Cycling is very popular. A recent BCCC poll found that 70% of adults cycle at least once a year. Bicycle paths along water and through parks are attractive places to cycle with 66% saying such paths would encourage them to cycle more often. Separated paths are even more important for parents with children. A survey of people using the park, found that 42% of people cycle in the park and 93% thought that separated cycling and walking paths would be a good idea. The planned cycling path will only occupy around 3% of the total park space. As so many people cycle and walk in the park, this seems like a good use of this space.
Anyone who has cycled or walked along Kits Beach on a sunny summer day should realize that the current narrow shared path leaves much to be desired. Heading downhill from the Maritime Museum onto a path covered with sand dunes crowded with people more interested in looking at other people than lookout out for bikes can be quite dicy. Judging by the bicycles parked all over the place at Kits, many people already bike to the beach, pool, tennis courts and the basketball courts. The soon to be completed Seaside Greenway improvements west of Kits Beach will likely result in more people cycling on the Kits Beach path increasing conflicts if no action is taken.
With this in mind, the plans for the Seaside Greenway presented to the public earlier this year included bike paths through Kits Beach and Haddon Parks. After the parts of the Greenway on city streets were approved by council back in July, Park Board staff consulted the people using the parks on improvements for people walking and cycling. Not surprisingly, an overwhelming majority thought that separate paths for cycling and walking would improve safety.
Realizing that the path along the beach is very busy and a lot of people walk across it or stand and chat in it, the bike path was routed way from the beach, the basketball court and the playground to near Arbutus Street.
Some have suggested that people on bikes should use the road instead. While this might be fine for experienced adult cyclists, clearly this is not an good option for children and less experienced adults. In the summer, the roads near the beach are crowded with cars. Drivers are more focused on looking for parking or at the pretty people walking than children on bikes.
Separate bike paths along the water have been very successful in Vancouver at reducing conflicts between people cycling and walking including fifteen years ago along English Bay and Sunset Beach. Fifteen years from now, people will wonder what all the fuss was about.
Some opponents try to paint this bike path as a high-speed highway where speeding cyclists will endanger other park users. The reality is that the path will be mostly used by residents and visitors cycling responsibly with their families enjoying the spectacular scenery. The vast majority of people on bikes are careful not wanting risk injury to themselves or other people. Those who want to ride fast will continue to ride on the road. Yes, like with any form of transportation, a few people on bikes behave recklessly but it really unfair to punish everyone else on bikes for the actions of a few.
There are bike paths in parks around Vancouver and the world that pass by playgrounds and picnic areas without any major safety issues that I am aware of. The path will be further away from the playground than the current path that cycling is allowed on. It is hard to see how this path in anyway will endanger children or anyone else in the park.
The bike path will also take the long route around the hill creating a more gradual downhill slope helping to minimizing the speed of bicycles further improving safety for everyone.
Fortunately, on October 7, Park Board approved the bike path and pedestrian improvement to Kitsilano and Haddon Parks. Commissioners Constance Barnes, Sarah Blyth Aaron Jasper and Trevor Loke voted in favour of the bike path. Commissioners John Coupar and Melissa De Genova voted against the bike path. Commissioner Niki Sharma was not present.
Take Action
A good idea to send a quick thank you to Park Board, PBcommissioners@vancouver.ca in support of the cycling and walking improvements in Kitsilano and Haddon Parks.
More Info
Seaside Greenway Improvements – Park Board Report
In the Media
Park board chair says bike path painted at Kits Beach is made up | Georgia Straight
Bike lane at Kits Beach won’t destroy the world | Georgia Straight
Kits bike path route not yet finalized – Commissioner says path might be tweaked
Park board chair responds to Kitsilano Beach Park bike path controversy | Georgia Straight
Pete McMartin: Over-the-top reaction to Kitsilano bike lane marks disturbing trend
SEEN IN VANCOUVER #471 | Bike Lanes, Or The Fascist Nightmare Destroying Kitsilano : Scout Magazine
Kudos and Kvetches: Kits Bike Lanes and Other Important Complaints
POLL: Do you support the new bike and pedestrian path linking Hadden and Kits Beach parks?
Over the Top Anti-Bike Rhetoric Done Well
Taking two-wheeled demons and the hellions who ride them to task – Blogs – Vancouver Courier
The Classic! Video – Death by Bicycle — Dorothy Rabinowitz on New York City’s new bike-share program
“Anyone who has cycled … along Kits Beach on a sunny summer day should realize that the current narrow shared path leaves much to be desired.”
That’s because bikes are not allowed on that path. It is clearly marked on the pavement. It is a pedestrian-only path. Bikes belong on the road.
