Vancouver

30 readers

1 users here now

Community for the city of Vancouver, BC

founded 3 years ago

MODERATORS

spoctoss@lemmy.ca

TruckBC@lemmy.ca

[OPINION] When cities applaud dismantling bike lanes, we are going backward (www.theglobeandmail.com)

submitted 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) by Springtime@lemmy.ca to c/vancouver@lemmy.ca

15 comments fedilink hide all child comments

Metro Vancouver was in the middle of its “Go By Bike” Week – and the country in the midst of a wildfire crisis – when the mayor’s ABC Party sent out a congratulatory tweet about the removal of most of a temporary bike lane from Stanley Park.

“More access to more users again,” the municipal party that forms the majority on Vancouver’s City Council and Park Board trumpeted on June 1, as it recognized the Park Board for its “hard work” on the matter. (...)

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments

[–] jupdown@lemmy.ca 7 points 1 year ago (4 children)

Can someone explain something to a newcomer of the city?

"Early in the pandemic lockdown, bicycle traffic was moved onto the road, which became car-free. This got bikes off the seawall, to increase physical distancing for pedestrians. This is when access truly was barred to anyone who could not get to the park on foot or by bike. Eventually, after some twists and turns, one road lane was reopened to vehicles, the other reserved for cyclists. Bikes were also allowed back onto the seawall. But some people called for the return of both road lanes to vehicular traffic."

Why do we need a road the perimeter of Stanley park? Are there businesses / residences that will be inaccessible otherwise? Or are we just encouraging people to burn fuel going for sight seeing joyrides?

And Counter Point (for the sake of playing devil's advocate here): Screenshot of Stanley Park as seeon on open street maps dot org Aren't there enough bike trails in Stanley Park that it shouldn't really matter?

I feel like I'm not grasping the issue correctly here and would appreciate further clarity on what is actually going on here...

[–] dylanmccall@lemmy.ca 7 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (1 children)

People love to bring up accessibility whenever cars vs. [any other form of transit] come up, because it's a convincing argument on the same level as "somebody please think of the children." Because of course the only way grannie can get to Third Beach is by car, straight from her doorstep to the bottom of the stairs. And the only way that can ever be possible is if we build a four lane road to handle them all, and add another acre of parking to fit all those extra cars that appeared for some reason. (See also: Granville Island).

I'm being facetious, but it is a hilariously popular argument. There are very good reasons to have a functioning road there, but while we're talking about accessibility, cramming bikes and pedestrians together on that section of the seawall is not it, and I'd argue it is a more serious accessibility issue than the road being congested. It was nice having that separation.

And alas, those other trails through the park are lovely, but they aren't very comfortable or efficient on a road bike.

[–] TrainsAreCool@lemmy.one 4 points 1 year ago

Yeah, the 'accessibility' argument really gets under my skin. Like they seem to completely forget that there's a whole range of accessibility needs, and there's lots of people who are physically unable to drive (and quite a few who probably shouldn't) but who can walk, bike, or even operate a small scooter or other mobility aid.

They also love to call proponents 'ableist', like we're expecting grannie to dress up in lycra and pedal her way to the park.

And finally, they're arguing for changing a road with 1 car lane back to 2 car lanes. Not sure how that makes things more 'accessible' than they were before. I'd even be willing to bet that there's been no significant change in travel times along the road since the switch.

load more comments (2 replies)