Kits Point residents don’t want a cycle lane separated from the pedestrian path to run through Hadden Park or near Kits Beach. Here they are at last night’s Park Board meeting:
.
But why stop there? Isn’t it also time to move the entire seawall route at Kits Point and restore the greenspace that was paved over? There is, after all, a sidewalk along Ogden and Arbutus that could serve pedestrians, just as the pavement could, as suggested by the residents, handle cyclists.
It could be the beginning of a movement to start restoring our parks that have already been inappropriately paved. Surely our highest priority is to start removing the eight kilometres of asphalt, stone and concrete that has despoiled one of the great natural shorelines of this city: the seawall around Stanley Park. Again, there is a sidewalk and pavement on Park Drive already circumnavigating the park.
And while we’re at it, let’s immediately get rid of this:
.
Why have we tolerated this desecration through the English Bay greensward when there is the seawall route to the left, or even better, Beach Avenue to the right? Put the cyclists back in traffic, where they belong.
This is exactly analogous to what is proposed for Kits. And if uninterrupted green space is good for Kits Point, surely the West End deserves no less. The NPA should apologize for the way they treated this community when their council approved the Seaside cycle route.
The status quo bias:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Status_quo_bias
http://philosophybites.com/2012/05/nick-bostrom-on-the-status-quo-bias.html
[jingle]The more you know![/jingle]
I have seen quite a few comments (that I tend to agree with) that the issue (for many people) with the route through Hadden park is that it does not result in a significantly better bike route but the routing through the park makes the park much less usable. Voony has a post about this on his blog.
Not the case. Opponents of the bike path are pretending to represent other people using the park and greatly exaggerating the impact on others.
For example, the vast majority of people picnicking in the park are likely not going to care or even notice if a picnic spot is moved 5 metres from one really awesome spot to another really awesome spot.
Meanwhile bike path opponents are wanting to essential ban bikes from the park forgetting that people currently cycle in the park. Some are even suggesting forcing children to cycle on busy Arbutus.
“makes the park much less usable” for whom? Does it also make the park much more usable for others?
I have yet to see any argument against the proposed bike path that considers the following counterpoints:
1. There is a significant difference between cycling for transportation and cycling for recreation. Even if we have separated on-street lanes, they do not replace the Seawall, just like walking to get groceries via sidewalks is not the same as going for a stroll along the Seawall.
2. If the area covered by pavement is a problem, let’s rip out parking lots and put in more grass & trees.
While I didn’t find them persuasive I could at least comprehend the argument made against the separated Burrard Bridge, Hornby & Dunsmuir routes.
But the arguments being made against separating pedestrian & cycling traffic in Hadden/Kits Point parks go against long established precedent & it’s track record, are ridiculously hyperbolic & come from a neighbourhood with a history of opposing initiatives to increase access to their neighbourhood from other parts of the city.
They are, in short, incomprehensible. NIMBYism at its worst.
Really Spartikus, NIBYISM? Funny as there is a complete cross section of people opposing this route – people from political stripes right accross the board including Vision that signed the petition at the rally.
As one woman said to me ‘ It is our fault, we have given them too much power’. Followed by ‘They won’t be getting my vote again.’
And if this park is so under attack by the NIMBY’s to protect it from outsiders, why was it listed as one of the top beaches to visit in Canada? Number three I believe.
Another mis-truth attempted spin.
I think you’ve confused and/or conflated NIMBYism with partisanism.
Nice anonymous post. I think you made your best point in the first paragraph – you don’t comprehend.
Take a little time and you might.
This bike path discussion is positive for cycling IMO. People are really starting to wake up on how hideous bike lane opponents are. What reasonable person would want to side with people complaining about a seaside bike path?
I also love how the bike path opponents say they support cycling. This discussion will improve the public’s awareness of cycling, expand bike culture and in the long run improve people’s perceptions about cycling.
You see, the discussion is no longer whether we should put a bike path, but where we should put it.
Remember it’s a vocal minority of people (mostly picnic table users) who oppose this path. And the vast majority of beach-goers support this initiative.
