Vancouver park board drops plan for bike path through Hadden Park

The Vancouver park board has decided not to proceed with a separated bike path through Hadden Park or Kitsilano Beach Park, according to a statement issued today (February 17). 

“We’ve heard clearly from the public that there is significant concern with any proposed changes to Hadden Park,” park board chair Niki Sharma said in the statement.

“Tonight, the Park Board gave direction to staff to discontinue proceeding with any options for a new path through Hadden Park, and to communicate that to the petitioner in the B.C. Supreme Court application. The Park Board will not be pursuing a new separated path through Hadden Park or at Kits Beach."

A hearing on a legal action challenging the bike path, which was launched by Kitsilano resident Megan Carvell Davis, was scheduled to take place in the B.C. Supreme Court next month.

According to Sharma’s statement, the park board directed staff to look at ways to improve safety on the existing bike route through Hadden Park and Kitsilano Beach Park.

“Staff will also be relocating the funds from this project to other pedestrian and cycling safety priorities for the Park Board around the city,” she said.

Comments (23) Add New Comment
G
No need to continue the distraction once the changes to Point Grey Road started construction. I have no idea what the next cycling red herring will be but it might come soon if the media & public give to much attention to the Hootsuite shenanigans.
19
15
Rating: +4
Victor
Congrats Kits Point residents on getting Vision Park board to change their direction. Glad they saw the light before it cost us all too much money.

Too bad it takes all these lawsuits - Community Ctres, Hadden Park, West End STIR/Rental 100 legal challenge and potentially many others in the offing to get this gang to listen to residents. It is simply astounding the media do not appear to be listening to so many who are voicing their firm opinion.

Wonder how many citizens a group like the Coalition of Vancouver Neighbourhoods represents? If each member group has a membership or a tested mailing list of say..1500+ residents that represents 34,500 hard core activists paying attention. They all have several friends, social groups and soon there will be enoough to garner votes to challenge Vision in the next election! Wow! What a concept. a large group of voters turnign out on Election Day. Listen up Vision Vancouver.
25
34
Rating: -9
Clown Jespar, twinkle toes Blythe and idiot campbell
So all three of these idiots are now realizing that they will have look to getting real jobs once they are outed in the November election..!
Hey clown Jespar, I thought you said it was a done deal...!!!
Your political career is DONE..!!
18
28
Rating: -10
Jim
I did not really care about this until the residents started comparing themselves to Rosa Parks and going into all kinds of unwarranted rhetorical territory. Unfortunately, how this will be characterized is that those desperate histrionics will now appear to have succeeded. They did succeed. That's not okay.
17
27
Rating: -10
Hazlit
What exactly was wrong with a bike lane through a park?
24
27
Rating: -3
Visionless
The disrespect the Vision Commissioners showed to the public when this controversial proposal was approved suggests the motivation for this retreat was purely as a result of being told that they would lose in court. The Hadden Trust would have been upheld and that would have had implications for the other uses of the Park that represent violations of the Trust, not to mention the EMBARRASSMENT of yet another loss in court for the Park Board.

The stated reason for the retreat, that "we've heard the will of the public" is pure BS, this was a tactical retreat ahead of an even worse loss in court.




26
19
Rating: +7
Visionless
Hazlit. Paving over green space and effecting rare waterfront green space including the most heavily used in Vancouver is a rather obvious no-no. Particularly when options exist, such as a protected path just a few meters away on the roads, quiet roads that can be made even safer for bikes with a little effort.

This was a rather thoughtless plan, ham fisted, that wouldn't have got to this stage had the City simply have been as thoughtful as they are in the placement and design of other bike lanes.