Bikes are allowed on the path from the Maritime Museum along Kits Beach passed the Boathouse. Look at the City’s bike map: https://vancouver.ca/files/cov/map-cycling-vancouver.pdf
Again, I am afraid Oscar Brain is right:
on busy day, cyclist are not allowed along Kits Beach
(the park install temporary sign: cyclist must dismount)…
Richard, you should know better your topic…
That is rather splitting hairs. The dismount sign is only in front of the Boathouse on certain days and the fact that there is the dismount sign is a sign that the current path is not adequate and that improvements are not needed.
I should also add that the map you link to is wrong. Iif you use it, (coming from Vanier park) you will find a huge staircase to be able to join Hadden/Kits park (you need to take another trail not following the shore west of Chesnut, that is not what the map say).
You will also notice that this map presents knight bridge as a cycle track of the same class as the one on the seawall:
Are you encouraging people to bring their toddler here:
http://voony.wordpress.com/2013/05/28/cycling-on-knight-bridge/
this map is basically useless…
Anyone with common sense would recognize that the Knight Street Bridge, is a bridge containing heavy traffic. Even by the time you get close to the Knight Street Bridge, the traffic already seems heavy.
People shouldn’t follow maps blindly without looking at their surroundings. Maps are a guide, use common sense. Don’t fish for things to argue about.
Joe Doe and his family are on their first ski trip…decide to ride the easy trail in green on the map…
it turn out the trail end on a double black diamond gully mentioned green on the map…they can’t ski that, so have to call the ski patroller RobMac
“you shouldn’t have follow the map, you should have look at the surrounding…didn’t you see it is full of mountains there?”
…bottom line, RobMac confirms that the cyclemap is useless…
..
…
Excellent response Richard. I hope all pedestrians, cyclists and motorists write in to support these much needed and wanted changes. A letter expressing thanks for the leadership shown would help. Kudos to Pete McMartin for hitting the common sense nail on the head.
“Some have suggested that people on bikes should use the road instead. While this might be fine for experienced adult cyclists, clearly this is not an good option for children and less experienced adults.”
Yes, ban parking on Cornwall between Chestnut and Balsam in both directions, and turn that space into a cycletrack. The only time I was ever hit by a driver was on Cornwall and Yew. It is very dangerous because drivers are allowed to dominate that space. Taking space away from divers is far preferable than taking space from the park. Do not pave any more of that park for any reason.
Cycle tracks along Cornwall are badly needed would be great. There would be an uproar over removing the parking. Worth suggesting it to council. They do need to connect Kits Beach and the Seaside Greenway to Burrard Bridge. However, they would not solve the issues along Kits Beach.
Richard,
I understand your, somewhat naive, enthousiast at any new bike lanes, but, that shouldn’t prevent you to recognize unconstructive solution when you see one:
First,
If you believe that the kitsilano-hadden bike path ailgnement , as presented in your post, has been presented to the public earlier this year : You would like provide the link to that.
Second
You mention English Bay and Sunset Beach
Not sure, if you have noticed, but at the exception of a food stand, the bike path at sunset beach shares the same pavement as the pedestrian one (with a raiser), so minimizing their footprint and “dead space” in the park…it is what has been somewhat presented earlier this year in the Point Grey-Cornwall consultation
If you have ever ventured to English bay, you could have noticed that the bike path is on the road, not in the middle of the park (it is in fact on th street RIW, and not in the park itself) …and beach Ave is otherwise more busy than Arbutus… Why not do the same at Kits and Hadden park?
I am sure you know such solution could have been on the table. Alas, you prefer misrepresent the facts, rather than to try to take a constructive approach, which can be benefital to all parties, and more generally the cause you represent.
Richard, We know each other and I know you worth better than that.
In case of, here some keys.
http://voony.wordpress.com/2013/10/16/the-bike-lane-vs-the-park/
Huh? Did you actually look at the map? Anyway, please look at it closely. The route really seems to be following your ideas. It is next to the ped path by the Maritime Museum then runs close to Arbutus then runs close to the ped path by the tennis courts then close to Cornwall. It can’t be closer without taking out trees.
Like at Sunset Beach, some of a parking lot is reallocated to lessen impact on grassy areas.
Oh, and no reason to be insulting. If that happens again, I will delete the comment. Stick to commenting on ideas.
What you see on the map I don’t?
There is no way the bike path can be next to the ped path by the maritime museum without taking out mature trees.
The map you show in your post is hidding that by not providing a level of detail decent enough.
