A report from Global News reporter Nadia Stewart, with a headline that distorts the story:

The protest had three dozen people – surely worth a qualified ‘some’ when the headline starts “Vancouverites upset.”  But that quibble doesn’t matter when judged against the absence of data and other points of view (like, say, comments from passing cyclists).  Importantly, the video story was supplemented in the online print version, where reporter Simon Little provided important information:

Vancouver Park Board manager Dave Hutch says about 93 per cent of Stanley Park Drive is open to vehicles, and that about 70 per cent of parking in the park remains open.

He said after talks with the city’s disability advisory committee, the board also added 10 new handicapped parking spaces.

“We’re seeing that the park and parking is nowhere near capacity this year. The busiest day was in mid August, we had 63 per cent capacity. We would expect about 90 per cent in August,” he told Global News.

Still, impact-wise, the protesters had the visuals and screen time.  There have been demanding that Park Drive be restored to two lanes for cars and have all the parking returned – in other words, back to the standards of mid-century Motordom.  That’s what we did in the post-war decades, and the roads of Stanley Park were designed accordingly: a transportation system where cars are given most of the space, there are no separated bike lanes (cars and bikes fight it out for priority), parking is provided in excess, and the seawall has to accommodate the crowding of all active transport users.

However, the most egregious statement comes right at the beginning of the clip.  No longer being able to claim that there is no access at all for vehicles on Park Drive, nor any disabled parking at key locations, they’ve added a new adjective.  NPA Commissioner Tricia Barker: “I know that people like to say that there is already access for everyone, but let’s talk about easy access for everyone.”

You heard it: now it’s about “easy” access.  Presumably this means no separated bike lanes or any reallocation of road space for other users if it makes it more difficult to drive and park.  Because that, in the opinion of lawyer Phil Rankin, would constitute discrimination against the disabled and seniors.  (Phil also thinks the Park Board should have held public information meetings in the midst of the pandemic before responding to the emergency.)

I have a hunch spokespeople for the disabled and seniors willing to appear have been willingly co-opted.  In their minds, diminishing car access also diminishes accommodation for their constituents – and hence a lack of respect, a reversal of gains, and somehow a defeat.  So they’ve ended up calling for more cars, more space for cars, less space for other users  – and they’re doing it in a park, on a day filled with climate-change-induced smoke, in the midst of a pandemic.  It’s a very bad look for people whose leverage is their presumed marginalization.

The NPA park commissioners have chosen to make this an issue on which they and the party will be identified (to the disappointment of this past-NPA councillor when we were the leaders in the development of bikeways and greenways).  Their cynicism becomes transparent when they first have to lie (no access for cars) and then change their rhetoric (no easy access) to maintain the pretense of discrimination.

They, unlike those they’ve co-opted, are engaged in discouraging cycling in parks (notably Kits), not taking the climate emergency seriously, and defending the status quo – a city designed for the mid-20th century world where you could easily drive to Stanley Park, motor the scenic loop, take it all in through the windshield, and find abundant parking wherever you wished to stop.

If their position prevails (we’ve heard very little from the other Green and COPE commissioners), there’s a cruel irony awaiting.  Eliminating the separated bike lane and throwing the cyclists, motorists and pedestrians together to fight it out is sure to result in more conflicts and accidents.  Which means more injuries, especially for vulnerable seniors.  Which means, ultimately, more people with disabilities.

 

Comments

  1. If only this debate could be based on actual facts, we might be able to work out a few issues worth discussing.

    Shaking off the unforgivable misrepresentations going on, here are some issues:

    The difficulty of motorists accessing 2nd and 3rd beaches and the Tea House from the North Shore: does that southbound access road off the Causeway still need to be closed to cars? Or could there be some signage giving them directions on how to get into the park once they hit Georgia Street eastbound. (It’s not easy.)

    Lack of car access to 3rd Beach (if that’s still the case).

    Clarity on bikes (still/always) being allowed the option of being in the car lane if they’re moving fast enough.

