A blunt announcement from the Park Board:

This is what the Park Board is essentially saying to cyclists who still use Park Drive:

“The data tells us we can return the park to its conventional traffic patterns” – and we’re all about sticking with the conventional.  So we’re throwing you back in with the vehicles now, where you can fight it out for the same space.  But be careful, motorists may now see you in the way and assume you should be back on the seawall – where you can fight it out with pedestrians given the inadequate space and your vastly increased numbers (which we assume will drop down to the, um, conventional).

You really shouldn’t be surprised, given that we have repeatedly demonstrated in Kits and Jericho Parks that we don’t intend to find reasonable accommodation, and will relegate you to dirt paths and parking lots, regardless of conflicts and accidents.  And even though we have plans and budgets for improved facilities for cycling in Stanley Park, we haven’t spent it and don’t have immediate plans to do so.

We take our direction from the board, two of whom (the NPA commissioners) will claim our action today as a victory and reinforce the anti-cycling messaging of their party.  The Green and COPE commissioners just stay quiet, more concerned about social issues than, say, something that might actually address climate change.  We have our hands full accommodating the homeless than accommodating cyclists.

Let’s face it, cyclists, the ‘Recreation’ in Board of Parks and Recreation really doesn’t include you.

 

If that seems a little harsh, let’s ask the commissioners this question: will you commit to re-installing the bike lane next year, if for no other reason than to take the pressure off the seawall and make the experience a better one in order to encourage – as you have voted to do – more cyclists and pedestrians?    Otherwise, we’re going to go through yet another frustrating, counter-productive and cynical bike-lane war. 

And in the meantime, will you finally resolve the missing-link issue in Kitsilano, Jericho and other parks that connect to the city’s Greenway system but are woefully inadequate, even dangerous (see image above from the Kits parking lot) that you have put off for years? 

We await the commissioners responses.

Comments

  1. We have a rising unemployed labor pool, we have rising sea levels, we have a rising cycling population, we have a rising need for safe spatial separation so why don’t we RISE to the occasion, and start putting these elements together and RAISE the seaside bike/walk way, make it wider and accommodate this generation of users.

    Make it a big public works project, a civic event, do it carbon neutral, employ many hands, and include many volunteers.

    You all know the drill. Public Consultation with diagrams, illustrations, objectives and principles stated clearly, time lines pictured, benefit noted, participants listed.

  2. Really the only way forward is to boot the NPA once and for all from the board. Will it happen? I don’t know. It seems too many people aren’t aware that:

    a.) The Parksboard is elected.
    b.) What they actually do.

    For most people “parks just are” and quite frankly it’s hard to believe that city parks are a political battleground in its own right.

  3. I think people will eventually get fed up with the obstructionism. Eventually the lady walking her dog in Kits who is surprised when I pass her at 30km/hr wont care about the green space and will just want the bikes in a separate lane that they will use and not put her dog or her at risk of an accidental collision.
    For me the shift from the closed road to a mixed flow moved me back to the paths. On the road I’m the most vulnerable user; the cars pass you and then slow at turns/downhills, and the occasional aggression/honk. When the road was closed it was a fun carnival atmosphere, now we’re back to normal plus some additional angst due to the changes. So now I take the paths again which have pedestrians, dogs, etc but its nicer and I move at a similar speed with less risk for myself.
    The park boards resistance to accommodating cyclists encourages this downloading of risk to the most vulnerable users, and normalizes disregard for the rules(kits beach “walk your bike” sign. I guess it’s worth it for the greenspace preservation.

    While most people aren’t aware or even voting for the parks board; this is still reflecting on the NPA. Just like the board issues are reflecting on them, even though the caucus claims to be different. While I agree with some NPA councilors on many points, I wouldn’t vote for the party, or anyone who wants to be associated with the board, or the park board reps.

  4. Odd that some cycle activists want to undermine process and democracy and just force their wishes through. The changes in the park were always meant to be a temporary emergency measure, not a trial for a permanent change and so of course it had to end, but only thing is, it should have ended weeks ago when the risk had clearly passed. Every other park, bike route, tennis and basketball court, all open fully ages ago, except Stanley Park so it begs the question, why did this take so long?