And of course, the cycle path can be closer to Arbutus: it can be right on Arbutus (like it is on Beach Ave at ENglish Bay):
There is no tree on Arbutus, only parked car to remove…
Same for Odgen (Cornwall is another story):
http://voony.wordpress.com/2013/10/16/the-bike-lane-vs-the-park/
Don’t take it for an insult: (not sure where you have seen one)…but have you already been there?
RC writes…..”Realizing that the path along the beach is very busy and a lot of the bike path was routed way from the beach, the basketball court and the playground to near Arbutus Street.” Does a dozen feet count as “routed away?”. And isn’t it now routed right through a busy green space?
Richard. It would be a pleasure to take you for a little tour of the park and show you the alternative route, and get you onside so that we can have our safe bike route and our park. Any time.
Adam Smith
I was just down there today. Both the map and the white lines someone painted indicate that the path is really not that close to the basketball court. I really don’t see what the problem would be.
The bike path will also take the long route around the hill creating a more gradual downhill slope helping to minimizing the speed of bicycles further improving safety for everyone.
The bike path could be moved further away from the basketball court if the entire parking lot was eliminated. Five or six spaces could then be provided at the entrance. This would increase the useable green space in the park.
Worth also to notice that to make the bike route safe, the playground beside the basketball court, will be fenced…
just think twice about that, and what are our values?
Serious? The swings are right next to a parking lot and a fence doesn’t seem to be needed. Why on earth would a fence be required for a bike path nearby. Cars are far more dangerous to everyone than bikes. All this nonsense is rather tiresome.
You also conveniently forget that children like to ride bicycles in parks on paths just like the one being proposed. What does the opposition to the bike path say about our values?
that is what read the park board report…you should ask them why.
What does the opposition to the bike path in the park say about our values?
it says that people cherish green lawn more than bike lanes.
It also says that between the both options
*either to lose park space + parking space in the park
or
*only lose street parking space (in area where there is no retail activities)
The later is better…
See, I answer your question, and your self what you value more?
…on street parking or park space?
Come down on your bike. We can ride the route I do everyday. On quiet, traffic calmed streets, meters from the proposed route that many see as destructive of green space, disruptive of other uses in the park, and unnecessarily expensive.
Those roads are not so quiet on a summer day. They are filled with cars looking for parking. Certainly not a safe place for children to cycle. To make them attractive and safe for children, traffic levels need to be only 500 vehicles per day which would require major traffic calming. The other option would be to strip the parking to create separated bike lanes. I expect that would not be popular either.
No, some people would not be happy about removing the street parking, BUT at least it is an OPTION that we ( save the park advocates) would prefer over destroying the park. This is called: Compromise.
The other option would be to strip the parking to create separated bike lanes.
Reason come to preval…
I expect that would not be popular either.
How you can know if you don’t ask?
So now, we have the 2 options:for a bike lanes:
*either to lose park space + parking space in the park
or
*only lose street parking space (in area where there is no retail activities)
May you tell us, in all honesty, from the depth of your herat, which one is the best?
I am a cyclist and avoid high traffic areas; I have never had a problem cycling in the Hadden Park/kits beach area either on the road or on the path already there. If you think the path is too crowded to cycle use the road. It is not rocket science. Hadden Park is an OFF LEASH dog park and it is also narrow. It is just piggish to push a paved bike lane through that park when Ogden Street has to be about the quietest traffic street in the entire city. I live on 10th avenue…this is a designated cycle route and cyclists use the road all the time.
The off leash area is by the beach, no where near the path. Bicycles are already on the path which is too narrow. Cycling is one of the most popular recreational activities in Parks. I have no idea why you think it is OK to have paved parking lots, tennis courts, basketball counts, pedestrian paths, etc. but have a huge problem with a bike path. It just is not fair to deny the many people who want to cycling in the parks a safe path.
I’ve cycled along the water for years in Haddon Park and it has never once occurred to me to use Ogden and judging by the bike track worn in the grass, this is the case as well for the vast majority of people on bikes.
People are cycling along the Seaside because they want to be close to the ocean. Attempted to divert them away on a unobviously road will obviously not work.
One option would be to narrow Ogden to increase the amount of green space.
Richard, when people walk along the Kits Beach promenade they do so to enjoy the view and chat with friends, whereas some cyclists are in a rush to get through the promenade as quickly as possible and everyone else better get out of their way or else. And a few cyclists have a complete lack of respect for others, as proven by the speed demons who ignore the red light at Cornwall & Yew and try to run down pedestrians crossing Cornwall on the walk signal. Now twist my words, Richard, so you come across as reasonable and I’m the zealot.
