Sunday afternoon, Sunset Beach, sunny day.
On what was once vehicle parking, there are now two docking stations for Mobi bikeshare:

These cyclists were able to access the last open spaces.
By comparison, here’s the situation on the rest of the parking lot:

Lots of empty spaces for cars.  Of course, this is paid parking – but really, it’s a sunny weekend afternoon next to a busy part of the seawall, with access to the False Creek ferries. And yet the demand for car parking is abysmal.  Looks like they’ll have to use some of those spaces to put in another docking station for bikes.

Comments

  1. I agree! Parking lots for cars are about the worst possible use for parkland. I would hope the Park Board would start to grasp this, especially in Stanley Park.

  2. Parking lots are very good for people who need to use cars to get to that parkland. Do you not care about all those people? People who come from far or are old or not particularly able bodied?
    I also notice the Mobi bike share racks are full of unused bikes on a sunny day. What are we to make of that?

    1. Perhaps we could conclude that all those Mobi bikes represent people who used one to get to the park, since the last visit of the repositioning crew (who relocate bikes from the full racks to empty ones elsewhere).

      1. Perhaps, or they are just sitting there unused. Who knows. I think bike share is great, by the way. Not suggesting otherwise, but I will be interested to see stats on use given the uneven success with bike share in other places.

        1. The cost or the success of the bike share program is irrelevant as long as the city makes taxpayers subsidize it.

    2. Of course I care for those people. However they should pay for the privilege. Why waste park land by creating vast parking lots. It does not make any sense. At the same time Park Board appears to be anti cycling which does not make sense given their mandate and their name “The Vancouver Board of Parks and Recreation”.

    3. People who come from far or are old or not particularly able bodied?
      I guess you are talking about what Vision call“white hair people loitering around…”
      …and you are right on a point, bike is not an option for everyone, and what Arno fails to understand, is that beside for the cyclotourist, Vision has not improved the life for everyone else in despite of what Arno wants us to believe.
      However, I could counter that most people can use transit, and next to the pictured park, there is a bus stop serviced by a decently frequent bus route, making in this case the parking lot an unnecessary luxury, just generating more than needed traffic.
      Nevertheless, Transit access to this area (Aquatic center) use to be much better for people coming from “far”:
      Before the introduction of the burrard bike lane circa 2009, it used to be a SB bus stop at the foot of Burrard and Pacific, making the area well in the typical bus catchment (1/4 mile):
      https://voony.files.wordpress.com/2015/06/burrardbridgenorthend.jpg
      Alas, the city has preferred to remove this bus stop than to slightly imped cyclists, so effectively drastically affecting negatively the Transit coverage of the area (bus 2,32 and 44).
      Just saying that, for sure have Arno and the like calling you a “bike lane hater”…but what we all know is that a reduction of transit access provides an argument for the use of car, and per consequence the demand for parking… something the Arno and many other bike zealot, including some at city hall, fail to understand.

      1. Voony, I am also a big fan of transit, though I don’t use it much myself. I’m sure that the city is constantly in negotiation with TransLink re impact on transit routes caused by road changes. Maybe this is TransLink’s doing? Still, lots of people use the Burrard Bridge route so shouldn’t there be some consideration for all of these people? You seems to want to have a high priority for transit which is good, but doesn’t motor vehicle traffic also affect transit? Why always blame cycling for negative effects on transit. I would like to see something more balanced. Have you ever said anything positive about cycling?
        Also, you mention that if people stop using transit because it is inconvenient, they will switch to cars. This is not necessarily true since many will switch to walking and cycling. Again, why the negative focus on cycling? It is not difficult to see a negative bias. My question once again is why?

        1. because, it is explicitly to build the bike lane that the bus stop has been removed. motor traffic has nothing to do with that.
          Worse, you can see this Burrrad bike lane (south of Burnaby street) in in the way of a bus lane… that has setup the tone for the bike Vision policy: wasn’t it possible to do it better?
          PS: the allusion of vision and white haired people refers to the kits bike lane controversy, at this time Vision commissioners were posting such things:
          https://twitter.com/ConstanceBarnes/statuses/392788320477913088

        2. Its a bit of a stretch to attribute the white haired quote to Vision. You still haven’t answered why you are so against bike lanes and not against any car infrastructure and congestion that affects transit. And what about all the ped crosswalks? Don’t they affect transit. Not a peep about this. Yet you seem to despise cycling and our good city council. Where is this coming from>