    Have we moved beyond the horse and buggy era?
    If we agree that we should enable a horse and buggy business for a very small number of park visitors, must it be the cyclists who give up their lane to make room, rather than cars being temporarily inconvenienced?
    Are more pullover bays and passing lanes possible for cars trying to get by the horse and buggy?

    What’s the actual situation with pedestrian crowding on the seawall around the bridge? Does it (still) warrant keeping bikes off the seawall now that physical distancing outdoors isn’t really happening anymore?

    Cycling the seawall- no hills, Ma!- is a pretty special experience and much preferred by unfit cyclists who also deserve consideration. Pedestrians, including seniors and people in chairs and scooters, may well prefer keeping cyclists off the seawall. My personal observation is that Sunset Beach is much more pleasant for pedestrians and kids and seniors now that all the cyclists are pushed up to Beach Ave.

    Speaking of Beach Avenue, has it really become the busiest bike route in North America? Data please.
    And if so is it reasonable to expect all those cyclists to fit back onto the sidewalk bikeway?

    Oh, and could certain councillors stop lumping all seniors into the disabled category? The majority of seniors are quite able to walk and ride bikes. Able-bodied seniors, myself and lots of my friends among them, like and enjoy the protected bike lane on the Stanley Park roadway. It is “easily accessible” to us. Do not purport to be speaking for us.
    We appreciate the safety of being protected from cars. Let’s talk about that!

    Just interested: when will we reach the point where the mainstream media default to cyclists’ view of the world, rather than car drivers’? Tell me it’s not about all that car advertising on private radio and TV stations and newspapers.

    1. “Just interested: when will we reach the point where the mainstream media default to cyclists’ view of the world, rather than car drivers’? Tell me it’s not about all that car advertising on private radio and TV stations and newspapers.”

      Of course it is. It can be divided into 50% for the click bait that drives the other 50% toward motordom advertising. The mainstream media will default to the cyclists view when bicycle related ad revenue exceeds automobile revenue. I don’t think that’s a cynical point of view. It’s the mainstream media more than any other cohort that continues to create the controversy on which they feed.

    2. It’s asking a lot, but I’d be very curious to see some study done on how much Causeway access/egress traffic stayed in Stanley Park, and how much was shortcutting.

      It’s long been my impression that North Shore drivers in Stanley Park are primarily using it to avoid Causeway congestion or short cut to English Bay. Over the last 25 years, most of my angry driver interactions in the Park have been from commuters speeding around the Drive.

      Frankly, I don’t think commuters should ever be a consideration when developing a Stanley Park traffic plan.

      1. I can tell you I only ever went through the park coming back from the North Shore as a short cut to get to my place in the West End, instead of going down the causeway and across Davie.

        Pretty much everybody I know who lives in the West End and has a car did the same thing and we all pretty much agree that we like the change. We’re okay with Beach Ave, even though it does make it harder to take the car out, but every single time we’re not in a car it’s a much more pleasant experience and that’s most of the time.

        Keep the off-ramps from the Causeway closed and I hope they also keep the Beach Ave.

  2. Some good questions, Peter. Here are a few thoughts:

    Can the southbound causeway slip road be reopened? It likely could be, but the numbers from the PB showed that 1/4 of the vehicles in the park were cutting through, and that is 1/4 of all vehicles in the park, not 1/4 of those using the slip roads. That suggests that a significant portion of the vehicles using the slip lane were rat running. Keeping the rat runners out seems like a good approach. It is unfortunate for those who are legitimately trying to access the park from the North Shore, but it seems that some drivers ruin it for all. I am used to people cycling regularly being told they are responsible for the actions of others cycling. Seems like here, using the same approach, drivers should do something about their fellow drivers.

    Lack of vehicle access to 3rd Beach. There have been photos posted of the sign pointing to that parking lot being uncovered, then covered. We don’t know if the re-closure was related to the large public events on the beach (drum circle), or whether it was ever officially opened (it may have been a guerrilla action) or whether this was simply a case of a disgruntled driver removing the sign and then it being put back by staff. Certainly some drivers have been removing the no entry signs at closed roads in the park regularly, causing staff to have to reset them each night, and also to have to stand up all the cones that have been knocked over. Some have posted that this is funny. I think it is ridiculous, and a waste of taxpayer funds.

