A scene from Jericho Beach Park, on the Seaside bike path.
.
.
[PT: Is the Park Board planning to upgrade and separate the bike path through Jericho Park now that the City has connected the cycle track along Point Grey Road to its edge? Or has it been scared off by the kerfuffle in Kits Point?
[A question to all Parks Board candidates: Are paved and separated bike routes appropriate for parks, and will you support them where needed?]
Don’t forget the Concrete divider!
Since a paved trail allows much faster cycling speed than a dirt trail (the reason why the bike lobby want a paved trail,.. and please no cobble stone or any surface slowing down bike, but good asphalt)…concrete divider is a must!o the knee, b
some runners could object to hard surface, hard o the knee, but hey, they can run somewhere else!
Hint to Parks Board candidate: in Cambridge UK, the cycling mecca of UK, parks look like this, …as in most of the urban park in fact, cycling is the exception not the rule
I got some formatting problem: including the link which is http://voony.files.wordpress.com/2014/08/cambridgenobikesignpark.jpg
I run the seawall a lot. In fact, I did a 11 km loop yesterday. I much prefer the sections that are paved and separated. I can focus on running and what’s in front of me, instead of looking over my shoulder. Sure, the gravel is a bit gentler on the knees, but a 1 km stretch doesn’t make much difference. If I want trails, I’ll go to the North Shore or UBC.
Most seawall cyclists are super slow. Paving doesn’t change that. I passed more cyclists yesterday than passed me. What the paving does do is provide access ability to wheelchairs, rollerbladers, and skateboarders. I’m all for it.
That illustrates my point:
“my personal preference is for A so all the city should be designed toward A at the expense of B, if people prefer B, they still can drive up to find it”
The essence of a city is the richness of diverse experiences, but some people are working against that. e.g. they believe the 100km+ of Vancouver waterfront should gather exclusively to a single activity, to be experienced in a single way at that.
The single way now includes even the surface treatment of the paths.
Not that dirt trails prevent cycling as illustrated in this post’s picture,neither they prevent accessibility: in fact you can see lot of wheelchair along dirt trails, and many could be looking at this experience (dirst trail have many advantage: not being on black top is one of them)…but well..some bike lobbyists seem to have decided otherwise.
case in point: dirt trails are less than idea for skating and rollerblading: should we pave all the Stanley park trails (most not accessible to wheelchair) to correct this weakness?
Some discussion / pictures re NW Marine drive would be useful as many cyclists continue up to UBC and most do not use the skinny sidewalk but the road. But the road too narrow and also is high speed for cars on the downhill. Perhaps a complete closure for cars or a one lane for cars only is in order or some for of separation of pedestrians, bikers and cars.
This road was recently repaved with ZERO consultation of residents, cyclists or pedestrians.
Perhaps all of Marine drive around UBC should be closed for through traffic, and allow bikes and pedestrians only.
Yeah, there’s a weird pinch point there at one spot. Nowhere to cycle on the road. A sign says to cycle on the walking path but there isn’t room there either. Odd since there’s really no other choice to get up to UBC until much further east at Highbury Street.
Exactly .. but this road in no man’s land, controlled by MetroVancouver or the Ministry of Transportation has no real oversight by citizens nor a local council to complain to or advocate for pedestrians or bikers. Who’s in charge here: Metrovan ? Parks Board ? UBC ? UEL ? Electroral Area A ? Vancouver ? Start writing letters, please !
Umm, maybe we’ve spent enough on the West side for this year. You’ve heard of East Van? Remarkable as it seems, it’s part of Vancouver too. Believe it or not, people live there, and walk and cycle as well. Just not on nice, closed roads and multi-million dollar bike paths.
The New Point Grey Road is far from closed. It is wide open for people on two feet, two wheels, three wheels and 4 wheels. Only commuting motorists have been slowed down and discouraged by traffic calming measures.
As to the East Side, and the claim that only PGR has ever been improved (which I refer to as “bashing the rich”), I suggest that you consider the following traffic calming efforts and cycling facilities built by the City of Vancouver:
Check out the New Powell St. between Hawks and Clark.
http://cypressdigital.zenfolio.com/p799143822
Check out Hawks from Union north.
Check out Union St east of Main
Check out Ontario St. from Seawall to Marine Drive
Check out the West End since the 1970’s
Plus the Central Valley Greenway east of Victoria, arguably the prototype for Point Grey Road.
Well, sure, let’s stretch Ontario to be “East Van”. I never thought the West End was in East Van, but if you say so. Union, Hawkes fine. Central Valley Greenway I’d argue is completely different, but I’ll let it go anyway.
Perhaps you’d like to spend some time cycling around the rest of East Van. You know, that part of the city you have to cross through to get to Richmond or south Burnaby…
Oh dear, The path in Jericho has been that way since they upgraded the park in about 1975 and its fine. The removal of the pier and the restoration of the beach is fantastic. They can and should leave it alone. If they pave it it will be too hot to walk on.
There is no question that the pathways for bikes in the parks should all be paved and separated from pedestrians either by a painted line (which works very well) or by having a separate path from pedestrians completely. Riding on gravel paths is hard on the bike and the rider, and if we are encouraging cycling as commuting, speed and convenience must be enhanced; further, riding in the middle of pedestrians is unquestionably dangerous for all. Now that Point Grey Road, at long last, is accessible for cyclists and pedestrians of all ages and abilities, the natural progression is for the same accessible route to be continued through Kits and Hadden Parks as well as along the beach from Kits Point to the False Creek Seawall. This is a no-brainer.
The Susan comment sums it very well the bike lobbyist viewpoint:
if we are encouraging cycling as commuting, speed and convenience must be enhanced
I and many agree with the above statement…but Susan and many bike lobbyists infer of he above statement that:
The Park board should violates its mandate to “preserve green space and provide recreational activities” to surrender to the commuter needs.
Commuter, speed… is not what most people could think make an attractive park: Susan and other bike lobbyist seem surprised that some people doesn’t share their enthousiast at paving the parks…and I am surprised they are.
The park board can accomodate cycling practiced primarly for recreational purpose- that involve biking at a leisury pace in parks: gravel trails help to achieve that and slow moving cyclists allow a better coexistence of cyclists and pedestrians (surface treatment is usally key to succesfull shared space: Europe discover that cobble stones have good effect at slowing bike to keep shared space sucessful).
There is also a parallel road called NW Marine Drive that could be made more commuter bike friendly.
I walk a lot from Jericgo to Spanish banks west .. And the bike traffic is bearable, slow enough and not too heavy. People that wish to go fast ( the Lycra crowd ) or commute usually already use the road or nearby 4th Ave. Another paved parallel path on the gravel road or beside it would endanger BBQ folks, dogs, walkers of all ages and is not a high priority, although it would be doable on the south side of the gravel path, at the expense of other users.