        3. again, why you think I am so against bike lanes and not against any car infrastructure and congestion that affects transit.
          for the record, on every arterial where I think Transit level grant a bus lane , and a bike lane is demanded. I promote on my blog and elsewhere proven solutions similar to below:
          http://www.fietsberaad.nl/library/repository/ontwerpvoorbeelden/rs_6%20Kopenhagen,%20groene%20golf%20voor%20fietsers.jpg
          and I believe it is what should have happened on Burrard, and not only south of Burnaby, but on its whole downtown peninsula length.
          bike could have better without the bus stop, but bus rider too without the bike lane: the above is just a compromise, a concept apparently foreign to too many bike zealot, whose consider that a betrayal to the “good” bike cause.
          and stopping the bus to let pedestrian crossing the street is also a compromise I have generally no issue with it: does that make me a “bike hater”?
          Also, does I was opposed to the point grey, burrard bridge bike lane…?
          why you think people are against bike lanes as soon as they voice concerns on a specific design (and still propose alternative bike friendly solution)?

        4. Vision did specifically characterize the protesters as white haired and since Constance was a Vision park board member and she was posting that article, she clearly supported the view. The article is facile and offensive. Complaining that protesters are irrelevant because they are older (even if that were true, which it wasn’t) is ageist, but we have seen this before from Vision. Trying to characterize opposition that way to marginalize and insult rather than listen. Anyone remember “Fucking NPA Hacks”?
          The protest was not at all over the top. It saved a really important and much loved small green space in the most popular beach park in Vancouver from being paved. It also saved a really important small parking lot on the north end of the beach. It would have been horrible to cover so much green space with a 12′ wide asphalt path, right through where people picnic and play.
          And the consultation was a complete lie as well. A clear example of Vision setting out to get the answer they want by posing questions in such a biased way. The whole thing was really the height of Vision arrogance and after the court action caused Vision to have to back off, Constance Barnes had the nerve to claim that the park board was “listening to the people”. Nice attempt at spin, eh?

        5. I was at the protest over the bike lanes. Concern for trees and greenery was startling unevident based on the number of paper coffee cups I saw in the crowd. Do as we say, not as we do I guess.
          As for the area in question, it is largely unused even in summer, certainly room for a path. The rest of the time its a soggy field that no one uses. Direct observation bears out both conclusions.
          What’s the first casualty of a (bike lane) war? Truth as always.

        6. Voony, In this example there are design constraints and the safety of those cycling and convenience of those taking transit had to be considered. You seem to consider that transit should be prioritized, but why should transit always trump bikes? You seem to accept compromise with walking and driving but seem to resist compromise when cycling is involved.
          In this example, a sharp jog in a bike path is every bit as dangerous as a sharp jog in a car lane. I am sure that the overall safety of the intersection was also considered. If a compromise can be reached which can allow both, then I am all for it. If not, then surely some of these conflict areas should be settled in favour of cycling.
          In Vancouver, residents use transit for their trips 28% of the time while 7% of trips are made by bike. In many European cities, more people ride bikes than take transit. Cycling is mass transportation and costs way less than transit. We should rejoice that Vancouver has moved forward on this and use this as an example for other municipalities. So once again, why are you so ill disposed toward cycling?

        7. This isn’t Europe Arno. We’re not dealing with quaint narrow medieval streets. Surface transit makes more sense here. Take a look at the weather outside today, an unusually long summer makes people forget why cycling’s popularity plummets here in the Fall/Winter.

        8. Bob, I am not objecting to transit. I am a great supporter of transit but also a supporter of cycling.
          “This isn’t Europe”. This is a cop out phrase that is repeated often. No, we are not Europe but we can certainly aspire to be more like Europe. Most countries there have embraced cycling and their residents have benefited enormously. Note that the quaint medieval streets are only in old town centres where cycling and driving are often prohibited. The rest of the country looks a lot like ours except that it is safer to get around by bike as well as by other modes because safety is highlighted for all modes of travel. And it rains just as much in Amsterdam and in Copenhagen as it does here. So many benefits at such low cost. What’s not to like?

      2. Just for the record, the bus stop was removed to save the large pine tree. The cycle track was not affected by the bus stop.

        1. No, the removed bus stop in 2009 was North of Pacific,.
          The city could have seized the opportunity to restore it on the south side as in the scheme below:
          https://voony.files.wordpress.com/2015/07/burradpacificalt.jpg
          Saving the large pine tree is the reason the bike lane was making a slight hook in the drawing but this hook was considered too much an hindering for the cyclists… so the bus stop had to go !
          and disputing that choice classify you as a “bike lane hater”:

        2. Do you know that for a fact or is this just more of your conspiracy theory?
          I highly doubt that they removed a bus stop just so people wouldn’t have to have a slight curve when they cycle. Cycle tracks curve around in many places and nobody thinks much of it.