    People on bikes being allowed in the left lane. Certainly they are. That is what the BC Motor Vehicle act says. The signs that are posted are guidance signs in the BC MoTI sign catalog. That publication lists a different sign if an authority wants to ban bikes, it states “No Cycling” and is posted on Hwy 1 in certain places, as an example.

    Opening the seawall to people on bikes. There are a number of factors here IMO. Certainly, the number of people walking near Lions Gate bridge is low, from anecdotal observations. However, the seawall path is continuous, and leads to the stretch at Sunset Beach. It is much busier there, as you note. It would be tough to enforce a partial opening, with people moving on to and off of the seawall path. There aren’t many good transfer connections. But the real issue IMO is that when Park Drive was closed to most vehicles, the number of people cycling in the park went way up. We saw the numbers on that. There were already crashes on the seawall path over the past years, and more so in busy times, even with the lower volumes of past years. There have been people injured, and lawsuits. The question is whether the number of people cycling in the park could be managed on the (often) narrow seawall path, whether there are people walking there or not. Years ago, the Park Board recognized the issues of safety on the Seawall for cycling, and did extensive public consultation, then wrote a plan, then wrote an implementation plan for those improvements, and then approved the plan, the implementation plan, and the budget. That was 8 years ago. We are still waiting for the bulk of those improvements to be delivered. Notably, only two commissioners voted against that plan. One was Commissioner Coupar. The other was Commissioner De Genova. It passed, due to the majority. However, implementation was never made a priority, even though the budget was available. That includes the term that Commissioner Coupar was chair of the park board. The sad thing is, if they had improved it, it would be easier to return the seawall to people cycling now. The commissioners well know the safety issues on the seawall bike path, as they would have been aware of past crashes and lawsuits.

    Data on Beach Ave. I have seen the numbers up through mid August at multiple locations. Yes, it is very busy. Burrard was, in the past, referred to as the busiest bike route in North America. I don’t know if it still is the busiest; there has been a great increase in cycling everywhere. However, there are now more people cycling on Beach Ave than the same days on Burrard Bridge.

    I was amazed that the event this weekend at Hallelujah Point had only a few dozen people. We had closer to a thousand at our event on Beach Ave in support of keeping the temporary road reallocations.

  3. Another thought, this one on the politicization of the temporary road reallocation by some (2) PB commissioners.

    The original reallocation (essential vehicles only) was not done by commissioners, it was done by PB staff. That was entirely appropriate. Vancouver bylaws give the power to change road space allocations between various modes to the City Engineer, a staff position, and state that within Vancouver parks, that exact same power is given to the GM of the Park Board. That is for permanent reallocations, not just temporary ones. This change to allow staff to reallocate road space was done several years ago, following years of debate and politicization of every bike lane and sidewalk change proposed. The City Engineer (and PB GM) had always had the power to reallocate road space as long as it was in favour of motor vehicles, but never for sidewalks or bike lanes. That was changed, and it has led to far fewer extended council meetings about every bike lane proposal that comes along. Council (and commissioners) are still involved in the funding decisions, but not specifically in whether or not road space should be reallocated.

    When one lane in the park was reopened to all vehicles, instead of just essential vehicles, that was again staff. Again, rightly so.

    The two commissioners who tried to overturn the staff actions put forth a motion to “restore the park to pre COVID” in June. That motion was changed, during debate, to wording along the lines of “allow staff to carry on with their plan”. It was not political. The two political commissioners didn’t like that much. And they continue to attack elected commissioners who are simply allowing staff to manage according to the authority granted to them. Staff should be commended for this work, not insulted by elected officials.

    If a permanent change is proposed, it should be subject to public consultation, fully agree. And we have been told that will happen. But to insist on full public consultation on a temporary road space reallocation is nothing other than grandstanding and trying to delay. The real issue is that the opponents of more active transportation infrastructure in the park have seen how popular it has been, and are trying to have it removed before any more people find out how wonderful it has been. Too late. They know now.

