828 replies to this topic

[Barra]

I don't want to single you out, J Douglas, but you're just the last one in this thread, and you are in favour of taking the roads out. You know what, I might agree with you if it didn't cost anything, but it is going to cost over $500,000! Yes, I know it is over 5 years, but it is an f-ing half a million dollars!!!!
I think our Councillors need to look at the city budget as a zero based exercise - if you want to spend new money, you have to take it out of something else in the budget. In today's paper there is a quote from Ben Issitt - something about the quality of the outdoors vis a vis the value of cars. Ben - ask yourself - is it worth half a million? Then ask yourself - what is the problem that this money is going to fix? Cars speeding?? is that a real problem? not here it isn't. Cars parking free - what a crisis! Easily fixed by putting in parking meters. Guess what - with meters you could fix a problem and even MAKE MONEY!

[skeptic]

There is absoulutely no case to be made for traffic in Beacon Hill Park. It is surrounded by four traffic artieries: Douglas St, Dallas Rd, Cook St, and Southgate.

You obviously don't spend much (if any) time in the park. I do, and I don't see or hear any motor traffic at all. 99% of the cars driving in are there to park. I suppose a few may be using the park as a cut-through but as you point out, it is surrounded on four sides by traffic arteries, so what would be the point? This initiative by Council is just a mean-spirited attempt to look "green" and progressive. It's quite stupid, really, and I hope the electorate expresses that in the next election.

[Bob Fugger]

^^YES! THIS!! I've been saying this myself from the start. Council is at it again, emptying wheelbarrows of our money to solve a made-up problem.

[spanky123]

You don't even need meters. Put up signs for 2 hour parking and then have commissionaires ticket a few cars. Problem solved.

[G-Man]

Only problem with that is that we are then imposing a time limit on using the park. That said this is a colossal waste of my money.

[sebberry]

They already have timed parking in the park:
http://www.google.ca...2,46.12,,0,7.71

[dasmo]

My first thought was fine, cut off through traffic to the park, no big deal, In my entire time living here I've never considered "cutting through the park" to get somewhere. Then I realized that $500,000 is just for a traffic study on beacon hill park??? Damn, I need to give someone a bag of money and get into the "study" biz! Colossal waist of money, yes...I reserve the right to reverse this opinion if I get the study contract.

[sebberry]

If a few people cut through the park, so what. At the end of the day is it really hurting anyone?

Keep it accessible, please.

[Mike K.]

I had no idea the City had earmarked $500,000 for a traffic study in the park. That's an incredible waste of money for a make-work project particularly with the City having just spent $500,000 to pave Pandora Avenue sidewalks beside Our Place.

[aastra]

If a few people cut through the park, so what. At the end of the day is it really hurting anyone?

Sure, it's hurting anyone who has a true spiritual connection to the park, anyone who can feel the pain of the plants and trees as they shudder with terror and struggle for their very lives against man's offensive intrusions into their realm.

Putting the faux-environmental aspect aside for the moment, I'd much prefer it if they'd just go ahead and (cheaply) block Chestnut Row and that little "shortcut" stretch of Heywood and then revisit the issue in ten or fifteen years, as versus burning a bunch of money over the short term like they're planning to do.

[Mike K.]

Ex-councillor John Luton had the following to say on Facebook about the $500,000 expense:

The money is not for a study but actually for a series of infrastructure improvements to discourage vehicle traffic in the park and make it more people friendly. The plan was to phase those fixes over 5 years and, at about 100,000 a year, making our park healthier and safer. It's a good investment. It's also our park. The rail is a lot bigger, serves a lot beyond Victoria's border, way more costly and needs other partners. The city can't do it alone and without the other fixes needed, would be money for nothing. Someone else always has a better idea of where to spend the money, but as soon as you move it around, someone else will level the same complaints. Your brussel sprouts are always someone else's chocolate.

The park is as people friendly as can get. I have never, ever had an issue with vehicles in the park. For the most part people are very courteous when they drive through the park and coincidentally the only issues come from commercial buses and horse drawn carriages.

[aastra]

It's also our park.

Methinks this whole thing may be yet another symptom of that Victorian fetish for division. If you live far enough away that it's more practical for you to drive to the park than walk to the park then the park is not for you. It's our park.

