52 responses so far ↓

• 1 Mark A // Apr 29, 2009 at 6:54 pm

  Frances, that link to Geoff Megg’s site appears to be broken.

• 2 Chris // Apr 29, 2009 at 6:54 pm

  Link is broken. Should point here http://www.geoffmeggs.ca/wp-content/uploads/2009/04/tt1.pdf

  I’m looking forward to the trial – in either a 1-lane or 2-lane format. I just hope they get it up and running before June.

• 3 Curious // Apr 29, 2009 at 7:06 pm

  I’m not a blog commentor, but for years now watching, reading, and hearing everyone talk about what to do with the bikes over the Burrard Bridge is ironically tunnel vision.

  What is the obsession with expanding biking over the Burrard Bridge? I have biked and walked it many times as the other bridges as well as just riding around the seawall to the east. I agree we need better solutions to get into and out of the city for both bikers and those on foot.

  Why not consider creating better aternatives like maybe a totally cool new route by putting a pedestian bridge with dedicated seperate biking and walking lanes for each direction under the Granville Bridge? Hey, it could be 2,3 4, times as wide, covered and no displacing cars and you can create ramps at either end of the bridge to connect onto the seawall and streets without the problems that just widening the Burrard Bridge would not address.

  Hey, if not the Granville Bridge, why not build a whole new bridge (or two) just for bike, bladers, and walkers? It seems to me that whatever is done to the Burrard Bridge, somebody looses. By expanding our options (routes across False Creek to other exisiting bridges or new ones) we have greater opportunities to gain more too.

  If there is information already out there on why it is Burrard Bridge or Bust, I would be very interested in learning why and moving back to the sidelines or should I say the sidewalks.

• 4 Darcy McGee // Apr 29, 2009 at 7:23 pm

  I just hope they come to the eminently sensible conclusion that a dedicated pedestrian and bicycle crossing is worth the investment it would take. It would be safe, more popular, and get people out of cars.

  As much as I used to love crossing the Granville Bridge on sunny nights, with Mt. Baker in the background. (I am, in fact, a troll and lived under that bridge for a while subsisting only on the occasional crossing goat or baby that I was able to snag) it would be MUCH nicer to have a pedestrian crossing somewhere in the Burrard/Granville area as the sidewalks on those bridges are not great, particularly when compared to the Cambie Bridge.

• 5 Joe Just Joe // Apr 29, 2009 at 7:31 pm

  Interesting as the details were already posted on SSP over a week ago now, the city has a RFP out for cement barriers 855 of them to be exact.

  “b) Install Precast Reinforced Concrete Barriers on the Burrard Bridge and adjacent streets as directed by the City of Vancouver.
  (c) Supply, deliver and install all barriers on Saturday May 30, 2009 and/or Sunday May 31, 2009″

• 6 Joe Just Joe // Apr 29, 2009 at 7:35 pm

  Maybe somone that knows how long the standard cement barrier can state if 855 barriers would be enougth to cross the bridge twice or just once.

• 7 Don Buchanan // Apr 29, 2009 at 8:43 pm

  Well I for one am thankful we are moving forward on this.

  Hopefully we’ll get a proper two lane trial and some of the SOV complainers on the list can try transit if not cycling. Maybe they’ll get one of the spaces freed up by the hordes of transit people who don’t cycle now but will soon feel safe enough to cycle over the bridge.

  The transit priority is still pretty weak and could easily leave bus riders worse off. No 24 hour bus lane northbound on Burrard from the Bridge to at least Davie if not Pender? Only AM peak period?

  Late afternoon every day into the late evening on weekends traffic just crawls northbound on Burrard downtown. This can be the worst time for motor vehicle congestion – far worse than AM peak period – and buses get stuck in this SOV mess. The bus lane should be 24 hours northbound from the Bridge to ideally Pender.

  BTW a separate crossing has been studied to death and has always been ruled out. it would be very very expensive, would have to be either quite high for marine clearance or be able to open (and spend a lot of “peak time” open) to accommodate vessels and would not serve commuter trips as well as an on-deck solution.

• 8 LP // Apr 29, 2009 at 8:53 pm

  Thank goodness I don’t live anywhere near the bridge or need to use it at all.

  So we’re going to spend over a million $$ and using Meggs-math, we’re going to save $30 million because we’re not putting in better, safer and wider sidewalks…..

  Geez with this $30 Million and the $90 he said we’re saving from the OV re-financing, these guys are just incredible managers. How has this city survived without them until now?

  Fast forward to the 2011 election and what a cheap and inexpensive promise to put the NPA back in power.

  Conservatively, one could suggest that more than 20,000 Vancouverites who do not walk or bike over the bridge will be impacted negatively by traffic snarls from now until 2011.

  For just $1 Million roughly, they can remove the concrete barriers and put the bridge back to pre-vision trials. That’s only $50 a person which is an incredibly cheap price to pay to get 20,000 votes back in the NPA camp.

