Let’s broaden this out.  Here’s a question to which I invite the answer from any (and every) Park Board candidate (or council candidate, for that matter):

Are bikes lanes okay in parks?

Or has the Hadden Precedent now effectively redefined parks in Vancouver? – where by the terms of the 1928 Hadden Park deed, bike lanes violate the presumed definition of a park: “property as near as possible in its present state of nature.”
Because if that’s the case, then any proposal to build, widen or extend a bike path will be faced with immediate opposition, and possibly a court case.  Those objecting need merely point to Kits and say, ‘if it’s appropriate for them to keep a bike lane out of their park, why are you imposing it on mine?’
At this point during an election campaign, if it’s not possible to get candidates for Park Board to mouth those words – ‘yeah, bike lanes are okay in parks’ – then we have a much bigger problem than bike lanes.   If infrastructure that encourages personal initiative to keep fit and pollute less while recreating, training and just having fun on bicycles, as individuals and as families, if that is is now a contested condition in a park, then this is a society not all that serious about the larger challenges which face it.
So candidates, six words: “Bike lanes are okay in parks.” Can you say them?


  1. This is such a twisted question based so clearly on illogical assumptions. Hadden Park had a specific covenant. It is clearly not a precedent for the extreme notion that no bike path should ever be in a park. No one has ever said that, but the bike lobby seems to make things so black and white. No one “need merely point to Kits”. The issue there was the lack of consultation and the fact that many did not want that particular cycle route in limited green space. That particular green space where people picnic and play and when there are other viable options available. And of course, the Hadden covenant, which is particular to that park.
    So why, Mr. Price Tags, do you insist on framing it in this way? In this “you are either with us or against us” way? Why not accept that one can be pro cycling and pro cycle infrastructure while being against a particular cycle plan route or plan, in a park or otherwise?
    I’m not a candidate, but I would say that bike paths in parks can be good, but not every one of them and not without consideration for all park users. If a candidate said that, would you be good with it? I wonder.

      1. Not to me, but you frame the question the way you do as if to suggest that one has to either be for bike paths in parks or against. It’s like if someone dedicated to building more roads asked you, “do you support building roads”. If you say yes, it sounds like you are advocate of more roads. It’s a leading question, just as yours is.

        1. Exactly. Is cycling something we want to encourage, to have more people doing, by building infrastructure for them? Just like we did and do for roads.

          Sent from my iPhone


        2. So you are an advocate of more roads. Okay, good to know that’s on the record. We shouldn’t be building infrastructure for cycling “just like we did and do for roads” because only a tiny fraction of the population actually cycle. Cycle lobby will insist otherwise, but anyone who looks at the reality knows otherwise. Look at Point Grey Road. You build it, they will come? It’s built and it’s like a ghost town most of the time. I have been down there during prime commuting time between 8 and 9 am and you see one or two cyclists every few minutes. All the fuss about that road and we have clear evidence of the lack of use right now. That, Gordon, is why we do not provide infrastructure for cycling like we do roads, because the numbers don’t justify any comparison to roads for cars and buses.

    1. That’s a bunch of nonesence. There is no more a lack of greenspace at Kits than there is at any other park. Even in the summer, a large amount of greenspace is not used by people in either park. The path would have only required that some people move their picnics a few metres from one awesome spot to another equally awesome spot.
      I would support the creation of more greenspace by replacing parking or sections of road with greenspace.

      1. I agree with Richard that Hadden Park is very rarely and sparsely used; a bike path would increase accessibility and usage. More green space could easily be added to secure “no net loss of park space” by putting in the bike path. I believe we should all be able to easily agree on this proposal.

      2. Well, on Hadden, it’s a legal issue. End of story. For Kits, I disagree that a 12″ wide bike path in the park would not have an adverse impact on the enjoyment of the park. I also feel that the north parking lot is important. You have your views, and I know we don’t agree, but when canvassed, many, many people did not want an asphalt bike path cut into the park. Even the many cyclists we asked. Vision did not consult, but many of us set out to do that. Why not accept the views of the park users and move on? There are other cycle options at Kits besides tearing up green space. Why not consider them?

        1. David, the official counts for the use of Point Grey Road since its traffic-calming are in, and they tell the truth of extensive use daily, so your claims without evidence hold no water, as usual. Similarly, your claims regarding Kits and Hadden parks as being decided by “park users” is also fictitious. Back up your claims with evidence.

        2. Susan, you only have to go to PGR and look with your own eyes, like I have, on more than one occasion. Prime commuting time between 8 and 9 am. Like a ghost town. Yes, there are cyclists, but one every minute or so. You can cherry pick numbers all you want, but actually going there and looking is pretty hard evidence. Have you? I have pictures, do you? I would post them here if someone can tell me how. (I have seen pictures posted in these comments, but I don’t see any option to do that.)

