 3) Rather than speed humps - we would prefer continuation of the walkway on the south side of Kent. Currently, there is NO SIDEWALK and this is dangerous!!
E. Kent Ave. North	Care needs to be considered to alleviate problems in crossing railroad tracks. It must be pointed out that I support the bike route 100 percent. But, when it snows, the roads leading to Marine Drive must be salted, otherwise, if we can't use Kent Ave., we cannot get to Marine Drive. Alternatively, there would need to be a way to let vehicles use Kent Ave. in the snow. The affected roads are Elliott, Nanaimo and Portside. Regards.
E. Kent Ave. North	Further to our recent phone discussion, I don't feel there is any need to further point out the many objections to this proposal. As mentioned, most of the traffic during rush hour comes from people who live east of Vancouver and are using Kent Avenue to bypass the Marine Drive bottleneck, caused by the Knight Street Bridge access. Surely the people at City Hall cannot believe the traffic is caused by the few residents of Kent Ave. North. I would suggest installing a sign at either Kent at Fraser or Kent at Argyle; "No Access to Marine Drive Beyond this Point". I would also suggest a sign of Marine at Elliott, restricting left-hand turns between 7 and 9 a.m.
E. Kent Ave. North	I am totally against the road closure on Kent, that leaves only Elliott Street to get up to Marine drive. Since this City does not treat the side streets during winter weather, Elliott is EXTREMELY DANGEROUS in winter conditions. It is often a sheet of ice and the street is EXTEMELY steep. There were accidents during the last storm. This means you wouldn't be able to get up the hill and you could die trying to come down. Also, I use Kent all the time, since I live on the street, I feel I should be able to have access to it.
E. Kent Ave. North	Concerns that if street closure #1 above, occurs, it will increase traffic in our block significantly. We are already concerned about the amount of traffic travelling the wrong way down our street and the speed. I am fully supportive of the bike route, however, I would really like to see our street blocked off at East Kent North at Argyle. This would force traffic up to Marine before it hits residential - it is commercial until this point. 1800 block of E. Kent North - residents do not use front street for access; everyone uses parking in the lane. Close, if for bike route and eliminate traffic to make it safer for ourchildren. It is dangerous and I avoid taking my children to the sea walk during rush hour traffic because of the traffic. There is already a path for bikes and pedestrians from Gladstone Park, past Elliott. Do they need two routes? If #1 above occurs, you will not have the traffic travelling through the 2200-2300 block, therefore, I don't feel speed bumps are necessary. Please keep the traffic out of residential areas. Your proposal forces them up Victoria Drive. I beg you to force them up one block earlier at Argyle. Make 1800 block E. Kent North a "no exit" westbound and block off eastbound. I support either #1 or #2 but I don't think it's financially responsible to do both (as stated above). Place speed bumps on Kent South, Argyle to Victoria. Other traffic problems to be investigated: - At the little strip mall at Argyle and Marine, traffic heading north our of the mall needs more direction; maybe a yield sign, traffic light on the north side of Marine?? Drivers treat this or appear to assume they have a green light, however, only traffic heading south on Argyle has a green light. - Traffic turning right onto Borden from Marine eastbound; I have witnessed many close accidents. As the traffic coming off Knight St. Bridge is looking left to yield onto Marine, they don't see cars turning onto Borden. It's a bad spot - approximately 25 feet from where you merge to the corner at Borden, a split second shoulder check could cause a rear-ender. - If road closure goes through (straight through), remove traffic sign at Elliott to make it easier for local traffic.
E. Kent Ave. North	My family and I have lived at 2541 East Kent Ave. North (just east of Elliott St.) since 1985, in a house that my grandmother bought in the mid-1970's. It is a wonderful place to live. I feel very strongly that the closing off of Kent Ave. at Gladstone Park will add another unfair transportation barrier for the residents who live in the approximately six square blocks east of Gladstone. S.E. Marine Drive is, I believe, the second busiest artery in Vancouver. It is not a neighbourhood street. It is a freeway, despite its 50km speed limit and it can be extremely harrowing to turn onto and off of it. At Elliott Street and S.E. Marine Drive, there is a serious accident, four to eight times a year and each time, a pole or a fence on the S.E. corner has to be replaced. The Kent closure would force local residents to use S.E. Marine Drive (a major and dangerous artery), for all their community activities. Those of us who live south of Marine Drive need the opportunity to use a more humane route for our daily activities. East Kent Ave. is such a route. Kent Ave. South seems especially crucial as a neighbourhood street, since we are not allowed to drive straight up Elliott Street because of the inexplicable 'no straight through' sign at Elliott and S.E. Marine (which makes an already dangerous intersection even more confusing and dangerous). This unexpected traffic pattern change also (as the Kent closure would) forces residents onto S.E. Marine Drive unnecessarily. I would love to be able to drive straight up Elliott in order to go to my work, my daughter's school, our community centre and pool, our friends and shopping. But instead, we are forced onto Marine Drive - 2 km. Out of our way, and through at least three more intersections - just so that we don't drive directly to our destinations via Elliott Street. The proposed closure of Kent at the tracks, will make our daily lives all the more circuitous and dangerous and we will have to negotiate S.E. Marine Drive for all our destinations without exception. Furthermore, when it is icy or snowy, Kent is our only way out of the neighbourhood, as all the hills in the vicinity are impossible to travel up. It is possible that these two traffic access restrictions might be more palatable if we had an accessibleand frequent bus service. The North/South connecting bus (#29) that ran all the way down to Marine Dr. was cancelled by Translink in October of 2001 (after a decade-long struggle to get the service). It was my main form of transportation to and from work. It now takes 15-20 minutes to walk to the Elliott bus stop (for some, much longer). Each of these factors taken together, make for a poorly-planned neighbourhood - a neighbourhood that seems unacceptably difficult to get into and out of logically, easily and safely. In an ideal world, my family would be walking and biking to all our destinations. Without question, that is the best way. However, the 15 or so blocks of steep hill has been, and continues to be, a logistical and psychological barrier. Also, Elliott, north of S.E. Marine, has not sidewalks. When it's raining (and this is Vancouver), walking on the grassy boulevard absolutely soaks your shoes and the soft turf makes the walk up that much more strenuous. Pushing a stroller must be a nightmare. A person travelling north who has health restrictions or a disability (such as my husband), has to drive, take a cab or use the infrequent #100 bus (travelling, again, several kilometres out of their way in order to find a North/South connecting bus that comes right down to Marine Drive). Furthermore, cycling up and down Elliott is another effort altogether and certainly not for the feint of heart or average cyclist. These all have been the contributing factors to my family's (and many others') reliance on driving a car and using Kent for getting to shopping, family, doctors, etc. Given the pre-existing barriers to safe and logical movement within our own neighbourhood that I have outlined above, the 'no through traffic' sign at Elliott, the dead end on Kent, east of Elliott, the speed and volume of the traffic on S.E. Marine Drive, the steepness of the grade on the north/south streets, and the inaccessible and infrequent bus service - the proposed closure of Kent Avenue at Gladstone Park to cars, poses an additional and therefore, unacceptable restriction on the ability of residents to use their own neighbourhood. I would be eager to discuss these issues and contribute ideas toward finding alternatives to the Kent closure proposal, Thank you for both the opportunity to express my concern and for your extended attention.
E. Kent Ave. North	This is an important route for the area.
E. Kent Ave. North	We are opposed to the proposal to close Kent Street, as it crosses the railway tracks at Gladstone Park. We live east of the proposed closure and would then have only one access to a traffic light at Marine Drive, via Elliott Street, which is a very steep grade. In bad road conditions, this hill is impassible and residents of the section of Kent Street, east of the proposed closure, must have access to Ken Street, west, to travel to Main Street, where the grade is much less. As four-year residents of the area, we are well aware of the frequent number of cars that lose control under slippery conditions and slide down the steep hill of Elliott Street. The bollards at the bottom of the hill are knocked out of their mountings right now because of a car doing exactly this during the recent snow and ice. As a minor section of roadway, it is often several days before the Elliott hill is plowed and sanded after a snowfall. Emergency vehicles could not reach us under slippery conditions. We cannot get out under slippery conditions. We are not opposed to proposed traffic calming measures and would even support reducing the traffic from Kent South to Ken Kent North, at the proposed closure to one lane, just as long as the option to use Fraser or Main is not absolutely closed to us.
E. Kent Ave. North	I support the use of speed bumps to control speed in the area proposed. Motorists do tend to exceed speed limits in this area. There are many children, dogs and pedestrians using roadways, due to no sidewalk there. I'm against the road closure, living east of Elliott on Kent, in winter weather, the only way to get to work or out at all is to come down Elliott to Kent, then west to have access to Marine, from a road with far less slope than Elliott. Elliott is impossible to climb in snow or ice. This closurewould be a major inconvenience at other times during the year, restricting access to our homes. One of the advantages of living in this area is enjoying the reduced traffic on Kent Avenue, to get around.
E. Kent Ave. North	We hope the work will be done soon, and nicely.
E. Kent Ave. North	I think anything that helps "slow" traffic down is a good idea. This will also encourage more cyclists -great! Another suggestion: How about speed humps in front of 1900 and 1800 E. Kent North? Cars are constantly speeding in "both:" directions (even though it's a one-way street in the 1800 and 1900 blocks.
E. Kent Ave. South	Re: #4: Last week, I spoke to voice my support for this proposal. To reiterate, I live in a group of townhouses immediately west of the site in question. Last year, I wrote a detailed report on behalf of our strata council, which represents 34 owners, which discussed the problems at this location. I believe the letter was eventually signed by the representatives from the four strata councils representing over 300 homes in the 1700 to 2100 block East Kent south. Please refer to this letter for further info ( I should also note that none of us received the survey on this issue and I only received copies at my request yesterday, so there is no time to distribute it to my neighbors). In short, there are hundreds of vehicles which use East Kent in our neighbourhood as a detour from SE Marine Drive. The residents east of us, who can use Elliott, where there is a traffic control signal, to access SE Marine , instead travel west on East Kent in the morning to avoid using the arterial route intended for commuting. The process is reversed in the afternoon. I know that on the infrequent occasions, it snows, Elliott is a problem but the answer is to simply put this one short block on the priority list for plowing/sanding, not continue to subject us to their traffic. In addition, it is clear from the volume of traffic that many, many vehicles who do not live in the neighbourhood south of SE Marine are LEVAING SE Marine at Elliott when westbound to travel down to East Kent to avoid the traffic. I think blocking the proposed site to traffic would actually reduce traffic problems for those east of us, because out-of-neighbourhood commuters would no longer us Elliott to get down to Kent to travel westbound and the reverse in the afternoon. The current situation is that we get excessive, speeding traffic that is noisy, obnoxious and dangerous, not to mention polluting. My children play in the small park immediately west of this site and I am always worried a car coming too fast through the 's' turn will lose control and come across the sidewalk. I strongly support this proposal and I know many of my neighbours do as well, as per our previous correspondence (signed by our strata chair and others). I would be happy to discuss this further with Engineering staff. Thank you. Re: #5: Although if proposal #4 were implemented, this would likely become a non-issue. I am very pleased to see this proposal and would be happy to provide any support that I can, including speaking to staff, Council, etc. Thank you.
E. Kent Ave. South	Re: #1: While I travel more on Kent than I do on Marine, the pedestrian/cyclist activated signal should be timed to coincide with the existing signals on Marine, to try to maintain the flow of traffic on Marine. There is nothing more frustrating than being at a red light at an intersection, having the light turn green and then travel along at the speed limit and hit another red light. The pedestrian activated signal should turn at a point when east/west Marine traffic is stopped at signals to the east or west of Ontario, if possible. Re: #2: I don't know how much auto and truck traffic travels east of Main on Kent South because the road doesn't go anywhere. It seems to be the entrance to Signal Trucking and the city's abandoned car lot. So, I don't expect the "Bike Box" to affect many vehicles. It may increase the visibility of cyclists to trucks in the area, so it would be a prudent safety measure. Re: #3: I'm not sure what a "speed table" is. I would support proposal if only to have Kent North between Argyle and Crompton repaved 9it is in such disrepair - potholes, etc.). In order to make the transition for bicycles safer, form Kent North to Kent South at Crompton, I think it would make sense to have both bike lanes on the south side of Kent North, rather than one on each side of Kent North. The westward view of Kent North should look like the cross-section G-G in Drawing #4. In this way, the bicycle traffic does not have to cross the traffic lanes of Kent North, which as indicated, is a high speed road. I don't see any need to have the bicycles on the North side of Kent North; even through the drawings east of Argyle. Re: #4: I support the closure of this crossing to reduce the amount of through-traffic travelling through my neighbourhood. I feel that the closing of the crossing will be 100% effective at reducing the traffic east of Victoria, along Kent South. I live on Kent south between Argyle and Victoria. I don't feel that this proposal will reduce the traffic flow on Kent South between Argyle and Victoria. I would support a wait and see approach to determine if the through-traffic travelling on Kent North, east of Argyle, turns up Argyle to get to Marine or whether it continues along Kent south and turns up Victoria. It should be noted that some eastbound traffic on Kent North goes straight through Argyle to continue on Kent North eastbound, even though the signage restricts this eastbound flow of traffic. I think speed humps on Kent South between Argyle and Victoria would force the through traffic up Argyle to Marine Drive. I feel this should be looked at if the closure of the crossing at the rail tracks at Gladstone Park is, on its own, unable to reduce the through traffic along Kent South, between Argyle and Victoria. Re: #5: If the road closure at the rail crossing in Proposal #4 is accepted, I will never drive on this section of Kent North, as I won't be able to get to it, so I have no opinion in that case. I would suggest that if the road closure in Proposal #4 occurs, there will be a significant decline in traffic along Kent North in this area; almost all of it will be local traffic, so the speed humps may not be required. I am really impressed with the decisions that have been made regarding this proposed route, as it does not significantly impact the travel of local residents. Our strata has written to the City to support the closure of the crossing in Proposal #4. I am pleased to see it as an option. One issue I have brought up before, as part of closing the crossing, is the potential; given the reduced traffic past Gladstone park; for increased crime or "shady activities" to occur in the park or parking lot at the east end of Kent South, given the increased seclusion this location will obtain. I don't know how to deal with it for the local residents living around the Park.
E. Kent Ave. South	The stretch of road that we live on is over-used and abused by traffic accessing the industrial area further west on Kent North. In the mornings, the westbound traffic is bad and in the early evening, the eastbound traffic is horrible. Drivers looking to avoid some of Marine Drive are abusing our residential streets. Parked cars regularly have their mirrors clipped and it is difficult to cross the street as a pedestrian speed and volume are problems. We think the closure at Gladstone park will alleviate some pressure because vehicles won't be able to get to Elliott, however, driving on SE Kent may still appeal to them as an approach to Victoria. We'd like to see traffic calming, such as speed humps on this portion of the street. Thank you for asking for our input.
E. Kent Ave. South	I think it is a good idea with proposals on directing or limiting traffic (auto) along Kent. However, by closing roadways for vehicle traffic at Gladstone Park, it will only move traffic that normally comes off Marine, southbound at Elliott, to turn off Marine further west at Victoria? I'd like to also suggest a 'no left turn' sign at Victoria and Marine, for westbound traffic. That is, 'no left turn, weekdays, 7am - 9 am.
E. Kent ave. South	As residents of the 1800 block of SE Kent, we are still concerned that this will still permit non-local traffic to travel east to Victoria; causing more congestion in our block. We need speed humps (and have requested speed humps) from the Engineering Dept. for our block. Not only will this deter non-local traffic but it will also slow the speeders down! We have many children living in the complexes in this block and it is only a matter of time before a careless driver causes a serious accident. Thank you.
E. Kent Ave. South	Perhaps it is only coincidence that I have not seen heavy traffic in the "proposed road closure" area while I am biking but, it has never seemed a problem for me, my husband or our friends (plus it is convenient for access to the only corner store remotely nearby). The speed bumps are a fine idea but I must say, I would indeed be happier to see also some speed bumps on Kent South, in the 1900 block, near the clubhouse. I have seen a great increase in the amount and speed of traffic over the last year. It has become rather noisy, busy and dangerous in what used to seem quiet and peaceful. I thank you for your consideration.
E. Kent Ave. South	I am much relieved that the issue of traffic volume/speed on Kent is finally being addressed. I have been raising this matter with the City for at least the past four years. Re: #4: I do not support for the following reasons: 1) The main entry/exit points for drivers using Kent (to avoid Marine) are Elliott and Victoria. Closing Kent at Gladstone Park would do nothing to alleviate the volume of traffic which would then use Victoria exclusively, greatly exacerbating the problem there. 2) Closing Kent would be a major inconvenience for residents of the area, whose use of the two entry/exit points is a necessity, not a convenient short cut. Re: #5: I am in favour of this proposal, but it is not enough. Speed humps would certainly serve to reduce speed but the main speed drag is not between Portside and Elliott but between Argyle and Gladstone Park. Therefore, in order to improve traffic conditions in the area to benefit all those affected, i.e., not only cyclists, but also pedestrians and the tax paying residents, additional speed humps are necessary between Argyle and Victoria, and also between Victoria and Gladstone Park. The problem of speeding traffic is not only an issue during that misnomer the 'rush hour' but especially at times when vehicles enter the strip between Argyle and Gladstone Park (form either end), see it clear and race to the other end, oblivious of parking garage exits along the way.
E. Kent ave. South	I support both proposals in the hope that the traffic on Kent can be lessened.
E. Kent Ave. South	I live in the stretch between Argyle and Victoria on Kent South. We have a fair amount of street parking. There is also a fair amount of "cut through" traffic. We find these vehicles travelling too fast for what should be single lane traffic. Because the parking is on both sides of the street, it makes for a narrow drive though. I have seen vehicle side mirrors taken off from two vehicles trying to go in opposite directions at the same place. It is also a concern regarding the speed of the vehicles. It is also difficult to enter onto the street from the condo driveways because parked vehicles block views and the cars don't slow down. There are many children and pets in the area and I'm afraid one day, it will turn ugly! Please help!
E. Kent Ave. South	1) I don't agree with using Kent for a bikeway. Traffic along Kent from Oak to Elliott, is becoming heavier every week. If it's used as a bikeway, I can foresee more accidents involving cyclists. If this does go ahead, better traffic lights should be installed (i.e., left turn at Victoria and Marine, a light at Gladstone and Nanaimo and Marine, left turn at Elliott and Marine). This is especially true for north/south streets crossing marine as Left turners will be taking great risks crossing Marine, given traffic volume. 2) I agree with the speed bumps, but would like to see them also installed on Kent South.
E. Kent Ave. South	- Road closure at the rail crossing Kent, North and South, would inconvenience local traffic while it would only force commuters to use Victoria Drive. Subsequently, E. Kent North and South, between Victoria and Argyle, would be DANGEROUSLY worse during rush hour periods. - Commuter traffic that currently utilizes Kent as a detour to get to the industrial area east of Argyle, must be discouraged from using Kent and must instead stay on Marine Drive. Kent North and South. Kent needs to be blocked at Argyle. Letter: I am writing on behalf of the over one hundred homeowners and residents of Strata LMS 2113 (Pilot House at Tugboat Landing) in the 1800 block of East Kent (South). You will receive or will have received a copy of a similar letter of concern from other Strata representatives in our immediate neighbourhood on South Kent. The street-way of East Kent South, between Argyle on the west and Elliott on the East, has become a high-hazard area for pedestrians and drivers alike, as vehicle drivers use East Kent as a high speed alternative to Marine Drive. Even the private businesses on East Kent (South) and west of Argyle, have deemed it necessary to have painted "slow" signage on the roadway of South Kent. There are many small children and elderly people who are at risk as drivers speed through this corridor with little or no regard for the safety of others. Our strata is interested in and prepared to work with, the neighbouring strata's, single-family house owners, private businesses and the City, to resolve this safety issue before there is a serious personal injury. To this end, we have requested representatives from these neighbourhood interests, to form an alliance with us, to address this situation.