  Don’t we piss away that much daily on the DTES without seeing any improvement? VV may have just royally screwed themselves.

  People may forget about the chickens if their neighbors don’t have any. They may not even care about old macdonald’s farm in front of city hall. By 2011 maybe just maybe stability will return to some city hall jobs and morale will improve. If they’re lucky, the economy will improve and they won’t have to stick it to their buddies in CUPE on their next contract.

  However MANY/MOST voters will not be converting to another form of transportation so they will be negatively impacted every single day from June 1st until November 2011.

  Every day to and from work, or anytime they need to go into downtown and transit, walking or cycling isn’t an option, they’ll be reminded about VV and Gregor costing them time, money and impacting their life in a negative way.

• 9 Richard // Apr 29, 2009 at 9:04 pm

  Well, a few things. First, of all safety must be the priority. There are around 60000 people walking and cycling on the narrow sidewalks per day. Already, two have been seriously hurt. One sued the city and settled out of court for several hundreds of thousands of dollars.

  Safety will be improved all day seven days a week while drivers may be slightly inconvenienced for only a couple of hours a day. With the increase in people walking and cycling over the bridge during the trial, the number of people that will benefit from the safety improvements may actually be greater than the number of people that are slightly inconvenienced.

  Regarding a new bridge. Years ago the city estimated that it would cost at least $50 million for a basic bridge and up to $250 million for a signature bridge. With increases in costs since then, it would cost probably at least $100 million today. Plus, it would take years to design.

• 10 Vision governs, the NPA blogs // Apr 29, 2009 at 9:28 pm

  For those who think that safety is not a concern, or that the sidewalks are fine, here is the story about the woman who sued the city after she fell into traffic:

  http://www.cbc.ca/consumers/market/files/health/bikepaths/

  The Burrard bridge bike lanes aren’t forcing anyone to change their transportation, it’s to get them onto the Granville bridge which is vastly underutilized so that we don’t have to pour $30 million away on a sidewalk. Granville has 2 extra lanes but 10,000 less daily cars.

  And has anyone asked Councillor Suzanne Anton why she didn’t put up barriers during three years in office, if she’ so gung-ho for them now? Aside from the fact that they won’t work because you reduce the sidewalk space even further… the NPA campaigned on making the sidewalks safer in 2005 but didn’t do anything.

• 11 glissando remmy // Apr 29, 2009 at 10:24 pm

  I dedicate this little song to all the grand people involved in the fine screwing of the BB during the past two decades.

  Please, observe the few suggestions made by the anonymous author of this little gem.

  You’ll be surprised to find pointed advice…on construction materials, viability, judgement calls, strategies, few green features, costs and timely delivery.

  Four beats per measure…There you go:

  Treble clef
  4/4
  | E D C D | E E EE |
  | D D DD | E G GG |…

  Burrard Bridge is falling down,
  Falling down, Falling down. Burrard Bridge is falling down,
  My fair lady.

  Take a key and lock her up,
  Lock her up, Lock her up. Take a key and lock her up,
  My fair lady.

  How will we build it up,
  Build it up, Build it up? How will we build it up,
  My fair lady?

  Build it up with silver and gold,
  Silver and gold, Silver and gold. Build it up with silver and gold,
  My fair lady.

  Gold and silver I have none,
  I have none, I have none. Gold and silver I have none,
  My fair lady.

  Build it up with needles and pins,
  Needles and pins, Needles and pins. Build it up with needles and pins,
  My fair lady.

  Pins and needles bend and break,
  Bend and break, Bend and break. Pins and needles bend and break,
  My fair lady.

  Build it up with wood and clay,
  Wood and clay, Wood and clay. Build it up with wood and clay,
  My fair lady.

  Wood and clay will wash away,
  Wash away, Wash away. Wood and clay will wash away,
  My fair lady.

  Build it up with stone so strong,
  Stone so strong, Stone so strong. Build it up with stone so strong,
  My fair lady.

  Stone so strong will last so long,
  Last so long, Last so long. Stone so strong will last so long,

  (All together now!)

  Maaaay faaaaair laaaaaady!

  We live in Vancouver and this keeps us busy.

• 12 A. G. Tsakumis // Apr 29, 2009 at 10:50 pm

  Glissando are you sure the ‘remmy’ doesn’t come from too much Remy Martin?

  More to the point…LP hits the nail on the head. Forcibly trying to change people’s behavior is the hallmark of the bullshit wing of the enviro-Nazi movement. And this is exactly what Vision is governed by. I promise you, this whoel Vision crew will pay dearly for the crap they are throwing up.

  Yawn.