        3. David F.: Pictures are already posted on this site. Look at “New Point Grey Road” and “Point Grey Road” subheadings on this site for photologs that record cyclist, pedestrian and motor vehicle traffic on Point Grey Road on different dates, at different times, in different weather conditions. The evidence of extensive use has already been well-recorded. You are a little late to the table.

        4. Susan, I looked at those pictures. All height of summer, warm sunny days. This is recreational cycling and it’s great, but lets make a distinction here. If you open an outdoor pool, we know it will be empty 9 months of the year, so don’t claim it is a fitness centre that will benefit the community all year. It isn’t. That doesn’t make it unworthy, but that’s the reality.
          PGR was a road 12 months of the year and now it is a ghost town for about 9 or 10 months of the year. Go down there any day now during commuter times and you will see that it is empty. I think, being late to the table is actually more like having more current information on the matter. Check out these recent pictures and then please explain to me how you can say that PGR is used by cycling commuters or that it is getting people out of cars. http://imgur.com/a/xlEgj

        5. David F, I would like you to find us an example of an outdoor pool that is used as a primary method of commuting to work by 10-12% of the local population living around it, as the Seaside Greenway is according to the 2011 Household Survey. The comparison is ludicrous.

      3. Many of us make the mistaken assumption than “greenspace” = good, and concrete = bad.
        Many greenspaces such as George Wainborn Park are devoid of people, while concrete spaces such as paths threaten the vibrancy of the park.
        With too much greenspace, the city actually will lose its vibrancy, because nobody likes hanging out in the middle of an open field.

        1. Absolutely right. Tennis courts, parking, cycle paths, can all be part of a park, but each thing needs to be assessed on it’s merits. Here, cycle lobby never, ever do anything but fully support any and all cycle paths and that, to me, is the issue. It’s just black and white to the cycle lobby. I would just love to hear one say that a cycle path in Kits would be great, but we hear the park users and would like to look at other ways of doing it.

        2. You make the mistake of considering every person who speaks in support of cycling as part of an organized ‘bike lobby’ with a single voice. We are all just individuals. Why would you expect all people who ride bikes to have the same position?
          I’ll go on record. As I have said here before, the challenge is to provide a safe AAA route from around the end of the path at Vanier Park, through to the corner of Balsam. I don’t much care about putting a path through Haddon Park, as I don’t think the juice is worth the squeeze. We could spend the time building more paths elsewhere and avoid the debate. We could put the path along there on the road, if it was sufficiently calmed. alternatively, we could put it on the road allowance and not impact the road, but I suspect park supporters and the HPDL consider that grassed area to be part of the park. And it would conflict with the trees along Ogden, which I do think need to be preserved. Along Arbutus, the Parks Board plan had it in the park, next to Arbutus (not through the middle of the park, as the popular rhetoric goes). Pretty similar to the proposals for putting it on Arbutus, but if that happened Arbutus would lose a travel or parking lane, and the consultation found strong opposition to that. I would stay away from the parking lots at the south end, and go around them, in the park, on existing pavement for the most part, with a protected lane. Along Cornwall, I would widen the existing shared path slightly, and direct pedestrians to an alternate path.
          The problem is that it is impossible to have a reasonable discussion while guerilla tactics involving putting sheets of plastic through the picnic area (and over the tables!) are being deployed. It shuts down discussion. That is what makes it black and white, IMO.

        3. Jeff, I don’t make that mistake. I recognise that there are cyclists with various views, particularly because I am a cyclist myself. I am talking about the people who actively lobby and are not interested in the thoughtful discussion you present above. The people I associate with, who opposed the plan, opposed it for a number or reasons. One was because it was being shoved through behind our backs, with no consultation. Remember Aaron Jasper’s, “it’s a done deal”? Laying out the tarp was about illustrating what was planned, in writing, and what we fought to stop. That particular route. I can assure you that the people I know are very open to the kind of discussion you are presenting here, but others on this board are of the view that the path should go right through the park, end of story. I saw them present those views to the Park Board, so this is not conjecture, this is seeing and hearing it myself.

        4. >Remember Aaron Jasper’s, “it’s a done deal”?
          I wasn’t there but do you think that this statement he made at some meeting was parks board policy or just a flippant statement he made?
          I ask because if it was a flippant statement then we should let go of it. People say all sorts of stuff in the heat of the moment and when under attack. To go from here, we have to let go of these things and forgive each other (and ourselves) so we can move on.
          If being a “done deal” is in fact a policy then you can work toward changing that if it makes sense. There will likely be some change in the parks board tomorrow so it can be a fresh start.