As a cyclist i'm more than a little embarrassed that some of the City's biking advocates were so vocal in their support of throwing the parks under the bus when they more than any other groups should have been aware and advocating for other options. Their uncompromising and aggressive position - thanks for nothing HUB - did little to generate understanding and sympathy for cycling in Vancouver.
33
23
Rating: +10
Arno S
This path would have been a great amenity for people of all ages and abilities to enjoy a ride a safe ride through these parks as part of a ride on the world famous seaside cycling route. This would have been a great tourist attraction which is lost due to people who don't seem to mind roads and parking lots in their park but do mind if the currently unsafe walking/cycling path is to be upgraded to separate paths. Note that the extra amount of path would have been less than half the area currently paved by roads and parking lots. I am sure that the majority of people in Vancouver would have liked a safer cycling path through these parks. I sincerely hope that a separate cycling path will be built in the future so that this gap in the seawall path will be filled.
18
22
Rating: -4
Michael Puttonen
@Visionless - right on!

Had the City gone to court they might indeed have been forced to remove all the violations to the Hadden Trust that they've slipped through over the years. When that part of Kits Beach actually was administered accorded to the original covenant (back in the days of my youth), it was an oasis.
17
10
Rating: +7
Yeah right
@ArnoS

So why didn't the 'majority of people in Vancouver' come out in support of the bike path then? It's because the 'majority of people in Vancouver' don't care, whereas the people using the park do care. They cared enough to have the plan stopped in it's tracks and they should be congratulated for sticking up for themselves.
14
20
Rating: -6
Where is idiot Richard Campbell
where is mayor moonbeams paid idiot Richard Campbell who works for HUB and is only 1 of 600 cyclists in this City that use the bike lanes.
Campbell's ridiculous NDP comments just prove he needs to sent to the Russia Front to a gulag..!!
This idiot think he knows what's best for all the citizens of vancouver.
Come on you fool, lets see whatever stupid verbal crap he's going to say on here...!!
12
26
Rating: -14
50 year old cyclist
It's sad really. All they did was make the park more dangerous for residents. Multi-use bike paths would have moved all the bike traffic off the beach path and away from people. That is what is confusing about this -- it's about safety for all. But thanks to Basketball Jones and a bunch of idiots railing about saving the park it's all over. What part of bicycle path dooms the park? In the summer there is a whole lot of bikes and a whole lot of people all weaving to avoid each other. The bike lane would have solved that problem and made the park safer. It could have been beautiful...
17
23
Rating: -6
Arno S
@Yeah Right
Here is a reference to the poll I mentioned earlier:
"A new Insights West survey has found that three-in-five Metro Vancouver residents (61%) are in favour of the bike lane initiative, while just one third (33%) oppose it. Among those who reside in the City of Vancouver, support reaches 64 per cent."

Clearly the people of Vancouver are behind this type of project. This has nothing to do with green space but more to do with an irrational fear of people riding bikes or more likely it is political in nature. I don't know how anyone can oppose this project while there is twice as much asphalt in the park for roads and parking lots. I would even be willing to do a trade - get rid of half the parking lots and roads and improve safety for everyone by creating separate paths for walking and cycling and there would be a net increase in green space.
15
14
Rating: +1
D. ZASTER
Arno S. - Would you be Arno Schortinghuis, current board member and past president of HUB, the bike lobbying outfit closely affiliated with Vision Vancouver? Your organization has accepted taxpayer funding from the city, has it not?
It's dishonest of you not to mention your professional interest in this issue. You are not posting here simply as a citizen.

You state that you can't understand how anyone could oppose a paved bike lane through a park year already has parking lots and other paved amenities. That's moronic. By your logic, the City should be free to pave any green space for bike use at will, if there happens to be some pavement on the premises.

The Hadden Park bike route have paved over 1 1/4 acres of grass. That's equivalent to 16 standard 33'x100' building lots - in a park that already has a combined bike/walking path (that could be upgraded with no loss of green space) a designated bike route on the street RIGHT NEXT to the park, and is also served by other big routes on the traffic-calmed streets of Kits Point. The proposed Hadden Park/Kits Park bike highway (right through a popular picnic area!) was REDUNDANT AND UNNECESSARY. The consultative process was a whitewash that served to rubber-stamp a decision made ahead of time by Vision's co-opted bureaucrats.