    In any case, framing this as some kind of climb down is wholly inappropriate. The Park Board passed a motion to examine possible changes with consultation and public feedback. In advance of that, many opinions have been expressed, but proper, meaningful consultation should take place when the park has been returned to it’s pre-Covid state and views should be taken seriously, as promised by the motion. I’m just unclear why anyone thinks putting the park back as it was represents some kind of capitulation by the park board or commissioners.

    1. It took so long because they needed fall weather as an excuse for lower numbers. Funny that the decision was made during one of the worst smoke events in Vancouver’s history when everybody was advised to limit physical activity and even just to stay indoors. It would otherwise have been another glorious week of summer with high cycling numbers and no justification to take it down. The Parks Board is hostile to cyclists and they’ve displayed that for all to see yet again. They are certainly not hostile to motorists, having stepped back from pay parking at Spanish Bank, leaving those lots heaving with overflow and people parking illegally on Marine Drive impeding traffic and emergency vehicles and even parking on the grass in the park itself. The tow trucks literally could not take them away fast enough.

      And, David, the wildfires that brought the smoke – again! – are being exacerbated by climate change which is being exacerbated by too much driving. Vancouver has rarely seen such smoke in my lifetime and now it’s become an annual occurrence. More wildfires, just as the climate scientists forecast. Go figure.

      1. “The decision”? You really don’t accept that it was, in fact, an emergency measure, not a new plan for the summer. It should have been rescinded at the same time all the other measures throughout the park system were. It’s really as simple as that.

        The lots at Spanish Banks are heaving, why? Because people love to go there. What does it say about yourself that you are disappointed that too many people are enjoying the beach? I really don’t get it, but then again, you actually think this park board is somehow anti cyclist. I think many would find that rather rich.

        Finding equivalency between driving in a park and the forest fires is just so absurd to be a kind of populist junk science. What next? We need to ride our bikes on the rims lest we use fossil fuel created tires? Would you be okay with road access in the park for Teslas?

  5. Given the echo chamber here, it will escape many that the majority of Stanley Park’s usual users don’t come by bike. Why on Earth would the Parks Board commit to re-running the bike lane again in 2021, just in time to ruin another peak summer season for the businesses that pay them rent and for all the users deterred from visiting the park this year?

    Since federal money seems feely thrown about these days, why not lobby to get some to widen the seawall?

    1. 350,000 cyclists rode the park during the full shut down. Only 60,000 cars drove it in the same period the year before. So much for that theory Bob. Think about it Bob. There were about 6 times more cyclists when everything was closed than there were cars when everything was open. Don’t let facts get in the way of your ideology.

      Even after cars were given back a lane cycling numbers remained very high. Does anybody have numbers? By my own observations there were always 3 to5 times more bikes than cars and the cars were rarely full – usually just a couple people. Regardless of the exact ratio, the bike lane brought tens of thousands of potential new customers right to the front doors of those establishments. Given the bike hatred shown by all of them they may not have benefited much because they would rather cut off their noses than dare acknowledge cyclists as human, Still, I’d have a great chuckle if they see revenues drop once the bike lane is removed.

      1. You are of course ignoring the fact the cyclists stats are “double-counting”. For example the MAMILs who show up every weekend for their hugh speed tear around the park.

        1. I am, of course, specifically not doing that.

          First off, you are suggesting that none of those 60,00 cars were repeats. Second, I very clearly said that those establishments were losing tens of thousands of potential customers. Of course there weren’t 350,000 unique cyclists. But, in fact, they were a potential customer every time they passed. I actually downplayed their potential.

    2. ” the majority of Stanley Park’s usual users don’t come by bike.”

      What’s your source for that information?

      Or rather: How high is the percentage of people arriving by car vs. all the other ways (walking, public transit, bike)? I am sure you have a source handy to share with us.

      1. The last count was 12 million visitors per year, so if the bike count this extraordinary season was 350k, you can see that there are literally millions who are not arriving by bike.