  More whiskey and fresh horses for my men…

  I promise you,

• 13 Mary // Apr 29, 2009 at 10:51 pm

  Mary
  How wonderful that families with children will finally be able to safely cycle across the bridge to swimming lessons at the Aquatic Centre or to spend time at Granville Island. Not to mention how much tourists will enjoy the spectacular views! Good for Council for finally having the courage to do the right thing for pedestrians and cyclists. Why would we want to waste millions building outriggers just to preserve 6 lanes of fast moving cars? Don’t we all want to do something about climate change? Council is not “closing down lanes” but opening them up to safe sustainable transportation. You question the # of cyclists using the bridge currently. I can assure you that many would love to ride on it but are terrified – especially as 2 women cyclists were almost killed by being knocked into traffic. Let’s hope Council chooses the 2 lane option so that fast commuter cyclists can safely overtake kids, families and tourists. Hooray!! I can’t wait to use it!

• 14 Holly // Apr 30, 2009 at 5:42 am

  40% of all trips in Amsterdam are made by bicycle. In the mid-1970s, a Cyclist’s Union was formed and with their lobbying efforts, a pro-cycling government came into power. Bike-friendly infrastructure followed, and ridership increased. I respectfully disagree, A. G. Tsakumis, that governments can’t change people’s behaviour. Look at seat belts and recycling.

• 15 rf // Apr 30, 2009 at 6:20 am

  Just imagine they start this June 1 and the Canucks are still in the playoffs. That bridge will be a parking lot and the stadium will be half full when they drop the puck.
  This will be a complete a total disaster. Guaranteed. ‘Those who ignore history are doomed to repeat it”. This looks like the same plan that failed in 1996.
  Just imagine if everyday there was an environmental protest clogging up 2 lanes of the bridge. Gong show.
  And save the “people will adjust their behavior”.
  They will just get angry. You will not get suits onto bikes. It’s still faster to wait in traffic than it is to bike, shower, change. And if June is rainy….
  I think this council can pretty much do what they want right up until they interfere with the average Vancouverite lifestyle. That’s when you start to get angry. When you realize that a flake like Gregor thinks everyone will merrily adjust their lifestyle because he says so, an uprising isn’t too far off.
  And how the heck would you turn onto the bridge from Pacific (thurlow side) if there’s a bike lane there? It’s already the most dangerous merge in the downtown core already.

• 16 Darcy McGee // Apr 30, 2009 at 7:38 am

  Not sure I have much sympathy for the cyclist who sued the city. Safety ANYWHERE has always required cooperation, and the Burrard Bridge is no exception.

  Without knowing the full details, of course, it’s impossible to say. It’s not city’s responsibility to guarantee 100% safety though.

  I do have a beef with how the bridge is treated by pedestrians: a couple of years ago I had the pleasure of crossing it on the day of one of the Weekend to End Breast Cancer walks. Pink shirted women were walking 4 or 5 abreast, and obstructing the whole sidewalk…they should have stuck to the pedestrian side.

  Stilll…we NEED a cycling and pedestrian crossing to demonstrate the city’s COMMITMENT to sustainable travel.

• 17 Sharon Townsend // Apr 30, 2009 at 7:51 am

  while the Granville street bride may be underutilized, Granville street itself is beyond reasonable capcacity. It is time for Hemlock and Fir to be used more effectively so South Granville can function.

• 18 spartikus // Apr 30, 2009 at 8:00 am

  Forcibly trying to change people’s behavior is the hallmark of the bullshit wing of the enviro-Nazi movement.

  And restricting cycling infrastructure forcibly makes people drive the cars whether they want to or not, a hallmark of the bullshit wing of the corporatist-Nazi movement.

  And so on. We could probably play that game all day

  You know what I really found inconvenient? The Canada Line construction. I’m sure everyone who is objecting to this objected to that with the same degree of horror. So everyone take turns and don’t bogart the laudanum.

• 19 spartikus // Apr 30, 2009 at 8:07 am

  From the report:

  2006 Census data shows that combined walking and cycling represent more than 40% of the journey-to-work mode share from downtown and 20% from Kitsilano and Point Grey. Over the
  last decade, vehicle trips into the downtown core have decreased by 7%. In addition, citywide
  statistics for the same time period show transit use has increased by 20%, walking has increased by 44% and cycling has increased by 180%. When the new Canada Line becomes operational later this year, it will provide another sustainable commuter option into the downtown core.

  I think it’s worth pointing out that, whether the Burrard bike lane is ultimately workable or unworkable, this is an attempt to address the transportation choice of a significant percentage of commuters.

• 20 Richard // Apr 30, 2009 at 8:07 am

  Darcy

  The cyclist who got knocked off the bridge was acting responsibly through no fault of her own, a pedestrian unexpectedly accidently knocked her off the sidewalk.

  The sidewalks are simply too narrow for the over 60,000 people a week that walk, cycle and run over the bridge per day. Cyclists and pedestrians should no be forced to share the same space. Other places in the city, people are always complaining when cyclists ride on the sidewalk.