  4. Another thought, on the seawall path.

    Certainly the seawall path can be reopened to people cycling, most likely when the numbers of people cycling drop as the weather changes. But that won’t change what should happen on Stanley Park Drive, where a permanent protected lane should be implemented.

    On Beach Ave (which is the on road route to manage congestion along the beach front seawall paths) the temporary no stopping signs all said “Until August 31st” That has recently been changed, and they now say “Until Dec 31st”. Sounds great. The January/February usage numbers will likely be low enough to allow people cycling back on the seawall paths safely. Not because of conflict with people walking, but more because of congestion involving other people cycling.

  5. I used to bike park drive (for fitness) and now I run the seawall.
    I just think once the seawall is open to bikes again there won’t be enough cyclists on park drive to warrant a separate lane. It always felt safe to cycle park drive IMO.
    I never cycled the seawall because it seemed dangerous (pinch points, poor signage, people not paying attention…).

    I’d prefer any time and $$ spent go to improving the seawall – essentially do the whole thing over to current standards – 2 parallel lanes all the way around at the proper widths.

    1. I think that Park Drive felt safe and comfortable for cycling (or not) depending on one’s comfort level with vehicle traffic. I was fine on it. I wouldn’t take our granddaughter on it without physical separation. She is 3, and is doing 8 km on a bike these days.

      Any improvements to the seawall will be very expensive, ten of millions. The idea years back was to build a cantilevered path where necessary for more space. But there are other complications. All of the park is subject to archaeological/historical restrictions, such that even signs are a challenge to erect. Also, anything involving the foreshore would be a Federal issue for permits and environmental impacts. It would take years just for design and permits. And the park board leadership changes every few years.

      One of the key recommendations from the 2012 Stanley Park Cycling Plan was to build a return route. A significant number of the people cycling at Siwash Rock (and a high percentage of those who are going quickly) are simply trying to get back to the park entrance. The solution is a return route on Pipeline Road. That hasn’t been built in the subsequent 8 years, and one of the issues is that a ramp would be required from the seawall at the north end of Pipeline Road, to access Pipeline. That 10 m ramp was too much of a challenge to design and construct. And it would have significantly improved conditions for all users (walking and cycling) on the west side, by reducing user volumes where there are the most pinch points.

    2. Owen wrote: “I never cycled the seawall because it seemed dangerous (pinch points, poor signage, people not paying attention…)”

      IMHO if you think the seawall bike route is unsafe then it probably means you’re trying to go too fast. It’s not a thoroughfare, it’s a recreational route that should be savoured, not rushed. If you take it at a leisurely speed with plenty of buffer space between you and the bike ahead then there’s nothing unsafe about it.

      1. In my experience, the seawall path is most unsafe when it is too congested. It doesn’t mean that I am going too fast, it sometimes means that someone else is going too fast for prevailing conditions, or not paying attention to others around them.

        I live on the seawall path in False Creek. I tend to cycle it mostly on weekdays. When it is busy, especially on weekends, I feel safer cycling on Pacific Blvd.

  6. I know, this is clearly a place for partisan views on this issue, but I really must respond to so many misrepresentations. Firstly, the protest was not organized by the NPA, but the the two NPA members supported it and agreed to speak. You diss the modest numbers on a smokey day, but these were mostly mobility challenged and elderly people who were motivated to come out. Did you expect thousands? If numbers are so important, then why such a hard time accepting the 28,000 who signed a petition asking that the park be kept as it was? Or the overwhelming majority who called into the park board meeting to say that they do not want the changes. Oh yeah, when that happens it’s “because these older people have too much time on their hands”. Right.

    “…demanding that Park Drive be restored to two lanes for cars and have all the parking returned – in other words, back to the standards of mid-century Motordom.” Your framing, not anyone else’s. One lane would be just fine if it worked, but as we know, it was not just about one or two lanes, but about parking being cut off and the fact that there is a horse carriage business which blocks the one lane at times. While that contract with the park board exists, one lane is not feasible, but this obsession with one or two lanes is disingenuous because frankly, if all access remained as it was, no one would care about one lane. It’s just too handy a weapon to use without the details about it though, and that’s really dishonest.