        1. “you can see that there are literally millions who are not arriving by bike.”

          Ah yes, of course. If it’s not by bike it must be by car. Now that you mention it I totally remember the millions of car choking the Westend and Stanley Park every year. I mean. Only 350K bikes, so that must mean what? 11.65 million car trips to Stanley Park!

          NOW I understand why you are so adamant about it be open again. Where else could all these cars go?

        2. I think you will find that that count from previous years included people walking, cycling, driving, and using tour buses. It isn’t bikes vs cars no matter how many times you try and frame it that way.

          The 350,000 wasn’t a season. It was a short period some months back. In that same exact period in a non pandemic year 60,000 vehicles were counted, and an estimated 25% of those were not accessing the park, but rather cutting through it.

          There may be millions who are not arriving by bike, but they are also not arriving by other means. If there had not been a boon in people cycling to the park it would have been even emptier. Let us remember that the parking lots haven’t been full. Lots of evidence of that.

          1. Actually, Jeff, I’m not the one framing it as bikes vs cars. I’m not seeking to get bikes out of the park. I’m not the one who claims that cars should be nowhere near the park as many have (and notably retweeted by HUB). I want bikes back on the seawall and on the road. I want cars on that road too. I want a park for all. Obviously we disagree on how that “park for all” should be shared, but honestly, nothing about my position or the position of Coupar or Barker is against bikes, however so much about the opposition is decidedly anti-car and if you don’t think so, I’m happy to forward so many online comments to you which are exactly that.

            The point about numbers is that there are millions not arriving and we are in an extraordinary time. This is not the time to be looking at numbers to make long term decisions. Not only that, but it isn’t a competition in a park which should be accessible to all. If it was a numbers game, then surely there would be bike lanes which come nowhere near the car volumes on a given route, and so on that basis, are they invalid? Of course not.

            Parking lots not being full misses the point. Empty parking lots don’t help people who cannot get to places which are 100% closed to cars like Third Beach, and remember, this has been an evolving process and comments about Prospect Point were actually before the park board made changes. If one car lane could work in the park without causing jams and cut off access, it would be a whole different story.

          2. ” nothing about my position or the position of Coupar or Barker is against bikes,”

            Your constant attempt to frame any kind of space for cars being taken away as an attack on the “elderly and disabled” is not against bikes? Could have fooled me. Because it seems every time a move is being made to make cycling safer and / or more attractive without a fail you are there to tell us how this is unfair to whatever group you want to instrumentalize for your argument. Same with the NPA btw. Who still can’t help themselves but have a bite reflex when it comes to cycling infrastructure.

            “This is not the time to be looking at numbers to make long term decisions.”

            And yet, you are the one who brought up numbers to start with and dismissed the number of people riding through the park as “minuscule”. So what is it? Do numbers matter or not? Or do they only matter when you think you can win an internet point?

            “If one car lane could work in the park without causing jams and cut off access, it would be a whole different story.”

            I think I found the crux of the problem for you: The dreaded congestion that you somehow put down on cyclists. The reality is that the speed limit in the park has been 30 kph in forever and yet, regularly cars are flying through there at way more than that.

            Maybe what needs to happen is for the parks board to install some speed cameras and write hefty tickets. That way, congestion would be reduced as everybody is going to drive the 30kph as they’re supposed to.

          3. David wrote: “I want bikes back on the seawall and on the road. I want cars on that road too. I want a park for all.”

            Nonsense. You want to allow confident road cyclists to share lanes with motor vehicles; you don’t want all the families with kids, younger and older riders, newer riders, and anyone who is not comfortable sharing space with vehicles, relegated to the seawall path. They have shown they will ride the road in great numbers when it is safe, with physical separation, over the past months. You want to take that access away. You further want to deny them access to areas of the park such as Prospect Point, which only has road access. You don’t want a park for all at all.

          4. I’m confused about how to reply in this thread to Jeff’s last comment starting with “David wrote: “I want bikes…” so if this is not in order, this is meant to be about that.