Kyle. Thanks for the completely unsupportable statements about who may or may not support this path. Picnic table users?! Really? And the ad hominen attack on the thoughtful people who are speaking up to save a century old park? Calm down and stop calling people names.
Perhaps you may want to think about how you may reconcile your desire for bike paths everywhere with the need to preserve park spaces that support multiple uses and don’t involve infrastructure that makes their use exclusive to one group.
I am a bike commuter, a supporter of the initiative to provide safe alternatives to getting around in our city by bike or by foot, and i do not support the proposed route and the 54,000 of asphalt it will lay down through the centre of the City’s most heavily used park space. It’s possible to have our bike paths and our parks too. It just takes a little imagination and an open mind.
It’s amazing that people are bogged down about a few metres of asphalt (myself included). There are significantly more important issues than this path to be worrying about such as broadway transit. I also want to emphasize that this is a healthy discussion that will increase attention among Vancouver citizens about cycling.
Sorry I said that bike path opponents are hideous. I meant to say that the arguments they use to oppose the bike path are hideous, if that makes them feel better. Again, it was picnic users who were the first to express outrage over white chalk, then a few basketball court users. It seems like bike lane opponents enjoy using the phrase “I’m an avid cyclist” to support their cause (recall Rob Macdonald?).
If I can sum up the main concerns from anti path advocates, they are 1) Replacing Green Space with asphalt and 2) Cost. They believe that there are other options (such as taking out parking on Arbutus are building a bike lane or putting white paint on Arbutus Street). But these arguments are extremely weak, and Vancouverites are starting to see through this bike lane bashing.
Did I use the word avid, or anything similar? Thought not. Nor did I mention cost. The weakest arguments Kyle, are ones that assume or misunderstand what they are arguing against. Did I mention a bike lane demarcated with just white paint? Again, no.
Bike lane bashing? Again, no Kyle. But the knee jerk bike lane proponents are getting a bit tiresome. This is about seeking a more thoughtful plan than the one proposed.
Quit erecting straw men. It does little to help your cause. You have the ability to be more constructive and respectful. Loving bikes doesn’t have to always come with such anger.
Picnic table users!? How dare they! Picnicking in a park, who do they think they are?
I’m tempted to take Gord’s comments as tongue-in-cheek satire, esp. the bit about removing the Stanley Park bike path and the NPA needing to apologize.
Kyle -“hideous”? Demonizing people who may disagree with you, what a refreshing way to engage in a civil discourse and to try and get others to agree with your point of view. You might want to try using such language in a public meeting and see where it gets you.
I’m not anti-bike. I’m a bike commuter and I petitioned heavily FOR the Point Grey bike lanes. But these proposed lanes are stupid and dangerous. Stupid, because they’re so close to the existing roadway that they may as well be on it. We can remove some parking spaces to save some park area. Dangerous, because it runs right through the children’s playground area where, news flash, children like to run around. Residents and visitors who park in the neighborhood will also have to cross this path to enter the playground and beach, and there is no plan to force bikes to stop at the Creelman intersection of the path. We have enough trouble getting cars to stop at the 3-way stop at that intersection.
Dangerous, because it runs right through the children’s playground area
This is an example of the hyperbole I was mentioning earlier. One, cyclists already use a path that takes them by the children’s play area.
The proposed path is actually much further away.
Cyclists are instructed to walk their bikes through the part of the path by the playground, which they mostly do now. Also that path is separated from the playground by rocks and other obstacles. The proposed path is right through a gently sloping grassy hill that my child and many other children love to run down. Also, as I mentioned, the path to the playground would cross this bike lane, so people with children will have to cross it twice going to and from the playground, and there are no plans that I have seen to make cyclists stop there.
To educate myself, I rode the paths today in both directions. From the foot of Whyte at the launch ramps. to Balsam, and back. I saw no signs to walk bikes. I am familiar with similar signs in Stanley Park used at busy times near the concessions, they are small sandwich boards, put out temporarily. Is that what they use at Kits?
Gordon Price was not at the debate yesterday, and so he reports on the line of someone else take.