    2. David F – those pictures certainly are worth a thousand words. It bears out the concern many of us had that while this bike route would be popular with leisure cyclists on sunny summer days, it would not replace commuter car trips and reduce greenhouse gasses. The same result could have been accomplished with much less expense by closing the route to cars from July 1 to Labour Day.
      Again I ask, if the goal is to reduce greenhouse gasses, wouldn’t the economic and political capital have been better spent on a true commuter route with potential for growth?

      1. I don’t think the goal was ever to reduce greenhouse gases. I think the goal was to benefit pedestrians.

        1. No, it was widely sold as part of the “greenest city” strategy. It was very much about getting people out of cars. This has not done that in any way.

  2. I don’t know why you chose to attack me Gord, rather than calling me and asking me this question directly. I’m not hard to find. Especially as the no net loss policy is City policy. But to answer your question, for the record: I am a recreational cyclist. I love to cycle around the Stanley Park seawall and English Bay bike paths. I love to cycle along the Fraser river foreshore in Riverfront Park, which is in my neighbourhood. I am grateful for the many separated bike paths in Vancouver. As an elected Commissioner I would look at dedicated cycle paths through parks on a case by case basis. More people on bicycles and fewer people in cars is a goal I support. As far as I’m concerned bike lanes in parks are okay, depending on the location within the park.

    1. Stuart Mackinnon on the record: “As far as I’m concerned bike lanes in parks are okay…” Thanks, Stuart – that’s all I wanted to hear. No attack, just pushing to get a position. And you’ve stated yours. Hope to hear from others.
      [I appreciate Stuart’s qualification – “depending on the location ” – and that’s okay. Actually, there can be a lot of qualifications, as I noted in the first post: “… a better job of designing and building them? Hope so. Each case distinct? Sure. Consultation required? It’s essential.”
      But a qualification first has to have statement to qualify- and that’s the important thing: “Bikes lanes are okay in parks.”]

      1. But Gord, why would you imagine this is even a question? We have loads of bike paths in parks. No one is thinking of ripping them up or saying that they were a bad idea, just that, as Stuart says, new ones should be assessed on a case by case basis. Just don’t understand the point of the question. Are you looking to get a yes from everyone and then throw it in their face if they ever should have an issue?
        P.S. Looking forward to a new Park Board with Stuart, John Coupar and not Vision dominated. Fingers crossed!

    2. So, Stuart, you have said you oppose the Hadden Park bike path because you support no net loss of park space. Do you support the Hadden Park bike path if there were not net loss of park space? You have still not answered that question.

      1. Susan, he has clearly answered the question. Every one is on a case by case basis and Hadden was subject to a legal issue around the covenant. Are you asking if he is willing to go to court over this? Is that how you think the city should be spending money, fighting it’s citizens in court?

        1. No, David, Stuart has not answered the question. He said in his Tweet that he opposes a bike path in Hadden and Kits parks because he believes in “no net loss of park space.” Logically, then, if there were no net loss of park space when a bike path was put in Hadden and Kits parks, Stuart would not oppose the bike path, understand? But, so far, he is choosing not to answer this question. I wonder why?

        2. Not sure why you are not hearing him. He said no to Hadden cycle path. There’s your answer. You even say so right here when you quote him. As far as your further question (which was not asked of him prior to you asking right now) He said “on a case by case basis” with a view to no net loss of green. There’s your answer. There is no blanket answer because it’s case by case. I like that approach. It shows that he is reasonable and open to options. Good lesson there.

    3. Is this actually Stuart? Why isn’t your Gravatar (photo) accompanying your post like last entry? Does anyone think this could be an impostor?

    1. Stanley Park is terrible for cycling, except if you want to go nowhere (Seawall) and even that route doesn’t connect with the downtown bike routes. Bike route signage pretty much ends where the park starts. No signage or good routes either to get to Lions Gate Bridge or the North Shore.

      1. Isn’t there a sidewalk besides Hwy 99 leading to LionsGate Bridge ? Plus parkloop connects up to Lionsgate bridge through forest (more of a mountain bike route, though).
        But yes, they could hang a bike lane below Lionsgate’s .. or better yet: widen it to 5 lanes and replace it, or build a tunnel with a subway in it, too. But I guess we will not see this in the 21st century.

      2. Yes, there is a sidewalk, shared with pedestrians. It is the primary bicycle commuter route to and from the North Shore over the Lions Gate bridge. It is narrow, and unsafe.

  3. Well, not to get all precise or anything, but to get all precise, technically it would be a “bike path” and not a “bike lane” if it was in a park.