Well, in the first part of your message, you perfectly illustrated why a separate bike path is needed. It will enable people walking and biking to enjoy Kits Beach more.
The second part is totally not relevant. Yes, there are some on bikes ( and some in cars) that don’t obey the rules. It would be totally unfair to punish all the others that do follow the rules by using this as an excuse not to build a separated bike path if that is actually the argument you are trying to make.
Well, the claim that the bike path is going to really negatively affect the park is ridiculous. Bike paths have been built in parks all around the city, region and world. The reality is that, like in other parks, it will improve the experience of the park for many people, not just those on bikes.
When I bike along the seawall and area, I do so to enjoy the view and chat with friends. If I wanted to move quickly, I wouldn’t be on the seawall or promenade.
I am a Kits beach user and a cyclist and I care about both activities. I’m also a driver, by the way, and sometimes I need to park at Kits Beach, so I care about that too. Yes, I am a multi faceted beach user! The sense I get from your post, Richard, is that your view is only concerned with one thing and it doesn’t matter to you if the use of the beach is compromised for people who care to use it in different ways. You would happily remove any and all parking and any green space necessary to serve your desire for bike paths above all else. Your only proviso is that “it probably wouldn’t fly”, but not mention about it actually being a bad thing to do. I like bike paths very much, but I have a broader perspective and it would serve your cause better if you showed a little more appreciation for the needs of the other users of the beach instead of having this mono agenda.
I have cycled at Kits Beach during the busiest and most crowded summer days and have never had an issue ever. I’ve never seen anyone get hurt or seen a pedestrian get run over by a cyclist. The adjacent streets are hardly busy, even in peak summer and they provide an entirely safe and viable option to ride in the area, mere feet from the proposed bike route. To suggest that these quiet residential streets are to busy to safely cycle on is, well, I’m sorry, but quite absurd.
What cannot be denied is that cyclists riding along the proposed path would create a hazard for all beach goers who have to cross it to get to the grass and beach. Cyclists would be going fast enough to hurt someone, or to get in the way when a ball or frisbee bounces into it. It’s a play area, so this bound to happen. Sharing the path by the beach minimizes this because it is multi use and cyclists are going slowly and carefully in consideration of this and also to enjoy the view, which the proposed cycle path would not afford in the same way. I, for one, prefer the view from the existing, shared path.
Further, why is the path 12′ wide? That seems strangely large and excessive. Why should we spend $2.2 million on something that really does not need fixing at all. Cycling around Kits Beach as it is, is a joy. No issues at all for me or anyone I know who has done it, so why are we looking to spend all this money on something which hardly needs doing at all? I would say, does not need doing at all.
And finally, why is the destruction of parking spaces and parking on the road an option you have no issue with? Don’t you realise that people come to enjoy Kits Beach from different places and to get there, they need to be able to park? What about people who come with BBQ’s and chairs, or older people who don’t cycle? Do you just not care about their access to the park? It really seems so.
I wish this discussion could be framed by people who care jointly about the many ways people use the park instead of it being a case of lobbying for one, single type of user at the expense of others.
I fully agree with everything in the article. The current path through Kits Beach is a gap in the seawall cycling route, especially in the summer, and a separated bike path would close that gap.
What’s bothering me is how few people who are opposed to this are able to frame their arguments in a coherent and neutral tone, without hyperbole, poisoning the well, or other tricks of the dishonest politician. It’s incredibly counter-productive to any good faith attempts to find compromise on these issues, and results in poor outcomes and a lot of unnecessary anger.
A good counter-example to this is Duane Nickull, whose conservative politics I largely disagree with, but whom I deeply respect for the calm and rational way in which he presents them. We would all be better off if those arguing against bike lanes could follow his example.
Funny, I find exactly the opposite. Opponents to the bike path include avid cyclists and users of all stripes. People in favour of the path seem to keep trying to make vast generalizations about NIMBYism, NPA conspiracy or anti asphalt. All of which is totally untrue.
Can you please explain any example of where you have found incoherence in the opposing views? If you have a link to Duane Nickull’s views, I would be interested to read it.
Interestingly, speaking of conservative politicians, there were some very articulate speeches by NPA members at yesterdays anti bike path rally. I’ve never voted NPA, but I was impressed here.
Well if you want incoherent and dishonest speech on the anti side then go no further than the phrase “bike highway” which most of the anti talking heads manage to spout any time a mic or camera are near them David. I would go even further and say that complaining that what is the norm on the North side of False Creek, in terms of separated lanes, has no place on the South end is also ridiculous. The antis who clearly have no idea where the existing shared route runs are also incoherent.