        3. Vooney, it is your opinion that the transit stop was removed because “this hook was considered too much an hindering for the cyclists”. It betrays your biases, and shows why you get some of the responses you do.
          The hook isn’t much of a hindrance, but it does create a bike intersection where the revised plan doesn’t. Intersections are crash sites. Possibly a factor, but not a show stopper. Recall that the overall intersection rehab wasn’t primarily for people on bikes, it was because this intersection had the second highest number of vehicle crashes in the City. Those crashes related to the slip lanes and vehicles merging without traffic signals. So the new design eliminated those, while allowing a higher volume of vehicle movements with two turning lanes. The transit stop would have been a step backwards, with an additional unsignalled merge, or an impact on the turning volumes.
          So, you could blame the vehicles that crashed all too frequently, or you could blame the desire to maintain vehicle volumes turning right on to the bridge, but instead you ignore those completely and say it is because of the bike lane potentially having a jog in it.
          And that is why you get called a hater.

        4. Jeff: I admire your storytelling skills and that is a reason making you a great spokesman for HUB. However:
          1/ The bus stop removal I was talking about is the one occuring circa 2009, and was located on the north side of Pacific (not at the intersection), and has been removed when the city installed a protected bikelane at this date (not when they redesigned the north intersection the bridge)
          2/ On the potential introduction of the bus stop as suggested by the drawing above (it has never been an bus stop here before): the city story is much different than yours:
          The stop could be accommodated but it would require removal of the large
          Cypress tree at the southwest corner of the Burrard-Pacific intersection, something
          which we would not support.

          To clarify, the cypress tree is the one Adanac is talking about:
          https://voony.files.wordpress.com/2017/10/burrad_at_pacific_sb.jpg
          the bus bay could have roughly taken the place of the newly built bike lane, pushing it, and the pedestrian path further west, effectively in the way of the cypress tree… unless you consider a hook, to have them passing west of the tree (in the drawing above, only the ped path is doing the hook around in fact, and my recollection is that the staff was reluctant at making this hook for the bike lane while it could have been necessary too), but it is not the bus bay itself which was conflicting with the tree (it is well off Burrrad street)
          In any case: at its open house, the city has not judged necessary to collect feedback on the trade-off concerning the tree – one could see as no more than an overgrown edge tree (not carrying exactly the same emotional charge as a mature tulip tree, oak, magnolia,…) – and subsequent arrangement including a bus stop, and preferred to call the trade-off without public input (notice the city routinely chop mature tree for whatever reason, so it could not have been an extraordinary step)

        5. And that’s why they shouldn’t try to outguess reactions too much. In assuming that everyone would be up in arms about removing the tree the city didn’t even bring it up as an option. They could have and found out what the reaction would really have been.
          Maybe some day in the future when the tree dies, putting a bus stop here could be considered.

      3. I am not objecting to transit. I am a great supporter of transit but also a supporter of cycling.
        “This isn’t Europe”. This is a cop out phrase that is repeated often. No, we are not Europe but we can certainly aspire to be more like Europe. Most countries there have embraced cycling and their residents have benefited enormously. Note that the quaint medieval streets are only in old town centres where cycling and driving are often prohibited. The rest of the country looks a lot like ours except that it is safer to get around by bike as well as by other modes because safety is highlighted for all modes of travel. And it rains just as much in Amsterdam and in Copenhagen as it does here. So many benefits at such low cost. What’s not to like?

  3. That parking lot would make a great site for Bard on the Beach!
    Instead of killing the grass at Vanier Park each year, it can be built on pavement – the same way Cirque is done.

  4. Not surprising the vehicle lot was not busy, it’s the middle of October. Have a picture from middle of July? Right.

  5. I have used this parking lot in the past – very convenient. Biking is not an option as I live in Coquitlam

      1. As is multimodal transit/biking. Greg Moore, the mayor of Port Coquitlam shared that his family took their bikes on skytrain and got off at VCC Clark station and then had a pleasant ride along the seawall. Previously they would have driven there but the Evergreen Line gave them a great alternative. Another option is to take transit and then rent a Mobi bike – we know there is a Mobi station in the parking lot. Lots of options.

      2. I am a senior and have cycled to Coquitlam and back on two occasions in the last month. Will be doing this again on Friday. If I can do it, then certainly almost anyone else can do it. Way more pleasant than driving. And less time consuming since I get necessary and beneficial exercise at the same time as transportation.

  6. It’s fun to watch parking-related videos of the Russian ‘Stop a Douchebag’ movement. There are a lot of them. Angry Chechens, mafiosos, rich and arrogant housewives, bad boys and wannabes …

Leave a Reply

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