  4. And really, the only possible pithy answer that’s acceptable to most people in Vancouver is “it depends”. Some paths in some parks. Not in others. It depends on the park, and it depends on the path.
    And more importantly, the issue of bike paths in parks is really a pretty low priority for most people when it comes to the things that the Parks board does. Why don’t you ask candidates what their position is on volunteers in community centres? Is $3m better spent on a bike lane in a park or improved/expanded gym facilities in East Van? How about more ice rinks? Taking better care of playing fields? Providing more of them?

    1. But Bar Foo, there is a bike lobby. There is no gym facility lobby, or ice rink lobby. (of course I totally agree with you).

    2. And more importantly, the issue of bike paths in parks is really a pretty low priority for most people
      It is a low priority for the general populace, and the venom surrounding the debate doesn’t make sense unless you view the bike lane debate as a proxy war between two different power groups in this city.

      1. In this case it seems to be cast as a war between Vision and every other group. If you find yourself arguing against groups as diverse as the backers of the NPA/COPE and Greens, chances are you are not arguing a majority opinion.
        Quite frankly, I would like to see some posts on urbanism forums why rampant developer pressure and subsequent construction hasn’t led to a more affordable or liveable city, rather than cover ground that has been trod over and over and over.

        1. chances are you are not arguing a majority opinion.
          That’s an assumption. Once again the majority of general populace don’t care about bike paths. Polls show this.
          NPA/COPE and Greens oppose this because they oppose VV and this makes a lot of noise for them. It could be any subject. Bike paths just happen to be the flavour of the week.

      2. People like to attempt to frame it that way because it sounds good. Political conspiracy is exciting! Being on the inside on this, I can tell you that it’s much more boring. Individual people with no predetermined political agenda who just love Kits Beach and feel that it would be damaged by a 12′ wide asphalt path put on green space. I myself voted Vision twice before and learning about how they work through my opposition to the bike path has opened my eyes, but it took this to do that, not the other way around. Others too, come from varied political backgrounds, left, right and centre. No one group, or “fucking NPA hacks”, as Gregor would like to think.

        1. By “conspiracy” I was referring to your notion that it’s more about a political agenda than simply the issue at hand. That the protesters are “against Vision” and are mobilizing for that reason. Not true. Just don’t want a damn 12′ wide asphalt path through the park we love. That’s it.

  5. Speaking as a cyclist that uses my bike to get places, I don’t feel any need for bike paths in parks. To me parks are a destination for other activities, playgrounds, picnics, swimming, hiking, ball sports, sandcastle building, photography, etc. Some paths through parks make sense, but really only in large parks like Stanley Park that contain many destinations. All smaller parks usually have road access nearby and that’s good enough for me. Some recreational cyclists seem to have a different stance but even they are divided into the road racing types (if you are riding at speed you should be as separated from pedestrians as much as they are separated from cars) and those out for a leisurely ride. I’m not sure, but presumably it is the latter that want paths inside parks. To me this type of path usually seems more a “want” than a “need” and as such should generally be considered in that light. I “want” to ride along a path at the beach because I “want” to see the ocean (even though I could ride to the beach, park or walk my bike down to the sand and then enjoy the views while sitting or walking) vs I “need” a safe bike lane to get to work/home/recreation.

    1. Well put, Derek. That is the point, that a park is a destination, not necessarily a thoroughfare for cycle transit, but clearly cycle lobby just don’t see it that way, particularly at Kits Beach where existing cycle routes exist that are safe and beautiful, with stunning views. Not good enough?

      1. The current shared paths at Kits Beach are not safe for pedestrians or cyclists. It isn’t about the speed, it is about the path condition, the width, and the congestion. Park users walking and on bicycles deserve better.

      2. David F: “a park” is not defined as “a destination.” Once again, you are making nonsensical statements. Prove your claim.

        1. Susan, I see it as a destination. I go to a park and stay there to do stuff. One can certainly use a park as a means to get from A to B, and that’s legitimate too, but clearly for many, it is a destination. I don’t know how you can imagine it isn’t. You walk, cycle or drive to a park, you do stuff there and then you leave. That sounds like a destination to me. What’s the big issue with that?

    2. Derek: Thanks for your input as one cyclist, but there are a lot more on this site who have the opposite view.

    3. Derek: You advocate “I ‘need’ a safe bike lane to get to work/home/recreation”, and you agree that a park is a recreational area. So, then you are agreeing that cyclists “‘need’ a safe bike lane to get to [parks].”

