The bike route that connects the seawall from English Bay to Coal Harbour runs by the garden illustrated below, and of course attracts heavy traffic. Most of it is separated from the pedestrian path – except for one critical piece:
.
This dank and dark little tunnel under Stanley Park Drive crams peds and bikes together, with room for neither, on a blind curve. It’s been like this for years, even as the conflict has grown – and it’s not the only case where bad design suggests that the Park Board has not really prioritized active transportation in their plans.
“not the only case where bad design suggests that the Park Board has not really prioritized active transportation ” <– That's a really really generous way of putting it.
More likely a lack of funds than intentionally sticking it to active transportation. Not a cheap project to replace this crossing to the standards we would expect.
The odd thing is the missed public art design opportunity. Everytime I bike through this tunnel I see a Trapper’s hat with ear muffs painted on the side approaches. Isn’t there a way to have some fun with making this a more appealing piece? I can’t imagine that latex paint and some internal lighting could not be ponied up. Public art would be a start.
I agree about tunnels being an opportunity for public art. Here is an amazing tunnel in Amsterdam to improve cycling access by the central station:
https://bicycledutch.wordpress.com/2015/11/24/amsterdam-central-station-tunnel/
Many of us raised concerns about the curve and narrowness at the time it was initially proposed. Our concerns fell on deaf ears. Sadly, Parks Board doesn’t seem to get that cyclists need and want straight paths and they always like to have curves as they are more aesthetically pleasing. So, yes Parks Board has never understood active transportation and wonders why grass gets trampled by walkers and cyclists in some areas.
You need to think. Curvy & narrow is a traffic calming device, which is essential here at this choke point. Give many cyclists a straight, flat path and they’ll bomb throught it, creating a hazard to themselves and anyone in their path. The additional irony is that directly above the tunnel, is a wide, smooth paved road ideal for ‘active.’
The dream of a cyclist; to be able go fast through a park with few obstacles. The same dream drivers have had back since the 1930s.
Is ‘Curvy and Narrow’ and dark and chicane-ey and no-sight-lines ever used for cars to deliberately slow them down? No, because to do so would be to introduce that which makes the road less safe, which is to open up to lawsuit (there have been many such).
Why should this be accepted practice for bikes?
Directly above that tunnel … and running perpendicular to the tunnel – how is that useful to a cyclist traveling in the direction of the tunnel, exactly?
This isn’t to say that bikes shouldn’t slow down and be careful, but there are good and bad ways of doing so, which do and don’t make cycling more dangerous.
Curvy and Narrow – for vehicles: how about Cornwall Avenue westbound to 1st and Blenheim?
The arterial is a bit curvey, but definitely not dark and chicane-ey and no-sight-lines. Residential streets are a bit narrower but generally have good sightlines. You can’t really compare this to some of the horrid cycling facilities we are faced with.
Agreed.
Many of the cycling comments are about how pedestrians and others slow them down!
Simon, Guest:+1
The conversation should be how to calm cyclists at choke points (The underpass is not the only one in Stanley), to ensure pedestrian safety and comfort, especially on a path which should emphase leisure over speed.
The path does emphasize recreation over speed. Let’s remember that it isn’t a pedestrian underpass. It is a signed bicycle path. Pedestrians need a place to cross as well; the focus should be on creating safe crossings for all modes.
Don’t expect any movement toward prioritizing active transportation, given the current majority on Parks Board.
The Stanley Park Drive underpass. The end of Point Grey Road at Jericho Beach. Hadden Park / Kits Beach Park. I doubt any of these problem areas will be resolved under the current administration.
There is more history on this tunnel.
It was featured as issue #9 in the Stanley Park Cycling Plan, adopted by the Park Board in 2012. That plan is here, with two potential solutions outlined on page 43.
http://vancouver.ca/files/cov/stanley-park-cycling-plan-final.pdf
The tunnel used to be marked for no pedestrians, for the safety of all. It doesn’t have a pedestrian path leading to it on either side. See the Google Street View:
http://tinyurl.com/ztgb3wg
The Park Board solution appears to have been to remove the Cyclists Only sign and let all active transportation users sort it out themselves.