Hi was and needless to say, I have heard differently:
I have heard pretty much what Jenn say by people against “paving the parks”
There is some obvious solution able to accommodate everyone, as Rico kindly mentioned:
https://voony.wordpress.com/2013/10/22/the-disturbing-bike-lane-trend-in-vancouver/
Richard believes it is not a big deal to move picnicker by 5 meters, and squeeze them between 2 paths (that is replace the bench in the above picture by a picknick table, and you get the idea! – a bike lane in the middle of a soccer filed is not a big deal too- It take only 3% of the field space ! that is the “pave the park” rethoric…!)… but when it come to a bike lane, 5 meters become an uncompromising deal…What is the problem?
As youcan see, Richard doesn’t answer to the Rico question and prefer to misrepresent the position of people disagreeing with him.
people in favor of paving the park said, to answer Jen question:
(and here I am quoting what Lisa Slakov, representing HUB, said yesterday:
“We are adamantly opposed to remove any street parking, or any road space to accommodate the bike lane…”
That is what I call the robfordisation of the Vancouver bike lobby, since both agree on the above point.
Just curious, Does Gordon price with that too?
“Hi was” should have read “I was”
and the last sentence should have read
“Just curious, Does Gordon Price agree with that too?”
I am Eager to get an answer on that….but in the mean time, I will let people mediate on this picture:
http://voony.wordpress.com/wp-admin/post.php?post=25610&action=edit
that is part of the the disturbing bike lane trend only seen in Vancouver
(other cities like NYC or Paris, have a transportation policy where bike lanes are never built at the expense of other sustainable transportation mode, and even less of park space…but by reallocation of space from car, something opposed by HUB in the case of the seaside greenway as seen yesterday)
error in the above link:
http://voony.files.wordpress.com/2013/10/bus22burrardpacific.jpg
sorry for all those multiple posts.
This path would not be for transportation purposes. You are missing the point entirely.
Agustin,
read this first, http://voony.wordpress.com/2013/10/16/the-bike-lane-vs-the-park/
and see who is missing the point.
I read your blog. As long as you are advocating on-street facilities as an alternative to a park path, you are conflating cycling for transportation and recreation.
It’s analogous to saying, why should we have any walking paths along Kits Beach when there’s a perfectly fine sidewalk on Cornwall?
(Though, to be honest – and I say this as an ESL person – I find your writing hard to follow at times, so I may have missed some nuance you’ve made. If so, I apologise, and request that you point it out to me.)
Wow, wasn’t aware that HUB had taken such an odd stance in this regard.
lol @ the limited age range of people who showed up in opposition.
@Greg: What you’re seeing is the demographics of Kits Point property owners. Absolutely no surprise to me.
Nobody wants to ride on Arbutus, bike path or not. The whole point of a seaside path is to be, shock, near the sea side where you can see, hear and smell the ocean.
I’m undecided whether such recreational cyclists need such a physically isolated path or whether simply widening the existing path wouldn’t be a better solution.
David, are you aware that your argument is one agaisnt the Park Board proposal?
The existing shared one, is effectively as close as to the sea it is possible.
the one proposed by the PB will be 100meters from the sealine along Arbutus…
and a mere ~5 meters away of the Arbutus street…
not sure how 105 meters instead of 100 meters will affect your olfactive and hearing senses, but pretty certain you will see the same sea, and the same mountains (may be even better due to the Arbutus elevation)
I saw 8 to over 80. Limited indeed. Where were the toddlers and centenarians?
If paved over bicycle paths are wrong, why do we allow basketball courts?
And don’t forget tennis courts.
The organizer of the Save Kits Beach walk through addressed that one straight on when asked. Right into the video camera. He said it is a completely different situation, because the basketball courts (which were repaved a few years back, as I understand it) were already there. It wasn’t a new use. Unlike bike paths, which he doesn’t appear to acknowledge exist in the park.
He also addressed why they can’t remove parking spaces, another example of pavement. He responded that he lives in West Van, and he drives to the basketball courts. His quote was along the lines of “it isn’t as if I can take the bus, I drive” He was a basketball player, and looked pretty able bodied to me.
We are in trouble as a society when basketball players can’t walk a couple of hundred metres from parking to the court.
For the most part, the Save Kits Beach folks have struck me as self-interested NIMBYs.