  6. First, I appreciate Gordon’s acceptance of Stuart’s reasonable answer. It is a fine line between advocating a position and becoming strident about it, which starts to turn people off. Each instance should be looked at on an individual basis.
    In the case of Kits point, I have a modest proposal. Why not ban cars completely from the west side of Arbutus and make it a bike lane? Residents can have the east side. Then let’s have an honest discussion about whether the rather useless grass strip that runs along the south side of Cornwall is truly useable park space, It separates Arbutus from a parking lot and later a chain link fence. Could this not be given over to a continuation of the bike lane? Yes, some trees would be lost but they could be replanted or replaced elsewhere in the park.
    That leaves a gap between Balsam and Macdonald however it appears to me that there is a city easement there which could be used. Reasonable?

    1. It is certainly possible to consider creating a bike lane along Arbutus and Cornwall. That would primarily benefit people on bikes who want to get to Point Grey Rd, not those who want to use the park. The city built a commuter/transportation cycling route along York that meets much of this objective. What is missing is the seaside route. It doesn’t have to be right at the water’s edge, but putting it outside of the park doesn’t seem to be within the discussion scope of bike lanes in parks.

      1. Every point along that route would be within easy dismount and walk distance from activities inside the park.
        If the position is: we must be able to cycle right along the seaside, that’s not supportable IMHO. It isn’t necessary for getting to and enjoying the park or for riding the route along to Spanish Banks. The fact is bicycles can move much faster than people. While you might be responsible and slow down, you cannot guarantee that for everyone. In the same vein, cars don’t speed – people do. Insisting on a seaside route right through the park opens the door to greater cyclist/pedestrian/park users conflicts.

        1. If you bothered to even look at who cycles along the water at Kits you would know that the vast majority of people are cycling slowly. It is very popular with families with children.
          Those who want to cycle fast use the street and will continue to use the road. If you bothered to look at the route that was proposed, you would know that it when away from the water to further avoid contlicts.
          The fear mongering nonsense is rather tiresome.

        2. The majority of people along the seawall cycle slowly, that hasn’t stopped some serious cyclist-pedestrian crashes.
          You see, this is one of those lines I mentioned that those lobbying for cycling cross and venture into unappealing stridency. Why is being able to see the ocean from your cycling route necessary? What if every basketball, tennis or soccer player had the same requirement? it’s just not a valid argument Richard.

      2. I don’t recall ever saying that people need to cycle right along the seaside. In fact, the proposal for the separated bike path in Kits Park was motivated by the need to separate people walking from people on bikes, due to the current conflicts on the shared paths. Since there wasn’t room along the beach, the path was conceptually moved back into the park. That is when the fireworks started. Some envisioned the solution as moving the path out of the park, and that polarizes the debate, arguing about whether cycling is a reasonable activity in a park. It is the parks bylaws that say that cycling is only permitted on designated paths, ie not on the grass. So, not providing a path in the park effectively removes cycling from the park.
        There are multiple ways to get to the park. Using the park for cycling as a recreational activity is the discussion.
        If we want to preserve green space, great. We could start with trading the north parking lot for a bike path elsewhere in the park. I think that defending that parking lot is not supportable. Why do we continue to provide a parking lot so that cars get a view of the water, or so that people get a view without getting out of their cars. Leave 4 or more spaces for people with mobility challenges and plant the rest over. There are lots of similar trade offs that can be made that meet objectives of different groups.

        1. Bob, thank you for your reasoned and fair comment. It’s refreshing around here. Without getting into detailed comment on all the various options, the point is that there are options. That’s what us bike path opponents have been saying, but the cycle lobby just don’t want to know. The word “strident” is so apt and here you have Richard Campbell proving the point as the poster child for “strident” with his insulting tone and lack of discussion.
          I will only say as regards Jeff Leigh’s point about the north parking lot, I feel it is a very important parking lot for access to the north end of the beach. You take it away, and you push even more cars to the overcrowded main parking lot and it takes away the ability for many to use the north end of the beach. Not just the officially handicapped, but people who come to the beach with chairs, BBQ’s and other stuff and also the elderly who are still not going to be able to use designated handicapped spaces. It spreads people out at the beach, so I disagree that the north parking lot is indefensible. I think it’s very important to the many beach goers who need to arrive by vehicle for any number of reasons.

        2. I don’t see the logic behind supporting having a parking lot at the north end (to provide access, spread out the visitors, which seems logical) and why that wouldn’t apply equally to a bike path through that part of the park. You are defending a parking lot and an access road in the middle of a playing field and picnic area, next to the water, while arguing that a bike path should not be there.