E. Kent Ave. South	We also support speed humps in the 1900-2000 block of E. Kent South. There is a high percentile of speeding vehicles on this portion of East Kent. The proposed road closure will be a welcome relief with reduced traffic volumes, especially in the morning and afternoon rush hours (before and after work). At the present time, I find considerable risk in leaving my driveway and proceeding onto the roadway, at 2020 E. Kent South.
E. Kent Ave. South	If you close the road at the 2100/2200 block on Kent North/South, the speed bumps may be redundant, as traffic will be unable to drive through onto Kent South. Thank you for finally doing something to mitigate the speedway in front of my home!
E. Kent Ave. South	For such an "OUTDOOR CITY", Vancouver sorely lacks proper bike routes. Perhaps Council should look at City Planning of Calgary. The city if full of wonderful bike paths for cycling and rollerblading. We desperately need speed bumps along E. Kent South, from the west side to the east. Traffic along here is very heavy and cars travel at dangerous speeds.
E. Kent Ave. South	- This program is going to be (if implemented), a great resolution to massive traffic hour speeding traffic through our residential area. - There have been numerous fender benders over the past eight years I have lived here (speeders versus people pulling out of steep underground garage ramps with blind spots). - It's a small wonder nobody has been killed by now, unless I'm not aware of it. - Although the closure will greatly improve quality of life and safety on the 2000 East block of Kent South, a further closure at Argyle and Kent would ensure further safety and claming for residents of 1900 East block of Kent South. At the very least, a 3-way stop at Victoria and South Kent and speed bumps on both 1900 and 2000 East blocks, would be in order.
E. Kent Ave. South	A great idea - certainly would cut down on the speeding traffic, fender benders and near misses. I think it is about time, we have lived here for eight years and I must say it become a little nerve racking just trying to cross the street on foot; never mind trying to ride your bike or walk your dog. Awesome!
E. Kent Ave. South	Speed humps should also be installed along Kent, south from Argyle to Elliott or just from Argyle to Victoria Drive. Cars speed along Kent Ave. south and someone is going to be seriously hurt or killed. We have lived here for 7 years and the traffic gets worse each year, as people are using it as a short-cut.
E. Kent Ave. South	1) Open up road on north side of tracks for vehicle traffic. Speed humps are also DESPERATELY!! Needed on South East Kent from Argyle to Victoria (1700 -1900 block). Cars use this as an alternate to SE Marine and speed. Many children and hidden entrances to underground parking, plus several accidents have occurred. 2) Take off one-way between Argyle and Sophia on North Kent East. Low populations density (vacant lot at three houses). This would keep traffic very low on South Kent (1700-1900 blocks) where population density is very high (1,000 plus).
E. Kent Ave. South	YES!! I have often reflected that our street is "an accident waiting to happen". This is a family community with small children, parked cars on either sides of the road and speeding vehicles. What a recipe for tragedy! Our neighbourhood is a wonderful place for people to walk, bike, picnic and play. It is not a commuter short-cut but a place where residents wish to enjoy the natural beauty around them without fear for their safety. Commuters roar through the stop sign by the tracks as it is, and are often extremely disrespectful to pedestrians and anyone going under 60 km./hr. This may, at most, mildly disrupt the lives of those who live here but the benefits far outweigh this small discomfort. I would also like to see more bike routes that could hopefully link up to New Westminster (I'd use them!). We also need traffic calming measures at the 1800 and 1900 blocks of East Kent Ave. South, as commuter traffic will continue to use Kent area and turn up Victoria Drive. The same issues are at stake and more cars come through that stretch than further east.
E. Kent Ave. South	We feel the speed humps are a good idea to cut the traffic down that is using Kent as a short-cut thoroughfare. We do NOT care for the idea of a road closure. What would happen in the event of a fire or major traffic problem on one side of us, and we can't get out the other way? We are very strongly opposed to a road closure and will definitely want to be heard if this goes to council! Surely, we could have a bike path (good idea) without closing our road completely.
E. Kent Ave. South	Absolutely! We have needed a traffic calming device for quite some time now. The amount of non-local traffic that cuts through is enormous. The trade-off, with respect to restricted access for residents, is worth it. Increased functionality of bike routes is another concept I endorse.
E. Kent Ave. South	I think that there should be speed humps along the 1700-1900 block of Kent South. Cars race along here using it as a short-cut which endangers all the people living in these condos.
E. Kent Ave. South	Our neighbourhood has many young families with young children. Currently, Kent avenue is used as a "short-cut" for those who would normally be using Marine Drive, and it is scary with the speed that certain vehicles travel along this residential street.
E. Kent Ave. South	We live in the 1900 block of Kent Avenue South and the bike path is very welcome in this area, as it ties in with the Fraser River walking path at Tugboat Landing (front of Victoria Drive).
E. Kent Ave. South	If the road is blocked at Gladstone Park, the need for the speed humps between 2200-2300 Kent North would be lessened. The though traffic along Kent Avenue South between 1700 block to 2000 block at Victoria, is still a huge volume and is still a short-cut for the people trying to avoid Marine Drive. I would therefore suggest that the speed humps be installed in these blocks to slow down the traffic. There are lots of kids living in the condos along these blocks and the speed is a real hazard. Thanks.
E. Kent Ave. South	I have almost been hit once. - I have been subjected to "road rage" by a speeding vehicle (blocked me and assaulted!) - People speed frequently - "Blind" exiting parkade - Small children between cars is not uncommon - Thank you for asking for my input
E. Kent Ave. South	Allowing parking on both sides of Kent Ave. South is by far more dangerous to local residents than the additional traffic created by non-residents, because of numerous "blind" driveways. A better use of tax payers' money could be improving the flow of traffic, rather than making it worse. I don't mind spending money on streets but NOT when those streets are used for parking lots.
E. Kent ave. South	Following concerns: - Increase travel north on Victoria Dr. - suggest having a left-turn lane at Victoria Dr. and Marine Drive. - What happens to bicycle lane on the east/west river walkway? - With road closure at Gladstone park, do we need speed humps along 2200-2300 block of Kent Ave. North? There will be less traffic.
E. Kent Ave. South	Speed bumps needed at 1920-1990 East Kent South.
E. Kent Ave. South	No speed bumps on 2200 block south, please. If you make road closures at Gladstone park, they won't be required.
E. Kent Ave. South	Please consider extending the area for speed humps to the 1800 blocks of Kent Avenue South. There are a lot of people who speed along this area, with hidden driveways and parked cars on both sides ofthe road making it a very dangerous situation. Thank you.
E. Kent Ave. South	Great idea; the sooner, the better!
E. Kent Ave. South	The City is commended for improving bike and pedestrian access in this area which is changing from an industrial, to a more residentially-focused neighbourhood! We are avid cyclists and automobile commuters who use Kent each day. In supporting the above, we also request the following be considered: 1) The owners and residents of Kent from Argyle east to Gladstone Park, have gone on formal record with the City Engineer and the Mayor regarding our concern about the dangerous and high speed vehicular traffic on North and South Kent, between the 1700 and 2200 blocks. The Gladstone Park and speed humps initiative in the survey does absolutely nothing to remedy this situation. We would very much like to see the City extend these traffic calming initiatives to North and South Kent between Argyle and Victoria Streets, with speed humps on both North and South Kent. 2) Regarding the cycle and pedestrian paths, East Kent form Crompton to Argyle is a poorly paved, rutted, pot-holed, un-curbed, inadequately-lit industrial road, where commuters regularly speed to avoid and divert from Marine. Cyclists are further placed at risk because of the poorly maintained diagonal rail crossing between Crompton and Argyle. As the rod margins are so pot-holed with no curbing, the cyclists and pedestrians are forced onto the roadway which is carrying high speed traffic in a narrow corridor. During winter months, the poor lighting and road conditions place pedestrians and cyclists at extreme risk. With respect, if the City is to undertake the project as noted in the survey, the results will have little total benefit to cyclists and pedestrians unless the conditions noted above are also addressed. Thanks for receiving comments re the above.
E. Kent Ave. South	other options: - speed humps along 2000 & 2100 block Kent Avenue South. - No parking on the north side of Kent Avenue South.
E. Kent Ave. South	These proposals would be of no benefit to residents living west of Victoria, on East Kent Ave. South (1800 & 1900 block - also residents of the Coop Housing in the next block west). Residents trying to get out onto Kent from the off-street parking can be very risky at peak hours during the week, especially. Also, trying to mail anything at the postal box at the foot of Victoria Dr., to cross over from Kent Ave. is very hazardous in late afternoon, especially. This strip of Kent Ave.. South is far too narrow for such heavy traffic. I would suggest Argyle Street as an alternative to the above proposal.
E. Kent Ave. South	I am aware that this is late (after Feb.22), but due to illness, I have not been able to meet your deadline. However, I am a resident in the area being discussed; having lived here for six years. Increasingly, there are more speeding cars; the motorists have no regard for the people who live in this area - nor for the people who walk along or have to cross the street. It is fast becoming another Marine drive - onlywithout any signal lights.
E. Kent Ave. South	Commuters use the Elliott Street/Kent North and South corridor to get to the west side. There are large trucks, commercial vehicles and passenger cars that speed through, especially between 7 am- 9 am and 3:30 pm - 6 pm. These vehicles should be using Marine which is wide enough to accommodate this type of high-speed through traffic. 1700-2100 blocks of SE Kent are residential with approximately 500 people residing in the four blocks. This area of high density family units is not conducive to 60-75 km./hr. traffic.
E. Kent Ave. South	Excellent initiative - 100% supportive of these calming measures.
E. Kent Ave. South	Great idea. There is so much "non-local" traffic that Kent Avenue is extremely dangerous. Not only for driver but for pedestrians and cyclists. I have observed excessive speed, road rage and near misses.
E. Kent Ave. South	I fully support this endeavour. I am tired of near-accidents while pulling in and out of my underground parking lot, off Kent. These speeders must be stopped! It's long overdue - cars go through here at breakneck speeds, at all hours. This section of town is a high density family-oriented place. It is a miracle tat there has not been any fatality attributed to this deadly section of the City. In addition, people from all over the City like to come and enjoy themselves by walking around or jogging. It would be a wonderful bike route only addition to that already in existence in Vancouver. Kudos to the City of Vancouver Transportation Branch for the foresight involved in this re-structuring.
E. Kent Ave. South	We need speed bumps between Victoria, west to Borden on Kent South. I think you should consider making Kent South one way and allow parking on one side only. We have many underground parking lots on this street, with lots of children and people trying to access the waterfront. Kent South is being used as a short-cut in rush hour traffic to and from the Knight Street Bridge and to avoid the traffic on Marine Drive. Please consider speed bumps or a one-way with resident parking only on Kent South. Someone will be killed with the speed of traffic.
E. Kent Ave. South	To close the road at the railway crossing at 2100 South Kent and 2200 North Kent would benefit many residents along Kent South; 1800-2100 blocks. The speed is so excessive and volume high with commuters who feel it is more beneficial to drive 100 km./hr. along a narrow residential road, than to stay on Marine Drive, where they should be going. Parked cars have been side-swiped because of speed and the narrow street. Thank you SO MUCH for giving this your consideration. Speed bumps on Kent North (2) would only benefit a few residents who live on that street.
E. Kent Ave. South	- If the feeling is that speed humps are not going to calm traffic enough, then put along the 2100 block as well. - If importance is bike routes, cutting off Kent where we are thinking of doing it, isolates us. Why not cut off at Argyle? - Those of us who live below Marine must already turn left or right at Marine, to get to the centre of the so-called VFK Community, which we are supposed to be a part of. By closing Kent at Gladstone park, those of us between the track and the river, become totally cut off from the heart of "our" community.
E. Kent Ave. South	- used to circumvent Marine Drive - constant speeding - street too narrow for both parked cars and through traffic.
E. Kent Ave. South	I appreciate the potential for upgrading the community for cyclists. However, if you plan to upgrade the community for others travelling through, I would appreciate your considering a beautification of the area as well. Burn the bush along the railway track and replace it with green grass, flowers and trees, as well as, repairing the pot holes on East Kent along the residential and business areas. As well as the pot holes between Argyle and Ross and beyond;, all the way to Oak Street. Are you considering extending the bike way to the airport bridge - Arthur Lang Bridge? Many cyclists like to cycle to the airport and along the Richmond dykes, from the No. Two Road Bridge. I would like to provide greater details and vision to this project, if you would like to discuss my ideas further, regarding the planning proposal. Feel free to call. P.S. Also, please consider lighting through the Gladstone Park and along the riverbed to Elliott Street. This small area is not accessible after dark to walk along the boardwalk to Kerr Street. Thanks again!
E. Kent Ave. South	I am writing on behalf of Strata Council LMS 1220 - Tugboat Landing, representing 101 strata owners to formally express our strong support for the City of Vancouver Engineering proposal for the street closure with traffic barriers of East Kent Ave. North and South. The street closure with traffic barriers, will create a safe bicycle network, a City of Vancouver Council and Livable Region Document goal. In addition, the street closure will address residents' concerns about safety, excessive speeding and short-cutting by cars through the neighbourhood and the increasing use of the street by heavy trucks. We appreciate the opportunity to contribute to the public input process and look forward to the implementation of the street closure, with traffic barriers of East Kent North East Kent South.
E. Kent Ave. South	We like the idea of slowing down the traffic to allow a safer bike path in this area. We also suggest slowing down traffic in the 2000-2100 block of E. Kent South. There are many elderly people and children in the area and speeds her can be excessive (60 km./hr). Cars park on both sides of the road here, leaving only a single lane for bi-directional traffic. I do agree with cars parked on both sides of the road, but combining that with a narrow road and excessive speed , is dangerous. Speed bumps here would help solve this safety issue.
E. Kent Ave. South	Sorry for sending the survey after the deadline; on a two-week vacation. Thank you.
E. Kent Ave. South	Very concerned with the new Kent Works Yard. The amount of dust and gravel on the road makes this very dangerous. The trucks are travelling too fast and are not very courteous to the car drivers now; dangerous for biking? Also, the 1900 block of Kent South is dangerous, with parking on both sides; not safe to pass. Speed limit would have to be lowered on 1900 block south, with the bicycles (even if they are on the north side), going one way. The traffic on the south side is very scary.
E. Kent Ave. South	It is recommended that serous consideration be given to installing speed humps on Kent Avenue South, between Victoria and Argyle, to reduce the speed of cars using this street to bypass Marine Drive (east).
E. Kent Ave. South	Residents in our area need at least one other access to their complex, as Elliott is very steep. Closing the north access will not allow for this. If Elliott is no longer another option for getting to Kent, more traffic will just come down Victoria, effecting the 2000 block of E. Kent instead. It will not divert cars from Kent, as an alternate route to S.E. Marine Drive. It would also be wise to put speed humps on the 2000 block of E. Kent, as cars drive quickly and two cars cannot pass safely, due to parked cars on either side. Thank you.
E. Kent Ave. South	I am a cyclist and a commuter. I am all for improving cycling routes along Kent Avenue.
E. Kent Ave. South	The volume and speed of traffic on East Kent Avenue South from Argyle to Victoria, has been increasing. I believe that either of the proposed traffic calming measure would be beneficial but the scope should be extended to include East Kent Avenue South, between Argyle and Gladstone Park.
E. Kent Ave. South	I agree with this program. HOWEVER, I believe similar road calming needs to be done along all of East Kent South. We have cars speeding along and exiting our driveway(s) and it is scary. Slow cars down with Speed bumps. Watch traffic at 5 p.m., when cars race from work to home. Also, block cars from parking too close at the intersection of Victoria and E. Kent South and by fire hydrants, etc. More traffic patrol. Thank you!
E. Kent Ave. South	The traffic too fast on Kent Avenue South. The traffic coming from Kent North during rush hour, is constant and it is sometimes difficult to get out of our parking lot.
E. Kent Ave. South	While this will inconvenience me and my wife - it will be worth it to reduce the number of cars short-cutting on Kent. I think speed bumps are needed also on Kent South, in the two blocks west of Victoria. The closure will not stop the commuters on Kent; only more of them from Elliott to Victoria Drive.
E. Kent Ave. South	I would also like to see speed bumps along 1800 and 1900 blocks as rush hour traffic in particular, tries to speed along these two blocks to "make up time". No parking sign at west end of 1800 block opposite "Best Colour", needs to be moved east, as the road is narrower than normal. City streets and building opposite has been expanded, causing cars to park even closer to the centre of the street. At time, I doubt a fire truck could get through. DO NOT PUT MY NAME ON ANY MAILING LIST.
E. Kent Ave. South	The sooner, the better!!! This will put the traffic back up on Marine where it belongs. It's like rush hour down here all day long.
E. Kent Ave. South	I would also propose that the west end of our condo complex be blocked off where industrial sites meet residential. This would stop another high-speed short-cut and Victoria would be the only access to the condo area. With cars parked on both sides of the street, it creates a very dangerous condition when leaving the underground parking. Your visibility is restricted and cars travel at excessive speed, for these conditions. I would recommend that a sign for truckers that are not familiar with the area, must turn right on North Kent when hading south on Victoria. So many units with long trailers try to turn west on Kent South and can't make the turn and have an awful time backing out across the tracks, delaying people leaving the area.
E. Kent Ave. South	Close it off permanently as you did at Elliott and North Kent. Rush hour traffic can take Marine Drive to travel east to west. The bike route plan is excellent.
E. Kent Ave. South	You should consider speed humps along East Kent from Argyle to Elliott; traffic travels too fast along all of Kent.
E. Kent Ave. South	There are "NO PARKING" restrictions on the north side of the street. Those restrictions would be more effective on the south side for better visibility when coming out of the driveways. Cars are parked in the "NO PARKING" zone at any given time.
E. Kent Ave. South	We would also like to have speed bumps along Kent, so there are two underground garage opening that exit onto Kent South. There have been many close calls. There have also been many close calls just crossing the street because of speed. It would be very inconvenient to have the road closed between north and south.
E. Kent Ave. South	1) Two thumbs up! And given the numbers of small children in the condos along Kent south, speed humps on Ken South should be considered. 2) Measures to reduce the use at night, of the public parking lot at the rail crossing, need re-examination. In theory, the park is locked at 10 p.m. to discourage drug peddling, drunken parties and trysts with hookers. In practice, I have yet to find the gate locked at any hour overnight and the ruckus continues.
E. Kent Ave. South	I would like to see speed bumps on Kent south, also between Argyle and the exit crossing at Gladstone Park.
E. Kent Ave. South	Stop wasting tax monies!
E. Kent Ave. South	I feel that this closure is completely unwarranted!
E. Kent Ave. South	There are a lot of seniors in the area that do not drive. The seniors are hoping that a shuttle bus will come to this area in the near future. Will this proposal interfere with public transit?
E. kent Ave. South	A road closure at Argyle and Kent North should be considered as well (at rail crossing). This would force traffic up Argyle to Marine, cars are now speeding along Kent South, by Tugboat Landing apartments (Pilot House, Harbour House, etc.). Emergency vehicles can come down Victoria Drive (as they do now), and Kent South (from Argyle to Gladstone) would become residential traffic only. Thanks.
E. Kent Ave. South	Speed humps may not be necessary along 2200-2300 Kent North after the road closure between Kent South and North.
E. Kent Ave. South	Although I am not a cyclist, I support the creation of more "bikeways" and pedestrian walkways across our City. I agree that closing North/South Kent at Gladstone Park, will cut down on motorists using the residential part of Kent as an alternative to SE Marine. I seem to have a steady stream of "through" traffic going by me at 1880 SE Kent at rush hours. Could we consider speed humps somewhere in the 1700-2100 blocks of E. Kent South?
E. Kent Ave. South	The traffic along E. Kent is out of control. People drive 60-80 km./hr. on these streets and it worries me that someone is going to get killed. It is about time that something is done before a tragic fatality occurs.
