So why is Stanley Park still an issue with one car lane open?
The question keeps coming back. “With a car lane open now at Stanley Park, why the bleating about lack of access?” “Who cannot go to the park now?” “It’s a false narrative with some other agenda.” No, there is no “other agenda”. It is just about people who feel that Stanley Park is compromised and for many, the present situation is still truly a barrier to access.
Obviously when the park was completely closed to car traffic, it was more extreme as people who require a car had no way of visiting most of the park. Now cars can enter and drive to most places. Is that good enough? No. Here’s why.
While many are certainly enjoying the space on the road to cycle, separated from cars by orange plastic cones, the fact is, with the Seawall still closed, there are many people and families who previously enjoyed the flat and scenic Seawall who will not use the road, with its steep incline to Prospect Point which, on any given day, you will find many cyclists walking their bikes up. The road, although lovely in its own way, is also less scenic than the Seawall.
So a closed Seawall means anyone who prefers a flat, easy route, is not able to bike or use a mobility device to go to Stanley Park. “But thousands are enjoying the road now”. No doubt, but is Stanley Park awash in visitors this summer because of the changes? In peak of summer, with the road entirely closed, CBC reported that bike numbers were up 85% from 3,000 to 5,300 per day. Say that number was consistent for 6 full months and for the other 6 winter months, half that. That’s just under 1.5 million. Annual park usage has been counted at between 10 and 12 million. Call it 10 million.
Clearly park numbers are much lower owing to lack of cruise ships and international tourists generally, but by how much, and how many of the other 8.5 million are not going to the park now because of access issues? We don’t really know because the Park Board only counts the bike numbers, but even these increased cycling numbers are just a small part of the typical visitor numbers.
It’s also worth noting that a number of avid cyclists who used the road before, when it was shared with cars, actually prefer the casual cyclists back on the Seawall so that they have more space to bike faster. They had little issue with cycling alongside cars, who, by the way, are meant to yield to cyclists. Many signs throughout the park remind drivers of this fact.
Okay, but where in the park can people not go when they arrive by car. Parking has been reduced significantly, but it’s falsely framed to minimize the impact. The overall parking loss is indicated as only 32%, but this is patently false because there is a concentration of parking near the entrance which has not been reduced at all. Within the park, some sites have been reduced by over 50% or, in some cases, entirely closed. The most notable of which is Third Beach, where the entire car park is closed and the limited parking near the Tea House is almost always at capacity.
Brockton Point has been closed entirely and that means no stopping there in a car. The alternative is to park at the Totem Poles and walk to Brockton. It’s 500m away and that is doable for many, but not for all. For the elderly or mobility challenged, it’s a considerable distance.
Peter Brown of the city’s People with Disabilities Advisory Committee is still aggrieved because his committee wrote to the Park Board, but their concerns have been entirely ignored throughout this process. Being paid lip service by the Park Board is nothing less than insulting. Peter explains it thus:
“My perspective is based upon the principle of accessibility. Thus, there are no considerations for me more paramount than having complete access to all parts of the park. This means that the roadway to all parts of the park must be open to allow persons with disabilities and/or seniors full access to all corners of the park. Further, it also means that accessible parking, based upon recognized accessibility norms for such parking, must be protected. What has occurred is there is no access to all parts of the park and the Park Board has unilaterally determined what will be acceptable accessible parking. Needless to say this is erroneous on their part and shows a lack of respect in not consulting with those who would be of assistance on these concerns.
Second, the Second Beach area may have parking in the general area, but the parking which would be appropriate for accessible parking stalls and a drop off for transport of persons with disabilities and/or seniors (e.g. HandyDart) are eliminated from use by the current bike path. This ensures that the disabled and/or senior user of the Second Beach area, including the pool, must travel on both vehicle and bike pathways, thus unnecessarily increasing both the danger of the situation and the challenge to the user. Assuming that the person is not struck by a car or cyclist, the ordeal is likely to turn such users off of trying to utilize that particular facility.