    1. I don’t understand why you want to shut down on topic discussion in a thread about bike paths in parks.

  7. Reading all of this reminds me of why I moved out of Kits. The culture is so hostile. I remember wondering how they ever got anything done with everyone in fight mode and suspicious of their neighbours. I couldn’t get out of there fast enough and back to East Van where people get along.
    So, when I read this discourse I see it as yet another example of how people in Kits do anything. We should not assume that there will be this kind of thing happen in parks elsewhere.
    Are my observations accurate? What do others think?

    1. My friend, a painting contractor, was painting a house for a client in Kits last month. Everyday a young yuppie couple would walk over and complain to him about the colour of the house constantly interrupting his work day. Even after the owner showed up one day and the neighbours whined and complained to them they still night after night came over and questioned my friend on the paint choice while stopping neighbours on their walks to get their opinion and stir it up even more. Great Neighbourhood it has become indeed.

      1. Must have been one fucking ugly paint colour. But seriously, the opposition to the bike path was not coming from residents who live right there, it was coming from people who use the beach. Most of us, like me, do not live at Kits Point. I have no idea what kind of people live there or whether they are model citizens or crotchety old farts, but it has zero to do with this issue.

        1. Gordon: I would like to report David F. for his expetives; such language is unnecessary and offensive.

        2. That’s strange Susan, I don’t recall anyone reporting you for your crack about Meena Wong speaking in English.

        3. No offense meant by my joke about the paint. If the use of the F word in that context causes offense, by all means please do edit the post.

  8. I am not sure what is about the concern that Hadden park create a “precedent”: Hasn’t not Seaforth peace park seen a new and uncontroversial bike lane in the same time?
    Also, as pointed by otehr commenattor, I find strange this insistance t get some ideological answer on park, as if “Stanley park=Kitsilano beach=Seforth park”.
    Yes, bob, the solution you suggest is a good one, and it even preserve the Ocean views:
    What you suggest is roughly to have the bike path on the right side of the tree, rather on the left side and cutting thru the middle of the open swath of grass: that preserves the use of this grass for its usual activities, traditionally Frisbee or badminton, otherwise compromised.
    As we see, most people don’t understand why that is not acceptable to the bike lobby, but as David F. has pointed out and as we see here: it has adopted a very divisive stance, and insisted (and still insist) a bike path should go right in the middle of the park, but never provided a convincing case for that.
    Assertion such as “There is no more a lack of greenspace at Kits than there is at any other park “ doesn’t help to builf a constructive discussion.
    Had the bike lobby adopted a constructive approach recognizing other park usages need, the bike lane could have already been built.

      1. Love it – from the people who have a hard time saying that “bike lanes are okay in parks” – yet would support changes that could drastically alter property values. They have no idea.
        Sent from my iPad

        1. Gordon, what are you talking about? I, for one, have said that the question is nonsensical because of course bike lanes are okay in parks. The issue is that it’s case by case and how and where. Stuart M has said the same. You have your answer, so why are you still griping and acting like people do not want bike lanes in parks? We just want to decide if and where. Sometimes “no” is the answer and sometimes “yes, but…” is the answer. It depends. So there, you have your answer. (And why the sudden concern about property values?)

    1. Voony: Once again, you misrepresent the facts. At no time has anyone advocated “a bike path should go right in the middle of the park,” as you claim.

    2. I didn’t follow this when it was all happening, so have a question to anyone who might know.
      Was there any suggestion of having the cycle path on the eastern edge of the park along Arbutus? If parallel to the current shared path cut through favourite picnic spots and tennis courts, etc. I can’t see a reason that it could not be still in the park but to hug the eastern edge. The cycle path near near English Bay does that in places. It veers away for several blocks but is still in the park on not on the road.
      Was this brought up and was there a good reason for it to not be possible?

      1. This type of approach would certainly have been on the table if there had been any discussion about options. There was promise of a consultation made after the protest, but when the legal issue stopped the whole thing, no further discussions happened.

    3. Voony, the specific rhetoric used by the “Save Kits Park” people last winter was that a bike lane would be “paving over Kits park” and that bikes in parks are dangerous to other users.
      I (and I suspect most other cycling advocates, though of course I don’t speak for them or the “bike lobby”) don’t have any real problem with your proposal. It still paves over park land and requires park users to cross a bike path to access the beach, which were two of the principal objections raised at the time. The other common alternative suggested is to put it on the road, and I think we all know how proposals to remove parking/traffic lanes go over by now.
      I’m not calling you personally a hypocrite, but the rhetoric of the anti-bike path people is why it’s now necessary to ask whether bike paths in parks are OK even in the abstract, because for a lot of people apparently they aren’t. The phrase “paving over the park” did more to polarize this issue for me than anything else.