    The whole notion that you assert that these seniors were there as props for the NPA is so patronizing and insulting. We do come to expect this, but it has to be called out for the ageism that it is. They are just too stupid to think for themselves, right? I guess cuz they are just so old.

    And you belittle ease of access because you are able and have no concept of what it means. “They can just walk 600m to Brockton.” “They don’t need to go to Third Beach. That’s for drum circles”. It’s just so dismissive and insulting.

    There seems no consideration for the thousands who did not visit the park this summer due to restrictions, only the uptick in bike numbers. No doubt, a good thing in itself, but far less significant than the many more thousands who normally visit the park. Doesn’t matter also that many cyclists who would use the flat and easy seawall simply would not go there because of the more strenuous road route. You know a senior who did it, or a 5 year old, so stop your whining and get on your bike (so to speak). It’s just so much about what you can do, or someone you know, but not about others who you have never met because are not there high fiving as they bike by in the park.

    Dave Hutch’s statement about 70% of the parking is so misleading as to be a lie. Much of the parking at the entrance is untouched, but other places are either 100% removed or significantly removed, far greater than 70%, but when you aggregate the entire park, you can twist the number to sound innocuous. Why not just say, “Yeah, we closed Third Beach to anyone who cannot arrive on a bike or on foot. Too bad for them” instead of pretending otherwise.

    But let’s be clear, this is not just about the disabled and elderly, it’s about anyone who would come to the park from afar or with beach gear or picnics for whom transit or biking is just so impractical as to effectively mean they are not able to enter. Could be a family with one person who is not able to cycle from Dunbar to the park, or from Main and King Ed to the park or wherever. It’s a lovely playground for West Enders, but what about everyone else (oddly, a refrain we hear from people accusing others of NIMBYism)?

    The NPA are identifying themselves with this issue front and centre. The issue is access for all, by bike, foot and car. To respect the fact that the park was a place so well loved before, for visiting on all modes, but especially on bike along the seawall, and that any possible changes to make it even better should be a process which involves meaningful consultation and not a predetermined outcome.

    If we can make biking better in the park, let’s do it, but the actual motion which the Green/Cope alliance passed was more about addressing global climate issues by curtailing motor vehicles. That was the number one reason for the motion, not to make the park a better experience, or safer for cyclists or anyone else, but because of an agenda which is so grossly disproportionate to park use as to be a satire on what is a very serious global crisis. It’s like throwing your bike in the garbage because the tires are made from fossil fuel. You know, we all have to pitch in right? Obviously that’s just as ridiculous. Going to the park should not be a game to play with vulnerable people or anyone else who needs to get there by car, whether that car is a Ford Mustang or a Tesla.

    1. You really hate that 350,000 cyclists vs 60,000 cars comparison don’t you? Clearly more people were coming to the park than usual so you’re statement about people not coming is as disingenuous as any criticism you make. Furthermore, for the the time being, we are still being encouraged to do more things closer to home until we have the virus under control – which we obviously do not. So, for now, arguing for people from afar to visit the park is tone deaf.

      Any future permanent bike lanes would have ironed out all the many bugs in the temporary configuration including reinstating all the parking and finding more places to pass the carriages. Nobody was every trying to exclude anybody from the park and, again, this line of criticism is a deliberate manipulation.

      The problem with your criticism of the climate change motion is that every such motion at every level of government can be met with the same disdain and we make no progress at all. Canada is responsible for only 2% therefore we get a free pass. Same same. Encouraging more people to cycle *is* a profound way to make a difference. Far far more than encouraging more people to drive an EV.

    2. Also, signing an on line petition is pretty darned easy compared to, say, riding your bike to and around the park. I have no numbers to back this up, of course, but I don’t think it would be a stretch to say that more people rode that new lane that had never ridden the road before than signed that petition. I’d even say it is plausible that more people rode that new lane that had never even ridden in the park at all before.

      1. Your comments are in no way fact based, but this is par for the course, it seems. 12 million visit the park annually, mostly in these summer months, so 350,000 cyclists is not a material amount of visitors in the scheme of thing. Great that people came, not saying it isn’t, but please stop asserting this number as the sole arbiter of how many are enjoying the park. It’s simply nonsense.