E. Kent Ave. South	My fiancé and I would appreciate any "traffic calming" measure along our street, as at peak traffic times, it's like a speedway along E. Kent South. It's dangerous and difficult to even get out of our underground parking garage, because drivers are speeding so fast they aren't able to safely stop, as we inch our way out. They don't seem to realize that people live here, - they just speed along trying to get home by taking a short-cut. There are times, when, I've heard parked out in front of my own building and the people (drivers) behind me who have had to stop to wait for me (and others) do so, act as if I've committed a crime. They are rude, impatient and we don't want them on our street!!! Thank you for your efforts.
E. Kent Ave. South	If the proposal for the road closure goes through, I feel that would resolve our street's current problem with excessive speeding from cars coming down from SE Marine, to short-cut along Kent. If it does not go through, then I support Item # 2, regarding speed bumps along 2200-2300 Kent. Thank you for your attention to this problem!
E. Kent Ave. South	However, I have previously requested that speed bumps be installed in the 1800, 1900 and 2000 blocks of Kent South. This stretch is much more dangerous to speed (50 km.), than item #2 above. With cars parked on both sides, except in a small section which we don't understand why, and cars moving at 50 km./hr seed limit, pets and kids are in danger. Why no consideration is made for speed humps here is above my understanding. Have discussed this with The City Engineering Dept. but to no avail! Hope and trust that this will be considered! Thank you!
East Kent Ave. North	I am a bicycle commuter who travels almost exclusively by bicycle around the city. As a consequence, I proudly display the 'One less car' sticker on my bike because my wife and I have been able to make do with only one vehicle in spite of having both of us work and attend school at different locations during the same time period. The Kent Bicycle Route is extremely important to me because this is the route I travel to get to and from work and school. Currently, the route is very dangerous for bicycle traffic. It is narrow, in poor condition and is frequented by heavy trucks. It is also interrupted by deep railway crossings, many of which remain unused and unmaintained, that run tangent to the road. A fellow rider relayed how he was seriously injured on Kent when he was thrown over his handlebars as his wheel got stuck in a bad rut in the pavement. Despite the risk to us riders, I pass many regular commuters every day I ride. Improvements to the Kent Avenue Corridor are long overdue and are desperately needed, especially given the frequency I observe riders on the route now in its dilapidated and dangerous condition. I have three specific requests: 1) Include the section from Ontario Street to Granville Street in your plans for the Kent Bicycle Route. This is some of the roughest section along Kent Avenue and would benefit a significant number of riders who currently travel this route in its poor condition. 2) Consider another alternative to medians as a 'traffic calming' measure. Medians simply force the traffic into cyclists, which places cyclists at greater risk. 3) Make the changes as soon as possible! These improvements have been needed for a long time making the current state of this route very dangerous for cyclists. Thank you for your efforts to help riders like myself ride safely around our beautiful city.
Elliott St.	This is the most unbelievably stupid thing I have ever heard of.
Elliott St.	- Concern about the condition on steep roads when it snows. - No through regulation to Oppenheimer School and community centre. - Sidewalk on one side of Elliott, from SE Marine and Kent.
Fleming St.	I feel I am discriminated against as I have two vehicles and pay taxes on both, for roads and bike rider pay nothing for any of the "perks" they have and I pay insurance. They pay none. I pay road tax on the fuel I use and I have a license plate to catch me if I make a mistake. They ride on sidewalks and use crosswalks to their advantage.
Fraserview Dr.	We support any measures which reduce global warming and destructive environmental impact. This survey is encouraging; to that end!
Halifax St.	Drawing 3: It is good to keep bikes off of Kent Ave. North as you have designed it since vehicles go fast on this section of road. Overall looks good!
Island Ave.	This will no doubt increase the already heavy traffic cutting up and down Argyle and using East Kent North to avoid the Knight Bridge,; Marine Drive problems. East Kent North to Crompton is an absolute disgrace for the increase of traffic. The surface of the road is in need of resurfacing badly (waste of time and money filling in pot holes), which my family has seen being done for the last 11 years. Please view and inspect! Thank you.
Island Ave.	Anything to slow the cars down and support and encourage bicycles, runners, outdoor activities, etc.
Island Ave.	Traffic speeds average 70 - 90 km/hr on Marine from Argyle and to Elliott, making crossing all these intersections very dangerous. Each time I cross Victoria and main, cars often run through the red light.
Island Ave.	I can't believe that you are considering reducing what is already limited road access to my neighbourhood! The speed bumps will probably be a good thing. I know they work in my alley.
Jellicoe St.	Marine drive is already a parking lot. You should make car traffic easier.
Lanark St.	1) I walk along that area. I have seen how fast the cars so; so speed humps are good. 2) I favour the bike lanes. I don't ride a bike but I think it is a good idea.
Lanark St.	I would not like to see the road closure between Kent south (2100 block) and Kent South (2200 block). The point being reduced access. We need a better access route for everybody; even automobiles.
Marlin Quay	Where I'm not happy with the short-cutting, I believe there has to be an alternative to SE Marineespecially in the case of an accident!!! (And we all know they are especially high at Elliott and SE Marine). Currently, there is a bike path on the waterfront that could be utilized. Also, the part of N. Kent between Portside and Victoria could be developed. There is too much development on North an South Kent to close it off! Would like to see the City restrict parking to one side of the street, between Portside and Argyle!
Marlin Quay	If the road closure between Kent South and Kent North, at Gladstone Park (train tracks crossing) is closed, what you are doing is isolating us residents at Portside, Nanaimo (Marlin Quay, Coral Reef and Skipper Place) and Elliott: 1) Every time when there is a snow fall, we are trapped because we never get the City to plow these steep roads and they are never salted. 2) These roads get very icy and the only way to exit is downhill, toward the river, turn into Kent and cross the railroad tracks, and get access to Victoria Drive, Fraser or Main Streets. 3) You said that residents would continue access to Marine Drive via Victoria, Gladstone, Nanaimo and Elliott. With the amount of traffic at Marine Drive, do you think that we can venture to turn west into Marine drive from Gladstone and Nanaimo? 4. You state that the benefit would be a more comfortable road environment with reduced traffic. I will say that this comfortable environment with reduced traffic, will be for the benefit ONLY of the people who own those condos at the river side. They are the ones who cause the problem because even though they have underground parking, they park on both sides of the roads without any respect for the signs. Bikes can use the bike trail right at the river shore.
Marlin Quay	I have lived in this area for nearly 14 years. Stopping the speeding, using speed bumps. Marine is busy 24 hours a day, and I work at the airport and drive Kent all the way. My 'beefs' are with the condition of Kent (potholes & flooding), form Victoria to Oak Street (especially between Laurel and Heather). Closing Kent for bikeway traffic is commendable but will there be enough usage by bikers to justify the cost and inconvenience by the people who live in this neighbourhood and need a car to go to work? I personally, would like to bike to my job but I'm scared of the traffic once I reach the main roads, and the bus service in my area is not good enough.
Marlin Quay	If you close Kent, how are we supposed to go out or get to Victoria Drive, to cross Marine Drive, to go north? Instead of closing, you should be improving the street or open/build another road to go through this part of Kent Street. There are not too many bike riders along Kent either. For snowy days, this is the only route to get out of this area, to the main roads; through Victoria north to Marine Drive. Just don't touch this road. Let it be the way it is.
Marlin Quay	For people who live in this small area, bordered by Portside and Nanaimo, they have to drive downonly Portside of Nanaimo to reach Kent and then need Kent to drive to either Victoria or Elliott, to get onto Marine drive. It is next to impossible to get onto Marine Drive from Gladstone or Nanaimo. My experience is that is already a quiet drive- through zone from Gladstone to Elliott, so why don't you (City) consider a bicycle and Pedestrian route along the trail - that is already there by the river, heading into the park area?
Nanaimo St.	1. During times of inclement weather (snow), the steepness of Nanaimo and other north/south streets, make it difficult and dangerous to gain access to Marine Drive. To gain access, it is sometimes necessary to get to Fraser or main to get up a hill that is not as steep. Therefore, closure of Kent is a safety issue. A suggested alternative is to close Kent, WEST of Victoria and provide snow plowing on Victoria to Marine. It is also suggested that parking be limited to one side only on Kent (and strictly enforced). If Kent is closed as suggested, then a speed bump is not necessary, as through traffic is limited. This issue certainly requires MORE thought. Closing streets because of speeding and parking issues is very questionable!
Nanaimo St.	How can any responsible member of any City regulatory committee, even think of closing a street that the people living in here will be doomed., at times with weather. To have to stay at home and not to leave, since the steep slopes are impassable. There are lots of other measure you can use, many that will not allow this proposal to be carried out. As for the speed bump on Kent, or any other place, they should be non-existing. No doubt there are other regulatory devices. The police should know. Why not ask them?
Nanaimo St.	The road should not be closed! What an inconvenience! One or two speed bumps would be okay in each block, but let's not go overboard! Thank you!
Nanaimo St.	We absolutely oppose this plan! We need to have access to Victoria Drive in order to travel north. We need a second option, besides Elliott, to travel west. In snowy conditions, we need to travel west. In the absence of plowing, sanding or salting, the hills are impassible in this area. There is no bus service and we would be absolutely trapped and unable to get to work! THE RESIDENTS ARE ACCESS!!!
Nanaimo St.	I like the idea of a bikeway as long as we do not end up being boxed in. Traffic calming along North Kent would be very welcomed. In particular, the 2 blocks between Gladstone and Elliot are not connected to the other pathways (east and west) which run along the south side of North Kent as part of the park. This means that as a mother of 2 young children I must walk them on the roadway to get to the park with high traffic volumes this has become more dangerous. Also some trucks are using North Kent from Victoria to Elliot and getting stuck because they are too big. Need to reconsider Elliot traffic regulations if bikeway goes through so local residents on Elliot and Nanaimo can get out and not have to make left turns on Marine.
Nanaimo St.	- We think the street closure idea will work to cut off speeding traffic, so we approve. - If [the] street is closed, we don't believe speed bumps would be necessary. - During snow storms, we would like the closure gate to be opened, so we don't have to access Marine by Elliott, Nanaimo or Victoria.
Nanaimo St.	This closure is needless and will force many of us who avoid Marine Drive in frantic traffic, to have to make a left-hand turn onto Marine at Nanaimo; a scary proposition at best. Frequently in the winter, black ice prevents us from being able to go up Nanaimo; now we will be stuck if we cannot access Kent South.
Nanaimo St.	Bike trails do not get us to work, they are recreational. The closure will totally cut us off form getting to work. If we could not go along Kent, between Kent North and South. This closure would require a traffic light at Nanaimo or plowing on Elliott and Kent, and Nanaimo. There are too many closures now. Traffic humps are so 'last-century". There is already a bike trail along the waterfront, from Argyle to Kerr; why another one?
Nanaimo St.	Speed humps on Kent are long overdue and I support them enthusiastically. The road closure would cause considerable inconvenience to local residents but it may become necessary. I suggest monitoring traffic levels for three to sic months, after the humps are installed. If there is insufficient reduction in traffic, then close the road.
Nanaimo St.	1. Please consider improving the surface on Crompton between Kent and Marine Dr. as this is a popular route for cyclists accessing the Knight St. bridge and pavement quality is very poor, particularly close to Marine Dr. 2. On exit from Knight St. Bridge to Marine Dr. east there is a dangerous pinch point for cyclists. Drivers are looking west trying to merge. Shoulder used by cyclists disappears at Marine. Cyclists need an area reserved for themselves to merge safely. Consider a bike lane on marine as far as Argyle where cyclists can use the pedestrian activated signal to turn left (north) onto Argyle. I have lived in this neighbourhood for over 10 years and do not find short-cutting a problem. I do feel that traffic sometimes is too fast along South Kent, but this could be managed with speed humps. The proposed road closure would mean that the only streets I could use to exit my neighbourhood, are Nanaimo and Elliott, between Marine and Kent. Both of these street are very steep and are impassable when icy or snowy. Furthermore, we always have to wait a long time for snow removal. We would be forced to park on Marine Drive during snow storms. This is inconvenient and unnecessary. Pleaserreconsider this road closure, it would be very unworkable for my neighbourhood.
Nanaimo St.	I have delayed responding to the "Kent Ave. Bikeway Proposal" questionnaire until I could talk with as many of my own and area Strata members as possible. For your information my wife and I have lived here about 13 years, we both own bikes and use them extensively for recreation. We are not dissimilar from most of the people who bought down here. We love living on a working river and thus accept most of the noise, trucks, tugs, etc. that come with a light industrial area on the Fraser. It seems as though some newer residents thought that they were moving to suburbia. We appreciate the needs of the variety of industries/offices that are along Kent St. North in particular, they rely on the street for their daily business route. My wife and I like many of the residents who live down here, drive either separately or together, back and forth via Kent Street at least once a day. Since much of my consulting is within the health care and corrections fields I am in the Cambie/Main area near 6th to 12th area and out at UBC, etc. frequently. However, we think that the proposal as presented has some serious flaws and should go back to the drawing board. Given that we have engineers, architects, etc. living in our area I will not pass on all of their comments as they were not very flattering to the City Planning Dept. "Went for "clever/cutsey" rather than straightforward and simple." is a sample. Most of us choose to drive along Kent Street to avoid the frantic traffic on marine Drive. While we fully realize the importance of a "Marine Drive" East/West connector in South Van we should not be forced to drive on it. Many of us have either been "clipped" or worse, or at least scared witless while trying to turn on or off Marine Drive let alone drive down it. Your plan to turn Kent into a series of cul-de-sacs with one way sections is not the way to go!!! So please try again and when you have your open house get your address straight - to say that the confusion did not impress - is putting it mildly. Many compared that to your prowess as planners. Probably not fair but certainly heard. Sorry to have to send this.
Nanaimo St.	My only concern with the closure is during icy or snow conditions. As we live on Nanaimo, south of Marine, if Ken South was closed. I would have to get out of this area by going up Nanaimo or Elliott Streets to Marine Drive. Both roads are steeper than Victoria and NOT cleared by snow ploughs or salted. At these times, we carefully drive along Kent south to main or even Cambie before we turn to go North (I work at VGH). It is dangerous for us to try to go up Elliott or Nanaimo. Therefore, I would like to ask the road be opened to residents during bad weather. Also, if Kent South is closed, I will need to use Elliott to cross Marine Drive to get home. Presently, this is not allowed (to go straight through). Having two small children in my car, I do not feel it is safe to make a left-hand turn at an uncontrolled intersection on Marine Drive where MOST drivers are consistently going over the speed limit of 50 km./hr. It is treated more like a highway. Therefore, I would ask that the signage at the Elliott and Marine intersection be changed to allow us to cross from North to South for safety reasons. Also, many children in this area attend Moberley School and need to go up Elliott (North) from Kent to get to school. Continuing to restrict cars greatly adds to the distance they must travel to get to school. They should be able to use the closest street access to the school. 2) speed humps are very needed as there is no sidewalk on Gladstone to Elliott. Residents and children must walk on the road to get to the park. Drivers trying to bypass traffic on Marine are increasingly going faster with no regard to local residents, who must walk here.
Nanaimo St.	- Needs to be a plan for heavy snowfalls. Lads will not be able to drive up steep hills. The only route will be via Kent Street and the gate needs to be opened before snowfall. - The traffic has increased greatly during the past 12 years. Numerous lads speed along Kent Avenue, making it very dangerous for children in this area.
Portside Crt.	This would be an extremely bad solution. If you are westbound to Victoria or along Kent South to Fraser, or further, you would have to make a left turn onto Marine Drive from Portside, at an uncontrolled intersection into extremely heavy traffic. If the reason, as sated, is for a bikeway, why not open up the existing stretch of Kent North for bikes only?
Portside Crt.	The road closure would cause many of the residents the need to use Marine Drive more often, rather than Victoria to go north. Marine Drive is a freeway (many cars driving at speeds from 75-90). Have not found people abusing Kent Avenue. Most residents are very considerate and give the right-of-way to oncoming motorists. I drive between Portside and Elliott often and have not noticed excess speeding along this stretch of Kent.
Portside Crt.	Closing off South Kent at Gladstone Park will prevent access to Victoria, allowing us a left turn onto Marine, at a traffic light. Without that access onto Victoria, we would need to make a left-hand turn onto Marine Drive at Gladstone (no traffic light and very dangerous). We are therefore, very much against closing of Kent, at the Gladstone Park crossing. We live in the Riverside Terrace. Our only access to a left-hand turn on Marine is via Victoria and the Gladstone crossing on Kent. I am sure there is another alternative to making the bike and pedestrian path safe, possibly raising the pedestrian crossing through Kent, at the Gladstone crossing, thereby creating a speed bump and forcing the traffic to slow down.
Portside Crt.	Either make it one way (west only) or prohibit parking on one side; or widen the road. DO NOT CLOSE IT!
Portside Crt.	We are both cyclists and we welcome the addition of the east/west bicycle corridor. But a complete road closure between Kent North and South, would not only be completely unwarranted, but would result in creating a very unsafe driving environment. Such a road closure would drastically limit our ability to get in and out of our neighbourhood. Currently, Victoria is our main access to and from the west and the north, because it has a light. Losing access to Victoria would force cars to go east to Elliott in order to head west on Marine. Many drivers will instead go up directly from Gladstone which is so unsafe; constant incoming cars from both directions and poor visibility. Although there is a light at Elliott, the visibility is poor there too, due tothe curve on Marine and the steepness of the hill. Also, one cannot go north/south by car due to the Sunrise Bike Route. The Elliott intersection is nowhere near as safe as the Victoria intersection, which is not as steep or as curved. It also provides access to and from the north. Speed bumps will effectively reduce traffic speed and volumes on Kent, as it will discourage drivers from cutting through our neighbourhood. Please don't create this bike route at the expense of us and our neighbours' safety. Thank you.
Portside Crt.	It is very difficult to make a left turn onto Marine from Gladstone, since there is no traffic light. Also, during heavy snowfalls in the winter, we get access to Marine Drive from Victoria, because the street is much easier/better to drive on then Gladstone, Nanaimo or Elliott. This is why we don't agree to the road closure. Thank you.
Portside Crt.	For us residents (I estimate 350400 families) in the vicinity just east/west of Portside Drive, use Duff, Gladstone or Nanaimo to access SE Marine. TO GO WEST is too dangerous owing to fast moving voluminous traffic. Therefore, we have no choice but to cross from North Kent o South Kent at Gladstone Park and access at the intersection of Victoria and SE Marine. If you should block off the rail crossing at Gladstone, you would be forcing us all to take innumerable risks while causing untold time-consuming (extremely) inconveniences and/or forcing us all to MOST ILLOGICALLY go eastward (BACKWARD) for several blocks for another access to go west. Could you not obtain some budget to develop unused land there to extend North Kent from Gladstone Park to Victoria Drive and place some speed bumps on it to make it safer for pedestrians, bikers and even motorists? In any event, if you cannot extend North Kent from Gladstone Park to Victoria Drive, please never block off the crossing at the park. Thanking you in advance for a favourable decision.
Portside Crt.	1) On a busy work day, we will feel trapped and the present easy flow of traffic in our area will no longer exist. 2) During an emergency of whatever kind, access to S.E. Marine will be hampered greatly for the neighbourhood.
Portside Crt.	I am very strongly against any road closure which would prevent me from traveling to work along Kent. I avoid traffic on Marine at all cost. That is one of the best things about living in this area; is that I'm able to travel to and from work along Kent to Cambie Street. My husband and I both go this route everyday and it would be an EXTREME INCONVENIENCE to have to go up to Marine Drive. I am frankly, outraged at the thought that a very few cyclists would prevent all local traffic from travelling on Kent. I also go this route when I go to Knight Street and the airport on a regular basis. There are not that many cyclists to warrant inconveniencing all the people that travel this route.