      1. Mike, the bike path opponents were not against bike paths generally, but just how this one was being done without any input and also, of course, the position of this path, right through areas that are enjoyed by park goers. The term, “paving over the park” was an emotive one to draw attention to the cause. I think you are taking it too literally. It shouldn’t be a polarizing point anymore than if there was a plan to build a tennis court in an inappropriate place. We have tennis courts in parks, and so we should, but if a tennis court was being built somewhere inappropriate, the same “paving the park” line might be used.
        Further, i can tell you that the bike lobby did specifically express a lack of interest in any option such as Voony describes. I was at the Park Board meeting and the people who spoke in favour of the path, did not want to consider any other options. That’s my issue, that the bike lobby just wanted the path where it was planned. As if to give an inch on that was going to mean compromising the cause.

        1. Ah, it’s an emotive term. Like calling PGR a “gated community”, I guess.
          A fine line between between an emotive term to draw attention to a cause, and factually false incendiary rhetoric used to create a wedge issue. Maybe if I squint I can see it though.

      2. I think David F. Answered to your question. We could add the unfortunate rhetoric tone seems to have been set by the Park board commissioners, and more noticeably Aaron Jasper and his “done deal”…
        If most of the cycling advocates, don’t have any real problem with a bike path along Arbutus, why so much comments and angst?…I just hope you are right, and that the “bike lobby” has reconsidered its original position.
        It was looking like the “bike lobby” was effectively wanting to set a precedent (pave gratuitously a park to the benefit of cyclists at the expense of other users), and for this reason was not interested in any compromise: let’s hope I am wrong
        Regarding parking/lanes reduction:
        -As noticed there is apriori neither residential nor retail parking at stake, but only visitors ones
        -there is no closure of road carrying ~10,000 vehicles, but just the reconsideration of residential streets toward traffic calming measure.
        It could be some opposition (but I feel on a much more modest scale than what we have seen be on Point Grey or Hornby) again, it should be consultations, where the different concerns can be raised and gauged, leading to a well accepted compromise.

        1. To be fair, while emotive, “paving the park” was factually accurate, so why make an issue of that anyway? 12′ wide asphalt path literally in the middle of the park at Kits Beach. What is that if it’s not “paving the park”?

  9. David F.: “Why the sudden concern about property values?” You have got to be kidding. Bob’s directive “Why not ban cars completely from the west side of Arbutus and make it a bike lane? Residents can have the east side.” Might I suggest that you consider having a little chit-chat with those residents before you eliminate their parking. Did you even THINK about what the potential consequences of removing that parking might be?

    1. …says one of the most uncritical and vocal cheerleader of the Point Grey/ york bike way! and other bike lanes such as Hornby.
      To use the Richard Campbel favorite words: “That’s a bunch of nonesence”
      For the record:
      (1) there is no residential parking on the west side of Arbutus (no overnight parking allowed)!
      (2) if traffic calming was negatively impacting the value of neighborood properties: we could have noticed it on Point Grey first hand!
      (3) to accomodate the Bob solution, there is not need to suppress visitor parking on west of Arbutus but just to copy what has exactly be done on York street (see here)
      Susan is right on an aspect. She has said confrontation allow to see the true value of the arguments of each other:
      Here: we are very well served 😉
      It must be hard to defend a lost cause, isn’it?

      1. Voony: Nobody except YOU said that traffic calming “negatively impact[s] the value of neighborood properties.” Indeed, traffic calming usually positively impacts property values. What negatively impacts them is removing PARKING, which is what I was arguing quite clearly.
        On Point Grey Road, parking was maintained when the traffic calming measures were implemented. A few parking spaces were removed from the North side of the road, but as North-siders all have large driveways and multiple-car garages, there was no negative impact. South-siders, many of whom do not have garages or just one-car garages, had all of the parking on the South side of Point Grey Road maintained. If this parking had been removed, property values would have fallen.
        And, Voony, it was Bob, not I, who brought up the idea of removing parking from Arbutus. Once again, you have your facts wrong.

        1. Why is the PGR referred to as “traffic calming” when the road is completely closed to through traffic? You can’t enter it from the east to head west and in the other direction, you can, but you are then forced off and through the further maze of “traffic calmed” side streets. Calming is speed bumps, stop signs and the like. This is closing a road to through traffic.

        2. Because calming traffic refers to slowing it down, and reducing the volume of it. The volume was reduced by cutting out arterial traffic. You can drive on any section of it, just not right through it. You see to be defining calming only as a speed issue.

