Guest writes below:

… maybe that sign was placed instead of a “hazard” sign to make visible the massive dark log at night in an unlit parking lot.

Possible – given a lack of ‘Hazard’ signage at the Park Board or City.  Sure, that’s it.

However, a few hundred metres to the north along Arbutus Street, there is this: a closed gate for another parking lot next to the beach and basketball courts.  Note the signage.

More than that, note how the gate completely blocks the roadway, leaving no room for cyclists to get from the beach to Arbutus in order to avoid cycling through the most conflicted part of the park, where they are explicitly prohibited from riding.  So they have to go on the grass.

This is another small gesture of contempt.  But the Park Board simply doesn’t care.  They’ve effectively gaslighted the cycling community from getting resolution to the Kits/Hadden Park conflict, despite years of consultations and committees.  Some commissioners, like John Coupar, simply don’t want cyclists going through their parks for transportation, which might require upgrading the paths to City standards for space and separation.

Some activists fear a Kits flow way, as described below, would give the Board the precedent to remove or not build proper cycling paths. Then the City would be responsible for designing and paying for the infrastructure, and taking whatever political backlash that occurs (when, for instance, removing street parking).

What’s even more curious is that a majority of commissioners come from the left, especially the Green Party.  And they apparently have no desire or political will to resolve this.

So nothing happens.  Except the placement of barriers to discourage cycling.

Comments

  1. Not sure this post make lot of sense

    The Kits flow way, you suggest in the previous post is under CoV jurisdiction not park jurisdiction:

    If nothing happen, isn’t because you continuously knock at the wrong door?

    Then when the Kits flow way is suggested, Jeff Leigh, Chair of the HUB Vancouver Committee, say it is useless, because traffic is low enough for cyclists:

    So, why continuously insisting for cyclist to crisscross a park where it will virtually impossible for pedestrian to respect social distancing as soon as temperature will warm up…when a “low traffic ” street exist nearby.

    if your guys were a little less political..and more wanting to improve the cycling infrastructure there, you would size the opportunity to set a precedent on Arbutus,.

    that start to knocking the right door, but I am afraid it is not the Hub objective…since this precedent could effectively compromise the original objective to unnecessarily crisscross a park, just making matter worse for pedestrian and more generally other park user.

    noone is winning in this stand off.

    1. Hi Voony

      I didn’t say it was useless, I said I didn’t understand the benefit given the low vehicle volumes on those streets.

      Also, note that I did support reallocating road space near Kits Park, specifically along Cornwall from Cypress (where the protected cycling lane ends ) to Balsam (where the calmed on-road route resumes). I just don’t get why putting pylons up on Ogden should be a top priority, when there is a lot of the City that is south of Cornwall, and those areas could use some attention with regards to road space reallocation.

      And why do you just focus on cycling? The photo in the previous post suggesting said there were too many people in a confined space showed lots of people, but only one of them was cycling. This isn’t a cycling issue. It is a public space issue.

      I agree that reallocating road space isn’t a Park Board issue, they are City of Vancouver roads. The Park Board should pay attention to roads and paths that are under their jurisdiction, and take some action. Opening up the existing seaside bypass route through the south Kits parking lot would be a good start.

  2. I have found Green Party politicians aren’t necessarily cycling friendly. Some are, but many are not and often education is needed to bring them onside.

    1. One would think that Green Party people would know that the car-only approach to transportation is unsustainable but you wouldn’t know it by their actions sometimes.

  3. Thanks, I think I see why it’s that sign now.
    The gate on the other side prevents cars and unforunately also prevents cyclists from going through.
    It would make more sense for a detour sign, but that then runs into the dispute over where cyclists are allowed over parkspace.

    1. Not quite sure what you’re saying here, Guest.

      Why not just put a hazard sign on the log, and assume that cyclists are smart enough to not run into it?

      Like normal human beings.

    2. Guest, I am not sure which “gate on the other side” you are referring to.

      There is a gate at the north parking lot.

      There is a gate at the access lane to the concession, but one can ride on the grass to go around it. This lane is the safest route for people cycling if the waterfront path north of the concession stand is too congested.

      There are no gates at the south parking lots IIRC.

      If any organization (eg developer, builder, other authority) in the City wants to block a road or an official bikeway and put in a detour they are required to submit a traffic management plan to the City and get approval first. The expectation is that detours are to the same standard as what is being temporarily obstructed. That is why on Hornby at Pacific, where there is construction, the protected bike lane has been moved into the street, retaining protection, and not just blocked.

      Not sure why the Park Board would be any different here. Even if they are not required to conform to traffic management regulations because of jurisdiction, they should do so simply to follow best practices. They are using CoV engineering signs, so play by those rules.

      And when they get this one addressed, the slalom course they have set up down Park Drive from Prospect Point should be addressed. There are primarily bikes on this road now, and the multiple barricade gates simply create a crash risk. This week a vehicle overtaking me decided to merge into my (curb) lane without a turn signal or looking, just to be able to navigate the gates.

Leave a Reply

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