        We are absolutely not being discouraged from outdoor activities in parks. Again you twist reality to support an imagined narrative. Getting to Stanley Park from say, Marpole, would be best done by private vehicle, for Covid safety, but also practicality for many who would not be comfortable biking that distance, or do you not care about those people?

        Planning effectively for future changes are fine. Do it with proper consultation and public feedback and respect that feedback, don’t dismiss it. Until then, leave the park as it was before.

        1. When referencing the 350,000 cycling trips in the park, over a period of weeks, you keep coming back to 12 million visitors in a non pandemic year. The correct comparison is to 60,000 vehicle trips in the exact same time period in a non pandemic year.

          You are also conflating the PB Commissioners’ motion to have staff present options for reducing vehicle traffic, along with full consultation, with a separate staff decision to reallocate road space, as specifically authorized in Vancouver bylaws. It is a shame that two commissioners politicized the action. To their credit, the other five commissioners modified and then passed a motion that allowed staff to carry on with their job as outlined in those bylaws. They didn’t vote to change the road space reallocation, they voted to not interfere. Kudos to them.

          1. Do you have reference to the supporting data for 60k vehicles in a non-pandemic year? I thought that was the count this year, but if I’m mistaken, I would appreciate seeing the source and related info. In any case, as I said, it’s great that 350k cycled this summer under these unusual pandemic circumstances. No one is trying to suggest it’s not a good thing, but I’m not sure why that success has to be at the expense of access for others, no matter the numbers. We also do not know if those cycle numbers would be any different, or indeed even higher if the park was opened so cyclists could use both the seawall and road as it was before. That is, the higher numbers were most likely a symptom of these extraordinary times, not simply because cyclists who would not come to the park, came now that the road was the option instead of the seawall.

            It’s possible some found the novelty of a new route attractive, but certainly I know many who would normally cycle the seawall, but did not come to the park due to the more challenging road route.

            To be clear, I want safe cycling and I want the seawall open for bikes, which has always been an extremely popular choice. Most of the seawall is entirely separated from pedestrians, so something should be done at the few pinch points to address any issues. Whether it’s a redo, fences to separate or merely signage to discourage behaviour which leads to problems, from either cyclists or pedestrians (as they are known to casually walk into the bike lane).

            What the two NPA commissioners advocate for is access to the park fully for those who need a car, but that is not limited to handicapped or elderly people as cars are a necessary mode for many who either come bearing lots of beach gear, or from afar, where cycling would not be practical for them. Most of the cyclists I have engaged with who are using the park now tend to live in the West End or near by, so it’s fine for them, but the park should be attractive to more than just locals.

            I’m not conflating the two issues, others here are who are angry that the park has reverted back. You are right, they are separate and so everyone should be totally on board with the park going back as it was right now, as promised, because that was exactly what was meant to happen (I would argue, way earlier than now). The outrage from some who insist that the park board caved to “car culture” is misguided, both because it was meant to happen and because advocates for the park to be open are not “car culture” advocates, but people advocates. People who need to arrive by car. None of us are tinkering on our Camero on the weekend. We don’t have some love for cars, outside of what they do for allowing people and families to get to this park to enjoy it.

            The Cope/Greens voted to carry on as the staff intended, but it is in no way irregular for a motion to be debated with regards to staff initiatives both at the park board and the city, and so to frame this as some kind of undermining of staff is inappropriate. When that motion was discussed, some 90% of callers (limited by said majority) spoke in favour of opening the park. You know about the petition and so the fact that two commissioners were seeking to represent constituents is not only reasonable, but their duty. They don’t have the majority, so they lost that vote, but I hardly think it’s right to suggest that what they did was somehow inappropriate. I am quite sure that if the shoe was on the other foot and two Greens were asserting a motion in favour of your desired outcome, you would hardly be here complaining about it. So Kudos to politicians listening to the public and trying to respond, which is what Coupar and Barker were attempting to do. That’s why we have commissioners.