Andy, your assumptions are baseless. I am a cyclist and I am well aware of the bike lanes and have enjoyed them all over the city. The proposal in Kits is somewhat different because of the issues already raised. I have not heard the term “bike highway”, but if it’s been uttered, so what? You can be sure there are voices on both sides of the debate that might use a questionable phrase. To focus on that is just skirting the real issue which is genuine concern about the appropriateness of this particular bike path in this particular location, not to mention the lack of community consultation or information about the planned path, which zero. The beach survey did not explain the plan at all and only mentioned the question of a desire for a separate bike path. Many of the respondents may, in fact, have been voicing an anti bike sentiment by wanting the bikes elsewhere, so these are not necessarily your supporters.
Furthermore, I was at the meeting on Sunday. Were you? Did you hear the speakers articulating their concerns? The people who run events like Kitsfest, or the guy who helped redo the basketball courts and the tennis courts? These are not the people you conjure up in your mind, but people with a fair minded and genuine concern about this particular path’s appropriateness. It has nothing to do with “the south”. We all enjoy bike lanes, of which there are plenty. Please give these people a little more respect and stop treating this issue as a kind of witch hunt against decent people with genuine concerns. None of us are against bike paths. Most of us use them frequently. Can you understand that this is not a black and white issue?
Andy Ferris: “Do I dare bother to look at the latest crap spewed by over-entitled Kits residents on Place Speak?”. Very telling Andy, and yet you have the nerve to criticize the language of the people against the Kits Bike path. Look in the mirror, my friend.
Aw you read my twitter feed David so at least link to it. And Spice Lucks was up to her old anti-cycling tricks on PS as if it was still Pt. Grey Road. I just gave you examples of incoherence and sure the real issue(s) are being clouded by both sides. I only care about the one side that talks of “highways”, fakes chalk lines, and discounts the issues with the existing route while being largely myopic about the larger cycling network. Just look at Marion Ambler below who’s espousing just that latter part or even yourself with the idea that there are plenty of bike lanes. I’m also well aware the anti side is full of (male) cyclists who seem to think that if they can ride in traffic in the summer then that’s all that’s needed.
Wonder why I’m not seeing this on the WordPress website, or do I just reply by email?
Dear Bike Lobby…It seems that you don’t actually care about the rights of others. There’s no moral high ground in your position even if you think its being really really GREEN. I assume none of you EVER need to drive a car or take your Mother to the beach for a picnic in the grassy area under the trees. Its just Bike Lanes “uber alles” and not much else . Caring about community means just that…acknowledging the rights and safety of other users of the park as well as your own desire to bike through it. Most of the people at the meeting yesterday actually care about you as well as aged people having picnics, kids in the playground, basketball players and people without back yards who have to drive across the city to use a much loved park for a family gathering. . It belongs to all of us. The nastier and more self -involved your rhetoric gets..the less people are inclined to support new and better bike lanes. Just remember that one day you might be older and want to picnic in one of the loveliest little wooded spots in Vancouver..and you will thank us for saving it for you.
Kitsilano is filled with a lot more than “over-entitled” residents. Get a grip. Get off your egos and realize that it is because of lack of compromise that all things fall apart.
I think the new path through the diminished grass area of Kits beach is ludicrous. I visit that park many times a week, sometimes to just walk through and other times to enjoy the remaining serenity and community area of Kits. If you have seen it on a hot summer day, it is packed with people…People on the grass. I don’t see bikers as people who aren’t watching for others but why should this paved bike path take up so much of the park when it could easily be run on the south side along Cornwall where there is already a path that could be upgraded. I wish arrogance was left out of this equation, that people could not be such haters. And how many of you can afford to buy your own home in this part of town, Yaletown or anywhere around this city. The park is our mecca.
“Bicycle paths along water and through parks are attractive places to cycle with 66% saying such paths would encourage them to cycle more often. Separated paths are even more important for parents with children.”
……you realize we already have a scenic 22 km (13 mile) seawall that goes around and through Stanley Park, past English Bay and follows the water for 13 miles?
This small area through Hadden Park and Kits would provide about 5 minutes worth of cycling. I cannot believe this short path would make the difference in the number of people cycling or their enjoyment of cycling.
Walking and playing in parks is also great exercise and parks provide one of the few places in the city to get away and RELAX, wind down, smell the roses. There is no good reason to remove limited greenspace to provide a few minutes of cycling for someone passing through. It’s just selfish.