            I’m honestly shocked that you use terms like “relegated to the seawall” when you refer to family biking. Any of the hundreds of thousands who have visited the park from afar and wrote superlatives about the biking experience would, I think, be taken aback by the notion that the seawall is some kind of place to be “relegated” to, but such is your bike politics that you need to denigrate one of the most loved places on earth to bike to make your point? Strange.

            Most all of the seawall is totally separate to roads and pedestrians. Where it comes close to pedestrians, changes should be implemented to improved safety. I’m all for looking at how we can make this stunning ride even safer and better.

            Do I want to take the road access away to bikes? Not at all, but you make the point that families would not as likely bike on it if it was not safely separated. That’s true. My preference would be the seawall for families anyway. You don’t want that, or do you? Not clear. Or do you want both? If there is a way to organize the road in a more equitable way so as not to impact car access the way this half baked, constantly revised plan was, then I would be interested in it.

            Imagine how this issue could have gone if handled with more respect to all park goers. Close the roads completely as the park board did. Then open them when safe, as park board did all other park amenities. Then set out to proceed with the motion to review changes with public input. Review options, like maybe NOT closing Third Beach to all who need to arrive by car, or almost all the parking at Second Beach. Promote the fact that all are welcome and show everyone where you can bike and where you can drive and park. Make EVERYONE feel welcome instead of these seemingly arbitrary restrictions which sometimes changed and sometimes did not.

            Also, most importantly, consult with stakeholders in the park, which the park board totally failed to do.

            Your position, Jeff, is divisive, uncompromising and you are dishonest when you insist that HUB does not want cars out of the park completely because you say one thing while HUB retweets comments by people saying exactly the opposite. What message do you think that sends to people who are worried that the long game is to ban cars completely? How does retweeting “Stanley Park would be better off without any cars” make people feel about HUB’s position?

          5. Michael, your comments are so absurdly ridiculous that I will leave you to your contrived beliefs about what I have said and what I want. It’s just too tiresome to engage with these kind of distortions about what I said and you don’t seem willing to engage in good faith.

          6. David, you are the one with contrived beliefs. You have been told repeatedly what HUB Cycling’s position is wrt vehicles in Stanley Park, and have been referred to media interviews where it was clearly articulated. But you continue to insist that a retweet of a thoughtful post, which included a reference to fewer cars, defines HUB’s position. If you are that desperate to make up positions for others, I suggest you go back to that post you dislike so much, and read one from the same time that was a retweet of John Coupar’s position. See what you can twist that into. I can assure you that his post did not reflect HUB’s position. You are simply grasping at straws.

            As to relegating people to the seawall path, there are some who prefer it for the views. Many people will not ride it due to the safety issues. It certainly accommodates far lower numbers of people cycling than the road lane has. Both should be available when it is safe; the seawall for those who prefer it, and a protected on road route to accommodate all the people the Seawall path won’t. That position has been previously articulated as well.

          7. David asks to imagine how this would have gone with “more consultation”. We don’t have to imagine, we are living it. Cycling improvements in the park went through a long consultation. Safety issues were identified. Safety improvements were proposed. A full report was drafted. Commissioners approved it. They also approved an implementation plan and budget. Then they sat on it for eight years and didn’t do it. Including the time when Commissioner Coupar served as Board chair.

            So, calls for “we just need consultation on active transportation changes in the park” should be seen for exactly what they are. Delaying tactics. Nothing more.

          8. David thinks the road reallocation plan was “half baked” because it was changed as we went. Actually, prototyping and continually improving was a very good strategy in this case. The PB staff should be commended for their focus on continuous improvement, they worked hard on it. The Japanese word for this is Kaizan. I don’t know what the Japanese word for half baked is, but if I did I would use it to describe David’s criticisms.

          9. Jeff, you do a good job of revisionist history when you say that HUB retweeted some comments about the desire for “fewer cars in the park”. Sorry, no. HUB retweets comments about wanting NO cars in the park. Literally that cars should be banned. If you said that was a mistake and you regret it because it is absolutely not HUBs position, fine, but nope, you double down and mislead by suggesting that it never happened. Well it did, more than once. And then HUB makes pronouncements about cars being just fine, and we are not supposed to worry about any underlying subtext or end game because you say so while also promoting tweets which ask for a total ban. Sorry, but your messaging is confused and concerning.