Portside Crt.	- It would leave our area isolated; totally unacceptable.
Portside Crt.	Suggest you limit parking on Kent, between Portside and Victoria to one side of the road. That would give cyclists and traffic more room. Badly need pedestrian and cyclist space between Argyle, going west. It's very dangerous. How about re-paving Kent?
Portside Crt.	This would only limit access to our home. We use Victoria and it is the only safe way to turn west. Putting all traffic onto Elliott would cause huge traffic problems. Elliott is a dangerous intersection in any event because of speeders around SE Marine's corner there. We have limited access now to this area, and we need better car access, not worse. Don't do it.
Portside Crt.	A road closure at the above-designated area will limit our ability to access SE Marine. Our only option would be to use Elliott. Then we would not be able to go across SE Marine at Elliott, as this is restricted. Basically, we will feel blocked in our neighbourhood. I dread to think what will happen if we have another dumping of snow. Elliott is very steep to access SE Marine in the winter. Speed humps along Kent North is the ONLY VIABLE OPTION to residents living in the areas, as a traffic claming measure.
Portside Crt.	At present, we cannot go north on Elliott at SE Marine (straight across from south of SE Marine). If we are unable to go north on Victoria, then travelling anywhere from our address would be compromised if the road is blocked at Gladstone Park.
Portside Crt.	I don't understand why you would consider such a major traffic interruption for a pedestrian and cyclist road environment. People coming to Gladstone Park walk on the sidewalk. There is no need to have a large mall area; they come to walk on the river path! I travel west each morning; this will force me to go up to Marine and turn left in rush hour traffic at an uncontrolled intersection. Will you pay for my accident that's bound to happened eventually? Trying to turn onto Marine westbound with traffic travelling 60-80 km/hr. would be suicide! Re-routing the traffic that presently uses Kent onto Marine would greatly increase the burden on an already heavily travelled route. If you want to spend my tax dollars, I would appreciate a phone call from Melina Scholefield, EIT. Why not light the river path from the Gladstone Park, east to the lighted walkway already there. That would increase the usership and safety of the people walking far more than having a pedestrian/cyclist mall. What are your plans for improving safety of cyclists on Kent in front of the condos at the foot of Victoria? Parking on only one side would be an improvement. You were not interested in speed bumps years ago, when Kent Road was paved in front of the condos -forget it now! Why did you not include the cost of these two suggestions in your information letter? Regarding Kent Road Closure: not only is access to Marine via Gladstone an uncontrolled intersection but Nanaimo is also. FORGET THIS POORLY THOUGHT-OUT IDEA - YOU WILL JEOPARDIZE THE SAFETY OF FAR MORE MOTORISTS THAN YOU WILL PLEASE ANY PEDESTRIANS AND/OR CYCLISTS.
Portside Crt.	We would like to take this opportunity to express our opposition to the proposed road closure between Kent South 2100 block) and Ken North (2200 block at Gladstone Park. We each use this particular route at least two times every day to access major north/south street, such as Victoria Drive and Cambie Street, in order to travel to and from work, shopping, the airport and recreational activities. The closure of Kent Street in the location proposed by the City, would make these trips much more difficult and time-consuming. The proposed closure combined with the existing closure between Elliott and Jellicoe, would leave people living between the closures, with one controlled intersection at Elliott to access Marine Drive. However, due to another bike route, traffic on Elliott is forced to turn left or right, onto marine Drive. There have been numerous occasions when traffic on Marine has been stopped or slowed down due to accidents which we have been able to avoid using Victoria Drive northbound. If we were forced to always use Marine before travelling north, we would be late for work or appointments, should there be an accident. The residents living east of the closure of Kent, between Elliott and Jellicoe, can access Kerr and travel north to First Avenue on that street, but we would not have direct access to a northbound street without travelling on Marine Drive. Furthermore, it is our feeling that much of the traffic from the area would travel to Elliott, to turn onto Marine because turning onto Marine from Duff, Gladstone and Nanaimo is difficult and dangerous. For example, at Gladstone, the pedestrian overpass, combined with the speed at which vehicles on the inside lane travel, make completing a right-hand turn, a challenge. We do not believe that the Elliott stop light is designed to accommodate a larger volume of traffic and if it were to be adjusted, would negatively affect traffic on Marine Drive. Obviously, there are vehicles which travel along Kent to avoid the traffic on Marine, primarily around the Knight Street Bridge. But, would the overall number of cars using Kent be reduced if they were forced to turn at Victoria? We feel that most of the cars using Kent as a "short-cut", would continue to do so using Victoria, instead of Elliott, since the proposed closure would force them to turn four blocks earlier or later, depending on the direction in which they were travelling. If the City's intention is to reduce the number of vehicles using Kent between Ontario and Boundary, the proposed closure of Kent will meet that objective in a relatively small area, while inconveniencing a large number of residents. We understand that due to the commercial activity and the City Works Yard, located on Kent, it is not feasible to close Kent in another location, but cannot understand how the proposed closure will affect the volume of traffic along the rest of the Kent Bikeway. Another reason for our opposition to the proposed closure of Kent, occurs when it snows. When it snows, it is nearly impossible to drive to Marine using Portside/Gladstone, Nanaimo and Elliott, due to the hills and the lack of snow plowing. We usually drive west to Fraser before trying to turn onto Marine Drive. If Kent is closed, the residents of this area who do not own sport utility vehicles, would be trapped until the snow melts. We feel that the amount of commercial and City vehicle traffic which use Kent on a regular basis, might discourage some casual cyclists from using the Kent Bikeway. We assume that the City has consulted with cyclists using the existing bike routes before proposing the Kent Bikeway, but wonder how many cyclists will actually use a route with the amount of commercial activity as this one. Also, any cyclist using this particular route will need to climb a rather large hill somewhere, after using this route. Although we are strongly opposed to the closure of Kent being proposed, we do support the Kent Bikeway and use of other traffic claming measures. We walk along Kent on a regular basis and find the 2200 and 2300 block of North Kent to be un-inviting at times due to the lack of a pathway/sidewalk and the way that some vehicles are driven in this area. Speed humps and stop signs should be used in areas other than the 2200-2300 block of Kent North, to reduce the speed of traffic and to make Kent less attractive to drivers trying to avoid Marine Drive. Improving the street lighting along Kent would be welcomed, as the lighting along much of Kent is insufficient and dangerous for drivers, cyclists and pedestrians. Recreational paths should be built in areas where there are no sidewalks or paths, to allow pedestrians, as well as cyclists, to safely use Kent Avenue. We do not believe that our request to keep Kent open between the 2100 and 2200 blocks is unreasonable, especially when there is an existing closure approximately three blocks east of the site of the proposed closure.
Portside Crt.	For those of us who live here, Kent is the quickest way to Cambie and to town. We are all in favour of the bike route and cycle path from Portside to Victoria Drive. The traffic problem that exists is the on-street parking on Ken South, between Gladstone crossing and Argyle, for the residents of the Tugboat Landing complexes. The solution is to use some of the railroad right-of-ways for two off-street parking, in a fashion similar to West Boulevard, north of 41st Ave. in Kerrisdale. That way, the residents would have parking and the street would be open for through traffic. In addition, if the Gladstone railroad crossing is closed, we would have only Duff, Gladstone or Elliott to get onto Marine, westbound. During heavy traffic, this left-hand turn is virtually impossible. Going to Elliott would mean having to go in the wrong direction for three to four blocks before we can get onto Marine Drive. Also in winter, many cars cannot get up these steep hills when there are slippery conditions. What we usually do is go west along Kent to Fraser, where the incline is less severe and the access to Marine is clear due to heavier traffic. So, yes, we are in favour of more bike routes in the City but in this case, you need to try and also keep the access open to cars. Find a solution that makes it easier for BOTH bikes and cars.
Portside Crt.	Driving west along Kent from Portside, is our main route. Going onto Marine from Gladstone, Elliott, etc., is often risking an accident. Traffic along Marine is too fast to turn, plus the fact that going east, to go west, takes us obviously in the wrong direction. Speed bumps would likely help slow down traffic and maybe even divert traffic away from using Kent as a short-cut. If this road closure occurs, we would use another route through Duff, which goes through residential 'back streets" and onto Victoria. I'm sure others would do the same.
Portside Crt.	1) This would eliminate our townhouse complex's westbound access to Vancouver, the airport and Richmond. 2) In the snow, our ONLY safe access is via Kent. This would be eliminated. 3) There is already a river-front bike path from Gladstone Park, west (1900-2200 Kent). 4) The problem is the previous approval for parking on the north side of South Kent. 5) We would support the installation of speed bumps to slow traffic but strongly oppose losing safe access to Vancouver. We would want to address Council on this issue.
Portside Crt.	I am a five year resident at the Fraser Lands and writing this letter to oppose in the strongest possible terms, the concept of closing off the access from North Kent to South Kent, at Portside. It appears from the wording on the boards erected on Kent, that one of the main purposes of this proposal is to eliminate "short cutters" using Kent. I assume that you mean people using the street who do not live in the Fraser Lands. In the five years we have lived there (on Portside), both my wife and I have been daily users of Kent. Neither of us have ever had any sense of a significant number of people using Kent as a shortcut. There is already a blockage of North Kent just east of Elliott which eliminates access to Kent from Boundary Road, etc. For the life of me I cannot see what can be gained by putting another blockage two blocks away. All you will be achieving, assuming these short cutters exist, is moving them to Victoria to go down to South Kent which will solve nothing. In fact, there is already a significant "traffic calming" factor on South Kent, west of Portside, in that parking is allowed on both sides of the street. A few minutes of observing traffic along that stretch will make it obvious that the cars which do use it are required to slow down frequently to allow oncoming traffic to pass. This system has the effect of making it a not very attractive short cut, and those of us who live in the Fraser Lands are and pay taxes, are used to it, so by and large, it works well. Another factor which makes Kent an unattractive shortcut is the appalling condition of the roads west of the Fraser Lands and past the Knight Street Bridge. If you want to reduce the number of people using Kent by coming South on Elliott, you could easily do so by eliminating the left-turn lead lane on Marine, heading west. This will make the left turn more difficult and dissuade many short cutters. This is a dangerous corner to turn left at in any case because of the difference in grade between west and eastbound traffic at that point, and that the road turns to the north, just west of Elliott, further making visibility difficult and lastly, because of the fence along that block, the median further blocks the view of oncoming traffic. I don't know if you have stopped to consider the impact of the residents of the Fraser Lands living on Portside and east, but it is considerable. At a minimum, every time one of these residents needs to go to the west, he/she will need to drive two blocks east to Elliott and then re-trace these two blocks to go west on Marine. As marine isoverburdened with traffic (most of which treats it as a highway), especially at the approaches to the Knight Street Bridge, all you will be doing is increasing the problem on Marine. The most used North/South routes for these same residents are Victoria and Cambie. Cutting us all off from accessing both of these along Kent is ridiculous. My wife uses Victoria every day to go to work. As it is almost impossible to turn west onto Marine from Gladstone without risking your life, and you can't go across Marine North on Elliott (for a reason that I don't understand), so that she has to turn left onto Marine in rush hour and then go to Victoria and turn north. If it snows heavily, the only practical route north is on Fraser, to avoid hills between Kent and Marine. Under you plan, there would be no way for anyone living on Portside or east, to exit from our neighbourhood without having to attempt navigation of steep hills, none of which are ever cleared by the City when it snows. All in all, this is a bad idea. Regarding the pedestrian, cycle path, may I offer some comments? My wife and I are both walkers and cyclists, and so support your plan in general, but I think it is not carefully thought out. There are already separate pedestrian and cycle paths east of Elliott through the park, and west of Portside along the water. To join these two cycle paths, perhaps you would consider using the unsightly overgrown south edge of North Kent from Elliott to Portside for a cycle trail (there is already a pedestrian trail along the river edge in this section). You could easily provide a safety barrier to the railway tracks by building a railing on the south edge of the path. With regard to the new path proposed along the unused road allowance west of Portside, while it is redundant, it is not a bad idea in itself. Regarding speed bumps, we have no particular objection to them. We object, as you can probably tell, to the idea of eliminating the most important access route to the whole west side of the City, for us and for all of the 5,000 or so other residents of this area. Please give our thoughts consideration. I would like to be notified of the meeting at which City Council will consider this plan. Will the public be allowed to make presentations to Council during this meeting? If so, I would appreciate being put on the list.
Portside Crt.	I use Kent to drive west every day. It would be extremely inconvenient to have to go up Elliott Street. It would be impossible on a snowy day. It makes little sense to me, to inconvenience so many people for so few cyclist. There is room for a bike path, north of the railway tracks. Frankly, I think it will lower the appeal of living in the area and housing prices may well reflect that, if we were stuck with only one real way of entering. Also, it would not limit traffic on Kent St., west of Argyle, because many people will still cut down from Marine to travel along Kent, which is a great alternative to the extremely busy Marine Drive. It will not calm traffic but rather, increase road rage and anger against cyclists. We should be encouraging cycling in a positive way, not by inconveniencing drivers and blocking roads.
Portside Crt.	Please do not close the road because it is our safe way to go to Marine Drive, westbound. WE useVictoria Drive. When we had snow last January, Elliott Street was so steep and slippery that many cars were stuck there. Gladstone and Duff are too dangerous for left turns. Thank you.
Portside Crt.	DO NOT close the road down along Kent!!! Marine Drive is already over-burdened with traffic. If everyone has to go along Marine because Kent is closed, it will be an even bigger nightmare.
Portside Crt.	We both have to drive west to go to work. Making a left turn onto Marine from Gladstone or Nanaimo, is NOT an option - it is foolish and suicidal! That leaves Elliott, which has the stop light. We have never considered the traffic from Elliott to Kent to be a problem at anytime. Furthermore, do you really know how many cyclists use this part of the road? I would say not enough to justify disrupting our morning routine. We are both cyclists who love Vancouver's bike paths but to cut off a very handy access route to provide "calming" in an area that really doesn't need it, is loony! We are STRONGLY opposed to the proposed closure!!
Portside Crt.	Re: #4: While we support the implementation of a bike route through this area, this proposal would significantly reduce SAFE access to SE Marine for residents of Portside Crt. and surrounding areas. Our only SAFE exit form the area will be from Elliott. Residents in this area would have to travel out-of-the-way eastbound before we could SAFELY travel westbound into Vancouver, Richmond and the airport. What happens when it snows, as it did a few weeks ago? Travelling westbound along Kent to a flat street or to Victoria (which is heavily travelled), was the only way residents could leave their homes. Elliott is too steep and slippery. We would fully support this proposal and its goal for decreased traffic in the area if there were at least a controlled light installed at SE Marine and Gladstone (similar to the way the light functions at Heather and SE Marine). We certainly do not support this proposal to be combined with Proposal #5. Not only would our access be restricted but we would also have to travel eastbound by speed humps in order to SAFELY make our way westbound on SE Marine. Re: Proposal #5: If this proposal was considered on its own WITHOUT implementation of Proposal #4, then we would support it. If Kent North remained a thoroughfare to Kent South, then the speed humps would make sense to calm the traffic and control the speeders. Combined with Proposal #4, this proposal provides more of a burden for the residents along Portside making their way to Elliott for a SAFE westbound exit onto SE Marine. We have used and are in full support of the excellent work the City has done to create the bicycle network throughout the City. As residents of this growing community, we also support a cycling route that connects us to the rest of the network; along with traffic claming measures that will make roadways in the area safer. While most residents will be positively affected by Proposal #4, there is one area of residents that would be adversely affected by this proposal. We feel that the City should addressthe issue so that ALL residents have something to gain form these proposed changes. Thank you.
Portside Crt.	We live on Portside Crt. and like many residents in our 48 unit complex, use Kent every day to access Victoria and its traffic signal at Marine, to proceed north or west. We also travel west on Kent regularly. We are very much against the proposal to close Kent South but would entertain speed humps as an alternative. Surely cyclists and cars can co-exit on this small stretch of road without such a drastic measure, that complete negates the right of area residents.
Portside Crt.	I am absolutely opposed to the closure between Kent South and Kent North for the following reasons: 1) This will mean that the only way out of this area is to go up Gladstone, Nanaimo or Elliott. Crossing Marine at the best of times is risky due to the excessive speed used by some motorists. The only option for crossing leaves Elliott. As this is a designated bike path, cars are not allowed to go through Elliott crossing Marine. For any residents travelling west, the only option is to go out of their way to Elliott, turn left on to Marine and hope that Marine is not backed up with rush hour traffic. 2) The lineup of cars turning left on Elliott on any given morning, will be long. This will cause undue frustration to the residents. The potential for accidents due to residents braving the crossing of Marine at Gladstone or Nanaimo, will be greatly increased. 3) During times of snow or ice, the best way out of a hilly area is to go down. We are now able to drive to Victoria (which usually is sanded long before Elliott), or any other street west of here, with less of a slope. Closing our only alternative means that cars will not be able to go up Portside/Gladstone, Nanaimo or Elliott, causing even greater inconvenience to the residents. 4) The public school in our catchment's area is Douglas on Victoria Drive. Closing the road will mean that parents must drive blocks in the wrong direction in order to get their children to school in the morning. Again, this will cause a much longer lineup on Elliott. 5) To travel north, residents east of Elliott have Kerr. Residents west of Victoria have numerous options. Residents from Gladstone to Elliott have no safe, effective option. 6) At no point do bikes have to go on the road from Argyle, all the way east to Kerr and beyond. There is a bike path along the sea wall. I am sure that there are other options to calming the traffic in this area. Most people do not use this part of Kent as a short-cut, especially since it is barricaded just east of Elliott. The idea of speed bumps, which I am in favour of, is a better solution. I feel that the bumps, however, should be between Argyle and Elliott. The real problem as I, a resident and homeowner, see it is the speed used by the actual residents of this area. I hope that you and your department take the time to actually listen to the numerous complaints from the residents in this area. Please inform me when this issue goes to council.
Portside Crt.	We have reviewed your letter of January 16/02, regarding the planned cyclist route and the closure of Kent at the railway crossing. We have no objection to the cyclist route or the speed bumps or any othertraffic calming devices that will not block traffic access west, along Kent. WE do object to the planned closure of Kent at the railway crossing located at Gladstone Park. Our reasons are as follows: - Our only access to Marine will be via very steep streets that are impossible to negotiate during or after a snowfall, as the streets are not cleared by the City. - Due to the heavy traffic volumes, turning left onto Marine at Gladstone is not safe, making it necessary to travel west along Kent to Victoria and north to Marine, to turn at the traffic light. Rather than the proposed closure, may we suggest that south Kent be closed where the industrial and multi-family housing meet just east of Argyle Street. This would block access for the evening rush hour traffic and at the same time, leave North Kent open for westbound traffic. Please let us know when this matter is going to Council.
Portside Crt.	It is impossible to get out to SE Marine, turning west. East Kent is the only viable route out. If you close that, you make the people in Fraserlands, prisoners. You already have a 'NO TRAFFIC THROUGH' sign at Marine and Elliott. Have some consideration for us down here. How do you propose we get to Victoria for west turns?
Portside Crt.	Thank you for your invitation to the Open House on November 5th to view the proposed Kent Bikeway. I'm not too sure if I will be able to make it. However, there are, from my point of view, several problems with the proposed route. I am not a cyclist, but I have four grown children who do extensive biking along with their partners so I am favourably inclined to all things the city can do for bicyclers. I really can't explain the problems of the particular route you have chosen but if you were to drive down Kent from Elliot to Ontario during morning and evening rush hour; and during the day at any time when heavy semis loaded with whatever is manufactured at the city's gravel/asphalt yard on Kent two blocks east of Fraser and anywhere from the above location to Main Street where there is much traffic of semis in and out of the Superstore warehouse..... Additionally, the roadway over a good part of that route is in need of extensive repair. I must admit that I use this route as an alternative to Marine Drive - both routes are chaotic during rush hours - but being retired means that I can do many things off rush hour times. The people who live in the condos two blocks east and west of Kent and Victoria and who park of Kent, will not be happy if they have to give up their street parking spots. I can't refuse a city development that wants to build more bikeways because I believe it is important to Vancouver - better health, less pollution, etc. And I have grandchildren who live close to Fraser and 48th and are learning to drive their bikes and also in Marpole. It would be great for them to be able to use the Kent Bikeway to come and visit us. I hope you will have the opportunity to transverse Kent to see for yourself the many obstacles that will have to be attended to.