  On the Seawall, the city is building separate bicycle and pedestrian paths that are 4.5m wide to avoid the conflicts.

  The city has known that this has been a problem for years and knows that the courts will continue to find them liable if people are injured on the bridge.

  The degree of co-operation required on the bridge is simply unreasonable. People walking must constantly be aware of cyclists passing. Regular users of the bridge are pretty good. The problems are worse on the weekends when people from out of town or other parts of the city use the bridge. They simply are not aware of the rules and the issues. It is really impossible to ensure that everyone that uses the sidewalk is aware of the rules and knows how to behave.

  I’m not sure way you think is reasonable to expect friends not to walk side by side.

  The BC government spent $700 million dollars to upgrade the Sea to Sky because drivers would not behave responsibly and obey the speed limit and the other rules of the road. I’m not sure why you think that people who cycle and walk should be expected to be held to a much higher standard of cooperation than motorists.

• 21 Todd Sieling // Apr 30, 2009 at 8:08 am

  > Don’t we piss away that much daily on the DTES without seeing any improvement? VV may have just royally screwed themselves.

  That’s mixing apples and robots. How can someone even begin to compare costs that way?

  > Forcibly trying to change people’s behavior is the hallmark of the bullshit wing of the enviro-Nazi movement.

  It’s a hallmark shared by many philosophies, cultures and governments across history, not just overly-passionate environmentalists. Whose behaviour is being forcibly changed here? The 2000+ cyclists and 3000+ pedestrians who use the bridge each day (according to the report’s 2005 numbers)?

  Personally I feel pretty good about lane re-allocation. 2 lanes would be ideal, as I’m more on the cycling side, but I think a one-lane trial is the most realistic. My own preference would be for the west lane, as its long grade ends up bringing cyclists in at higher speeds and creates the most potential danger between peds and wheelers.

• 22 Jeannette // Apr 30, 2009 at 8:10 am

  In regards to Holly’s comment:

  I have just returned from Amsterdam and was awe-struck at the amount of people who travelled by cycling and the incredible bike infrastructure there. Bike lanes, bike streets, bike street lights, bike parkades (with solar panels on the roofs!), etc. etc.

  I rented a bike and spent a day cycling all over the city and never one felt unsafe – contrasted to here, where I -never- take my bike out unless I’m touring the sea wall, because street level cycling in this city is just too dangerous.

  It would be amazing if we could adopt a lifestyle more like that of Holland…

• 23 foo // Apr 30, 2009 at 8:12 am

  While the BB experiment might be of interest to the small number of commuters that use it, let’s not pretend that it has anything to do with a commitment to sustainable transport infrastructure.

  This is about the yuppies of the West side and downtown areas trying to remake the city infrastructure to suit their lifestyles.

  People interested in sustainable transportation would be focusing on greatly increased cross-town transit, more and better bicycle routes east-west, better transit and improved bicycle access across Oak/Knight str bridges, etc.

  That’s actually where the majority of people do their commuting. They’re just not the people who have the most money and leisure time to make a lot of noise.

• 24 Westender // Apr 30, 2009 at 8:16 am

  Just to clarify for Richard (Apr 29, 2009 at 9:04 pm), as of 2005 there were 5,600 people per day walking and cycling across the Burrard bridge, not 60,000 people.

• 25 Gassy Jack's Ghost // Apr 30, 2009 at 9:22 am

  Yay! I can’t wait to bike the bridge with my son this summer! I wouldn’t dare do it with him in the bridge’s present state, but now we’ll be able to. Yay!

  On another note: each year this bridge is one of Heritage Vancouver’s top ten threatened heritage sites. The expensive proposals put forth by NPA would have destroyed this heritage, not enhanced it. I know most people don’t seem to care at all about this, but it is another hidden bonus of Vision’s plan.

• 26 LP // Apr 30, 2009 at 9:28 am

  Todd,

  If you’d like to think that’s “apples to robots”, then I guess you’re one of the people that continue to miss the point.

  My point was that $1 Million in todays money, may be a lot to some, but it’s really a piss in the bucket when it comes to infrastructure and city expenditures.

  I’m not sure how you didn’t understand that analogy but oh well…..

  My post was based on election strategy to the masses, and not ideology which is what many of you are actually displaying in your comments.

  Gregor/VV can say that they’ve made a tough decision and are sticking with it, but all winter long and on rainy days in the summer when only the die-hards are out on their bikes, anyone in their cars will be getting angrier by the minute when they see those empty lanes.

  I would go so far as to say that if the NPA starts a fund-raising drive from motorists to cover the $1M to rip this thing apart in three years, it wouldn’t cost the city taxpayer a thing, being a free promise to get those 20,000 swing votes I mentioned above.

  Angry people don’t vote for ideology, they vote against it.