            Some prefer the seawall for the views? Sorry, you should really spend more time checking out reviews. Please do post one or two here which tell us how disappointed they were with the experience on the Seawall. I’ve never seen a single one.

            The road allocation was half baked because the mistakes were so painfully obvious to so many of us that it beggars belief that it would have been implemented the way it was. I saw cyclists routinely going the wrong way, parking was reduced significantly, then increased, then reduced. Key destinations were completely cut off for no good reason apart from not wanting a bike to have to stop to let a car cross. It begs the question, how did the cyclists in the park get there if they can’t handle crossing a road where a car might need to cross? And of course the car would have a stop sign and “yield to cyclists”.

            This is all very baffling to so many of us. Why you would be so averse to solutions which work for all and not just your constituency? You seem to denigrate the needs of others who are not cyclists and here on PriceTags, the notion of the needs of non-cyclists are routinely derided and made to sound like mere pawns for evil NPA commissioners. You should sit down with these people and see what kind of humans they are. I would be more interested myself to learn about the Cope/Green commissioners, but they are notable for their total unwillingness to speak to the media about these issues. Odd, isn’t it?

          10. David wrote “ Jeff, you do a good job of revisionist history when you say that HUB retweeted some comments about the desire for “fewer cars in the park”. Sorry, no. HUB retweets comments about wanting NO cars in the park. Literally that cars should be banned.”

            Go back and read the tweet. It literally doesn’t include the word “car”. You made that edit yourself. You should be ashamed of your conduct.

            The tweet did talk about promoting transit in the park, access for all, and addressing single occupant vehicles. Cars that were not SOVs were not addressed at all.

            Let’s help you out here:

            CBC tweeted: Dr. Henry says the Stanley Park road closure is a really good thing and encourages active transit.

            “I would be in favour of keeping it that way and reducing the number of cars on our roads.”

            Shauna tweeted: Agreed. On so many levels it makes sense not to return to having single occupancy vehicles in Stanley Park. I would like to see electronic tourist buses and access for disabled people AND MORE BIKES.

            HUB retweeted that. HUB also retweeted Commissioner Coupar’s tweet on the same subject to promote more discussion on the issue. David claims that one of those retweets is a call for a ban on all cars in the park, and defines HUB’s position as being anti car. Epic fail.

  6. I enjoyed the free wheeling through the park as much as anyone else, but once the seawall bike path is open again, most would choose it over that ride up the hill and hidden views. So no great loss to most cyclists, I believe, even though dangerous.

    A solution to reducing unnecessary car traffic will still be in effect, at least until the city reopens Beach to two-way traffic. The Parks Board is continuing to redirect cars along Lost Lagoon Drive to Georgia Street. Many car drivers who like to cruise Stanley Park or take short cuts from southbound on the causeway have to exit at Georgia Street. A real turn off.

    If forcing cars to exit Georgia were to be permanent, less cars would venture around the park, Beach Avenue and Pacific Street would be a lot quieter, and the adjacent park more enjoyable than when, on nice sunny evenings, the Stanley Park cruisers are lined up around the park exiting into the West End.

  7. We are still in the very same emergency!! Our cases are spiking higher than ever. It’s really as simple as that.

    Charging for parking would manage the numbers. Providing better transit would give them an option. Improving the bike lanes *through the parks* would get more people enjoying those parks and beaches with less stress on the climate *and* the very parks themselves.

    Everything we do has to become lower and lower carbon and eventually no carbon. Nothing gets a free pass including encouraging people to drive across the the region so they can drive through the park. Obviously!

    1. Honestly Ron, please stick with reality. We are not in the very same emergency or the very same park board would not have opened up every playground, tennis and basketball court, swimming pool, beach and every bike lane apart from in Stanley Park. We are in phase three and the ministry of health tells us the chance of outdoor transmission is insignificant and encourages us to get outside. Making it easier for more, not less people to access the park is a big positive.