Portside Crt.	This would limit access to my home. There would be access to Marine Drive on Gladstone but it is very difficult to turn left onto Marine from Gladstone or Duff, and both roads are very difficult in snow or ice. I feel speed bumps would deter a lot of through traffic.
Portside Crt.	Please register our opposition to the proposed closure of Kent South (2100 block) and Ken North (2200 block) at Gladstone Park. If this closure is put into effect: 1) Residents in our area would be forced to make an extremely hazardous left-hand turn from either Gladstone or Nanaimo to go west on Marine Drive - access to Victoria Drive would be no longer available. 2) In order to access the area above Marine Drive, and since it is illegal to drive northbound (straight through) on Elliott, we would be forced to turn left or right and travel the Marine Drive speedway to either Victoria Drive or Kerr Street. 3) During snowfalls or icy rain, there is no priority for City crews to salt or plow Gladstone, Nanaimo or Elliott, leaving only one alternative which is westbound Kent to Fraser, as a means of exiting our community. 4) As a taxpayer in this area since 1986, I feel we have the right to use these roads for access in and out of our community. We fully support speed humps on Kent North (2200-2300 blocks) and on Kent South, as a means of slowing traffic. Thank you for this opportunity for input.
Portside Crt.	Concerned about this mainly on the occasions when it snows; it is very difficult (impossible) to go up ANY of the streets to Marine Drive. If the City treated Elliott Street as a 'main' street and if it was plowed, salted and sanded, the situation would not be so bad, but to date, they do not do that. Instead of blocking off any of Kent avenue, I would prefer to see a bike route along it, as well as a SIDEWALK.
Portside Crt.	I am required to have a car at work each day, as I am a community Health Nurse who visits people in their homes. When there is a snowfall, the streets south of Marine, are seldom plowed and/or sanded, and the streets are steep so it is impossible to climb the hills to Marine, at Gladstone or Elliott.
Portside Crt.	We have no objection to the planned cyclist route along Kent that is described in your letter of January 16/02. As well, we don't object to speed bumps or other such traffic claming devices that don't block traffic access west along Kent Avenue. However, we do object to the proposed closure of Kent Avenue at the railway crossing adjacent to Gladstone Park for the following reasons: - Our remaining access to SE Marine would be via the steep street, Portside/Gladstone, Elliott or Nanaimo which are impossible to drive north on following any snowfall, as they are not cleared, sanded or salted. Following the recent snowfall, we had to travel west along Kent to Victoria (when cleared) and Fraser to access SE Marine. - Under normal conditions, turning left onto SE Marine is very dangerous at Gladstone and so it is necessary to travel west along Kent to Victoria and north to SE Marine at the traffic light. Rather than closing Kent at Gladstone Park, we suggest that South Kent be closed at the interface of the industrial and multi-family housing, just east of Argyle Street. This would block the evening rush eastbound traffic along Kent but allow the westbound use of the one-way North Kent from Victoria to Argyle Street. We note that the morning volume of westbound traffic along Kent is much less than the evening eastbound traffic. Please advise us when this is going to City Council.
Portside Crt.	Further to my conversation with you this morning, I would just like to confirm some of my ideas for the proposed closure of the road between Kent South and Kent North, at Gladstone Park. 1) We are completely without facilities here; no community centre, no library. To catch a bus, one has to climb the hill to Marine East, climb the stairs, cross the crosswalk and then walk another two blocks in order to go down Victoria. 2) When it snows, we are completely isolated and cannot get out of here, as we are surrounded by steep hills which are seldom cleared. To force us to drive to Elliott will create a further hardship. My husband fell last week due to icy and snowy conditions. We are in our seventies. 3) If we are forced to drive to Elliott in order to travel westward, it will be adding a few more blocks to our journey, should the need arise to get to emergency at VGH. I am a heart patient who also suffers from asthma. 4) When we get to Elliott, we have to either turn right or left; traffic signs won't allow us to go straight. A further hardship, taking us much out of our way, as seniors. 5) We commend you wanting to minimize traffic along Kent North and South. And provide a bike route and pedestrian place. Right now, the traffic increase is from people coming off Marine East, down Elliott, along Kent North, then South at Gladstone Park; to various points west of the City. The same thing happens in reverse where cars turn off Marine at Oak, Cambie, Fraser, etc., in order to get to Elliott and Marine East. Our proposal is to close North Kent EAST, using an island, so people and bikes can travel, but no cars and making a one-way street from Portside down the hill to South Kent, going westward so we can getaccess to Victoria Drive. This should eliminate ALL of the traffic which uses the Portside to Gladstone corridor to go from the west of the City to the east and vice versa, and allows residents of this area the much-needed access. Further, right now residents of South Kent, between Portside and Victoria (and further west), park on both sides of the street, leaving room in most places only for one car to pass. This road can be made into a "no-parking zone", thus permitting a one-way road for us residents to get through to Victoria, as well as a bike route. All the housing along the river has underground parking, yet cars are ALWAYS parked there overnight and during the day. During periods of snowfall, with cars parked on both sides, it becomes impossible to navigate and get out of here. 6) By all means, utilize speed bumps wherever necessary. Perhaps you could also put up signs at SE Marine and Duff and SE Marine and Gladstone, saying "Local Traffic Only", "No Exit", in order to discourage cars attempting to look for short-cuts. I hope, Melina, that these ideas will be of help and we can work out a map which would give us people places, as well as allow those of us who live here, the convenience of getting in and out. Thank you very much.
Portside Crt.	Victoria is really the only way, since you can't go straight through on Elliott. Then you have to run onto Marine (going west) and then left (south) and that will put more congestion on Marine. Kent is busy but there must be alternatives. Maybe a set of lights at the pedestrian walkway on Marine and Gladstone.
Portside Dr.	We are very much against the closure of the road between 2100 and 2200 blocks of South Kent Ave. for the following reasons: 1) It is always difficult during rush hour, to turn left on Marine Drive from Gladstone Street. If the closure is implemented, we would have to drive south n Portside Dr., east onto Kent and then drive two blocks and turn north on Elliott St., in order to turn west on Marine Drive. 2) During icy and snowy weather, none of the roads east of Portside Dr. are accessible. All are too steep. We cross the railway and drive several blocks west before reaching a street that leads to Marine D. which is negotiable. If the closure is implemented, we would be marooned, snowed-in. 3) Groups of youths meet in the wooded area, south of Portside Court. The police recently found a temporary camp there and some stolen property. If the road at this point is cut off to motorized vehicles, this spot would become an even more attractive meeting place for those people whose activities need to be hidden. The car park at the point where the road crosses the railway (Gladstone Park), would also become an even more attractive gathering place. Thus, we are in favour of the installation of speed bumps, indeed and would welcome them, but are very much against the road closure. Thanks!
Portside Dr.	Great idea! We need as many bike routes in the City as possible. Speed humps are also a good idea as this will decrease and slow traffic down in this area.
Quayside Crt.	I am totally opposed to the road closure as I use Kent to go to the recycling depot, and elsewhere in the City. There is already enough traffic on Marine drive and I like to drive on a quiet, side street. Plus, for safety reasons, it is better to keep Kent open. With a heavy snowfall, it is dangerous to driveuphill on Elliott Street. It is better to drive on Elliott and go onto one of the main roads.
Quayside Crt.	I feel that too many people would be inconvenienced by an actual road closure in that area. Speed bumps should suffice. Thank you for the input. Also, When it snows, all be it once or twice a year, lower Kent is our only way out to Victoria or Main Street. The hill at Elliott and Marine is too steep for egress.
Quayside Crt.	I feel that too many people would be inconvenienced by an actual road closure in that area. Speed bumps should suffice. Also, when it snows, all be it once or twice a year, Lower Kent is our only way out to Victoria or Main. The hill at Elliott and Marine is too steep for egress. Thank you for the input.
Quayside Crt.	This would severely limit our access to and from our home, as Elliott is so very steep and impossible to navigate in freezing weather or snow.
Quayside Crt.	We need a west corridor which allows residents to avoid steep hills when ice or snow collects on the road ways.
Quayside Crt.	If item #2 becomes a reality, the 'no through access' at Elliott and Marine should be changed to allow local traffic to cross Marine at Elliott Street. This is obviously a measure to limit short-cutting and impedes local access!
Quayside Crt.	The closure would: 1. Eliminate one of the two access routes in and out of our neighbourhood, i.e. Kent Ave. and Marine Drive. 2. Kent Ave. is our preferred commuter route as it is safer than accessing Marine Drive. 3. Eliminate access to our residence during ice and snow conditions because the hills are too steep. Other concerns and suggestions: 1. To reduce the amount of non-local traffic proceeding east past Argyle along Kent, put up signage to indicate Kent is not a through road. 2. Put a crosswalk across Kent at the bottom of Elliott, into the park entrance. 3. Post a reduced speed limit sign at the eastern and western ends of Tugboat Landing complex. 4. Allow parking on only one side of the street, adjacent to Tugboat Landing. 5. Open a roadway along the north side of the railroad tracks, on the south side of Portside complex. 6. Re-surface the road along Kent, west of Argyle; road conditions are unsafe due to large potholes and broken asphalt.
Quayside Crt.	During winter, if it snows, Elliott, between Marine and Kent, is very dangerous. I only use Victoria Drive to leave my area and to return. Elliott is impossible to travel going north from Kent to Marine Drive. If Kent is closed between 2100-2200 blocks, we would not be able to drive our vehicles in and out and would be stranded. The steep hills must be a consideration when blocking off streets in this area.
Quayside Crt.	I strongly disagree on # 1 above, because: - During a winter snowfall, it is impossible to head north on Elliott and access Marine. I must head west on Kent to Victoria and sometimes Fraser, in order to get onto Marine, due to icy conditions on Elliott. If this road was closed during this recent snowfall, I would not have been able to get to Marine. Also, residents of Quayside and other residents of the Elliott access area, are restricted in their method of heading north. We are already restricted by not being able to access Elliott, north of Marine and Kent, east of Elliott. Closing Kent at Gladstone Park would create undue hardship on residents of Quayside Court.
Quayside Crt.	With Elliott and S.E. Marine being a no- through street, north to south and with Jellicoe and Ken being blocked to car traffic, the possibility of this closure very much limits our access to our home via the car. Thank you.
Quayside Crt.	We use the road on a regular basis and need the access during periods of poor weather, such as snowfalls.
Quayside Crt.	*I think that I shall forward this memo to a council member I know but I would like to be informed of the meeting.* My reasons for my negative response and some alternate solutions are as follows: - You will deny us local people an important access route by closing Kent (2100-2200) Avenue. - Why can you not put speed bumps through this area as well? Don't disadvantage local residents PLEASE!! My husband and I have received your information about your suggested closure of Kent South and North, at the railway tracks and Gladstone Park, to all vehicle traffic (except emergency vehicles). WE ARE STRONGLY OPPOSED TO SUCH A CLOSURE to local car traffic as you suggested. Closure places considerable hardship on the local residents (taxpayers) who choose to use NE Kent and SE Kent, instead of bucking the morning westbound SE Marine traffic, which is invariably stalled around Elliot or Victoria for access to Knight Street. In the evening, we have a similar problem with the eastbound traffic. In addition to this congestion on Marine, the sign at Elliot allows you to only turn left or right but not go straight up Elliot when we are moving northerly up Elliot from the Fraser River toward Marine Drive (although because of the congestion, many residents ignore that sign and go straight up Elliott, across Marine Drive). If you intent is to limit traffic to only that which is local, I would suggest that there is a far better solution to your problem. SOLUTION: PUT SPEED BUMPS ALONG BOTH NE KENT AND SE KENT FROM VICTORIA TO ELLIOTT BUT DO NOT CLOSE THIS SECTION OFF TO LOCAL TRAFFIC. This will allow local traffic to access their homes as well as bicycles to move along this route. I am sure that we would all be happy with my solution. There is already a path along the waterfront on the south side of the railway tracks, between Gladstone Park and Elliott Street. Why not improve that pathway so that bicycles can access it better? Even if you chose to put speed bumps in between Gladstone park and Elliott, this would allow bicycles to move through this area while also discouraging commuters and trucks who do not reside in the immediatearea. I do not believe that your intent is to disrupt the movement of local residents of the area, but your proposal will do just that. I see few bikes move along NE Kent as it is a truck route and is also in des-repair, west of Victoria Drive. Commuter traffic is the worst between 7 and 9 in the mornings and 4 and 6 at night, during weekdays only (We have lived here for about 16 years). Speed bumps and indented curb areas as you have done in other areas of the City of Vancouver, would help alleviate that problem. It would also be advisable to limit turns left off Marine Drive (for westbound motorists) down Elliott onto the NE Kent roadway at the morning rush hour and similarly to limit traffic turning right form Elliott onto SE Marine Drive, moving east during the evening rush hour. That alone would in my opinion, alleviate a lot of traffic along SE and NE Kent (between Victoria and Elliott). As I mentioned earlier, it is very important that those of us who live in the local area be able to choose whether we want to use Marine Drive or SE/NE Kent as our access route west. Elliott, between Marine and NE Kent because it is dangerous. The City trucks, sand/salt other routes but do not touch that section of roadway. I personally, find that when I put my car in reverse (facing down) on that slope in normal weather, the car still goes forward as it is so step. I personally, have come to a dead stop at the top of that one block section in snow/ice and then put the car in reverse and proceeded to slide the full way down that block of Elliott, as there is no control. The only way that I could stop that one time that I tried, was to point the wheels into the curb. During this past few days of snow/ice, even my new four-wheel drive was having difficulty going up the hill and our water delivery vehicle phoned to say that h was unable to get up the hill. I do not feel that we should only have the one route (up the hill) out of our complex (Riverside quay). I do not know of any other area in the City that has such a restricted access to their homes, particularly when it is such a severe hill to negotiate. It looks like someone has taken out one of the posts at the bottom of that hill during the latest snow/ice [storm]. I personally, am not happy with no alternative to going up and down that Elliott hill to access our townhouse area. I want to be able to choose to drive the lower road if I need to (because of traffic conditions or weather conditions) or wanting to. Am sure that other taxpayers in our area will fell the same way. While we are talking about Elliott and SE Marine Drive intersection, it is a major impact area for accidents. Over the 16 years that we have been here, we have seen some very serious accidents at that corner with the result that the neighbor at the southeast corner of Elliott and Marine has installed some high tensile steel bars to protect their house and property from cars that miss the curve coming east on Marine. More recently, we have had the pole with the traffic signals, etc., severed twice in a very short period of time and we have even seen the 'jaws of life' cutting people out of their cars. Those just east of the corner on Marine drive has also suffered with cars coming through their fences and into their yards. The road is not banked properly and excessive speed coupled with this and perhaps alcohol, etc., can create serous problems. With all of these accidents, the lights are sometimes not even functioning at that intersection. I would suggest that there needs to be a photo camera installed on the pole at that intersection as many, many people run right through the red light (not the amber light but the actual red one). I have also seen numerous people hit when turning left from Marine onto Elliott south or even going left from Elliott to Marine drive west, with cars that keep coming through even when the light is red. In addition to the photo camera at the intersection, it would be a good idea to have a flashing overhead signal back from the corner to indicate when the lights are changing. I hope that this information will be studied by your committee and that you will re-think your suggested circulated solution to traffic quieting on SE/NE Kent Avenue. As mention earlier in this memo, your proposed solution would create TREMENDOUS HARDSHIP for those of us taxpayers who are local residents and it seems that there are other solutions that can create the effect that you want as well aslook after those of us who live with the traffic in this area each day.
Quayside Crt.	Please do not close the lower road because when there is a snow storm, it is the only way out for me. My vehicle cannot climb Elliott Street or Nanaimo Avenue. Speed bumps also slow traffic down for safety reasons and are appropriate.
Quayside Crt.	Road closure would be very inconvenient for drivers as it is a convenient alternative for drivers when there are accidents/road work performed during rush hour, on Marine Drive.
Quayside Crt.	Re: # 1 - an emphatic NO! We have just realized that we would no longer be able to reach Elliott from Main and Kent, the route we MUST take when there is ice and snow, is Elliott and Victoria, then Fraser, etc. become too dangerous to descend from Marine Drive, as they are very steep (especially Elliott) and unplowed during winter conditions; so we find ourselves taking the least steep street from Marine, during these times which is Main Street. Very glad to see a bicycle route for this area. Thank you!
Quayside Crt.	I use Kent a lot to go west to the airport and downtown. Even with the traffic light at Marine Dr. and Elliot St., it is very, very dangerous to turn onto, or off, Marine Drive. We should upgrade Kent and enforce speed limits on Marine Drive.
Quayside Crt.	We are very happy that you are addressing this issue. We would prefer that Kent be closed at the railway crossing, as we are right on Kent and the commuter traffic in the evening especially, is aggravating. If closure is a "no go", maybe restricting traffic to westbound only, would be an alternative. Thanks.
Quayside Crt.	1) For the residents in my neighbourhood, blocking Kent would eliminate an important egress during bad weather. We would be unable to get out in snow and ice. These conditions occur three to sic times per year. 2) If you proceed with option #1, then speed bumps would become unnecessary. Me and my family 'DO' support the proposed bikeway.
Quayside Crt.	1) Please note that if Kent is closed as suggested in #1 above, the following consequences will be felt: a) Elliott will be the only way to access Marine (and the rest of the City). Elliott, north from Kent to SE Marine is a steep slope which is impassible up to a dozen days yearly because of ice and snow. B) All vehicles now parking on the west side of Elliott and the north side of Kent (2200-2300), will be forced to turn around in order to exit north on Elliott to Marine.
Quayside Crt.	Re: #1 a) When it snows or is icy, I take Kent to Victoria, as Elliott is steep, and often not plowed/salted until later. In the winter, road conditions require that I use the 'flat' route to school with the kids to work often. B0 Access to our home via Elliott is already very restricted (e.g. I have to detour to Kerr and backtrack to Elliott when I pick up my kids at 54th and Elliott. I have to detour back as I cannot cross SE Marine at Elliott. I don't want to have yet another detour to contend with on Kent (as proposed). It would seriously affect access to our home (e.g.. I often use Victoria to Kent to get to Elliott, as I cannot cross SE Marine at Elliott.
Quayside Crt.	I returned home this weekend from a business trip and was alarmed to find this closure proposal in my mail. If I understand this correctly, the intent is to prevent automobile access between Elliott and Victoria (or roads west) via Kent. I live in a townhouse on Elliott and my automotive access to Vancouver streets is via Elliott (up to Marine) and by Kent. This past summer was a nightmare of congestion on Marine, due to all the repaving. If I couldn't drive on Kent, I don't know how I would have ever gotten to work (I work in Richmond and take the Knight Street Bridge). I know this well because City Hall, in all their wisdom, actually had both Marine and Kent closed (Kent was closed, Marine was completely choked) at the same time for paving! Yes, I make frequent use of Kent but consider it more than a convenience; I consider [it] a matter of safety as well. Elliott is a very steep hill and it would not be possible to take my car up Elliott to Marine under snowy conditions. This proposal of closing Kent would effectively make me and everyone else living here (there are 64 townhouses in this complex alone), a prisoner when it snows! I have no problem with the idea of speed bumps along Kent but surely some kind of system where only local traffic is allowed (residents of Elliott hill would be included), would suffice. I have never experienced a traffic jam of cars taking a shortcut between Victoria/Argyle, etc., and Elliott. Please do not close off my access to Kent and leave me stranded!
