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.

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.

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.

And vice versa, of course.

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

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”.

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.

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.