Perhaps the Stanley Park Cycling Plan and a number of the recommendations in it would make for a future series of posts?
In a viaduct free world (that overpass is tantamount to a viaduct), this would be a level intersection with a 4-way stop.
The 4-way stop would be a traffic calming measure.
If there’s no one around, cyclists would slow without stopping.
Pedestrians would have clear sightlines in all directions.
A level crossing would easily accommodate all modes of transport and everyone would be happy!!
There is a level crossing one block away, at the intersection of North Lagoon Drive. The Cycling Plan recommended using that intersection for people on bicycles, and connecting the paths on the east side of Stanley Park Drive. That would return the tunnel to pedestrians.
IMO, it isn’t the curves that are dangerous, as it is mixing the modes and using pedestrians as traffic cones. When they are in the tunnel, pedestrians are less likely to follow the “keep right” signs.
Great idea, let’s increase ghg emissions by forcing thousands of vehicles to stop and start here to benefit recreations cyclists to terrified by a tunnel a couple of meters long.
The very fact we have the lycra clad bike bombers lusting at the chance to tear through Stanley Park just goes to show how far away from the urbanist dream of sensibly shoed Dutch-like grannys sedately peddling to the market we are.
pedaling, not peddling. Isn’t stop and start S.O.P. on the causeway?
At grade intersections are very dangerous for people walking and cycling. When they can easily be avoided, as in this case, they should be. According to ICBC, over 80% of cycling and walking crashes happen at intersections.
How fast must you travel before a curve becomes a blind curve?
Different things. Blind curves don’t allow you to see around them when you are in them, which relates to likelihood of a crash. Speed relates to consequences of a crash. Slow is better, but not crashing is better still. Proper infrastructure is designed not to create the conditions that lead to a crash.
I agree Jeff. Also, because of the curve pedestrians and cyclists are more likely to collide, as you can’t keep a straight line and everybody will negotiate the curve differently, with some cutting the ‘corner’ and others bending with the curve. The volumes are too high for the width.
It is not the infrastructure design (the curve) that it is the problem, it is the mixed transport modes and excessive speed of some users (cyclists) who are a hazard for other cyclists, skaters, joggers and pedestrians. I have always found this “dark and dank” tunnel a cool and refreshing event on a long ride, a mile stone marker of sorts built long before bicycles became popular. If you wish to solve the conflicts inherent in mixed use then bore another tunnel for cyclists.
Resolving the mode conflicts would require a new or expanded tunnel for pedestrians, but also the construction of new pedestrian pathways, since there are no pedestrian pathways leading to the bicycle and inline skating tunnel now.
This demand to make the prime waterfront, the bucolic parks and the prime thoroughfares all converted into velo-speedtracks is a strange form of temporary urban insanity.
It will, of course, eventually become too silly and have to be calmed. Perhaps speed bumps for bikes will come first. Another possibility would be mandating all bikes be heavy clunkers, much like most bikes are in Amsterdam. No more racing machines in city parks or along city walkways.
It will come.
Even better is to have things designed so that several speeds can co-exist without problems.
In the photo accompanying the original post, ironically, there are three people on bicycles. One sport bicycle, on the road. Two heavy and slower bicycles, on the path. And that path doesn’t go along the prime waterfront, which is reserved for pedestrians. It is set back from the water. Own goal. Twice in one post.
The temporary insanity that I look forward to seeing the end of is the attempt to pit people using different modes of transportation against each other, in support of a political agenda.
There is already a 15 km/hr speed limit on park paths. No need for speed bumps.
I identify as a cyclist – transportation, shopping, entertainment, meditation – probably have 100K on one of my bicycles.
But I dislike bicycle freeways. On the rare occasion that I find myself on the Seawall, I’m frankly annoyed by cyclists – speeding along; ringing their damn bells: and I hate their flashing lights.
Imagine if motorists honked as often as cyclists rang their bells. It’s extremely unpleasant. Obnoxious.