Quayside Crt.	1.) CLOSING KENT AT GLADSTONE WOULD BE VERY UNFAIR TO THOSE RESIDENTS EAST OF THE CLOSURE. It would force them to use Marine, which is very fast and dangerous compared to Kent. The additional risk, inconvenience and fear, does not come anywhere near being balanced by the slight reduction in traffic on Kent, to increase the pleasure of a few bike enthusiasts! 2) I AM AGAINST SPEED BUMPS because I think it would be a waste of tax payers' money. The section of road is so short, cars do not normally travel very fast anyway; and those that do, would probably continue to do so even with bumps; and you're more likely to have problems with bikers.
Quayside Crt.	Living between SE Marine and Kent, at Elliott, I would hate to see Kent closed; it is a good alternative to SE Marine for us along the Fraser River.
Quayside Crt.	We cross Kent from Elliott to go to the park regularly, with small children and I would say that 95% of the eastbound cars on Kent, run the stop sign. It drives us crazy. I would love to see traffic on Kent reduced. One disadvantage of doing this, is that when it snows, Elliott is too steep to make it up the hill. The way out is along East Kent to Victoria (we live between East Kent and Marine Drive, at Elliott).
Quayside Crt.	I use the north/south Kent passage way once daily, from Elliott to Cambie. The proposed street closure will drastically affect my daily route and necessitate my use of Marine Drive East. Speed is already a traffic hazard on Marine, so as an alternate, I use a safer route, on a less travelled, slower route whichis an option I choose to exercise daily. I agree re: speed bumps. I regularly witness vehicles travelling at excessive speeds along that block, which endangers both pedestrians and other vehicles. Also, I have witnessed many, many instances where the stop sign at Elliott and North Kent have been ignored or 'rolled though".
Quayside Crt.	I strongly object to the road closure at Gladstone park. I live in a townhouse complex at the bottom of Elliott and in winter conditions, it is impossible to drive north on Elliott to Marine Drive. In the recent snowstorm, there were several accidents and stuck vehicles. This has been a regular occurrence every winter in the 13 years I have lived here. Nanaimo is also a steep hill as is Portside. With the proposed road closure, west Kent is eliminated as our alternate route. Even if it is only for a small number of days, I would not appreciate losing this alternative. If the City could assure me that the Elliott hill would be sanded and salted, that would a positive step but it has been neglected in the past. Thank you.
Quayside Crt.	Rather than block off the road completely, I would prefer that speed bumps not only be installed along 2200-2300 blocks Kent North, but also along 1500-2200 blocks Kent South, thus discouraging through traffic. Eastbound traffic would then likely turn off Borden to Marine Drive. Leaving the road open provides an option to residents when there is snow and Elliott is undriveable. I would also like to see the removal of the restriction at Marine and Elliott, whereby traffic other than bicycles cannot proceed north/south and vice versa. This is totally pointless and largely ignored, as it requires a one mile diversion to drive to the local elementary school, nearest store, gold course, etc. A crash barrier on the SE Marine corner of Marine and Elliott would also be a good idea.
Quayside Crt.	1) Elliott Street quite often gets very icy and slick and cars cannot get up to Marine Drive. This portion is very steep. There have been numerous accidents because of this. At time, our only way out to get to work, etc., is using Kent avenue. If this portion were closed, we would have no way to get out. We have to use Kent to get to one of the other streets where the incline is less and maneuverable to get to marine Drive. 2) If this is an emergency route, speed bumps are prohibitive.
Quayside Crt.	I would rather see speed humps along Kent Street, to slow traffic. As for closing Kent, at the train tracks, I'm against this measure. When we had the snowfall in January, this was the only safe way into the community because of the steep hills. I entered Kent at Main or Fraser, then could proceed along Kent, since there were no hills.
Quayside Crt.	Our townhouse overlooks Kent and we see the traffic along Kent and turning onto Elliott. Speed bumps are an excellent idea, as many as possible. Road closures, however, would severely restrict local access to the local shopping, Superstore on Main, for instance. It is currently much easier to use E. Kent for this purpose, than join the rat race on SE Marine. There are numerous instances of large commercial vehicles on SE Marine, travelling too fast to stop at the yellow [light] or on occasion, even red lights. East Kent is much safer and speed bumps would eliminate some drivers who think Kent is quicker.
Quayside Crt.	ABSOLUTELY NOT!
Riel Pl.	Hi and thanks for the map and your detailed info on possible plans. As a dedicated cyclist between my house in Champlain Heights and my job at UBC, I eagerly support the project as a whole (I also drive a car regularly but commute along 49th and do not drive along Kent very often). I have tried to use Kent avenue as a more direct bike commuting route but have been scared away by dangerous traffic patterns, bad pavement and slippery train crossings. I hope these kind of minor improvements to surfaces are being incorporated in your plans. I know these are difficult things to resolve but hope my comments give you some support for a fully functioning route that can maintain vehicle traffic flow and provide cyclists a safe and efficient commuting route in this much needed area. Thanks for taking the time to engage in this discussion with me. You are doing a needed, difficult job, and are clearly doing it with a lot of decency and professionalism. Good luck with all of it
Riverwood Way	If you close Kent, then those of us living between Gladstone Park and Elliott St., only have Elliott to access Marine Drive. When it snowed a few weeks ago, we had to backtrack all the way to Fraser St. to be able to get up to Marine Drive. If it snows heavily, how do we get down or up the Nanaimo St. or Elliott St. hills from Marine Drive? As it is, the City doesn't even bother doing those streets when it snows. They may only be one block long from Marine down to Kent, but they are very steep. Please do not block us in by cutting off Kent Avenue. It's bad enough we can't even cross Marine Drive south to north, using Elliott St. and now you want to shut our routes off even more. This is NO GOOD!
Riverwood Way	1) It would be absolute folly to close the road. During this last snowfall, and indeed, WHENEVER there is even minimal snow), the hills on Nanaimo and Elliott are impossible to navigate, even for four-wheel drive vehicles. PLEASE DO NOT PURSUE THIS OPTION!! We would have been trapped, had this been in effect! The total absence of snow plows would ensure a large part of the population would also be stuck here! 2) Although we would support speed humps, we would really like to see a three-way stop sign at Nanaimo and Kent. Because of the configuration of the three-way intersection, southbound traffic on Nanaimo (especially when turning right onto Kent), must proceed part way into the intersection in order to see if there is traffic coming, which has almost caused several accidents. 3) The existing condition of Kent, from Argyle west to beyond the Knight St. Bridge, is APALLING, to say the least! Does this mean it will actually be PAVED??? YAHOO! 4) Where are the snow plows when we need them?
Riverwood Way	A few comments: - When entering Marine drive, access from Nanaimo and Gladstone is next to impossible, going west during rush hour and dangerous. - Speed humps would really slow down "commuter" traffic along 2200-2300 block Kent North. - Only access out of our area is Elliott, which when icy or snowy, is next to impossible when you stop at the light and then have to re-start on a green!
Riverwood Way	I am strongly opposed to a road closure between Kent south (2100 block) and Kent South 2200 block) at Gladstone Park, for the following reasons: - If there is a closure, the only exit for me to turn west onto SE Marine Drive, will be Elliott Street. During slippery road conditions, it is unsafe and at times, impossible, to drive up the Elliott Street hill to access SE Marine Drive. Currently, the safe way to avoid the slippery hills is to travel west on North Kent/South Kent, to Fraser or Main, for access to SE Marine Drive. - Automobile traffic is already restricted on North Kent by the road closure between Elliott and Jellicoe Streets. It would be too restrictive to also close traffic to the west, at Gladstone Park.
Riverwood Way	I think this road closure is an excellent idea, as it will stop the rush hour commuters from speeding along Kent North and South. On Kent North, I have almost been hit twice while out walking my dogs. My request would be that traffic could go straight through Elliott at Marine, once the closure is in place, as Elliott then would be used only for local traffic. I wonder if we need the speed bumps if we have the road closure, as it is people who don't live in the area that I think are speeding anyway?
Riverwood Way	Access to Marine southbound would be difficult for me. Since Safeway closed on Victoria Drive, Superstore is my main location for shopping. The route is along Kent. If Kent is blocked, I must backtrack on Ken to Elliott, than take my life in my hands on Marine to grocery shop.
Riverwood Way	We are strongly against the road closure as it restricts accessibility to Victoria Drive (and westward) for residents east of the proposed closure. At present, Victoria provides safe access to westbound S.W. marine Drive, in particular, during times of inclement weather (heavy rains, frost and snow). As well, the street is wider and safety for drivers and pedestrians alike. Elliott, Nanaimo and Gladstone are narrower street, with high density housing located throughout. Any increased volume (as #1 would cause), will reduce safety for residents on these three streets. Therefore, we feel a possible solution is to provide traffic calming measures, as proposed in # 2 above and along the 2100 block of Kent South (where Tugboat Landing is located). This will reduce attractiveness to drivers attempting to bypass S.E. Marine Drive and speed in the area.
Riverwood Way	I believe Kent South should be blocked off at argyle or Ross Street(s). The traffic that travels between Argyle and Portside, drive at high speeds for side streets. When cars are parked on both sides of Kent, it creates a one lane road. Two cars can pass with minimum distances between the cars but when people cross the streets or open the car doors, it creates serious situations for drivers. The drivers, as you propose, could still make it to Victoria Drive and cause situations on Kent South, unless you take away the 'no entry' at Kent North and Argyle Street. I travel to work on Kent everyday and it would inconvenience me but I have thought for years they should block Kent at Argyle, so that no traffic goes in front of the townhouse and apartments unless they live there. If you follow through with any closures, Elliott at Marine Drive, should have straight-through traffic, or we will be trapped or have to go to Kerr to go north. Thank You.
Riverwood Way	In slippery weather conditions, our ONLY SAFE way to get onto S.E. Marine Drive is along N./S. Kent until we reach an access; such as Fraser, Main or Cambie which does not involve hills. Driving up/down on a steep slope during snowy conditions is EXTREMELY DANGEROUS and impossible sometimes.
Riverwood Way	re: #2: I do agree that speed bumps would serve to decrease speed of traffic but I do question your data; it is very difficult to accelerate to 61 km./hr. over the two stated blocks and I do wonder when during the day this excessive speed occurs. Having said all this, I am not adverse to speed bumps. re: #1: Absolutely against this measure for the following reasons: 1) Kent is my preferred route to go to work, visit friends who live on Duff and between 2100 and 1800 blocks of Kent, and to get up onto Marine drive going north or coming off Marine is bad during snowy weather. The Nanaimo and Victoria routes are all too steep to get in or out of safety, in the snow. I have to go along Kent to Fraser Main and then you have less gradients/hills. 2) As a part-time recreational cyclist, I would ask that you consider the following concerns BEFORE blocking our area: - the amount of on-road parking, especially in the 2100 and 1700 blocks of Kent; - the condition of the road surface, all the way along making it a necessity dismount, then cross rail tracks which are angled across the road by heavy delivery trucks and service vehicles travelling west. 3) Short-cut using Victoria/Elliott: I DO NOT use this portion of Kent as a short-cut, it is an integral part of my travel patter and has been for 15 years when travelling west, and then turning south off marine at Elliott, is relatively safe. No left-turn lane and timing off Victoria is not safe as well as no left-turn lane (I understand Marine is the second heaviest trafficked arterial in Vancouver), turning south at Gladstone and Nanaimo and it is unsafe and I understand, also illegal. 4) Finally, what data have you collected that justifies closing and blocking two blocks of residential travellers, i.e. 2400-2100 block)? How many cyclists are currently using those two blocks? How many more would use this section when Gladstone is blocked off? What is the real reason for this projected "calming", are there some vested interests?; just asking!!!
Riverwood Way	If this road closure goes through, I will have no way of accessing my townhouse during winter conditions, that we have experienced in the past month. WHERE do you propose I park??!!! Needless to say, I would be VERY upset if this road closure was completed. The closure of Kent South (2100 block) and Kent North (2200 block) is a big mistake. For those of us who live there, we would have no way of getting our vehicle to our garages in weather such as we have experienced over the last few weeks. The hills on Elliott and Nanaimo are just too steep in winter conditions. Therefore, we would have to leave our vehicles parked up on Marine which is not very safe. I am totally against this road closure. I am not against the bicycle path but not this way. I agree with the speed bumps, as some people do try and take short-cuts down there and travel too fast.
Riverwood Way	I am completely opposed to the road closure. It would mean a very difficult access to Marine Drive for me. I can't see the necessity for the blockage and am STRONGLY opposed to this proposal.
Riverwood Way	*WESTBOUND TRAFFIC ONLY *Most of the short-cutting occurs during the afternoon traffic (as many as 20 cars per minute). Mornings are not a problem. Allowing westbound traffic only, will facilitate difficulty during snow and ice.
Riverwood Way	I appreciate the information you have sent to me, and the opportunity to express my views. Far too many issues are driven by "special interest" groups, without input from the general population. I also suggest that rules are put in place to help protect cyclists, such as: - bikes should have good lamps; - cyclist should be visible in the dark. Too many cyclists wear dark clothes, have no lights and expect to be seen in the dark, wet, Vancouver weather. E-mail me @
Riverwood Way	1) Regarding the road closure, during snow and icy weather, the hills on Nanaimo or Elliott are unsafe and sometimes impassable. These would be our only exits by car, in our location. Less importantly, we travel to and from work via Kent, rather than Marine, and our access to Kent would be cut off. 2) Regarding speed bumps, yes, I often hear racing and speeding cars on Kent in front of my house. I have two young children and believe this would deter speeding.
Rosedale Dr.	We support the Kent Avenue Bikeway route. We also consulted with friends in the area of the proposed road closure and they are in favour of this measure.
Royal Ave.	Looks great! Now if only we could get that section between Boundary Road and the BC Parkway, Crosstown Greenway and Queensborough Bridge in New West finished, I'd have a great new cycling loop route... going up River Road and back all the time is getting to be a bit boring! My remarks on the route are: - Continuity is one issue, but pavement quality is another... the last couple of times that I explored the route, it took a couple hours for my brain to stop rattling from the vibrations. - Why is there a missing section in the route between Ontario and Cypress? Kent continues on and I just checked my 1997 Transportation Plan which shows the routes connecting. - How would you improve connections to the bridges: Laing, Oak, Knight, these are fairly critical regional gateways and, having commuted for years from Kits to Richmond over these bridges, the access is lousy. We could put this latter issue on a future Translink Bicycle Working Group meeting, which I chair.
S.E. Marine Dr.	I am a mother of two children who go to school in Kitsilano. I am not prepared to risk my own and my children's lives, during the winter months, by trying to slide down Elliott or attempting to cross a busy main road, in order to travel west. Why would someone in their right mind, close a street with housing. We live in the City, not the country!!
S.E. Marine Dr.	Yesterday I received your survey regarding the E. Kent Ave. North/South Calming Measures. Although I understand the need to provide relief to the traffic congestion on E. Kent Ave. South between Victoria Dr. and Argyle St., I believe that closing the connection between North and South Kent is not the correct solution. Please refer to the attached map of the region while reading the following narrative. I live at 2250 S.E. Marine drive (between Gladstone St. and Nanaimo St.). I normally follow Portside Dr. to Kent Ave. and drive up Victoria Dr. to the traffic lights. If the connection between North and South Kent is closed, the only safe way to turn left onto S.E. Marine Drive is to go back all the way to Elliott Street. Optionally, I can use the back lane between Duff St. and E. Ken Ave. North. Indeed, I can guarantee you that the traffic on that back lane will increase dramatically if the proposed closure goes ahead. Whenever it snows, the only way out of my building is to go down to Kent and follow it all the way to Fraser Street. All other options require going up a steep hill to get onto S.E. Marine Drive. The back lane between Duff St. and E. Kent Ave. North is narrow and contains an 'S' curve which will be hard to navigate when the road is covered with snow an/or ice. Basically, residents in my area will be trapped every time it snows if the proposed closure goes ahead. Traffic on E. Kent Ave. South is currently very congested between Argyle St. and Victoria Dr. because although it is a narrow street, it still allows for two-way traffic and parking on both sides. I propose the following solutions to alleviate the traffic problem on E. Kent Ave. South, between Argyle St. and Victoria Drive. Solution 1: Make E. Kent Ave. South one way (going east), between Argyle St. and Victoria Drive. (The alternative is to remove parking from one side of the street - however, I think the residents will not agree to that.) Note that E. Kent Ave. North is already one-way (going west), between Beatrice St. and Argyle Street. Include a few speed humps along E. Kent Ave. South. Solution 2: Open E. Kent Ave. North, between Portside Dr. and the back lane and then allow for two-way traffic between Beatrice St. and Argyle Street. There are very few residences in this area and only a few parked cars (parking could be eliminated to allow for the bicycle route). This way, you may safely go ahead with the proposed closure of the rail crossing. In addition, you may decide to block access to E. Kent Ave.. South from Argyle Street, thus ensuring that only local traffic is permitted. Include a few speed humps along E. Kent Ave. North to regulate the speed of the traffic. If you wish to get in contact with me to discuss these alternative solutions, ...I look forward to your comments.
S.E. Marine Dr.	1) Road closure will result in increased traffic west on south side, south on Duff, down the lanes to Victoria Drive, up the light at Marine (and the reverse). 2) Increased left turns west onto Marine which lead to more accidents. 3) Similarly, westbound traffic turning left across Marine will be in danger. 4) Exiting our area will take longer; possible road rage. 5) Property values plus taxes will be negatively impacted. PRISONER IN OUR NEIGHBOURHOOD SAYS IT ALL!, OVERALL, A BAD IDEA!
S.E. Marine Dr.	How will we ever be able to travel west easily? This is dangerous!
S.E. Marine Dr.	To make a bike path MEANINGFUL, it has to be FULL LENGTH between Granville to Boundary and extending to New Westminster Quay. To be able to cycle along waterways around the lower mainland ensures MAXIMAL LEVEL pathways. I support any effort to lower speed and increase safety for cyclists/pedestrians. When people are in cars, they see themselves as having superior right-of ways and cyclists as unnecessary obstacles. Please, DO NOT MIX cyclists with driver along any stretch of Kent Avenue. There is a path if there is a will.
S.E. Marine Dr.	I have been living in the neighbourhood for more than three years now. Any suggestions on how we can acquire lamp posts in our neighbourhoods' back lanes? Thanks for your kind consideration.
S.E. Marine Dr.	We would be very much against the road closure between Kent South or North as this would force us to come up Elliott in order to make a safe left turn onto SE Marine. Elliott is very steep and slippery in winter and in fact, this winter was one of the snowy days we could not get up Elliott and had to reverse back down and go up Victoria.
S.E. Marine Dr.	The following reasons are why I do not want to see the street closure occur: 1. Elliott is MUCH too steep for my car when the roads are icy/frosty and access to the less steep streets, west of my home, provides a route for me to get in and out. 2) Elliott AND Victoria Streets are the only two lights where I can safely turn left onto Marine drive; without Victoria, there is only one safe route onto Marine Drive. I would, however, not object to speed suppression measure along South Kent, such as peed bumps or groins in the roadway. Thank you.
S.E. Marine Dr.	Kent is the way I use to travel to school (UBC) every day. I prefer Kent over Marine, as it's a slower street, with no traffic lights and lower car volume. Closing the road between 2100-2200 block would be of some inconvenience. In addition, I oppose implementation of speed humps because they do a lot more than give you "uncomfortable feelings" when travelling above the SPEED LIMIT. They slow the traffic to 30 km./hr. It is impossible to travel over them at 50 km./hr., without losing your bumper. However, mostly, I would prefer the funds to go toward fixing the sections of Kent that are in terrible condition. I realize that 61 km./hr. is above the speed limit but as very few people park on that street or walk on it, as thereis no pedestrian walk way, what realistic benefits would be seen by implementing them?