Well said. The other obvious point is that there are very quiet residential streets right there. Even in the summer, it’s really easy to cycle and barely pass a moving car until you get to the big parking lot where you can turn off before and join the existing cycle path. Demanding and fighting for this small bit of cycle lane at the expense of the non-cycling users of the park is, as Marion says, just selfish. Get some perspective and go fight for some really important issues instead of a bike path that will mean so little to cyclists in the over all scheme of things, but mean a lot to beach and park goers.
“Heading downhill from the Maritime Museum onto a path covered with sand dunes crowded with people more interested in looking at other people than lookout out for bikes can be quite dicy. ”
….you do realize Kits Beach is a beach don’t you? When did people start expecting to bicycle on a very popular beach? This is about a 5 minute cycle through Hadden Park and Kits and you could easily avoid it if it was such a huge issue and stick to the 13 mile seawall.
If you want try to understand why Richard doesn’t answer questions and is insisting to bisect a narrow and crowded park, when perfect alternatives, still offering a seaside experience to the cyclists, are able to satisfy all parties,
An answer (describing in a bit of detail the alternative option which has been hidden to the public) is given here:
http://voony.wordpress.com/2013/10/22/the-disturbing-bike-lane-trend-in-vancouver/
Well, for one, cut the nonsensical divisive rhetoric. The bringing of Rob Ford into this is ridiculous. Typically, such rhetoric is used when people don’t have much of a legitimate point.
Now, on to your proposal. At first glance, it looks more dangerous than the planned route. The big difference between this and Beach by English Bay is on street parking. It is less than ideal having the lane right next to the parking with everyone and there dog exiting their cars with all their picnic stuff right next to the bike path. Obviously, in many places in the city, there is not the space for a buffer between ped and bike paths but where there is, it is a great idea to include them. The proposed route has some space between the two which will improve safety.
The hill is also steeper along the street meaning that bike speed will be higher.
With no greenery between the road, sidewalk and the bike path, it will be a huge mass of asphalt and pavement.
Also, there are trees near the sidewalk whose roots could be damaged. Not too sure about this but you need to take that into account.
Great you like the proposal, and you raise very valid points, showing details need to be worked out:
Safety
a buffer between ped and bike paths: great idea!
Does it need to use 10% of the park wdth?…probably not, does some planters or other streer furnishing, could do the job?probably yes
Does the described problem is severe enough to grant that? may be
you will have also recognized, that the bike path along the street benefit of eye on the street and street lighting, adding additional safety layers…the narrowed Arbutus, makes it safer to cross for pedestrian…(the one way direction ahs been choosen ito not impede access by emergency vehicle)…so overall you have a very safe proposal.
In the meantimes, the park board solution introduce lot of safety issue, with no plan layed out to fix it, example: http://voony.files.wordpress.com/2013/10/boathouseservicearea.jpg
Environment
concerns for the tree roots: the proposal occurs on an already paved area (so the reduction of Arbutus to one lane).
Not only the paved area is not increased, but it will look smaller/more friendly, since more area is devoted to non motorized transportation mode.
Physical
I am not sure the hill at (MacNicoll) is steeper than the one on the path chosen by the park board (topography map suggest it is about the same), What is sure, there is 30% less elevation change between the foot of Arbutus/MacNicoll and Hadden park, than between the North parking lot and Hadden park…making a route following Arbutus less stenuous for casual cyclists going uphill, and providing less opportunity to gain speed downhill…
In any case, cuting corner (at MacNicoll and Maple) to intrude in the park, should be certainly discussed.
What all that demonstrates is that alternative solutions less damaging for the park space exist and a public consultation is a necessary step to get the things built right.
I will be glad to be proven wrong on the robfordisation of he bike lobby
Can’t say I like it. It is not clear what route you are proposing outside the area on your map. If it continues south past the tennis court on Arbutus it would be a rather miserable route that few would use. Parked cars, the ugly tennis court. Then there are the safe problems with the parking lot driveways.
Not sure what your point is with the photo of the Boathouse driveway. Either people on bikes deal with parked trucks or in your proposal, they risk getting hit by a truck turning into the driveway. Your proposal is more dangerous.
If further north you are proposing a path along Ogden and Arbutus, I’m not sure what the point would be. I checked it out today because I had never been along it before. It is really not that attractive. Even if a path was built there, most people including myself, would still cycling along the existing path. I’m afraid if this is what you are proposing, it would be an expensive path that few would use leaving the existing conflicts and safety problems along the existing path.
You just had to stick that last comment in. It served no purpose at all except to distract from your comment. Getting better though. You do what you want on your blog but please don’t bother with that nonsense here.