  One last thing. Richard, as unfortunate as it is that anyone was hurt on that bridge, accidents and negiligence happen quit often in many different scenarios. To suggest that engineering can prevent most from occuring is suggesting that engineers can correct through better ‘design’ – bad human behaviour.

  There has never been a bigger falacy. Great engineering will never be a replacement for people being responsible for their own care and actions, regardless of the circumstance.

• 27 MB // Apr 30, 2009 at 10:30 am

  I strongly support this trial and expect that the latent cycling / walking / rollerblading / skateboarding / wheelchairing / dogrunning / group jogging demand will spike, and the 55% “lone occupant car” majority will decline as it should.

  The Burrard Bridge no longer needs six lanes to move its relatively low motorized traffic volumes. In fact, it probably never did.

  The final decision to keep, modify or scrap additional dedicated bike / pedestrian space should be based on a cold rational analysis of the trial period numbers, not on idealogy.

  If the decision is a go, then I would like to see some really great sidewalk treatments that respects the great Art Deco architectural heritage of the bridge (not to mention public art), something much better than our bland and cold poured concrete ubiquity.

  The westward view from the middle span is one of the best anywhere, and pullouts with interpretive plaques could be oriented to it.

  Lastly, with peak oil having shot out the clay feet of car dependence over the next decade, maybe the bridge could one day carry streetcars.

• 28 Richard // Apr 30, 2009 at 10:31 am

  Thanks Westender

  I meant to put per week. Even then it would be closer to 35,000 to 40,000. During the trial, it could be 60,000 or so per week.

  I should read before I post.

• 29 spartikus // Apr 30, 2009 at 11:01 am

  To suggest that engineering can prevent most from occuring is suggesting that engineers can correct through better ‘design’ – bad human behaviour.

  I agree. Let’s remove all the traffic lights at intersections.

• 30 Richard // Apr 30, 2009 at 11:27 am

  LP

  Bicycles are banned from most sidewalks for a reason. It is unsafe for bicycles and pedestrians to share the same space.

  In fact, it is because motorists couldn’t cooperate and share the road with cyclists that were forced up onto the sidewalks.

  Bicycles, pedestrians and cars all travel at different speeds and it is both unsafe and inconvenient for them to have to share the same space.

  Imagine cars having to pass each other by going up onto the sidewalk.

  Drivers find it really frustrating to be stuck on a road behind a cyclist because the road is too narrow to pass on. If not, the Burrard Bridge problem could be solved by placing cyclists on the road and requiring motorist to not go faster than 30mph and really respect the safety of cyclists. I think you would agree that this would not be likely.

  You are right that people need to be responsible and cooperate but you are expecting a much higher level of cooperation from cyclists and pedestrians than would ever be expected from motorists.

• 31 LP // Apr 30, 2009 at 3:59 pm

  See Spartikus, you and I are starting to think very alike.

  Even with all the traffic lights in the lower mainland, and all of the traffic planning, bad and careless human behaviour still cause accidents and collisions.

  Thanks so much for helping to prove my point.

  And Richard, while we’re throwing out hyperbole, I could also suggest that cyclists are just as careless as motorists and pedestrians.

  Just the other day while my wife was sitting at a stop light, she was run into by a cyclist. Clearly it was the cyclists fault, yet the cyclist verbally assaulted my wife, who sat there in shock not believing her ears. The car luckily had no damage as they ran into the mirror.

  Lets just say the cyclist is lucky it wasn’t me in the car at that moment.

  The bad behaviour in this city is not isolated to motorists, and the city would be well-advised to use some of their communicatons money to educate cyclists on some common sense and traffic laws.

• 32 Mark Allerton // Apr 30, 2009 at 5:17 pm

  I’m very much looking forward to this trial, hopefully as Joe suggests it will be in place by June. I’m hoping for a 2-lane trial but “option C” in the report would be a fine compromise. FWIW, while I love cars and driving, I walk, bike or bus to work year round, and my walking/biking route is over this bridge.

  It seems to be a common misconception that a City’s primary job is to smooth the flow of cars through its streets – when in fact it’s job is to serve the needs of *all* of it’s residents & businesses. So what, if as foo says, this about yuppies remaking the infrastructure to fit their lifestyles? Sounds like democracy in action…

• 33 Todd Sieling // Apr 30, 2009 at 8:56 pm

  > I’m not sure how you didn’t understand that analogy but oh well…..

  I understood you to be comparing spending on infrastructure development (Burrard Bridge) with the downtown East Side, which is social and policing spending. Also, as I read it your comment wasn’t an analogy, it was a direct comparison, which is why I think it’s in incompatible terms.

• 34 foo // Apr 30, 2009 at 9:18 pm

  Mark A,
  It’s kind of ironic for you to say that the city’s job is to serve the needs of *all* it’s residents in the context of the Burrard bridge trial. The focus on the bridge trial instead of meeting the needs of the majority of Vancouver residents and commuters is just one example of how the city doesn’t do its job.