        3. The road is closed to through traffic and you can’t actually drive on any part of it because the new closures in the adjoining roads forbid that. You turn off it, and you really can’t find your way back. That seems to me more a case of traffic diversion than calming. If it was completely shut to traffic at both ends, would that still be called calming? It doesn’t make sense. I have only ever heard of the expression in terms of making changes to a road which slows traffic. essentially calming it. As in, “the water was calm”, which does not mean, there was no more water. (Sorry if that example is a bit obscure)

        4. Well, you could always look up the term Traffic Calming on Wikipedia…..
          “Traffic calming consists of physical design and other measures, including narrowed roads and speed humps, put in place on roads for the intention of slowing down or reducing motor-vehicle traffic as well as to improve safety for pedestrians and cyclists”
          “In its early development in the UK in the 1930s, traffic calming was based on the idea of residential areas protected from through traffic….”
          So this has only been a concept used for the past 80 years or so. Pretty revolutionary stuff.
          If it was shut to traffic at both ends, and at every access point along its length, that wouldn’t be traffic calming, but rather pedestrianization. But it isn’t shut at all access points, as evidenced by the local motor vehicle traffic for those accessing residences and parks along the route.

    2. Susan, some of that parking is already 2 hour and not just for residents. And as a homeowner I have little sympathy for vehicle owners who expect other taxpayers to provide parking for them, I choose to have a vehicle, and I park it on my property. The residents are also welcome to purchase a yearly parking pass for Parks lots (such a thing is available). Roads are for movement, whether its bicycles or cars or trucks. The prime consideration shouldn’t be for vehicle storage,
      Of course Vision Vancouver is making the problem worse in many neighbourhoods by relaxing parking requirements for new buildings, unfortunately egged on by some here. A fantasy apparently exists that if you don’t provide adequate parking per unit, cars will just disappear.
      However, if you are so concerned for the poor little rich people of Kits Point and their inability to find parking, I’ll add to my original bike lane proposal. Since it would include eliminating the wide grass strip between Cornwall and the south parking lot for a bike lane, why not just move the whole parking lot into the remnants of that sad underused strip of lawn. And while we’re at it, let’s get rid of the same useless 10 ft lawn strips between the two parking lanes. Not only could you create more parking for those poor residents on Kits Points, you could probably even move the whole parking lot farther south and create expanded usable park space to the north of it.

      1. Bob: “the poor little rich people of Kits Point and their inability to find parking” speaks volumes as to the true nature of your interest in the matter, which is discrimination against the wealthy.

    3. Susan, my “property value” comment was about Gordon expressing his concern about it, not me denying concern might be there. Having said that, honestly, this would have scant impact on property values at Kits Point. The same houses would still have their same permit parking and no loss of view. It would probably have no impact.

      1. David F: Any change to a road in a residential area that impacts traffic flow, parking, speed, volume, pollution, etc. will be of great interest to residents and would-be property purchasers. You know nothing about the area, so for you to say, “this would have scant impact on property values at Kits Point” is simply ignorant.

        1. Oh I see, you are the Kits Point property value expert here. Sorry for stepping on your turf, but that wasn’t clear. Fact is, your views are just conjecture and have no basis. Or at least you have not shown any basis apart from your hunch about it. I have been involved in residential real estate (not as a profession) and I have seen the various factors which impact on valuations. There are many things, but the key factors, location especially, dictate the value. Traffic regulations are not one of them, unless a highway is going to be built across the road. Many other areas all over the world with traffic issues have strict, restricted parking regulations and house prices are not impacted. You ever tried to park a car in London? Notice that it’s also one of the most expensive residential markets on the planet?
          If you think that making some modest changes to parking on Arbutus is going to have any significant impact on houses located there, with those views, you really don’t understand the market here.

        2. Anyone interested in property values should be interested in research that indicates that property values increase if property is located near a bike route and safety increases if property is on a bike route. If I lived in Kits Point area, I would demand that a nice bike path be built through the parks.

  10. Decline of the Vancouver, errrrrr, Roman Empire . . .
    . . . the Romans had nothing on us. “They often provided the city wards with feasts to cajole the rabble, always more readily tempted by the pleasure of, “incessantly gossiping, year in year out, repetitively, unctuously, going on over four years now, about bike lanes “than by anything else.
    Even though they have all the bike lanes in the city anyone enduring sore saddle bottom (SSB) on rainy days can endure!
    Surely in an election there are more important issues (i.e. civic debt and the ensuing on-going bank charges – effecting all citizens of the province – that surely, in an intelligent conversation, would preclude SSB on a rainy day on Hadden green and especially a Broadway tunnel)?
    The most intelligent and understanding amongst them would not have quit his soup bowl “or a bike ride on the greens of Haddon Park even “to recover the liberty of the Republic of Plato.
    A demonstrated failure of citizenship!

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *