Commission Dumont is going over the reasons for the motion, recalling the Climate Emergency, our obligations to deal with that, as well the success of the temporary bike lane last year.
@inner_cityfarms goes on to discuss the need to reduce the volume and speed of vehicles in the park, acknowledges the accessibility concerns, expresses confidence in the PB staff.
I'm not going to go into all the reasons that this has already been the most discussed thing about Vancouver Parks, ever, even despite horrific conditions for those people camping in various parks due to the homelessness crisis.
Commish Coupar frames it that if this doesn't go to committee, then the Park Board will demonstrate that it doesn't care about hearing the will of the people (I'm paraphrasing)
Going to committee would send it to the next cttee meeting (3 weeks' time) and many hours of speakers
Commish Barker talks about how the public *loves* the park, talks about the park, stops them on the street, and wants to hear all the stories from The People.
Mentions getting lots of email, but from last night we know that doesn't mean "hearing from the people".
Commish Dumont notes the ongoing Traffic Study that will deal with long term changes, also mentions he's never had so much feedback on an item. He's against sending this to committee.
Commish Mackinnon is against the deferral as well, noting that Commishes Barker and Coupar called a Special Meeting last year in which many people came and spoke about last year's temporary lane. 😈
Commish Demers also is against sending it to committee, citing the big survey the Park Board did last year and to start from square 1 would be disrespectful of that process.
Commish Coupar goes for the jugular asking about the lease btw the City of Vancouver and the Department of Defense. Cites "clause 4": "Main road shall be maintained and kept in order by CoV, provided use may be discontinued by Min DoD".
So DoD must be involved in road changes?
Commish Dumont notes staff legal team has not flagged this as an issue.
Commish Coupar looks like he has a long list of similar questions.
Hints that this consultation would need to occur before the bike lane goes in.
Commish Barker talks about how the bike lane will harm seniors and people with disabilities. Essentially suggests giving them veto, requiring their approval first.
Note, they're both opposed.
Commish Giesbrecht notes staff has *already* sent a letter to those committees. PB Director of Planning and Park Development (Dave Hutch) acknowledges and indicates more conversations will occur.
I'm falling behind here. Commish Irwin recalls the survey asked a lot of people a lot of things. Commish Giesbrecht weighs in, asking if people's trends of changing access to the park affected this motion.
Commish Dumont: lots of recreational cycling, less commuting cycling, fewer people driving (only 40% Vancouverites have registered a car). This has helped put the motion together.
Anyway his question is: how much will this temporary bike lane cost the Park Board? How will this affect the Park Board's ability to offer services across the system.
I see. The bike lane will bring down the whole Parks and Recreation system.
Commish Coupar: Prospect Point restaurant revenue drops $380k to $91k last year. Entirely the fault of last year's "Complete repurposing of their parking lot."
Fact check: The parking lot was both not completely repurposed, or full. See parking study.
Note the comment about the restaurant revenue: not sure if that was restaurant revenue, or Park Board revenue from the restaurant. I suspect the latter.
Commish Barker: If this is due to climate change ... what do you say to people with cars (I drive my car ALL DAY LONG) ... like seniors ... how will they get into the park?
Editorializing: Yes, climate change is extremely important. It's a false equivalence to have to choose between fighting climate change and seniors. But of course seniors may the least affected by the effects of climate change. #ScrewTheKids
Commish Dumont is now telling a story about a family and a child (on the spectrum) for whom this safe lane works much better than the options. Also seniors who have talked to him who want the lane and they haven't had a voice.
Commish Giesbrecht notes Commish Coupar's bringing up of history. Stanley Park opened 1888, first car dealership in Vancouver was 1906. The park wasn't intended for cars originally.
Commish Barker: Since public can't speak, I'm going to speak for them.
She's reading comments from People with Disabilities Committee, and the Senior's Advisory Committee.
As I noted before, they're both against this.
Climate emergency < people's accessibility rights
Fact check: Again, I'll note that this is a temporary closure of 1 of 2 lanes. Park access is not being limited. Last year parking wasn't fully used, ever, over the summer with the 2020 temporary lane.
Commish Barker finishes on time at 5 minutes. It's now Commish Irwin's turn.
Commissioner Irwin goes over all the support he's heard/read cites a different number of supportive emails (235) than the PB staff had, cites the survey.
Commish Mackinnon also asks: Report from 1996? 25 years ago? A generation ago? Our thinking and our society is very different. The ongoing traffic study will tell us what this generation thinks and needs.
Hahaha. Maybe I misheard. They're returning from their comfort break after 5 minutes.
Next up is Commissioner Coupar's motion to tell CoV that the Park Board opposes modifications to Queen Elizabeth Park's view cone, threatened by the ongoing Broadway Plan.
Commissioners Irwin and Giesbrecht express their concern that it's premature because nothing about the Broadway Plan currently threatens the view cone.
There are q's, and I'm working with my kid again on homework so I'm missing a lot of it. They're talking about economic development in Vancouver and how view cones should affect economics.
It's an interesting philosophical discussion but I have a feeling this motion is doomed.
But WAIT! Commissioner Demers moves an amendment, watering down the motion. Commissioner Coupar seconds.
This changes the likelihood of it passing considerably.
There are a few housekeeping issues but Commissioner Coupar slips in a request to staff to tell him why Park Drive between Second Beach and Ceperley Meadows is closed, and at whose direction.
With that, the marathon 3 day meeting comes to an end.
Reminder: When Commissioners Coupar and Barker argue there shouldn't be a temporary bike lane in one of the two travel lanes in Stanley Park due to loss of accessible parking spots, they're talking about *2* spots.
And blaming the temporary bike lane on parking revenue loss is ... grasping at straws. Parking in Stanley Park was never full when the temporary lane was in place last summer
In fact, it's been speculated that the drop in cars in the park was, in part, because those two Commissioners couldn't stop saying "Stanley Park is closed" and "there's no parking" during that time -- when it was measurably not the case.
I call on the Park Board Commissioners to reconsider the removal of the temporary protected active-transportation lane. What problem does the removal solve? What are the consequences of the removal?
Problems that it solves:
* More convenient access to Brockton Point and Third Beach for people who drive to Stanley Park
* Allowing people who drive more convenient access to/from the Causeway
Problems that it *doesn't* solve:
* Improved parking in the park (not at capacity)
* Improved access in the park (will *remove* 2 accessible spots if it reverts back to pre-COVID)