      You seem to be spinning this as something to be critically avoided, that is, unless you are on a bike, then the more the merrier. We don’t want to “manage the numbers” we want people to use the park. Do you see what you are actually saying? You want less people in the park unless they come by bike. Nice.

      Further, you are using the climate emergency as an excuse to badger people who you don’t want in the park because they do not arrive on a bike. What would you say if in a few years we had all transitioned to electric cars. Then would you be demanding two lanes and lots of parking? Somehow, I really doubt it.

      1. “What would you say if in a few years we had all transitioned to electric cars. Then would you be demanding two lanes and lots of parking? Somehow, I really doubt it.”

        No because even electric cars cause environmental damage, road building, brake dust, tire wear (the latter one specifically and you won’t lose that with electric drive).

        https://www.tiretechnologyinternational.com/news/regulations/pollution-from-tire-wear-1000-times-worse-than-exhaust-emissions.html

        “Non-exhaust emissions (NEE) – particles released into the air from brake wear, tire wear, road surface wear and resuspension of road dust during on-road vehicle usage – are currently believed to constitute the majority of primary particulate matter from road transport: 60% of PM2.5 and 73% of PM10. “

        There is even a Wiki article you can pursue: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rubber_pollution

      2. Agreed, The risk of outdoor transmission is low. But it is not anywhere near zero and a cough or sneeze in close proximity is all it takes. Since we ‘ve relaxed the rules the cases have spiked. It is a philosophical debate about where the sweet spot is for a functional society. But a cough or sneeze on a crowded seawall is still a risk that may be too much of a risk whereas the bigger spaces on park drive are much less so. Many people will not take that risk on a crowded seawall. Why are they excluded from those who want to safely enjoy the park? Why are people who want to drive in the park given special status by your rules?

        You have not even begun to establish why sharing Park Drive is something that hurts anybody. It is a shared space with everybody included. You seem to be determined to exclude only a safe place for cyclists.

        Why?

      1. Funny. I know a few people who got into leisure riding this spring and summer and pretty much all of them stated they need to get some rain gear for the winter season.
        Deleted as per editorial policy

  8. I am a cyclist and I have never owned a car, but I have to say, as I have said before, that Park Drive is hardly an issue. I thought the parks board went completely bonkers with the cones, chicanes and closures and would probably have been better off doing absolutely nothing at all. After I came back from camping last week, I have noticed that numbers of cyclists have declined dramatically, even after the air became breathable. There were even more cars than cyclists on one of the trips, which has not been true since the start of conapalooza.

    Realistically, when the Seawall is opened to them, which might be today, most cyclists are going to choose the low road rather than the high road. Those that continue to use the high road will be the ones most comfortable biking on the road. For those that would like a route on the high road on which young kids would be comfortable, I propose a reasonable accommodation: Make the left land 40kph and the right lane 25kph maximum speed. Basically cars and serious carbon fibre cyclists on the left and horse drawn carriages and slow cyclists on the right. Even Jeff Leigh admitted, although he did not express himself in this way, that conapalooza caused problems for the slower cyclists as well because it put the cyclists of such varied speeds in a single lane without enough space to pass at the volumes present.

    What are the real issues for cyclists:

    Kits Park and Cornwall. What is the problem here? This needs a solution now. And something that could improve the looks of the park at the same time too.

    Waterfront Road under Canada Place is a convenient shoreline route for cyclists but that is absolutely no accommodation for them. And further east, on Powell Street from the overpass to Wall Street is a serious gap in what could be a really useful route.

    And speaking of gaps, from the end of the Arbutus Greenway at Marine Drive to the start of the bike lane beside Kent Ave is a serious gap in what could be a glorious loop. I’m no road warrior, but I am an experienced cyclist, and I find Kent to be harrowing. Absolutely not fit for children. And yet there is unused rail corridor right beside it.

    1. Lane speed limits are unlikely to be effective given that current (higher) vehicle speed limits are ignored. People came out in great numbers to the protected lane, because they felt safe cycling there. There are other types of separation that could be used for a more permanent installation, no orange cones required,

      People cycling generally did not have Issues with congestion in the right lane once they understood that they were able to use the left lane for overtaking slower riders.