  And to suggest that meeting the needs of a privileged few while ignoring almost everyone else is democracy in action is quite amusing.

  Good luck to the yuppies who’ll get their nice bike lanes on the bridge – that’s an example of how well-oiled squeaky wheel machinery can work wonders. Just stop pretendin
  g this is in any way about meeting the needs of the people, or making the planet a cooler place.

• 35 Darcy McGee // Apr 30, 2009 at 9:26 pm

  Richard: not doubting you, but the article doesn’t make that clear. It say:

  “Halfway across the bridge, she swerved to avoid some pedestrians.”

  Without making it clear that there was any hostility of action on the part of the pedestrians.

  Anyway, as I said I’ve had problems with pedestrians on the bridge. I just recognize that it IS a two way street…and one of the problems is that sometimes cyclists are going the wrong way on the Burrard Bridge, contributing to the problem. (Second Narrows is much much worse.)

  LP: don’t over generalize on cyclists. I’m curious how you know that “clearly it was the cyclists fault” since it sounds like you weren’t there…

• 36 Mark A // Apr 30, 2009 at 9:56 pm

  Foo: like most on the anti-trial side, you seem to be lacking any sense of proportion. There are are currently a combined 20 lanes available for car traffic over false creek, and at most this trial will remove 10% of that capacity. However it seems that for some people it is unacceptable to remove any car capacity at all – even 5% (one lane.)

  Since we’re talking about irony, the real irony here is that the car drivers most affected by any lane closures on the BB will be those driving from Point Grey, Shaughnessy & Kerrisdale – and yet you seem want to play the Class War card!

• 37 glissando remmy // May 1, 2009 at 12:35 am

  Sorry for following up soooo late, AGT. Tax time!

  You’re right on! You know, I’ve got a lot of that throughout my high school days.
  The thing is, I could have said the same thing about you at least a couple of times in the past month… but I didn’t.
  Actually my little song was a subliminal response to the futility of this Burrard Bridge perpetual dialogue.
  Anyway, I tunnelled deep into your post and I found… your “message”.

  It turns out that you like sailing in big boats.

  http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BgcnPaJDuzI&feature=related
  You’ll like it, this I promise you!

• 38 LP // May 1, 2009 at 6:56 am

  Darcy,

  It was my wife and from the circumstances she described, she certainly gets the benefit of my doubt.

  For you though, she was already stopped in the curb lane at a red light. The cyclist did not slow down and as the cyclist went to maneovour between her car and the crub, hit her mirror knocking themselves off their bike.

  The cyclist hit a stopped car – thats clearly not the fault of the car or my wife. The verbal abuse on the part of the cyclist for their err in judgement was also not called for.

  As you well know some cyclists think it’s okay to run red lights and proceed through stopped traffic in their journies. It is tolerated but it is no more legal than cars recklessly driving through traffic.

  As for the generalities, this analogy was directed to Richard who continually suggests motorists are the problem on the roads. I was offering an opposing generality in return to suggest Richard’s hyperbole was nothing more than that.

• 39 A. G. Tsakumis // May 1, 2009 at 8:08 am

  glissy! You could have, and you’d have been right!

  

• 40 foo // May 1, 2009 at 8:31 am

  Mark A,

  Actually, I’m not on either side of the trial argument. The city can do what it likes with the bridge.

  The side I’m on is that of the majority of people who neither live nor work downtown (largely because of city policies that have made it too expensive and too onerous for both working people and non-professional workplaces).

  And I’m on the side of people who call bullshit on the idea that this bridge thing is about making the city greener and reducing climate change.

  If the powers-that-be wanted to REALLY make the city greener, it would be focusing on better transit/transport policies for cross-town traffic and connections to Richmond; and it would stop driving industrial/non-yuppie commercial jobs out of the city.

  Making Vancouver a city where lawyers and accountants and CEOs live and work, and everyone else commutes from afar, is not a green approach.

• 41 spartikus // May 1, 2009 at 8:57 am

  If the powers-that-be wanted to REALLY make the city greener, it would be focusing on better transit/transport policies for cross-town traffic and connections to Richmond

  That’s Translink’s purview, not the City of Vancouver.

• 42 Mark A // May 1, 2009 at 8:58 am

  foo: I do very much agree with your last two paragraphs, but it’s not obvious to me how spending $1.5M on this trial demonstrates that the city is not attempting to address these issues.

  After all, we just spent over 1000 times more money improving transit connections to Richmond, and extending the M-line to UBC (improving cross town traffic) is going to cost even more than that.

  Personally I would agree that the BB trial is not going to have any impact on climate change. What I do believe is that it is going to improve the lives of quite a few of its residents – but as far as I can tell you don’t accept that as a justification for the project, because those residents aren’t the kind you like. Oh well.