S.E. Marine Dr.	As a resident of S.E. Marine Drive, at the top of Portside Drive, I STRONGLY OPPOSE the closure of the area between Kent North and South. At present, this route is the one I use daily, as does my husband, in order to get to work (to the west), via the lights at Victoria Drive. If this route is closed, and then speed humps are placed between Portside and Elliott, our route to work will become a veritable obstacle course! If nothing else, a new set of lights at Gladstone (or Duff) and S.E. Marine would help residents in my area feel less "trapped" and certainly less inconvenienced, by these changes. Another alternative which would assist residents and calm traffic, is to make the area from Kent North and South at Gladstone park, a one-way only street, to the west. This way, residents can still access the lights at Victoria, but on returning home, can use Marine until Duff or Gladstone, where a right turn is safe.
S.E. Marine Dr.	1) I am concerned about access to Marine Drive when it snows. My only safe access to Marine Drive would be the light at Elliott and it is a very steep hill. 2) Kent South is a more quiet road for me to use everyday to go to work, as I work at Oakridge Centre; and with this route I miss all the traffic on Marine Drive. 3) I would like to see Kent re-paved, as it is very bumpy.
S.E. Marine Dr.	Marine should be opened up for everyone to use Kent Avenue. That is, to say, anyone who wants to get to the parks or for whatever use. There should be a through drive from Marine to 2300-2400 block Kent, as it is not practical for the people who want to go east or west on Kent. Look at what is good for the general public. The dead end should be open to residents of this whole area that need to travel east to west or west to east, on Kent. To me, it isn't an option to have to go to Marine to get back to Kent, because of the dead end. It is noted by many residents living on the south side of Marine that Marine is like a Berlin Wall (to use).
S.E. Marine Dr.	I am extremely concerned in regard to the proposed road closure between North and south Kent at Portside Drive. It is obvious that this proposal was brought forward with out a lot of research or thought into how this would affect the taxpayers of this area. By eliminating this access, you are virtually removing one of our "few" safe access points to and from our homes. Allowing this closure to proceed is forcing the majority of us to use Marine Drive. Residents in this area try to avoid the Marine Drive corridor, due to the high traffic volumes, excessive speeds and frequent traffic snarls due to motor vehicle accidents. Your information letter refers to continued access to Marine Drive via Victoria, Gladstone, Nanaimo and Elliott Street. I wish to refer to Victoria and Elliott first, as these two intersections are the only two out of our, which are controlled by a traffic light. Due to the location of the proposed closure, residents just east of Victoria and north of Kent, will not be able to access/egress from Victoria Drive and the residents south of Kent and west of Portside will not be able to access/egress via Elliott Street. Residents in the latter area mentioned, are in a much better position as drivers leaving the area can still continue west along Kent, should they choose. Victoria Drive is a partially blind intersection, heading south or north. The visibility of the oncoming traffic is reduced due to Victoria's hill and this intersection must be accessed with caution, therefore reducing smooth traffic flow and slowing volume through this area. Elliott is a quiet,residential street; especially the sector between Marine and Kent Avenue. Driving access is narrow, as residential parking takes up both sides of the street. Imagine all the traffic from this area utilizing Elliott!? The traffic light- controlled intersection here is restricted. Heading north or south to Marine, you may only turn left or right onto Marine Drive; straight through is not allowed. What about during frequent traffic tie-ups on Marine Drive? Driving in the city can be strenuous enough but when you force people to remain in traffic jams due to no option of an alternate route, you are going to end up with frustrated and annoyed drivers, which could potentially cause further problems. Egress from Gladstone and Nanaimo should be disregarded altogether, as this is not safe. Heading west from either street is forcing drivers to cross three lanes of very solid, steady traffic both day and night - a huge insurance and law suit waiting to happen! Not that is snows often in our City, however, consideration for when it does should be an issue. The grade of hill on all four streets as mentioned, makes it extremely difficult and almost impossible to utilize these streets, even with good winter driving vehicles, forcing traffic to use the Kent thoroughfare. Your Traffic Claming Measures information sheet of January 16, 2002, states," The purpose of the road closure proposed for this location is to reduce the volume of short-cutting traffic between Victoria and Elliott", however, you also refer to the development of an important link in the bicycle Network. Which is it? I believe clarification on the main reason for this proposal should be addressed. What measures have been taken in order to confirm the short-cutting of traffic? Are you referring to non-local traffic? Granted, some of the traffic volume during heavy travel periods is caused by non-residents. Please keep in mind however, that this "short-cutting" really does take drivers out of their way and is probably not their first choice route. In normal traffic flow, the percentage of this occurring I'm sure is quite minimal, as it is much easier for traffic just to remain on and follow Marine Drive. Should this proposal be considered further, I urge you to take a drive through this area and carefully review the limitations for the residents. Additionally, try driving Marine during peak and accident periods, but be very cautious when you try to turn onto it or off it, even at the controlled intersections! Taking it one step further, why don't you obtain the traffic volume reports from your own department and the motor vehicle accident reports from ICBC, VPD, EHS and VFD for this Marine Drive corridor, from Kerr to Knight; the results might surprise you! Thank you for your consideration.
S.E. Marine Dr.	We need all possible roads to leave our area when it snows. Why should we have to use the heavy traffic areas on Marine? This is our neighbourhood.
S.E. Marine Dr.	Closure makes no sense. It will only [be convenient for] those living at Tugboat Landing, giving them a private driveway that we all paid for. There is no commuter cyclist traffic on Kent and there is already a cyclist path along the north arm in front of Tugboat. Anyone living east of Gladstone to Elliott, will be unable to travel north/west with aid of a traffic signal on Marine. Is it culpable to use a "short-cut", reducing traffic volume and pollution on Marine? Leave things the way they are!! Incidentally, I cycle regularly for exercise and recreation.
S.E. Marine Dr.	We DO NOT SUPPORT the closure of Kent Ave. South/North, at Gladstone Park, for the following reasons: - While residents east of Victoria would continue to have entrance access to their homes from Duff, Gladstone, Nanaimo and Elliott, they would have only ONE SAFE EXIT from their homes, at Elliott, where there is a traffic signal. - Closure of Kent Ave. S/N at Gladstone Park will increase cut-through traffic in the following areas: - along the laneway at the foot of Duff (between Duff and Victoria); - along Duff, Southside, Portside, Kent North; - along the laneway directly off Southside, between Portside/Nanaimo. - A paved bike path currently exists, beginning at Gladstone Park, along the North Fork of the North arm of the Fraser River, to (almost) Argyle. - Such a closure would inconvenience many to accommodate a few. For example, persons living east of Victoria and north of Kent Ave. North, wanting/needing to access Gladstone Park by car, would have to travel south to Kent Ave. North, east of Elliott, north to SE Marine, west on SE Marine to Victoria, south on Victoria to Kent Street.
S.E. Marine Dr.	There's not that much traffic on that stretch of roadway and it would not be convenient or necessary.
S.E. Marine Dr.	I don't find that people speed along Kent North. I don't like speed bumps if they are unnecessary. With road closures, less people will travel along Kent anyway.
S.E. Marine Dr.	Complete road closure at 1700 S.E. Kent too! Currently, westbound [traffic] is allowed on 1700 NE Kent so local traffic can use 1700 NE Kent or Victoria Drive. Lots of business trucks fly along eastbound 1700-1800 SE Kent (at Victoria) - Tugboat Landing and when I'm walking with my stroller to the seawall, it is like rush hour along Tug Boat Landing.
S.E. Marine Dr.	If you do this closure between Kent South (2100 block) and Kent North (2200 block), we WILL be prisoners in our own home. It is hard enough getting onto Marine (when the traffic is busy), to go east but almost impossible to go west. We have to have access to Victoria. I suggest speed bumps on both of these blocks (to slow the traffic down) and parking on one side of the street. Thank you.
S.E. Marine Dr.	I believe that your theory of access to Marine Drive, via Gladstone, and Nanaimo (Duff) is flawed, in that at this time, there is not much pressure from traffic for people to make these turns. If however, you do put pressure on the front cars, you will have a cause for accidents. I have observed vehicles making these turns and have witnessed near misses. Also, as Elliott is not a through street, you will prevent North/South traffic from accessing traffic south of Marine Drive.
S.E. Marine Dr.	Re: #4: When there is snow or ice because of all the steep hills leading up to Marine in the area, residents are only able to access Marine by driving west along Kent until Fraser which of course, is flat ( or perhaps one of the less hilly streets between Argyle and Fraser). If you close Kent, there are many people in that area that will be stuck and unable to get out!! Why don't you consider putting the bike route along the north portion of Kent (right below the berm)? You would only have to clear a path and cars don't do here anyways, as this part of the road has been closed for years. I would also like to suggest that you put speed bumps in the south block as well and allow parking onone side only. People are driving along here far too fast and it is a very congested area with parking currently being allowed on both sides. Re: # 5: Absolutely!!! There are no sidewalks in this area, and commuters trying to cut through and then head up Elliott to rejoin Marine, are going at break-neck speed. They often ignore the stop sign at Kent and Elliott. I see this (as a resident), on a daily basis. I applaud this proposal and would like to see really HIGH speed bumps!!! Please don't close this section of Kent!!!
S.E. Marine Dr.	We use Kent Avenue as our main route to and from home. It is a lot safer than driving on Marine. If there could be more enforcement of speeding cars and red light runners along Marine, we would not oppose the closure. In the ten years we have lived in the area, traffic along Marine has not improved. It is not safe to drive through intersections even on the green light. Kent Avenue is a safe alternative. Increasing stop signs along Kent may be the way to go as opposed to a full closure. Thank you for your consideration.
S.E. Marine Dr.	We are concerned as to who pays for the changes and or bumps. If bumps are necessary, we feel the streets involved will likely be charges, should the decision be made.
S.E. Marine Dr.	When are you people going to understand that as taxpayers, we are completely FED UP with your councillors who just can't get over the fact that the automobile is HERE TO STAY. If people like you had addressed the problem 10-15 years ago, we wouldn't have the lousy road system we have today. We residents PAY THE TAXES AND YOUR SALARIES. How dare you attempt to cut off our access to Kent Drive. FOR ONCE, WORK FOR US!!
S.E. Marine Dr.	There is no advantage in only adding difficulties to the neighbourhood people. 1) Time consuming - if you have to go west, you travel east first to Elliott to get on SE Marine. Elliott is steep and will cause a lot of problems in the winter season and that junction will get over-crowded. 2) Alternative route! - motorists take Kent to avoid busy SE Marine Drive.
S.E. Marine Dr.	A copy of your January 16/02 letter arrived in my mail box today, arousing in me a mixture of dismay and outrage. Over the past two decades, the City has seen fit to grant development permits which have greatly increased the population density south of SE Marine between Victoria and Kerr. Local traffic has accordingly increased and has been surpassed by traffic density on the SE Marine arterial route. Assuming that the traffic controlled intersections at Jellicoe and at Kerr are taking care of the portion of the enclave east of the barrier on Kent, between Elliott and Jellicoe, one can theorize that the Elliott, Nanaimo, Gladstone, Duff and Victoria intersections should take care of the portion west of that barrieron Kent. In practice, however, thanks to heavy traffic on Marine and unattractive gradients on Nanaimo, Gladstone and Duff, these intersections are fraught with hazards, particularly for negotiating left turns, leaving the remaining two as the "possibles". Your proposal of course, will remove Victoria for traffic originating east of Portside and Kent, leaving the Elliott intersection, where through northbound and southbound vehicular traffic is already prohibited, as the only practical point of egress for drivers heading for a destination west and/or north. At the present time, for an hour or more during the morning rush hour, backups of a block or more on SE Marine may occur at both the Victoria and Elliott stoplights, thus further hampering and delaying egress from this bottled up part of Fraserlands. Icy winter weather provides further impediment to the negotiation of the Elliott Street intersection, as a southbound vehicle on Elliott required to make a number of stops and starts at the intersection line-up may well stall, slide or become trapped in some other costly winter traffic entanglement. Give us motorists a break! The escape route west for motorists in the 2100 to 2400 blocks of the Fraserlands enclave has for some years, been the level Kent road working west under the Knight St. Bridge to the easier intersections at Fraser, marine and Cambie Streets. Why not face the fact that the condominium development west of Portside has made negotiation of Kent south hazardous at the best of times? Open up a decent highway AND a bikeway NORTH of the railway tracks from Portside west to Crompton, thus providing a genuine "calming" measure for both cyclists and motorists.
S.E. Marine Dr.	Road closure along Kent South will not be tolerated by residents North of Kent between Duff and Elliott. Residents between SW Marine, Duff and Elliott were using North Kent and South Kent long before development along South Kent between Elliott and Argyle, and between Elliott and Kerr took place. Developers along Kent South between Portside and Argyle, applied to City Planning for increased on-street parking and reduced on-site parking, thereby creating greater on-street parking and congestion. Protests from residents of our neighbourhood were not heeded. The development east of Elliott closed Kent, east of Elliott to us. Elliott has a left and right turn ONLY onto Marine, thereby restricting our access to shopping and services at Elliott and 49th Avenue. With the closure of Kent South, between Portside and Victoria, we are being imprisoned in our own neighbourhood after having lost access to routes that were traditionally used by our residents long before the other developments took place. Further, during snowy weather, Kent South, between Victoria, is our ONLY corridor to access low-grade roads such as Fraser and Main and others to reach Marine. Other streets, such as Nanaimo, Gladstone and Duff are steep, uphill and without light controls, making access to Marine difficult, both during fairs and inclement weather. We have been very tolerant to allow: - A parking zoo to occur on South Kent, between Portside and Borden. - To live with the closure of Kerr, limiting our access to Champlain Shopping Centre and; - The restricted access sign at Elliott and SE Marine. Our tolerance has now reached its limit and we will not be locked into our neighbourhoods any further. The closure of Kent South, between Portside and Victoria IS NOT ACCEPTABLE AND MUST NOT occur. Surely, there are other solutions.
S.E. Marine Dr.	You don't plow here when it snows - Elliott! - Speed humps between 2200-2300 Kent North. You need several and not just one or two. - There is already a bike trail. - There is no way for us - the residents - to get home when all the hills are either icy or snowed in. It isn't plowed or sanded as a priority, especially Elliott from Kent to Marine.
S.E. Marine Dr.	I don't want the street to be closed off! I prefer driving along Kent to do my shopping instead of driving on the busy Marine Drive!!
S.E. Marine Dr.	I do commute by bicycle, however, sometimes during the winter, I use my car. I use Kent, and travel west from Gladstone to Manitoba Yards. I do not wish to be forced onto Marine Drive which is inaccessible when it snows anyway (due to hill)!!
S.E. Marine Dr.	When it snows, it is hard enough to get down hills, let alone up. Kent is the only safe alternative, especially since the streets do not get plowed or salted/sanded! Very dangerous! I agree with speed bumps to slow traffic; it is safer for children.
S.E. Marine Dr.	This will increase traffic on Marine Drive and despite that, I agree. The speed merchants along Kent will then compete with their colleagues on Marine Drive. I am sure that if the government brought back photo radar, and installed a permanent camera set-up for both directions on the pedestrian overpass, they could balance the budget immediately, and probably show a profit. It is either that or move the Molson Indy to S.E. Marine and save the set-up costs of the current track. They would not ev4en need to close the road to traffic! I am sure that Andretti and the boys would have to move over and let the rush hour traffic go by...
S.E. Marine Dr.	Parking on ONE side of the street on the 2100 block South Kent and; then install speed humps along that block.
S.E. Marine Dr.	In a snow storm, no one can get out.
S.E. Marine Dr.	I strongly oppose the road closure because I will be limited to one safe exit out of my neighbourhood (Elliott). It will be impossible to drive up the steep hills here in the winter and thus, I won't be able to get out of here to work. At present, I can exit via Kent to avoid going up hills in the snow. Please, keep Kent open, we're locked in here as it is. Thank you.
S.E. Marine Dr.	a.) Parking along Kent South (2100-2000 block) - eliminate parking on one side of the street. It would possibly cut speeding (trying to get to an open space before meeting oncoming traffic). 2) Do something on Marine Drive first to alleviate congestion by Knight Street Bridge. The traffic is sometimes lined up as far back as 2200 block Marine Drive. Why wait in line there when you can goalong Kent. 3) Open up North Kent and make it car accessible, and have Kent South and North one-way traffic each direction. There is a bike route along the water from Kerr Street to 2200 block.
S.E. Marine Dr.	As I live on SE Marine at Elliott, I must enter and leave the area via Elliott. The problem with the proposed closure of Kent, is that during SNOW, Elliott is TOO STEEP to drive out and exit via Victoria is necessary. Closing Kent at this point will keep many residents 'TRAPPED' at home during snowfalls. Speed bumps alone should reduce and slow traffic sufficiently.
S.E. Marine Dr.	NO CLOSURE: - You don't plow here when it snows on Elliott! - Speed humps between 2200-2300 Kent mainly and several, several, not just one or two. - There is already a bike trail. - There is no way for us, the residents, to get home when all the hills are either icy or snow-packed. It isn't plowed or sanded as a priority; especially Elliott from Kent to Marine Drive.
S.E. Marine Dr.	We would like to support this proposal because I support the bike network but I find this plan inadequate. I drive Kent North frequently, and it is always full of truck/trailers, Monday through Friday, especially around Main Street, also, garbage trucks from the Kent Station. It is a busy road with many rail crossings which are hazardous to cyclists. I don't see how the road can accommodate the volume of car traffic, industrial traffic and cyclists, safely. Also, Kent North is an important road for residents of the Fraserlands; they need it, especially when S.E. Marine is blocked due to an accident. It should not be blocked.
S.E. Marine Dr.	This negates those of us who like to walk along the river front. We drive down because it is TOO steep for some of us seniors. Also, we go this way to avoid the heavy traffic on Marine. Whilst I am on the subject, I wan to know WHY we were not given a survey to NOT being able to go north through the lights at Elliott? Those of us who chose to shop at Killarney Shopping Mall , have to go out of our way. I find this unacceptable in the extreme. Why should we on the south side of Marine, be constantly ignored? We pay our taxes too!
S.E. Marine Dr.	Our neighbourhood will not be able to access the traffic light at Victoria, if the road between the 2100 block South Kent and the 2200 block South Kent is closed. Most of us head west to drive downtown. We will have to drive east, out of our way, to access the traffic light at Elliott and then head west. Why don't you install a traffic light at Gladstone and SE Marine? Only those with a death wish risk left turns at Gladstone, Duff or Nanaimo and SE Marine now. How do we get out when it snows? Elliott and Nanaimo are too steep. The people living at the bottom of the hill won't get up Portside; too steep. Victoria has the lesser incline and a traffic light but we won't be able to access that, will we? Why not put speed bumps in front of Tugboat Landing to past the lumber yard (2000 block Kent, etc.)? Traffic from the west will go at least that far, to access Victoria. Please improve our neighbourhood instead of making it worse!
S.E. Marine Dr.	First, let me thank you for giving affected residents the opportunity to comment on the proposal. I am one of the owners at Leslie Terrace (2150-2188 DE Marine) and tend to use Kent (North and South, depending on the area) a great deal. I am also a cyclist and think that the City is doing a good job with its Bicycle Network. My problem is that I cannot grasp what exactly the plan is regarding the road closure at Gladstone Park. If that 'railroad crossing' were to be permanently closed to cars, it would present a real problem for many of us who live here. I can appreciate the desire to interrupt the through traffic but those of us who are just trying to get home would be casualties. If you are familiar with the traffic flow along SE Marine, particularly at rush hour, you will understand that it is not very friendly toward local traffic trying to exit from the artery via right turns, let alone left turns. This means that a resident driving westward from Kerr, often has to travel to Victoria in order to execute a safe left turn. How would we get back up to Southside Drive or Duff from Victoria and Kent, if the proposed road closure is implemented? How would one get a car from the little strip mall at Gladstone down to the Gladstone Park parking if that proposed closure takes effect? How would residents of Captain's Walk who were heading to Kerr, be expected to enter SE Marine? Many of us do our primary grocery shopping at Champlain Mall so the trip to and from Kerr is a frequent one. Perhaps I am misunderstanding what is planned. I did go online and looked at the various drawings but they did not answer my questions. I would appreciate it if you could provide me with a more detailed description, maybe even a little sketch, indicating where the barriers) would be located.