Burnaby’s Central Park has a good policy – the bicycle speed limit is 10km/hr and cyclists must yield to pedestrians. Strong cyclists, such as myself, should not be allowed to dominate the Seawall with aggressive riding.
Thank you Arnie. You are a voice of sanity.
Ringing your bell is a courtesy. Without motor sound to tip people off that someone faster is going to pass them, they won’t know. The alternative is them being passed without warning.
So given that some people hate it when you ring your bell and some hate it when you don’t ring your bell, then the decision has to be to go with what makes sense. Ring your bell. (And a little smile and thank you as you pass doesn’t hurt either.)
Re. blinking lights I totally agree. There might be a case to be made in some locations if you’re having to survive a crowded traffic situation where you might not be noticed to have your light blinking but on an off-road path like the Seawall there’s no excuse. Set it to steady and point it down.
Ringing a bell or honking your horn is not a courtesy – it’s rude. It says get out of my way or I’ll run you down. This is not live and let live – it’s “I’m more important than you.” Slow down and chill out. It is so beautiful along the Seawall. What’s the rush. Breathe. This journey is better than the destination. Breathe. Look around and enjoy.
A fake smile and thank you do not excuse this arrogant behaviour. Do you walk quickly down the street and make beep beep noises when people are in your way? Maybe we should carry air horns to make the oldsters jump.
We did have someone ringing their bell at us in Central Park – did they think they were courteous – maybe. Fact is, it was unpleasant.
Well, you can project anything you want on others but it’s all in your own mind. Misinterpreting the courtesies of others doesn’t change the reality of their motives.
The history of the world is full of people misunderstanding each other so I’m not surprised at this. It’s still sad though.
There are different types of bell ringing. A strident continuous ringing can be annoying, and should only be used when alerting people to impending danger. A gentle ding when approaching people who may not know the cyclist is there is a courtesy, and is aligned with City of Vancouver bylaw requirements for bikes to have a bell. It isn’t an order to get out of the way, it is simply a “I’m here”. The best response is a hand wave of acknowledgement by the pedestrian to show they heard it. If overtaking a cyclist, sometimes “on your left” works. That phrase doesn’t tend to work with pedestrians, who can interpret it as a caution or conversely as an instruction, with potentially dangerous results.
I have had pedestrians flag me down after ringing my bell, and thank me for advising them of my presence. I had a conversation with one elderly lady, on the Steveston boardwalk MUP, about why she felt so strongly, and she said more cyclists needed to do it, and hopefully the word would spread. This is me spreading it.
Agree on flashing lights. I find flashing bike headlights to be distracting. Others are big fans of them. I don’t mind flashing red taillights on bikes, as they are low power anyway.
This is approaching parody – parsing the qualities of a ding. A ding is a ding is a ding.
You write that pedestrians flagged you down to thank you for your ding. I don’t know how they were able to catch up with you – to be able to flag you down – to thank you for your ding. That defies physics.
That there were, purportedly, multiple instances of these grateful pedestrians somehow jumping through the space-time continuum to flag you down – wow – this is a graduate project for someone at UBC.
You must have an amazing ding. That’s probably what got the old doll in Steveston so excited – someone to talk to – and memories of a really great ding.
You must ride much faster on multi use paths than I do. The lady with a walker (the most recent one) just raised her hand and called me “young man”. I wouldn’t call her an old doll, more grandmotherly. No teleportation required. I stopped, and asked if she was OK. She said she just wanted to thank me, because she noticed that some people on bikes alerted pedestrians, and some didn’t. She wanted to see more of the former. I think she was on a campaign. I see her on that path all the time, she must live in a nearby building.
“A ding is a ding is a ding.”
So untrue. I just replaced my old bike bell (ding, ding) with a new one (dring, dring). The latter is much less imperious in nature and (besides being the law) a recognizable, easy to understand way to say “I’m over here, don’t be surprised when I ride by” that most people instantly associate with a bicycle. Very courteous unless you are prone to being aggrieved.