  I would just like to take a moment to speak in praise of yuppie jobs. I have one, it’s great – everyone should get the opportunity to try one.

• 43 glissando remmy // May 1, 2009 at 3:11 pm

  Just in!
  True to the idiom “I put my money where my mouth is” I just walked over Burrard Bridge,today; on the right side, North bound from the front of the Molson site to the North side of Pacific Boulevard (the bicycle store).
  From 2.00 PM to 2.14 PM (T = time).
  On my side of the bridge I was the only pedestrian (P), I counted 21 bikes (B) out of which 4 morons were cycling the wrong way!
  HUNDREDS of freaking speeding cars (C) however… remove one or two lanes, well, you do the math.
  The weather was splendid, the dust collected in my mouth not so much.
  We live in Vancouver and this keeps us busy.

• 44 Richard // May 1, 2009 at 3:21 pm

  43glissando

  Speeding cars eh. Well, that seems to prove at most times of the day, save an hour in the morning and in the evening, the traffic on the bridge moves just fine. During the mid day, they often close a lane down to clean the sidewalks or replace banners and the traffic moves just fine.

  The trial will improve the safety of the 5,000 to 6000 people that cycle over the bridge every day while only delaying drivers a bit for a couple of hours a day.

  The reason why there is not more cyclists is because most people are scared to cycle. That should change dramatically during the trial.

• 45 Len B // May 1, 2009 at 4:42 pm

  Richard,

  Your last post reaks of complete crap.

  Please post your facts to prove how often they close lanes down to clean the sidewalks.

  Next, can you prove that “most people are scared to cycle” over the BB?

  Yes surveys have been completed that some people feel uneasy on the sidewalks, however to suggest “most” people is a huge stretch.

  You and I have gone this route before, and from the sounds of it, you rarely use the bridge, but yet you continue to offer your ‘expert’ insight.

  Please please post some real data to support the information you consistently spew. And at the same time, please do let the rest of us know how often you use the bridge and with which mode of transportation in the first place.

  As I’ve stated in the past I use the bridge daily as both a pedestrian and with my car. My use is not limited to rush hour traffic, I use the bridge at varying times each day and I find your comments are imaginary.

• 46 Stephanie // May 1, 2009 at 5:38 pm

  Don Buchanan wrote:

  Hopefully we’ll get a proper two lane trial and some of the SOV complainers on the list can try transit if not cycling. Maybe they’ll get one of the spaces freed up by the hordes of transit people who don’t cycle now but will soon feel safe enough to cycle over the bridge.

  I travel between my Gastown home and my boyfriend’s place in Kits frequently, and I’m not about to start cycling the bridge, nor do I suspect that many other transit users will. Even if the bridge is safer, I’m still not willing to risk my neck dealing with vehicle traffic downtown, and I suspect that’s true for a lot of people.

  If there’s a spike in cycle traffic on the bridge, my guess that it will largely be composed of recreational cyclists who want to get from shore to shore (see: families to the Aquatic Centre). The idea that someone would be perfectly willing to bike downtown but won’t take the bridge because of safety issues seems far-fetched to me.

  Also: has anyone bothered to look at the transit-using population, and whether folks are likely to hop off the bus and onto their bikes? Our frail elders take transit. So do people living with disabilities. So do people who don’t have jobs that let them shower or store their bicycles safely, or who already face massive commute times because they can’t afford cars and must take transit.

  It bothers me that when we’re ostensibly talking about a “green city” initiative, there isn’t a firm commitment to ensuring that these people, who are *already* using sustainable transportation, don’t have to spend even more time stuck on buses – especially when it seems pretty clear that what’s driving a lot of this initiative is a bunch of affluent, able-bodied Westsiders who have a bee in their collective bonnet about “lifestyle choices”.

• 47 Mark A // May 1, 2009 at 6:51 pm

  Hmm, so biking is dangerous because not enough allowances are made for cyclists in one place, therefore it is not worth spending time & money making more allowances for cyclists somewhere else? If we take this logic to it’s conclusion, it is pointless to provide any more cycling facilities than the lowest common denominator across the city (which is presumably “none”.)

  The knots people will tie themselves up in arguing for the status quo…

• 48 spartikus // May 1, 2009 at 7:44 pm

  Please please post some real data to support the information you consistently spew.

  And vice versa, of course.

• 49 Richard // May 1, 2009 at 9:57 pm

  Len B

  I used to commute over the bridge pretty much everyday. It doesn’t really matter how often they clean the sidewalks or change the banners, the point is that when ever they do, they close down a lane in the middle of the day and there is never any backup.

  Regarding people being scared to cycle, that is pretty much common knowledge. Just ask people why they don’t cycle.

  I currently use the bridge several times a week. I mostly cycle but sometimes I walk or use the bus.