      Waterfront Road under Canada Place is federal jurisdiction. It is not up to the City. With the expansion of the port this is likely to be down the list.

      The Powell Bypass is now in place from Powell and Clark. Use the north side shared path from Clark east to McLean, cross south at the light, and proceed east on Franklin then Pandora. This new local street bike way goes all the way to Renfrew at the PNE. Drop onto Wall at Lakewood and see the new diversion that closed Wall to through vehicle traffic, calming Wall for local traffic and active transportation users. This is the route of the Portside Greenway.

      The rail line along Kent is not unused. Would be nice if it was. Kent has long been on the City priority list for improvements for active transportation. Kent can be greatly improved with several vehicle diversions that would reduce rat running, while maintaining important business access. The section from Ontario to Ash could be one way westbound, creating room for a bidirectional protected lane on the south side of Kent Ave North. This would also address the safety issues with the current protected lane from Cambie to Ash.

      1. I’m puzzled by your tone. As I said, I’m a cyclist that has never owned a car. I have biked or walked (I used to be more of a walker) on nearly every single road, path and public right of way in the city. Of course I know the route from Powell Street to Wall Street. I’ve done it many times. But cyclists don’t want to be treated as an inconvenience any more. The automobile drivers would not tolerate that route, and the cyclists are starting to feel the same way.

        And again, I wouldn’t have suggested the Kent Ave route if it weren’t possible. Those rail lines might not have been deactivated, but they certainly are disused. I have walked along them twice this summer alone, and there was nothing but me, weeds and disused needles. And I am not suggesting that the rails even be removed. Only that there is space in the right of way to connect and create a reasonable bike path. Only that the lack of rail activity means that putting in cyclists wouldn’t be a problem even if there were one train movement a month. I think cost and land ownership would be the greater issue here. But it would be an extremely valuable part of the network because Kent and SW Marine are so hostile through that segment.

        And yet again, I’m not sure that Waterfront Road right adjacent to Canada Place actually is port jurisdiction, but the port has designated the area between Canada Place and CRAB Park and the chunk of Waterfront Road that is port jurisdiction as open to non port uses since 1994 and there have been several planning processes based upon that since.

        1. It would be nice if there was a direct protected route along Powell from Clark to Wall. But given the building setbacks with some buildings opening directly on to the sidewalk, and limited RoW width, it is a challenge. Add in that Powell is planned for major utility work and road rebuilding in that section, with extended traffic disruption, and it made sense to push for a bypass route. That bypass is a negative for those bound for Wall St, with a required detour to the south, but doesn’t have that same negative impact for those heading for Pandora or any points south. We did want the MUP on the north side of Powell to go one block further east, to avoid requiring people
          to jog to Franklin to access Pandora.

          Our last look at Kent showed one active customer for the rail line. Compare that to the Arbutus corridor, and it took many years to reach a deal with the railway after the last customer went. It would be great to see a greenway along an ex rail corridor, but the timing is off some years, or more precisely, indeterminate. The cycling gap has been a priority in City transportation plans and budgets since 2012. It is time to address the road issue, and consider the rail option a potential long term objective IMO. Focusing on the rail path connection now is just likely to delay taking action that is in the City’s power to take.

          We have recently been working with Translink to add the Kent route into their Major Bikeway Network. It connects regional destinations. There is also the Metro Van Greenway Plan under review. All of these support addressing Kent now.

          Waterfront Road was added into the last CoV capital plan for cycling improvements. There is a note on that item in the budget that it is subject to Federal decisions. It would be a nice to have, but there are so many needed routes that can be addressed now, Water Street among them.

          One of our tools for deciding where to focus our efforts at HUB is our Gap Priority List. We have metrics for all identified gaps. The three you mention are all on that gap list and map. Kent is at the top. Happy to discuss more if you like. You, and others, can reach our volunteer committee at Vancouver at bike hub dot ca.

Leave a Reply

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