I am baffled by your notion of a “miserable” route. I already cycle on Arbutus and the surrounding streets and find it a perfectly lovely and tranquil ride. If you want every single inch of your bike journey to feature a sea to sky view, well, sorry, but that’s really a rather silly demand at the expense of the issues people are raising about the paving of the park area. Keep some perspective. The bike route is, for the most part, stunning. So about 3 or 4 minutes of cycling is on a road where you have to “suffer” a set back view of mountains and ocean. Oh my god, the misery! Honestly, the argument sounds, with due respect, so entitled that I can’t even believe it. Are cyclists really that precious? Not me, anyway.
That is a really nonsensical argument. By your logic, everyone that wants to be walk, picnic, play tennis, volleyball is also entitled (to be clear, I don’t think they are). Nor would I ever call someone else entitled or a group of people. The park is big enough to allow everyone, including those on bikes enjoy the view.
The claims that the path distracts from the other activities is just not borne out on parks around Vancouver and around the world. In many, bikes pass close to picnic areas and play grounds and it is not a problem at all.
Try and be open minded on this. I suspect you enjoy the bike paths in other parks near where others live.
Lastly, please don’t use rhetoric and attacks. You are not going to convince me or anyone else of your position that way.
Sorry, not meaning to sound like I am attacking any more than the tone of the opposing views. I am being honest when I say that I am baffled by the notion that the stunning view from Arbutus is somehow a miserable route. That really does stagger me.
Bike path opponents are repeatedly characterized as entitled, nimby, rich people with nothing better to do. It’s oft repeated and it’s offensive and baseless. So when I read you stating these views, I am inclined to counter as regards entitlement. There is, unfortunately, a history to the way that bike path supporters try to dismiss the opposition with these patronizing and insulting statements. If that’s not you, great. Say so. Disassociate yourself with people like Douglas Haddow who calls opponents Fascists and writes on the Scout website, “I see a protest group comprised primarily of well-heeled, silver-haired white people, I get the feeling that they are only out to chase people off their collective lawns, rather than, you know, actually doing something constructive with their spare time.”
Because to me, that’s offensive and disgusting, so if you are concerned about rhetoric and attacks, then it would be useful for you to take a stand against articles like that one and the person who wrote it. Tell me how you feel about it and then we can look to have mutual respect for each other on this subject. I mean, since you raise the subject of rhetoric and attacks.
As regards a tennis player being entitled, no. They would be if, despite having a stunning new tennis court, they complained that it should have been built with a slightly better view of the beach. That would be entitled and similar to the cycle path on Arbutus being considered a dismal view.
Arbutus from the tennis courts south is rather miserable especially compared to being along the current path. And there are all the driveways. I’m not sure if you or voony are proposing that section of Arbutus.
Maple and Mcnicoll is not very interesting either by the park. Not much of a view. The hill blocks most of it. Not even a sidewalk on the park side. I suspect because no one really finds it interesting to walk along either. Rather a dead zone. Not sure why anyone would want to cycle along there when the path near the ocean has the great views and people to look at.
Knowing what people like to do walking or cycling, it would be really not realistic to expect people on bikes to use a path along these two streets. Thus, why build a path there. It will likely not solve the conflicts and safety issues on the current path.
It is convenient to believe that people will behave differently than you want them to but that will not lead to solutions.
Oh, and regarding the attacks in Scout, people associated with the efforts to stop the path chose to set the tone of the discussion at that level so don’t be surprised when people turn the tables.
The way forward would be for people such as yourself, publicly denounce the attacks, the over the top rhetoric and the misinformation efforts such as the white lines. That would bring the focus back to your core issues that are getting lost in the nonsense.
Another example, on Scout, one person claimed that the path would cover a seventh of the parks. I did some quick calculations and found it was 3%. I encourage you to double check my numbers as well.
May be you are not driving, but, a rear backing truck creates much more hazard that a truck moving forward (the truck is rear backing in the picture)…that is the reason they need to “beep-beep”…even with radar/rear camera, it creates lot of blind spot… child could be not aware of…(many adult aren’t, it is the first cause of bike accident in Paris)
interaction with slow forward moving vehicle is way much safer…people need to be seriously misinformed or dishonest to pretend otherwise.
A concerning point is you quibble on a safety buffer between ped/bike in my proposal, but seems to refuse to see much greater unfixed problem in the park board proposal..