S.E. Marine Dr.	The section of the road mentioned is invaluable to traffic when Marine Drive is jammed or when the steep roads feeding into Marine Drive are blocked by ice or snow in the winter. Many houses with formal addresses on Marine Drive actually have their entrances on these steep roads.
Skipper Pl.	I have been advised that you are the person to write to, concerning the proposed closure of Kent at Portside. I live at Skipper Place which is located between Marine and Kent, at Portside. The residents living along Portside absolutely need to have access to Kent in order to get up to Victoria Drive. Kent is already closed just east of Elliott, meaning that we would have access to no main street travelling north and south, from our houses! The biggest street would be Elliott, where it is not even permitted to go straight. Anybody travelling west or north here travels down Portside to Kent and then up Victoria, either to turn left or go straight. It is the only major intersection around here. Elliott is already problematic enough right now, being a major accident scene. I can guarantee you that people will go straight at Elliott if that becomes the major intersection around here and there will be a lot of accidents with people turning and going straight from both the north and south sides of Marine drive. It is also very steep at the top of Elliott, making it a hazard in snow and for visibility, whereas Victoria is a longer, less steep slope. I am not comfortable about the idea of making two left turns to go west on Marine, as left turns are always more dangerous than right turns. I think sandwiching us between two closures so near in proximity is just preposterous. Didn't anyone take into consideration that there is already a closure just east of Elliott and that we who live down here don't deserve to be sandwiched into such a narrow range of exit routes form our homes? And how much traffic will that really stop, anyway, it being only a matter of three blocks from the last closure? Who has done the shoddy planning for this deal? On an icy day, getting down the hill, rather than up and making it to Victoria, is our only chance around here. As I said before, it's a long , gentle slope which is generally cleared or salted. Without it, we are all trapped here. There is no getting up Portside in the snow, or for that matter, Elliott. Please look at our needs down here and reconsider your plans.
Skipper Pl.	Closing the road will totally separate the area near my house from safe access to Victoria Drive and to David Oppenheimer Elementary School. Road direction, lights and limitation on Elliott at Marine, is absolutely not safe and impossible to maneuver during rush hour (this too needs logical change). Your proposed changes will cause more accident and heavier traffic. Now the traffic jams at Elliott at marine are quite common.
Skipper Pl.	Your proposal is to block all traffic going down Portside a few feet along Kent North, then over the railway tracks to Kent South to Victoria Drive. This is the only route out of the riverside and other residential areas. If we have to go north on Portside, then north on Nanaimo to Marine, this is out of the question. It is impossible to turn left on Marine without a light at Nanaimo and Marine. Most people go to Victoria/Kent to either go north or west, to various locations of work or business. Or they go down North Kent through the industrial area, to avoid the traffic on Marine. There is another way to get to Victoria/Kent. You have to go through a housing project which is going to be unsafe for the children living in the housing project, not to mention inconvenient. Also, in the winter, it is impossible to drive up Portside, as it is a steep hill. Is the City going to provide snow and ice removal at their expense on a daily basis? Are you going to put in traffic lights to accommodate us turning west on Marine? Surely there must be a simpler solution for the few people who ride bikes. There is an undeveloped area between Victoria and Portside which you plan to make a bike trail, then the riders can get off their bikes and go to Gladstone Park and continue on their way to Kerr or when they finish the trail to New Westminster Quay. Are you going to extend Kent from Victoria to Portside, with two lane traffic plus a bike path? That would be a good idea. I am sorry for writing late. I hope you do reconsider the concerns of many of us who need access to Victoria and Kent North. I am all in favour of bike trails but as a handicapped person, I need vehicle access to the safe routes other than Marine. Thank you for your time.
South Shore Cres.	It is VERY important that you do not proceed with blocking Kent South at Gladstone Park. This would divert local traffic to Elliott and Nanaimo. Marine Drive is a very busy road . Elliott does not allow traffic to cross Marine and Elliott will be the only access in the area. Nanaimo has no lights and is too busy to travel west. It is also illegal to turn left or go west on Nanaimo and Gladstone and far too dangerous. As well, when it snows, Elliott and Nanaimo have too high a hill to drive up. Leaving us one exit to the west side is unacceptable. It is unfair to stop drivers from travelling west safely. Thereare very few bikers in the area. We need other exits to drive to and from [our areas].
South Shore Cres.	There is very poor pavement quality on some sections of Kent. The complex where we live has been here for 14 years, of which we have lived for twelve. The large majority of our tripe involve travelling in a WESTERLY direction. WE travel WESTWARD to do our weekly shopping, to go to church, visit our children, bank, to town, the airport, the ferry and visit the doctor's office or hospital. In short, the ability to travel westward from here is very important to us. At the present time, there are two, AND ONLY TWO, ways to do this: - Via the traffic light at Elliott, up onto Marine Drive; - Down onto Kent South and westward, with access then, to Victoria, Fraser, Main and Cambie. This is the route which we use EACH AND EVERY DAY. The accompanying letter by M. Scholefield is quite misleading and annoying so - WE DO NOT HAVE ACCESS out onto Marine Drive at Gladstone and Nanaimo, when travelling westward. Why? Because, this would involve pulling out into HIGH SPEED TRAFFIC and crossing over a DOUBLE YELLOW LINE. A highly dangerous procedure. Surely, Ms. Scholefield does not recommend this? In addition, if the road closure goes ahead at the railway tracks. We will not have any access to Marine drive, AT VICTORIA. We can only get to Victoria via the road over the railway tracks. In short (please check this out), if the road closure goes ahead, our ONLY westward travel ability will be via Elliott. Now the major problem with Elliott is that it is an EXTREMELY STEEP street. Quite apart from the much-increased TRAFFIC VOLUME along Elliott, which would result from the road closure. There is also another problem. During snowy/icy weather, the steep hills like Elliott and Nanaimo, become impassible. What we and numerous other residents of this and neighbouring complexes then do, is to park at the bottom of Nanaimo, on Kent, so that when we want to drive out of here, we proceed westward along Kent South/Kent North, until we get to Fraser or Main, where no hills are involved Exit via Elliott is impossible for most vehicles during slippery conditions. Not only impossible, but hazardous to attempt. During this very recent spree of bad weather, we were parked at the bottom of Nanaimo, for 4 days. We were able to get around every day, but, would NOT have been able to do so if our only exit point had been Elliott. In summary, we are supportive of the work to develop a cycling network right across our City. It is NOT our attempt to hinder this important initiative. It should, however, not be done at the expense of well-established traffic patterns for which there are no viable alternatives. Travel via Elliott ONLY would be severely restrictive and in bad weather, impossible. There is already one CLOSED road to the EAST of us, on Kent. Please do not make life considerablyharder for us by putting in a second closure, just to the west of us which means we would be living between two road closures, less than .50 km. apart.
South Shore Cres.	The road closure prevents us from getting up to marine Drive in snowy or slippery weather. We often have to use Victoria to access Nanaimo and a road closure would strand us. Please reconsider.
South Shore Cres.	The information in your letter is incorrect, with respect to access to Victoria Drive for South shore residents, and others accessing; whose only access to either Marine or Kent is Nanaimo or Gladstone. There is no connection to Kent. Our only egress would be via Nanaimo, directly onto Marine, which is impossible in the snow and unsafe at any time, going west (ditto - Gladstone), or via Elliott - up an impossible hill. If we go west to Gladstone from here, traffic would be unacceptable to our neighbouring complex. I strongly object to the proposal to close our access to Kent at Gladstone. Kent is our only safe alternative, unless the City is prepared to salt, sand or plow Nanaimo or Elliott. *Please note: there is a PERFECTLY SAFE ALTERNATIVE TO KENT SOUTH, for bicycles in the 2100-2200 block; i.e. a pathway along the old Kent NORTH, where many of us walk our dogs now. SIMPLE. As a bike rider, I would also point out that the most dangerous aspect for cyclists, for the roadway (2000-2100 block) Kent, is the parking allowed on both sides of the street. It's hard to escape the notion that the proposal to cut off access along this block, is mostly intended to reduce traffic flow for the Tugboat Landing residents.
South Shore Cres.	To access businesses along Kent, would mean a diversion up to Marine Drive, then taking the first left turn access back down to Kent. This proposal penalizes the locals wanting to access Kent with the least hassle possible.
South Shore Cres.	With reference to # 1 proposal: 1) Your statement that I would continue to have access via Victoria, Gladstone is incorrect. Also, in order to go west from Nanaimo, it is almost impossible due to the amount of traffic on S.E. Marine Drive and extremely dangerous. It is also illegal, crossing a double yellow line, to make a left-hand turn. 2) If # 1 happens, to go north, I would have to take a right on Marine, cut over two lanes of traffic, to make a left on Elliott which would be extremely dangerous. I cannot take Kent to Elliott since there is no through traffic permitted at the intersection of Marine Drive to continue on Elliott Street. I would have to go to Kerr Street. 3) As experienced during the recent snow storms, it was impossible to drive up Nanaimo or Elliott as the roads were snow covered and icy. The only way to go anywhere was by taking Kent westward, until I could access Marine Drive at Fraser and Main, which does not have hills.
South Shore Cres.	While we support traffic calming measures on Kent, we are very concerned with the proposed closure at Gladstone Park. All residents between Gladstone Park and Elliott, will now be forced to use Elliott if they want to travel west along Marine Drive (we NEVER turn left onto Marine from any of the side streets, as it's extremely dangerous). Elliott is a very steep road between marine and Kent and it's never plowed or salted. If it snows, all these residents would effectively be trapped in the subdivision. In addition, the Elliott and Marine intersection is a high-accident intersection. WE much prefer to useVictoria - the proposed road closure at Gladstone would prevent this. We feel it's inconvenient and unsafe.
South Shore Cres.	Re: #4: This proposal will only serve to cause many commuting problems for those of us who live east of the proposed closure. Although your report points out that there are "access points" to Marine at Elliott, Nanaimo and Gladstone, it fails to mention that it would be nearly impossible to turn LEFT or WEST from these roads across traffic. Also, it fails to mention that it is ILLEGAL to travel straight through the light at Elliott. Although I understand the need to cut down 'short-cutting' in the area, rest assured, that MNAY drivers shortcut down Victoria. From my personal observations, driving on this route at times, I would have to say that more drivers shortcut down Victoria, than do Nanaimo. I would also have to say that it is nearly impossible to speed on this lower section of road due to the fact that cars are parked on either side and it is usually a tight fit for two cars to pass side by side. I would assume that most or all of the residents in Tugboat Landing would support this proposal, s it would give them a cut-off little community and also improve their property value, or at least the desirability to live in that development. To conclude, I would also like to point out that, rare as it is, it does now in Vancouver. If this road were to be closed off and it were to snow like it did at the end of January, it would be IMPOSSIBLE to drive up the hills that you mention as accesses to Marine Drive. All residents that I am aware of are forced to travel south and then along Kent until at least Victoria, and sometimes Fraser, to get out of our developments. As an alternative, if shortcutting is such a concern, I would suggest making it illegal to turn south (left) off Marine and onto Elliott, Nanaimo or Gladstone during rush hours. Personally, I feel as if I have just as much need to use the lower road at times, as do the people who live along the section which would greatly benefit from such a closure. I doubt they would support the closure were you to add a cul-de-sac at the other end of South Kent and limit their access point to solely Victoria Avenue. Re: #5: I am all for the addition of bike routes in the area. Although I am not certain exactly how much these will be used as I am not aware of anyone who lives near me commuting to work via bicycle, I am all for improving the area. As such, I am in favour of every proposal EXCEPT the closure at the railroad tracks. I suspect that this will also be the issue that most of the protests are regarding. I have already pointed out my thoughts on shortcutting in the area but would like to add that if speeding is such a concern at South Ken, near Tugboat Landing community (which again, I don't see how it could be due to the street parking situations), perhaps speed humps should be added.
South Shore Cres.	I live at Nanaimo and SE Marine. Everyday I drive along Kent to Victoria. I understand that you may be closing Kent. As a resident that used this road, I really must point out some important facts. My children attend David Oppenheimer School. I cannot drive northbound to take my children to school on Elliott. I must either turn left on Marine or take a safer route over Victoria. I choose Victoria. My children's lives are put at severe risk by making left-hand turns on Marine. Have you seen the traffic? Everyone speeds, so many times when I have chosen Elliott and turn left; I have had cars run the light. It is truly scary. I live on a very steep hill which it seems, is never attended to when it snows or is icy. I need to use Kent to travel home. I am a taxpayer and it is bad enough you forget about us in the winter time. I use snow tires and have front wheel drive but if it wasn't for access to my home by driving on Kent, I would not be able to get in and out or close to my home, when the weather is bad. Please, please, please reconsider this proposed road closure. However good meaning, the majority ofpeople who live in this area, east of the closure, will be negatively affected. It was bad enough with what happened at Elliott, and now this? You should take another good look at this terrible idea. Also, why did you not consider left-hand signals at Elliott?
Southside Dr.	Given the 85th percentile speed of 61 km./hr., I'm very surprised you are even asking us for consent. I hope the City will install speed bumps regardless of public response. My son and I do bike along Kent and the traffic has been a big concern. Thanks for requesting our input.
Victoria Dr.	I generally support the bike path as an excellent idea. What I am concerned about are changes to the traffic flow patterns. Kent Ave. South has been re-built from Portside to Borden Street. In spite of parking on both sides and the presence of kids and animals, it has become a "race track". The additional housing at Fraserlands has increased traffic, and consequently, the 'crazies' that funnel up Victoria to Marine Drive. Add bicycles, and you are asking for fatalities. Proposed Solution: 1) Speed bumps on Kent South (Portside to Gladstone) plus posted 30 km./hr. 2) speed bumps on Victoria (Kent to Marine) plus posted 30 km./hr. 3) Four-way stops at Victoria and Marine are a joke. Better traffic flow facilities (and enforcement?). Love the idea! Look forward to bike path.
Victoria Dr.	Have a look at Kent, between Borden and Argyle; a mess of potholes that you keep patching - not good enough. At Argyle, you want to send me south for a block going east. I want to use North Kent going east between Argyle and Victoria. Going South Kent is way too congested. You already have the Tugboat people parking on the road; both sides. They are supposed to have sufficient off-street parking. Then you allow the new light industrial building to build right close to the street, with not enough on-site parking. They also park on the road. Then you have all the construction bins taking space - cars often have to wait to pass. What a mess! Now you want to officially accommodate the cyclists. There already exists a lovely cycle path along the waterway, plenty good for the few cyclists! We hardly need more signs, more rules, more road closures and more speed bumps! A marked pedestrian crossing at Victoria and South Kent would be nice; those are dangerous corners. NO, NO, I am strongly opposed to accommodating changes for an extended bike route!
Victoria Dr.	Fully support this initiative. Consideration should be given to closing Kent from Kerr to Boundary, aswell. This area is often used as a garbage dump, including used condoms, etc.. The only facility using Kent in this area, is Weyerhaeuser. There are currently four access points to the Weyerhaeuser Mill; Kerr and Boundary - road where the storage facility sits on and one access point off Kent. Closing the access point off Kent still allows three access points. If the Weyerhaeuser facility does shut down permanently, I would encourage the City to change the zoning from industrial to residential and provide the public access to the waterfront from Kerr to Boundary Road.
Victoria Dr.	North Kent Street should be closed to all commercial traffic!!!
W. 13th Ave.	Also need connection to Cypress bike route to make the third east-west route at south side of City.
W. 16th Ave.	We saw the ad for this in the Georgia Straight, and want to voice our support for such a route. My wife and I have ridden along much of the route as it is today and it would make an excellent bike route. Unfortunately we can't make it to the open house but we really wanted to let you know that we think the route would be a great bike route! Hope the open house goes well and that the route becomes a reality! P.S. We are fairly long term (10+ years) Vancouver residents, and really appreciate all the bike routes in the city. About 70% of all our trips to work downtown are by bike. Keep up the great work!
York Ave.	I like all of the individual aspects proposed. My only concern is that there's such a variety of modes (on road, bike lane next to traffic, bikes only, etc.). It would need to be well signed so that you could find the route if it's not possible to make it consistent.
	I live south of Marine between Victoria and Nanaimo. I have just noticed a sign announcing the closure of Kerr at Portside. I am seriously concerned about this plan and oppose it unconditionally. While I appreciate the desire by some to reduce the through traffic we are experiencing on Kent, have you any idea how the closure of that section of the road will hamper the residents' easy access to and from their homes? As a resident of the area, the only safe means I have of getting to the north side of Marine is via Victoria. There is no other location on Marine where the residents south of Marine can cross Marine. It is next to impossible and extremely dangerous to attempt a left turn onto Marine at Gladstone. The lights at Elliott limit movement to right and left turns only. Crossing Marine is prohibited. That intersection is already dangerous enough. Have you noticed how poorly constructed the turn bays are? I don't want to have to travel up to Elliott to make an unsafe left turn just to get onto Victoria. An again, Victoria is the only street that can take residents north into Vancouver form this area. Where I live, I cannot reach Kerr to travel north without turning onto Marine and make a left turn at Kerr. You in the Engineering Dept. should be aware how heavily travelled Marine is; how the speed limit is not adhered to and how dangerous left turns are in such a context. By closing Kent at Portside, you are effectively subjecting the residents of this area to further an unnecessary risk. And in addition to this risk, in the event of a snowfall, we residents are effectively trapped. Both Nanaimo and Gladstone are so steep that driving up them after a snowfall is impossible unless one has a four-wheel drive or chains. As it now stands, when it snows, I am able to get out ofthe area by driving up to Victoria or further along to Fraser or Main. Now I am going to be unable to get to work, get my children to school or respond to a medical emergency because that route will be closed. Where was the consultation in this process? Why were the needs of the residents not considered in this decision? I oppose this action and urge you to consider the needs of we residents, south of Marine.
	You say there is no money for schools and hospitals, where is the money coming for this? And also, how many people over 18 years are paying for this or, I should say, paying taxes. I pay enough taxes. Make the young people pay for bike routes or, those that use it. Bikes should pay road insurance or bike insurance (license plates).
	We must have an alternative way to drive from east to west.
	Is it possible to separate cycle from car traffic? Lot of speeders on this route and City owns some land on North side. Overall, looks very positive. It should not look as if it is PUNISHING drivers! Cars are still important transportation mode separating cyclists from cars is ideal - looks like you have tried to accommodate where possible. GOOD PLAN.
	Not in my neighbourhood syndrome. I will just be too happy if no traffic is allowed in front of my neighbourhood but that's not a reality. The very people that are against this traffic are the people that drive cars but they don't want it in their backyard. Somebody else's backyard is fine.
	I want to be able to use Kent. I do not feel comfortable on Marine Drive.
	I travel daily along Kent to join up with the Oak St. Bridge. Although closure of Kent Ave. South may inconvenience me, I support the closure, and speed humps. I have, on numerous occasions, witnessed traffic driving at fast speeds along this road, placing children and bikers in danger.
	Re: #2: - Only if PROVEN necessary, then it should be sufficient! - My taxes are not paid for reduced access!; and not for the favoured few (minority). - I believe in equal access without trade-offs or favoritism; thanks. - "Freedom of Access" for all UNDE THE LAW is the very best kind of lifestyle in a REAL DEMOCRACY; don't box people in or out! "Power of Control" by the few over others is destructive and evil (Hitlerism).