Funny, though, that the organizer of the walk-through couldn’t really be called a NIMBY, since it isn’t in his back yard!
However, as far a being self-interested is concerned, his response leads me to believe that my initial impression is pretty well-founded. Perhaps one could add “entitled” to that as well.
Personal attacks and name calling. Well done gents. Showing your true nature.
Nice spin Jeff.
Perhaps go back, re-watch the posted video of the walk through and post the correct information.
You version is ‘off’.
I call it as I see it, Adam.
A bunch of self-interested NIMBYs.
Histrionic, too.
Teri;
I’ll try a transcription.
In discussing the 23 parking spaces that can’t be taken out near the picnic site (same speaker all the way through):
“We’re basketball guys. We’ve got to park our cars”
“I’m not bringing a BBQ on a bus.”
(our guys…) “they’re not going on a bus, or riding on a bike, from the suburbs”
“I want a picnic. I’m not coming on the bus. No disrespect, my brother’s high up in Translink….”
In discussing the basketball courts, the point isn’t that they were just repaved. The point is that they are on space that would otherwise be grass. For the record, I am glad the basketball courts and tennis courts are there. And I am glad that those two organizations run them for 500 and 1000 participants each season. That’s great. But if the primary objective was to preserve green space, we would be taking back paved areas, not repaving them when they were due for maintenance. No, the courts weren’t additional encroachment a few years ago. But they occupy space. I could do another transcription, but maybe people should watch the video for themselves.
The basketball courts have been there for roughly 50 years.
Simple Colin. If a basketball court was 1.4 km long and bisected the entire park I suppose we’d think twice about that too.
And thousands of people of all ages day will use the bike path on nice summer days. It is 3% of the parks. I would expect only a fraction of that use the basketball court. The parking lot driveway already bisects the park near the area where the bike path will.
That is not an apt comparison. Not all bisections are created equal. The driveway bisects the park at its narrowest part, at a spot where the grass part of the park already ends for the tennis courts (so you could really argue that it doesn’t bisect the park at all, just shortens it). This path would bisect the park lengthwise along the entire length of the green part of the park, creating two smaller green ‘belts’ on either side.
Having lived and cycled in Kits Point for 8 years (but not an owner, not retired, definitely NOT rich and the mom of a small child), I don’t think this is the answer. The park will be way less enjoyable for everyone who actually uses it, not just rides through it, if the bike path goes through the middle of the green space.
Ah, I realize now that you meant the north driveway, but my point still stands that that is a bisection on the narrow side, not lengthwise through the whole park, and it leaves a very large area of green on one side so that there is sufficient ‘cushion’ for users to enjoy the green without getting too close to the driveway, and the other side has the basketball courts anyway. Though honestly I wouldn’t be sad to see that driveway and parking lot go altogether. Just because it’s there doesn’t mean park users like it.
That is B.S. Richard and you know it. First you and your group used the word ‘safety’ left, right and centre in order to push this – it was all about safety. Then when povided with a very doable alternative, it is no longer about safety, it is aout ‘the view’.
That 3% number you keep throwing up is roughly 5X the size of the current tennis courts located at the park. So how about being a bit more real in your arguement.
While we are at it, why don’t you disclose your associations with the cycling community and with Vision?
Perhaps your highly biased comments will be looked at a in a different light.
I’ve seen 54,000 sq ft mentioned. I think the 1.4 km length is about right from riding through it, and the width has been mentioned, so that works out. It isn’t a net encroachment of 54,000 sq ft, if you consider the areas that are being returned to natural state, unless someone has worked that out already.
The 10 tennis courts are around 60,000 sq ft.
I don’t know what the total park area is, so can’t comment on the 3%. But your comment about comparisons to tennis courts appears to be off by 6 times. Yes, let’s be real in our claims.
Richard. Shouldn’t you be revealing here that you are paid consultant who promotes bike use? In the tank as they say. It’s relevant, and this much is obvious by your consistent attempts to hide.
In fact weren’t all the speakers in favour of the paving project at Kits Beach at last night’s meeting in the industry? So not a single disinterested party – from a $ perspective – came out to speak in favour of this proposal?! That speaks volumes.
