City staff were taken to task on Tuesday afternoon following a report to address safety concerns at the No. 3 Road off-leash dog park, better known as Bark Park.
The report came following a petition from former city council candidate Jerome Dickey seeking physical separation between dogs and cyclists in the area and a public consultation late last year.
It was met with criticism at the March 26 parks, recreation and cultural services committee meeting, with the number of reported incidents being highlighted by councillors and members of the public alike.
According to city and Richmond RCMP records, there were no "formal safety incident reports regarding conflicts between cyclists, rollers, pedestrians and/or dogs and/or their owners" at Bark Park.
However, staff acknowledged at the committee meeting park users have raised safety concerns.
Anecdotes from residents also paint a different picture.
The committee heard from Julie Halsey-Brandt, whose French bulldog was nicked by a cyclist in a riding group. Rather than stopping, the cyclist cursed at her.
Karen Yamada, a professional dog walker who walks dogs with her special needs son, also recalled her son's struggles after witnessing aggressive behaviour directed toward a dog owner by a cyclist who had hit the dog.
Although the dog was fine, Yamada said she had to spend "many days" helping her son cope with the trauma.
"I worry about the next incident that my son has to witness. What will happen if our dog is hit? We will have to worry about the trauma that he sustains from that incident while everybody walks away," said Yamada.
"Bikes and dogs just do not mix. And yet the city is putting both in serious danger by combining the two."
When asked about the discrepancy between user anecdotes and the statement in the report, city staff clarified that while they did hear comments about incidents at the park, they only referred to data from the city bylaws department, Richmond RCMP and the parks department's customer service.
Coun. Laura Gillanders, who remarked she was "a little taken aback" by the statement, referred to incidents where ambulances were called to care for injured cyclists and suggested staff include information from BC Emergency Health Services. She added the statement could be "quite offensive" to park users.
The sentiment was echoed by Coun. Carol Day, who mentioned the report included survey results containing anecdotes about unsafe interactions but did not include this information when discussing the lack of formal reports.
Coun. Bill McNulty also voiced concerns about the lack of a formal process to report all incidents at Bark Park and the potential liabilities faced by the city.
According to staff, dog bites or similar incidents need to be reported to BC SPCA while cyclist and human incidents are under the purview of Richmond RCMP.
Discontentment with public consultation process
Proposed enhancements detailed in the staff report include a multi-use gravel trail at least four metres wide, a split-rail fence along the north side of the multi-use trail, an off-leash zone encompassing the entire site north of the split-rail fence and a trail no more than two metres wide inside the off-leash area for people to walk their dogs along the riverfront.
Staff also suggested adding a connection east of the No. 3 Road pump station to allow cyclists using Dyke Road to bypass parking lots and safely transition to the multi-use trail, and new signage to remind e-scooters they are not allowed on unpaved trails.
The suggested enhancements would cost about $207,000 and would be funded by the 2024 parks general development projects.
In a 14-page report to city council, local resident Judith Hutson slammed the city staff report for failing to adequately research and address safety issues at the off-leash dog park.
She told the committee the city staff report failed to capture the current state of the park, especially the increase in cyclists and types of bikes used on the trails.
The engagement process was also flawed, Hutson added, as inaccurate information was provided and the survey failed to include a question about users' safety concerns.
"The parks department did not take the time to study the issues," she said.
She added it was a "significant misstep" for the parks department to neglect addressing safety issues at the park following the dyke upgrades that were completed in 2022. For example, sharp gravel that cut the dogs' paws was added and shade trees were removed without consulting park users.
Hutson suggested the city should reroute the bikes out of Bark Park while safety issues are being resolved, emphasizing that "safety has to drive all these decisions."
"I don't want to paint all cyclists as nasties," she clarified, adding most cyclists using the park are "gentle and compliant" but the problem lies with those who travel at speeds of 50 to 60 kilometres per hour, e-bike users and cycling groups that don't travel in a single file.
Other community members also raised issues such as the speed of bikes, the parks department's survey method, the lack of an avenue to report incidents at the park and the lack of awareness that Bark Park is an off-leash dog park, with some suggesting Bark Park be made exclusively a dog park.
In response to community concerns, staff told the committee the site is not an easy one to change due to its history of usage and its surrounding environment, but there are some traffic calming measures in place and more devices have been ordered.
While councillors applauded the staff's effort in preparing the report, they did not support the proposed enhancements.
"I don't think that we've identified the safety issues yet. I don't think we've identified what the real problems are. And I don't think we've got solutions to them," said McNulty, who suggested speaking with Hub Cycling and visiting the site to better understand the safety concerns.
Staff directed to take immediate action
Rather than proceeding with city staff's suggestions on improvements, Coun. Michael Wolfe put forward a motion to ask staff to do more research on the issues.
City staff were asked to look into improvements for the parking lot and west entry, such as permanent bike barriers and enhanced blackberry control.
They will also have to analyze and prioritize two additional options to either designate an exclusive cycling or multi-use path on the northernmost side of the existing tree line, or widen the existing lower middle trail and separate bike traffic from other modes of use with fencing.
The motion aims for the committee to decide by May so work can occur from summer to fall.
As well, staff are asked to "immediately" put in barriers to prevent cyclists from using the raised portion of the southern dyke at both ends of the dog park.
In response to McNulty's concerns about the lack of understanding of the issues, staff suggested they could take immediate measures to address safety concerns by implementing signage and additional barricades, before scheduling an on-site meeting with city councillors to discuss Wolfe's referral and other matters.
The motion received unanimous support from the committee.
In a statement to the Richmond News, Hub Cycling's Richmond Committee said they were "dismayed" to learn of the conflicts at Bark Park.
"Many within our committee are dog owners themselves, and we understand the concerns and believe this safety issue needs a resolution," reads the statement.
"At the same time, we strongly believe that our dyke trails should be open for everyone to enjoy, and that reasonable measures should be taken to keep all users of those trails safe."
Having taken part in the public engagement process, the committee said they were "generally supportive of any option that separates dog off-leash areas from a trail where people cycling, jogging, walking or rolling can go through the park safely" through to the rest of the dyke, such as city staff's three proposals and Wolfe's motion.
As well, the committee thinks diverting cycling traffic onto vehicle roads would be a bad idea since "not everyone is comfortable riding close to fast-moving traffic."
They added they support the existing speed limit of 15 km/h on recreational trails and measures to enforce the limit.
"We encourage people cycling to slow down for their own safety on gravel trails, and for the safety of others in mixed environment such as this one," wrote the committee.
Got an opinion on this story or any others in Richmond? Send us a letter or email your thoughts or story tips to [email protected]. To stay updated on Richmond news, sign up for our daily headline newsletter