          2. “According to Green Party commissioner Dave Demers, Park Board staff estimate visitation within Stanley Park is up by 50% since May 1, and they have counted 350,000 cyclists over the last 67-day period.”

            “Demers added that over the same period in 2019, there were about 60,000 vehicles in Stanley Park, which is a figure that includes high-occupancy cars and tour buses. It is also believed about a quarter of this traffic uses the park’s local roads as an alternative route to the Stanley Park Causeway.”

            https://dailyhive.com/vancouver/stanley-park-car-access-june-2020

            You still haven’t made the case that the park was not open to all with one lane allocated to bikes. As long as you are confused by that your argument doesn’t hold.

          3. It was Park Board staff who described the 60,000 measure for vehicles. That should be clear. It couldn’t have been this year as the road was closed to non essential vehicles during the time period in question.

            Most of the people speaking at the June 18 PB meeting wanted more vehicle access, but it wasn’t a call for no protected bike lanes by most. Also not sure why you are focusing just on the people who spoke online and ignoring the 1600+ letters all commissioners received that were all in favour of maintaining the temporary lane reallocation. Overall, the majority who contacted commissioners were clearly in favour of not returning to the prepandemic arrangement.

            Even your separate online petition just called for reopening the road to more vehicle access, which was already the plan, and which would have happened earlier but for the delay the two NPA commissioners caused. You didn’t change your petition to claim that it was in fact a call for removal of all temporary reallocations until after.

            What is really sad about all of this is that the 2012 Stanley Park Cycling Plan, which included extensive public consultation, identified many safety issues related to the seawall path. Commissioners voted to accept that plan, and also approved an implementation budget. That was eight years ago, and we are still awaiting the safety improvements to be done. If they had been completed as planned, it would have been safer to allow people cycling back on the seawall earlier, as the route could have better accommodated the high number of people cycling. When you repeatedly refer to the Seawall path as perfectly fine, you ignore all of that history. And the crashes. As an aside, only two commissioners voted against those cycling improvements in 2012, and they were both from the NPA. Commissioners Coupar and DenGenova. Coincidence?

          4. “it wasn’t a call for no protected bike lanes”. Of course it wasn’t, but why you keep asserting that any of us want “no protected bike lanes” while also claiming that it’s me that is making this a divisive black and white issue is beyond me.

            The people who called in wanted the park open to cars, like it was before. Moving forward with consultation on any possible changes in that context, not before. The emergency measures were fine, but when there was no longer an imperative for them, as the park board decided everywhere else, many felt that park should return to it’s previous state. Forever? Not necessarily. Not even likely, but those of us who wanted to go to the park or seawall wanted full access returned.

            1600 letters to the park board? Not received by the commissioners I asked. Why is that? Could it be that there were no 1600 letters, but instead a petition from HUB with 1600 supporters in the form of signing a template letter or something like that? 1,600 compared to 28,000 who wanted the park as it was (although closer to 20k at that time). How can you possibly assert 1,600 in your favour and dismiss 28,000? Why do you dismiss the overwhelming number who called in support of the motion? It’s selective editing on your part that you just continue to dismiss the far greater numbers who don’t align with your views.

            By the way, the petition cannot be changed after it is set up and signed by supporters, it can only have updates, which it did.

            I have not “repeatedly insisted the seawall is perfectly fine”, I have said it was well loved by thousands who have used it and that safety improvements should be priority. I’ve said THAT repeatedly, but again, selective editing to present this divisive narrative suggesting that I don’t ANY changes. None at all. It serves you, but it’s false.

          5. Please quote the wording in the petition that says signatories want the protected bike lane removed.

            I can’t find it. What am I missing?

          6. No, not a petition. Well over 1600 letters. Signed and dated. With postal codes. I have copies. I guess if some commissioners decided not to read them they could have mistakenly referred to them as a petition. But then they would have missed all the personal stories.

            David, maybe you need better sources.

            I don’t dismiss the 20,000. The people who signed asked for vehicle access to be restored. As did the vast majority of the 1600+ letters. It was. You are beating a dead horse every time you bring up the petition.

Leave a Reply

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