I've been a cyclist for more than 40 years. I have nothing against bike paths per se, when they are sufficiently well used and fit into the fabric of the city without creating bother and inconvenience to citizens at large. We have now passed this point.
8
13
Rating: -5
Yeah right
D.ZASTER - thanks for outing Arno. I knew I had seen that name somewhere.

Arno - polls are meaningless especially when people aren't aware of the specifics of the area in question. The truth is that the people who opposed the destruction of a play/picnic green space came out and demonstrated their opposition and those that supported the destruction stayed home.
10
10
Rating: 0
50 Year Old Cyclist
To all the bike lane haters, your logic makes zero sense. Plus,calling out bicycle advocates with the goal of uncovering some grand Vision Vancouver conspiracy.. really..? Answer me this, what does the cycling lobby get except for a safe place to ride a bike? BTW - I own a house in Vancouver and pay property tax and have a RIGHT to be safe when I ride.

!!!LOOK OUT!!!
Expect a lot of bikes at kits beach this summer and hopefully now one will get hurt. I'd expect that if anyone does get hit by a bike or anything similar, we will know who to blame. The organizations who mistakenly stopped this safe, simple bike lane project.

***I have a most excellent idea that I'd like to share with my fellow riders. Lets just start using the route that the city staked out for the path anyway. The path will start to get bare patches then eventually become a recognized pathway for bikes. Guess what? - we don't even need to pave it..let's just make it!!***
14
14
Rating: 0
D. ZASTER
50YOC -

Aw. You poor fellow, beset by the big, bad bike haters.

Nice try. I'm a 54 yr old cyclist myself, and certainly not a hater - though I do hate the arrogance and condescension you express in your posts. Care to argue facts and the democratic will of Vancouverites, instead of making knee-jerk sneers? Are you capable of more than the latter? Earth to 50YOC (and HUB, and Vision): riding a bike does not confer moral superiority on you.

The bike lobby in Vancouver has had a great run of success since Gregor and Vision took office . Give them full credit for the effective use of their influence with planners and councillors. What was a very bike-friendly city to begin with has been provided with a network of segregated lanes, traffic-calmed street bike routes and traffic lanes closed to car traffic that would have been a wet dream to any cycling advocate only a few years ago. Apparently even this isn't good enough for the HUB/Vision crowd, who insisted on closing Pt Grey Rd and paving yet another bike route (RIGHT NEXT to a bike lane on the adjacent residential street), right through the middle of a popular, well-used park. The Parks Board, which until recently was vigilant about losses of green space, had no problem with the paving of 1 1/4 acres of grass in one of the busiest and best-loved parks in the city.

Do you understand what parks are for? They are supposed to be calm, green spaces for the use and enjoyment of all citizens - not asphalt thoroughfare for bikes.
8
8
Rating: 0
Argument Lost
I guess that one admits defeat whenever one resorts to personal attacks.
5
6
Rating: -1
Jim
@Zaster

And what, may I ask, are you affiliated with? Angry Accusatory Citizens Making Use of Mocking Tones?

Sure, sure, this was democracy, and congratulations to those who made their concerns heard.

"I'm a cyclist" gives you very little credibility. As for the proposed plan being a "bike thoroughfare," is that how you'd describe the Seawall? That's all anyone was talking about--just a widening to make it more inviting for people to feel a sense of flow and continuity. But the attitude espoused by opponents went off the deep end, as many who did not have a direct stake have noted. You continue that unfortunate tradition here.
8
9
Rating: -1
D. ZASTER
Jim -

The proposed bike route through Hadden & Kits Parks, as approved by the city, was to be much more than a widening of the existing path that now runs along the north boundary. The latter alternative actually might have been an acceptable plan.

What the Parks Board approved was a new 3-metre wide paved route, with two bike lanes, that would have gone right through the middle of Hadden Park, where people gather to picnic and toss football and Frisbees. To point this out is not to go "off the deep end". As previously mentioned there is already a designated bike lane on the residential street right next to the park, mere yards from the proposed bike route.
5
6
Rating: -1

Pages

Add new comment
To prevent automated spam submissions leave this field empty.