I wonder, if the closures were to lead to an increase in the number of people cycling, skating, skateboarding, etc. in the park, would that generate a whole new controversy? Would the overseers complain that the park is no longer people-friendly?

[Bob Fugger]

Ex-councillor John Luton had the following to say on Facebook about the $500,000 expense:



The park is as people friendly as can get. I have never, ever had an issue with vehicles in the park. For the most part people are very courteous when they drive through the park and coincidentally the only issues come from commercial buses and horse drawn carriages.

He's become more insane off council than he was on. And that's saying something!

[Mike K.]

Further to that, John Luton writes:

It is broke. There are significant volumes of cut through commuter traffic and, although there have not been serious collisions with pedestrians, wildlife have been killed by speeding drivers. The use of the park as a free parking lot is not appropriate and there are numbers of rogue trails being cut through the park, which are damaging natural areas and will be more costly to remedy if we continue to ignore them. It's not a make work project dreamed up by the city but rather responds to a decade of conversation with the community that has returned a consistent message to the city that shows park users and the larger community want to reduce vehicle traffic and impacts in the park. Cities do parks and they need to be tended to. I can't imagine a more unsympathetic use of public greenspace than providing shortcuts for drivers or free parking for those that don't want to pay their way. But that's just me. You may find a sympathetic ear somewhere on council but most of your neighbours out there are more likely to tell them to move forward on this one.

To this I have to ask, who on earth is commuting through the park? Where are they commuting to? I could see this being a problem if the park were somewhere between Victoria and Langford but it's off the beaten path (no pun) as far as commuting goes. And what's this nonsense about "rogue trails?" Is the ex-councillor so disillusioned to think that vehicle access to the park somehow contributes to rogue trails?

[G-Man]

You know car drivers. They just need the easiest and cheapest way from a to b. They park in their free parking spot and then figure out the most direct line of sight route to their office and then machete their way to the park edge.

Of course no one on a bike has ever built a "rogue trail"



Courtesy of Moutain Bike Review Forum

[D.L.]

Hey guys, I'll admit to cutting through the park to get to my mother's house in JB from Cook St. village.

[aastra]

By "rogue trails" do they mean "people walking through the grass"? So shortcuts aren't just bad when we're talking about motorists, they're also bad when we're talking about pedestrians?

I can't imagine a more unsympathetic use of public greenspace than providing shortcuts for drivers or free parking for those that don't want to pay their way.

Hmmm. So how can we discriminate between legitimate park users and those despicable freeloaders? I guess the best solution is to not discriminate at all. Screw the lot of them.

I'd be interested to know how many bandits we're actually talking about here.

Edit: Google Streetview shows about 25 cars parked curbside within the park. So how many of those would be bandits? Half? So we're talking maybe a dozen freeloaders every few hours? (as per the signage which forces the freeloaders to hoof it back from downtown and move their cars at least once or twice per day...)

[tedward]

The park is as people friendly as can get. I have never, ever had an issue with vehicles in the park. For the most part people are very courteous when they drive through the park and coincidentally the only issues come from commercial buses and horse drawn carriages.

Totally agree. What a waste of $500,000.

[AllseeingEye]

Odd, since 2001 I have lived off and on on either side of BHP - both on the James Bay and on the Cook Street Village side - and have never, ever perceived 'traffic' to be an issue. Nor have I ever heard neighbors, in either location, complain or otherwise comment about it.

Could it be yet another instance where this council is completely out of touch with (fiscal) reality, and is merely looking to invent reasons to justify their positions? A half million dollars for this? I love how the political left in this town seems to think there is this bottomless and Publicly-funded Magic Money Tree out there just waiting to be plucked at any time no matter how inane or banal the reason. And we have what in Victoria, half a billion dollars of real infrastructure needs that require attention? Wow. Sure Dean, Charlene go ahead....after all, what's another half mill?! Sure glad I am moving out of the City in the next year or so as I cannot imagine how they are going to pay for all this without hiking taxes....

[Nparker]

could it be yet another instance where this council is completely out of touch with (fiscal) reality, and is merely looking to invent reasons to justify their positions?...

yes.