Third, as for the walk from the totem poles, this is an example of where accessibility does not necessarily mean accessible stalls but may also involve consideration of the proximity of any parking stalls to the service or the facility. Some persons with disabilities and/or seniors do not have an accessible parking decal but do still require parking in close proximity to their location, given their mobility limitations.
Lastly, there should be no consideration of rickshaws or shuttle buses until both the above accessibility considerations have been properly resolved, and prior and proper consultation is pursued with people with lived experience. The nuances in providing for people with mobility challenges are sometimes complex and cannot be assumed by those who merely think they know what such individuals will require. Consultation as an afterthought is not appropriate and is disrespectful to the needs and insights which should be pursued directly from thus potential park users who have with disabilities, or seniors.”
So while I hear from so many able bodied cyclists who insist that they know what the needs must be for disabled people, I think it would be useful to actually heed the words of a principal on the Advisory Committee instead of assuming that you know better. You don’t. I also note Peter’s comment about many who do not have the disabled decal, but are mobility challenged nonetheless.
The other problem is that the Park Board is flying by the seat of its pants on this initiative. Parking at Prospect Point was closed to all but a few spaces, then they made adjustments and added a few more, or did they, because I was in the park a few days ago and there were no spaces to be had. Later, pictures were posted of a near empty parking lot to prove that there are plenty of spaces. So it seems that from one day to the next, parking access changes, but who is to know? Who will venture to dine at Prospect Point when they have no idea whether today the parking lot will be open or closed?
At Third Beach, I went a few weeks ago in my car and the parking lot was open. I parked and enjoyed the beach and so did many others who clearly got there by car as they had chairs and other gear. Great. This was after it has been closed entirely. Then, the other day, on a Monday mid-afternoon, it was closed again. I arrived with my family, with chairs, umbrella and a picnic and, I drove past the closed parking lot, past the full lot at the Tea House and exited the park. So is anyone denied access? We were on that day.
There are also cars stuck behind the horse carriage causing a back up and people and horses getting stressed by the congestion. Idling is not ideal either. The access points on Lion’s Gate Bridge have been shut, so North shore visitors have to go through the park and somehow u-turn on Georgia to get back to enter the park. Same again for exiting. They can’t do it at the bridge exit anymore. Does that make it impossible to visit from the North Shore? No, but it sure makes it a pain to navigate.
So the question remains, why is the park not simply returned to it’s pre-Covid state? The answer, we are told, is that “we are in a pandemic!”. Yes, we are, but there’s something funny going on at the Park Board. Every other park, trail, beach, bike route and walking path is entirely and completely open. Kits Beach is open, the tennis courts and basketball courts are open. The Kits path is entirely open. The Jericho and Spanish Banks bike routes are open, the False Creek seawall… Entirely open, and it is actually quite similar to the Stanley Park Seawall.
So if all these places are open, why is the Stanley Park Seawall uniquely considered too dangerous to open? Is it crowded with walkers? It sure is not. Mostly very quiet at all times of day. So it’s not that it’s busy and it’s not that it’s dangerous, so why?
Dr. Réka Gustafson, deputy provincial health officer said that the chance of outdoor transmission of Covid-19 is very remote. So again, why the handwringing about the Stanley Park Seawall?
It seems clear to many of us. The Park Board majority voted to reduce vehicle traffic in the park and this appears to be their opportunity to take it for a test run. The motion assured us that there would be due consultation with the public and stakeholders. There has been none. The restaurants, the horse drawn carriage operator and the city’s People with Disabilities Advisory Committee all complain of being as much as totally ignored. Gerry O’Neill, who runs the horse carriages, wrote a long letter to the Park Board sharing his concerns. No response from Park Board staff at all.
At this writing, legal action is being considered against the city for losses incurred by the restaurants. Is this justified? At the very least, it speaks to the frustration the restaurant owners feel about the way the Park Board has rammed this through on the back of emergency response to Covid. In reality, it seems more like it’s actually about an agenda already planned. Covid-19 seems to have provided a handy opportunity to implement it without the bother of having to consult with anyone about it first.