What I shown is a starting idea…
On the rest of the route outside what I shown, let’s open the discussion:
As I have mentioned in my blog, I prefer a route following Arbutus up to Cornwall for connectivity reason…that said, if people are Ok to deal with trucks conflict and keep conflict between cyclist and pedestrian at the south side of the boat house, as in the current proposal…why not?
on Ogden, I guess you are different from most of other cyclists:
http://voony.files.wordpress.com/2013/10/chestnutatvanier.jpg
(caption in my latest post)
Most seems to be more like David Fine in fact…
I could also refer to your own past post on the Point Grey road…where you have posted many great picture from the road not the shore line…Ogden Ave offer same view
Why, suddenly it could be not attractive anymore?
Do you means all the controversy to create a bike lane on Point Grey was useless becasue anyway, it is really not attractive to cycle there? who is talking nonsense?
Only few trucks per day going to boat house. Hundreds of cars per day using parking lots. Plus, truck drivers can be trained to watch for cyclists as they use the driveway over and over again. The drivers on the other hand…
I was confused on the streets. Yes, Ogden has a nice view. Not as nice as the current path though. However, with really no conflicts with people using the path and not many people using the grassy area, there is really no good reason not to have the bike path next to the current one.
It is Maple and Mcnicoll that are not interesting. They didn’t even bother putting a sidewalk on the park side because, I suspect, no one really wants to go there on foot. So why would a person on a bike want to go there and miss the great views and the people watching.
The park is not big enough to accomodate everyone…it is barely big enough to play soccer (it will be not possible at all with the bike lane proposal), and many activities are already forbidden, like kiteboarding….so it is also natural to ask a minimum of compromising from the cycling lobby…
On the junction between Kits and Hadden park:
One should weight the benefits of a brief moment of extra scenery for cyclists against the costs of eliminating prime space for picnickers, and constructing a longer and convoluted route
I think we can work on that in a open manner, even with the ” mob of retirees loitering outside the Boathouse” with “obsolete pastime like picnicking” ,using an “over the top rhetoric” as endorsed description by Park board commissioner Barnes of people opposing her position.
Is it really too much to ask?
You need to understand that cycling is a very popular active that the large majority (70%) of people do at least once a year. Around 18% cycle on a regular basis (walking is highest at 45%). Racket sports (which includes tennis) is at 4%, Soccer isn’t even on the charts. The bike path would occupy 3% of the parks. Seems reasonable for an activity that almost everyone enjoys.
http://former.vancouver.ca/parks/activecommunity/pdf/IpsosReid2009FitnessStudy.pdf
And enough of the nonsense about the picnickers. A few may have to move maybe 3 or 5 metres. It is not going to affect their enjoyment at all. They may even like all the sexy cyclists roll by. They will still be close to the water and will have a great view unlike some of the streets you want to force people on bikes onto. And, I would never even think of suggesting of moving the picnickers all the way over to Maple. Yet, for some reason, some think it is reasonable to move people on bikes over there. Or try. I suspect most won’t bother and the new path would be pretty lonely.
And even by numbers, there will be likely several thousand people on bikes that will enjoy the view. And tens of picnickers will have to move a bit which the vast majority of them won’t even notice the difference.
And to top it off, many of the picnickers will be people on bikes. Yes, believe it or not, people do cycle to picnics.
And please stop using the term bicycle lobby. You know that is meant to distract from the issues. I don’t call you the anti bike lobby #5, bus lobby or anything else.
Richard, if we understand you,corectly:
we should move the swimmer off the beach, because we have to understand cycliing is a very popular activity, and there is no reason they have not to ride on the beach (which should be paved by the way) , when swimming is not even on the chart
90% people drive, so that should be a a good rational to put more parking in the park too, isn’it
…cycliing can be as enjoyable along Arbutus, than in the middle of the park…We can’t say the same of other activities…
Enough of the non sense as you say
No. That is what you are saying. Cycling is allowed along the path by the water. You are suggesting that it be moved away. And in fact, the planned route is already a compromise. It moves bikes away from the water where it is really busy. The current route is a reasonable solution if one objectively looks at it.
Sorry, to be clear I’m not meaning to suggest that you have said those things (as in my second para). I meant when I read these views from whomever says them. You have not said that here yourself.
“And even by numbers, there will be likely several thousand people on bikes that will enjoy the view.”……13 miles of seawall along the water including around and through Stanley Park….if having to forgo going a 5 minute cycle through the middle of Hadden Park and Kits greenspace is going to pose a very painful visual hardship to cyclists then this has to be about the most entitled first world bunch of cyclists in the entire world. Rolling my eyeballs. WALK if you want to enjoy being 100 feet from the water for 5 minutes.
The plan already moves people away from the beach for a stretch. It is a reasonable compromise if you look at it objectively.
And stop throwing rhetoric like entitled around. I don’t do that on this blog. It just distracts from your argument.