• 50 Dave R // May 2, 2009 at 9:06 pm

  Biking is good. I just wonder why not all our councilors take transit, walk or bike. I have seen some driving .Why there are reserved parking stalls for councilors. Should not they be role models before making any big policy decision for citizens of Vancouver?

• 51 Peter L. // May 3, 2009 at 2:16 pm

  People will not start cycling over the Burrard Bridge in significant numbers, with or without new bike lanes, until the approaches are safe.

  Heading east along Pacific at the north end of the BB and staying off the sidewalk is treacherous until Seymour.

  Heading west along Pacific past Richards, before turning left beside Bicycle Sport Pacific onto the north end of the BB, is the most dangerous four-block section for cycling in all of downtown.

  Heading west along Cornwall past Cypress at the south end of the BB is a safety nightmare right through to Alma.

• 52 EastVancouverite // May 3, 2009 at 2:29 pm

  The Burrard Bridge has a finite amount of room that is shared by people using different modes of travel. The current allocation of space creates a conflict between pedestrians and cyclists, which are prioritized by City Council policy ahead of transit, goods movement, and private automobiles. The conflict stems from slow cyclists, inattentive pedestrians, and too little space.

  There is not enough room on the sidewalk for cyclists to safely pass one another, nor maneuver to safety when pedestrians abruptly step into the bicycle lane to pass slower walkers. Installing a guard rail between the raised sidewalk and motor vehicle lanes could save lives but would also exacerbate the underlying conflict. This is because cyclists are already riding at the practicable edge of the sidewalk with their pedals and handlebars extending out into space beyond the sidewalk edge. With a guard rail cyclists would have to ride closer to the centre of the sidewalk and come unacceptably close to pedestrians.

  The status quo is not acceptable. There are alternatives, such as building a dedicated pedestrian and bicycle bridge across False Creek, widening the Burrard Street Bridge deck, or reallocating existing space on the bridge.

  The new bridge would likely be the most expensive option but could potentially yield the best outcomes. To offer maximum utility and amenity to recreational and commuter pedestrians and cyclists any new bridge would have to connect to the existing street network and the Seawall and not present onerous grades or time consuming detours. The requirement of uninterrupted maritime navigability on False Creek would mean that a bridge would have to be quite tall.

  Widening the Burrard Bridge deck has been proposed by the City as part of a $65 million revitalization of the bridge. Much of the work included in this budget, such as repairs to the bridge’s art deco architecture, new lighting, and reopening the Seawall stairwell in the south pier, will go ahead in the coming years. The bridge deck expansion is controversial because it would significantly alter the appearance of the bridge and possibly compromise its heritage character. However it would provide the much-needed additional space that is required for a separated pedestrian and bicycle right of way.

  Reallocating bridge space to provide more room for pedestrians and cyclists is the third, and by far the least expensive option. This could mean removing one motor vehicle lane and building up each sidewalk with half a road lane’s worth of concrete to nearly double the width of the sidewalk. One half of this new space could be allocated to allow pedestrians to walk two abreast and the other half would be used to widen the cycling lane and create the opportunity for cyclists to occasionally pass one another when clear of pedestrians. The pinch points at the piers for the main span of the bridge would still prove challenging and the cycling lane would likely split into two narrow paths for this portion of the bridge, with one half on the roadway side of the steel superstructure and the other on the outside as it is in its current state. Reallocating a second motor vehicle lane would allow for the creation of a shared bicycle and pedestrian pathway of similar to the highly successful one on the East side of the Cambie Street Bridge or much of the Seawall.

  If the oft-cited concern for the rate of travel for transit commuters is sincere, then steps should surely be taken immedately to introduce transit lanes on the Burrard corridor where they do not currently exist. This would include the Burrard Street Bridge itself, along Burrard street to Broadway, and as far as possible along Cornwall. Transit lanes on the bridge will not be possible if road lanes are reallocated to pedestrians and cyclists, which have high priorities under Council policy, but if the bridge deck is expanded or a new non-motorized bridge is built then transit lanes should be installed no matter what. In fact, I think that after the six-month bicycle lane trial is complete a six-month Burrard Bridge transit lane trial should be implemented.

  I reject the assertion that reallocating either one or two road lanes on the Burrard Bridge deck will result in significantly increased traffic volumes on the corridor’s arterial streets. The Bridge plays far less of a role in determining the rate of travel for motorized vehicles along the Burrard Street corridor than traffic signals along the corridor and the bridgeheads. In fact one of the biggest causes of delays along the Burrard corridor are drivers who run orange or red lights and get stuck out in the middle of the intersection.

  The bottom line is that there are many options available to improve the movement of people into and out of downtown along the Burrard Street corridor. For all the mathematical modeling and expert input the only way we will know for certain if the reallocation of space on the bridge deck will yield an improvement in the safety, amenity, and utility of the Burrard Bridge to those at the top of the City’s official transportation policy is to do a trial.

Leave a Comment