Of course it’s no comparison whatsoever to the automobile horn, which has gone from useful warning signal to the preferred method of voicing impotent rage at other motorists. Equating ringing a bicycle bell with honking an automobile horn is to conflate two very different uses of a signalling device that come from very different intentions.
“We did have someone ringing their bell at us in Central Park”
LOL, I wonder if that was me on the way home from work. Were you wandering all over the path looking at your phone like many of the pedestrians I dring, dring in my shared-path travels?
“Less imperious” is still imperious. There are places where pedestrians should have peace and quiet – that includes freedom from smokers, dogs, and those who can’t keep their hands off their ding or their dring or their dong.
Agree with the bit about distracted cell phone users though, but again, pedestrians have the right of way, just like a bus. You must yield – not play with your ding-a-ling.
If you find dring-dring imperious, I’ll file you under easily aggrieved. Not sure about the mono-mania with penises and rather flaccid attempts to make dick jokes, but to each his or her own I suppose.
The only reason one has to ring a bell is that people are in the wrong place but most likely it is because the path is too narrow. Shared paths (walking and cycling) have been shown to be quite dangerous for all users. The seawall path is mostly separated, but the cycling portion is way to narrow, hence the need to often use a bell when passing.
Note that lots of space is provided on the roadway for motor traffic. Surely similar consideration could be given to other modes of transportation, especially since this is a park and recreation should be high on the list or preferred activities. Unfortunately, our current park board does not seem to understand this
As an example from elsewhere, here is a path in Vondel Park in Amsterdam. At 47 acres it is about as big as Queen Elizabeth Park. The cycling portion is paved and is about 8m in width. There are two gravel walking paths on either side, each of which is about 3m wide. More amazing is that there are two such paths, one on each side of the park. Unfortunately, it is still difficult to ride a bike here on a busy day due to the large number of pedestrians who prefer the paved path. We can compare this to QE park whichhas parking lots, roads, no cycling paths and few walking paths.
https://goo.gl/maps/ke9VL4LDKak
We can compare this to QE park which has parking lots, roads, no cycling paths and few walking paths.
So, if you want less dings, please write to the park board and demand wider paths.
If anyone from The Netherlands happens to read this they might wonder if it’s a joke. Here people are arguing about the intentions of bell ringing while over there they figured out decades ago that modes of travel that have different speeds should not be put together.
+1, though I’ve been on some shared use paths up north in Holland, and on those, people do indeed ding … but as you say, the goal is always to make it so that you don’t need to be a dinger. Smart dinging only please, no dumb dinging, drunk dinging is up to you 🙂
You see this is why people just go and do whatever they want and give up on accommodating others. Something was good and then suddenly it’s now bad.
You’re damned if you do and damned if you don’t. People thank you for doing something and others say they don’t want you to do that same thing.
Since there doesn’t seem to be any decision on what is desired, the only thing left to do is to follow evidence. Forget people’s desires and see what works the best. Ignore those with irrational tastes.
Stanley Park does have a truly excellent tunnel as well – namely the one under the Stanley Park Causeway at the south end. This is well designed and accommodates all modes. As Jeff mentioned, Park Board has developed a really good cycling master plan which should go a long way to improving conditions for cycling, walking and skate boarding in Stanley park. Unfortunately, there is no implementation plan. The Stanley Park Seawall attracts a huge number of tourist, many of whom rent bikes. They are faced with many hazards and no routing information as to how to return without going all the way around the one-way path.
There are many comments on this topic about speeding cyclists and conflict between modes. Note that there appears to be very little conflict between motor vehicles and other modes and the reason is that motor vehicle traffic is designed to be relatively safe. All we need to to is to use motor vehicle design principles on active paths so that conflict is avoided and everyone can happily enjoy the park.
Arno, there is actually an Implementation Strategy, dated Oct 9 2012, which was formally adopted by the Park Board on Oct 15, 2012.
http://former.vancouver.ca/parks/board/2012/121015/SPCyclingPlan.pdf
It would be good to see an update from the Park Board on progress to this plan. Park Board staff did present some details on their progress at the public meeting to approve the Causeway improvements, but it seems like there is a long way to go.