No all cyclists are ‘for’ this version of the bike lane”
A letter from Richard Wooley, Executive Director of Cycling BC.
http://www.scribd.com/doc/181663544/Richard-Wooles-Cycling-BC-letter-re-Kits-Beach-Cycle-Lanes-Nov-2nd-2013
Cycling BC is a racing organization, so it is not surprising they would prefer a route outside a park.
In a week in which Vancouver’s municipal spending since 2000 was exposed as well over the rate of inflation, perhaps its time to reconsider fripperies such as a nice view for cyclists. The expensive Cornwall route runs through the same area and provides a nuts and bolts transportation option. Insisting on an adjacent route solely for a pretty view, when Vancouver ratepayers are seeing tax bills climb above the core inflation rate is ridiculous. We might like to eat filet mignon everyday, that doesn’t mean we can afford to do so.
It costs $2mil to put in a left-turn light at an intersection. Will you call for a moratorium on those as well? Consistency, etc.
(You’re wrong on your assertion that spending has outpaced inflation as well. Govt expenditure as % of GDP is the proper metric).
This thread is kind of interesting,
we see basically half of the “pave the park” comment as being no more than mere insults.
That alas happens when people are unable to construct an argumentation.
When the other half try to put some arguments: it turn out that the setting below
http://voony.files.wordpress.com/2013/10/englishbay.jpg
is weak (Kyle), and only for commuter (agustin)…
We all undestand they, like many contributors here, believe putting a swath of asphalt in the middle of the grass on the right, could be a much better idea, but why exactly it is a better idea?
They still have to explain…
They like to point also at the basket court, but fail to propose where to put it if not in the park
(Note: it doesn’t fit on the street, like a bike path), and with which money…
But may be basket is a pasttime inferior to cycling, so why we should pay a dime to this obsolete pasttime going in the way of the bikes ? (adam also answered well on that)
When some agree to consider the option to reallocate the street. it is to come with some very bizarre ideas…agustin again:
*spend money to lay down some new asphalt 5m west of the existing one and spend more money to tear down the existing asphalt”!
When “pave the park” is the only option a group want to see, they are willing to all the contorsion to make their case…that is even impressive!
PS: by the way, the Monday meeting was called offically by the park board administration just before 4pm for a meeting at 7pm…and not clear how people got on the speaker list, because it was closed before the meeting was offcially called,..
so one will have to understand than in those conditions all people with a “normal” job was unable to attend/speak.
To be fair, even our beloved urban Guru Gordon Price has very weak arguments to justify his position, more than that, his is a Boomerang argument:
The comment below refer to the picture in this post which is just a hort connection between two setting he is despising (the one I link in my above comment):
http://pricetags.wordpress.com/2013/11/05/bike-paths-more-wrongs-that-must-be-righted/#comment-32630
….
Interesting point Voony. The Pave-The-Park element on this board don’t even want to hear any arguments in favour of a more considered route, don’t seem to understand that we’re arguing FOR a bike lane but with a more thoughtful routing and some exceptions to the 12 foot wide rule – after all it isn’t that wide elsewhere – and are prone to ad hominen attacks and name calling.
Can i characterize them as young men with a bit of anger? And self identified bike enthusiasts? Who are deliberately and dishonestly mixing up a community’s desire to protect a public park from ill-considered development, with the anti-bike lane lobby, that is admittedly loopy and loud.
“Can i characterize them as…”
No. What’s the point of that except to create a division between people?
Talk about ideas. Let’s see more constructive suggestions.
“When some agree to consider the option to reallocate the street. it is to come with some very bizarre ideas…agustin again:
*spend money to lay down some new asphalt 5m west of the existing one and spend more money to tear down the existing asphalt”!”
Come, now. You told me to read your blog; I read your blog. You clearly advocate for modifying our existing urban infrastructure. If that’s not spending money on new asphalt, and spending money to remove old asphalt, I don’t know what is. Let’s not be disingenuous here.
The opponents of the Kits Beach bike lane are full of ridiculous arguments, so it’s no surprise they’re being mocked. How do you seriously respond to allegations that a separated seawall section in Kits Beach will create a bike freeway that endangers children?
We already have a long stretches of separated seawall (as Gordon noted), and children are not being run over by bikes speeding by at 50 km/h. The recreational bike rides along the seawall are barely faster then a quick jog. If recreational cycling isn’t a proper use of park space, I’m not sure what is.
Ah, I see your point Adam and Voony.
As if on cue you’re answered by a name calling, angry, self-identifying biking vegan, young and male, who rudely dismisses the views of those seeking to preserve their chosen use of a public park.
Mr Vegan embodies a witheringly silly stereotype of the angry biking outsider, who feels the need to tell us he’s a vegan, and clearly takes his love for a mode of transportation and a recreational activity several steps too far.
Could it be that these people have become angry souls after trying in vain to convince others of the virtues of cycling (and veganism in this fellow’s case) only to be ignored and the world slip ever closer to a disaster that only they seem to be conscious of? I recall the angry, anti-social types from my school days; those who became so convinced of their own virtue and despondent at the ignorance and destruction they perceived around them. They lashed out, just as I see the hard-core doing now in arguing in favor of this wacky plan for Kits. We aren’t seeing rational people coming forward with constructive views, we’re seeing the manifestation of a lifetime of being ignored and the frustration that has caused these poor souls.
That’s a bit of a stretch!
Pointing out that many of the Save Kits Beach arguments are ridiculous is angry name-calling!?
Damn. You’ve uncovered my diabolical scheme to convert you to my puritan, anti-social, vegan, bike-riding, marathon-running lifestyle.
“How do you seriously respond to allegations that a separated seawall section in Kits Beach will create a bike freeway that endangers children?
by fencing the children area, has said the park board staff, which I guess is part of the people to be mocked by CanadianVeggie since they effectively take seriously arguments he believe are “ridiculous”,
May be he would like try another “rdiculous” argument?
What about:
“picnicker will enjoy all the sexy cyclists rolling by” (Richard Campbell on his blog)
or
“grass is expensive to maintain in $ and carbon costs” (Penny below) ?
If the parks board plans to pen in the kids I’ll mock that too. I’m an equal opportunity mocker.
http://former.vancouver.ca/parks/board/2013/131007/documents/Report_SeasideGreenwayImprovements-07-10-2013.pdf reads
“Phase 1 works include […] playground fence, s”
You can start to mock them now. don’t forget to let us know.
Voony, if you think that a low fence along a short section of the bike path, designed to keep bikes from cutting into the playground and kids from running into the path, defines that path as a freeway, then you are entitled to that opinion. But some of us may not share it.
If they change the fence to surround and thus pen in the kids, I promise to mock them too.
The original path proposal was alongside the current multi-use path. It was on all of those posters from the consultation phase (Jan to July?). The path appears to have been moved in the bid documents when they went out for design services (to actually design the path) to move it away from the high traffic pedestrian zone along the water near the restaurant and sandy beach. That makes sense to me. I don’t know exactly where the path should go. Maybe it should go back beside the waterfront path. However, one group seems to want it out of the park entirely, while another group is still talking about the moved path that was already a compromise (and perhaps a good one, perhaps not).
The documents you have linked are labelled preliminary and draft. I am not sure that you can point to a notation about a section of fence and use it to ascribe motives.
How about the pedestrian zone improvements planned for phase 2 and also shown on those drawings? What do you think of them? And please don’t call them a pedestrian freeway.
Jeff, you apparently didn’t read the document I have linked, it doesn’t content the word “preliminary” neither the word “draft” (according my pdf search)
The documents you mention (May and July) are for the Cornwall/point grey road, a different project putting the kits/hadden parks explicitly outside their scope (the route mentioned is the existing one, as we have already discussed this point before): please don’t mix up all things:
The document I have linked mention a “proposed path”, which became an approved one on October 7th. the final approved alignment is in this one:
http://former.vancouver.ca/fs/bid/bidopp/RFP/documents/Appendix1a-SeasideGreenwayAcceptedRoute.PDF
As the park board has refused to repeal the above RFP, all the exercise of discussing an alternative route is in fact useless, the advisory committee could have no more choice than choosing the color of the flower and bike rack.
The moved path is not a compromise. To have a compromise, you need at least two parties: what you see is an imposed solution discussed by noone: hardly a compromise.
the term “freeway” is not used by me. Above I quote someone else (i was thinking it was clear). when I use it like on my blog, it s only “tongue in cheek”. sorry if it is not understood like it,
the point, is that if you think the safety argument raised by proximity between the playground and the bike is “ridiculous”, then why we need a fence?…so ridiculous argument or not?
Voony:
Yes, I read it. The new link you provided has the same drawings. Pages 2, 3, and 4 are the ones that show the route. Those are the three pages that contain the phrase “accepted route”. Those are the drawings that say preliminary and draft on them, at the bottom. My clue to look for that was that the drawings weren’t signed in any of the approval boxes. Since the drawings are pictures, I am not sure that your text search will work there.
I called the moved path a compromise because it compromised one of the top three objectives from the six month consultation (access to waterfront) but it does improve safety for pedestrians, and appropriately prioritizes them, in my opinion. The compromise wasn’t between public groups as you suggest, it was between design objectives.
It has been no public consultation for this bike path…
even Vision commssioners don’t dare to pretend otherwise anymore.
(see here for the process http://voony.wordpress.com/2013/10/16/the-bike-lane-vs-the-park/ )
“Can i characterize them as young men with a bit of anger? And self identified bike enthusiasts?”
No you can’t.
Signed,
Pro Kits park separated bike path, pension collecting old lady, who choses bike/walk/transit transportation/recreation exclusively (for carbon rather than enthusiasm reasons). And I don’t belong to or get paid by any organisation. And I bike to Kits a lot. The current situation is dangerous for children, walkers and cyclists. Kudos to the PB for addressing it.
Ok Penny, but you haven’t made clear whether you think a more carefully choose route and design is desirable, as the public has been saying loud and clear, or if you support the proposed route? Even the Park Board has made clear they’re backing away from that, it was just a conception, and an advisory is being formed to guide the final design.
You note leaves it unclear if you hold a similar view to the angry young men, and could be interpreted that you are trying to characterize the opponents of the proposed route and design (we’ll put the Park Board in this camp as they’re the one calling for the formation of a Committee) as opposed to any route, which they’re clearly not.
If you support the idea of a path and want it to be the best possible for all park users, then you’re on the side of those who have raised a stink AND the park Board, who haven’t endorsed the proposed route either.
What you say?
“Ok Penny, but you haven’t made clear whether you think a more carefully choose route design is desirable..”
I can’t see anything wrong with the loss of a little grass (which is expensive to maintain in $ and carbon costs). We cut down trees in Stanley Park to make way for more cars with minimal complaint, and as has been pointed out here, the various sports courts and car park involved grass loss. It’s irrelevant when that was done.
I don’t bike the road, but might consider it when riding for transport purposes if parking was taken away and a proper safe separated bike track was put in. I find the road too narrow and dangerous right now, with drivers too concerned about finding cheap parking and looking at the view. I doubt that families with kids who I see cycling there all the time, would want to ride for pleasure if they couldn’t be close-ish to the ocean.
By separated bike track, I don’t mean one where the parking is moved over slightly so cyclists can avoid parallel moving traffic, but have to deal with kids on the passenger side swining doors open without looking and drivers who use the bike lane as extra parking (like on Richards St).
“I can’t see anything wrong with the loss of a little grass (which is expensive to maintain in $ and carbon costs). ” Penny.
Ok “Penny.” I see where you’re coming from, and respectfully disagree.
Just to throw another perspective into this discussion – cyclists often seem to be characterized as a slightly strange group of people who like to flaunt their ‘green and healthy lifestyle’ and denigrate non-cyclists for their lack of cool.
In reality I think many cyclists are those who have realized that, given what it costs to live in Vancouver, saving $6000 a year in after tax income by not running that (first or second) car is a startling easy way to save a lot of money. That $6000 ($500 a month) is equivalent to reducing the mortgage on your new 450 sf condo by about $80 000.
I think a point could be made that building a good cycling network is one of the most efficient and creative strategies to make Vancouver a more affordable city.