Park Board have reportedly approved the improvements to the South False Creek Seawall improvements that are in their jurisdiction, so there is progress.
Right you are. There is an implementation strategy. From the long list, I believe that only the first item was implemented – namely the designation of Hanson Trail as being a shared walking/cycling path. However, the strategy has been gathering dust over the last 3 years. Good idea to ask for a progress report.
I’m suspicious that (because of politics) the Park Board actually wants there to be conflict between modes. The ways to either reduce conflict or create it with path design are well known. If the true motive is to make Vision and cyclists look bad, then they’re not going put any effort into a plan that will have people getting along nicely. It suits their interests to keep the old fashioned designs, let there be conflicts and then when it’s politically expedient, point the finger.
But maybe I’m too suspicious. Maybe they just haven’t got to it yet.
@ Chris Keam – you called your own noisemaker imperious – I didn’t make it up. Little ding or big ding – if you’re an aggressive cyclist in your own little world, you want people to get out of your way. If you want to show how accomplished you are as a cyclist – go play with the big boys on city streets. That’s where I am – not bullying park users.
As long as we’re making things up – whenever I show courtesy as a cyclist, pedestrians run ahead, flag me down, and thank me. They kow tow – must have been thousands by now. Little old ladies stop me in Steveston and tell me how annoyed they are by dingy cyclists.
On another note: when I spent several months in Moscow back during the Cold War, it was illegal for cars to honk unless in extreme emergency. Even police would use lights and a speaker to pull over drivers. Russians, as screwy as they may be, understood the importance of a quiet environment. Don’t know what it’s like now. – looks like bedlam. There’s a great pile of videos on Youtube called Stop a Douchebag – with subtitles. There’s another series called the Lion Against (Lev Protiv) about battling smoking and drinking in public. The latter is just in Russian.
There are good lessons there about people standing up for their rights.
‘much less imperious’ was the exact phrase. I should have said ‘more friendly’ if I had known we would be playing tackle grammar-nerdery. If you find the tinkle of a bike bell as a cyclist rides by giving you a wide berth at a reasonable speed I don’t know what to tell you. It takes a special kind of ornery to be upset at people using a legally mandated signaling device in the recommended manner.
Stop a Douchebag – seen it. Great stuff until you learn they are Putin-approved and affiliated with the Nashi group in Russia. Google it – not as advertised IMO.
Should read ‘If you find it annoying to hear the tinkle of a bike bell….’
I’m shaking my head in disbelief. What kind of bizarroworld is this in which an activity which has been considered for years to be the considerate thing to do is now misinterpreted as some sort of dominating aggression or something?
Crazy!
You’ve gone from (ding, ding), to (dring, dring), to (tinkle) – or should that be (tinkle, tinkle). Tinkle? That’s hilarious – whether finding it or hearing it. This is not grammar but damage control. Any other euphemisms? How about Sturm und Dranging it – now there’s a construct – you’re just so emotional about riding that you have to let the world know. Ding ding dring dring tinkle tinkle Sturm und Drang. That has a ring to it. Sing it out and the pedestrians will clear a path.
They all mean the same thing: “Coming through – get out of my way” – nothing “friendly” about it. How is it that I manage to avoid dinging, dringing, and, god forbid, tinkling – without running into someone?
http://oldmanyellsat.cloud/oldman.jpg
I don’t bell, I whistle. Loud. It works, they turn & look, and we get by, with a little help, from my breath.
Do you think that’s a friendly/considerate/polite thing to do? Really? What do you mean “we” get by? The Imperial We. My point exactly – and do you wear Spandex?
Oh so now it’s a fashion thing too?
The way I see it is that cyclists are the new niggers/fags/chinks/whatever. The masses are given license to rag on a minority and so they do. In five years it’ll be some other group that people are told that it’s now okay to complain about and invent things that are wrong with them. At what point does a person ask themselves if they’re causing harm to others by playing along with it?
How do women react to your whistling at them Simon?