Amid the 187 recommendations in the Transportation 2040 plan, I missed the idea of creating a greenway in the middle of the Granville Bridge, which I gather would run from Sixth Avenue on the south side to Drake on the north side.
There seem to be rendered images floating around here and there, which I’m guessing are from the city but somehow not attached to their Transportation 2040 information page. Here’s one.
Anyway, I’m wondering what everyone thinks of this. Is it actually useful to have people jog over to the middle of Granville for part of their journey and then jog out again? Or is this something that’s more in the nature of a big advertisement for a green Vancouver that doesn’t really add much to the cycling network?
I truly have no idea what the opinions are out there. I’m still recovering from the sudden discovery that the cycling lobby is opposed to mandatory bike-helmet laws, saying they discourage cycling — a debate I hadn’t heard a word of in the last five years of cycling arguments until this whole issue of mandatory helmet laws and the bikeshare system arose recently. So now I feel as though I don’t know how anyone feels about anything.
80 responses so far ↓
1 Raingurl // Jun 20, 2012 at 10:31 am
My daughter stopped riding her bike because I insisted she wear her helmet. That was over ten years ago. The other day we were walking around Vancouver and she said she wanted a bike. Neither of us even knew where her old one was. I told her I would buy her a new one if she wore a helmet. Personally, I would be embarrassed to be riding my bike without a helmet!
2 IanS // Jun 20, 2012 at 10:44 am
IMO, the proposed “greenway” over the bridge has more to do with Vision’s efforts to “brand” Vancouver as the “greenest city” than it does to achieving anything of substance. I’ve also read that the same plan has been proposed for the Cambie Street Bridge.
My concern (apart from the waste of taxpayer dollars on such an exercise) is that it will reduce capacity over the bridges at a time when we may sorely need it (ie. with the impending destruction of the viaducts). Even if we assume that the greenway proposal might otherwise have some kind of merit, surely it makes sense to see what happens once the viaducts are gone before removing those lanes.
As for the helmet thing, I believe, IIRC, that that’s been a fair bit of debate about it on this blog in the past. However, the signal to noise ratio on this blog being what it is, I suppose it was easy to miss.
At this point, I suspect the issue’s being revived in relation to the new bike share program. If the new program fails financially, and the taxpayer is required to pick up the bill (as I suspect will occur), my prediction is that the helmet laws will be cited as the reason for the failure.
3 keith // Jun 20, 2012 at 11:16 am
Look Ma, no helmets.
4 Frank Ducote // Jun 20, 2012 at 11:17 am
Lori Brown did this rendering for the City’s Transporation Plan. I think she has prepared others for the new plan as well. Kudos to all concerned for bringing such exciting concepts to life in a typically dry subject matter.
This is a pretty cool idea, IMO. There are at least 2 lanes of excess road space on this 8 lane bridge, and widening sidewalks – a typically alternative option – is not practical due to the 2 lane on- and offramp space constraints, where vehicular traffic is encouraged to go, and which limits the opportunity for wider sidewalks at the sides of the bridge.
I see in the rendering that there are still 3 lanes on either side of the greenway, which suggests that the innermost lane in both directions would have a transit priority for continuing onto or leaving Granville Street downtown. A small point:I may have missed the trolley poles but presumably these would be still be there or, preferably, designed to be incorporated into the new greenway, along with necessary pedestrian-oriented lighting.)
If I were advising merchants in the South Granville area I’d suggest jumping in to support this idea whihc would bring many more non-vehicular trips to the strip south of 6th Avenue. “Gateway to South Granville”!
What’s missing on the south end but may be coming on the north (via the BIG proposal), are good vertical links between the bridge deck and grade below. During the 1997 Transportation Plan era, the most popular idea that came forward from the public was a vertical pedestrian link to Granville Island from the overhead bridge deck. Don’t know where that idea rests in City Hall’s these today.
5 Raingurl // Jun 20, 2012 at 11:52 am
@KEITH…..I watched the video and posted a comment……….here it is……….Wow, the cops in my country would clean up with all the fines issued from not wearing helmets. LOL
6 Kelly // Jun 20, 2012 at 12:08 pm
Being the non-car owning person I am I think the greenway is a lovely idea. Crossing the Granville bridge as a pedestrian or a cyclist is a very unpleasant experience (I used to walk across it almost everyday).
1) Sidewalks are too narrow and traffic is too loud to carry on a conversation. Not a pleasant place for a stroll with a friend.
2) Bikes were usually on the sidewalk to escape the angry drivers
3) Would be best if there were vertical connections to Granville Island and the seawall.
Given the Burrard debacle though I think it’s a long way off
7 MB // Jun 20, 2012 at 12:16 pm
A very exciting idea with much potential.
Ian S, I find it very revealing that there is what even traffic engineers call “excess capacity” on the Granville Bridge. This is in addition to the 12%-20% (different info sources) overall reduction in traffic accessing the downtown penninsula over the past decade or so, in spite of a huge increase in residential construction, and now also an increase in office space.
There may be a few glitches to work out, such as how pedestrians on the outside sidewalks will cross to the middle, and how you separate bikes from pedestrians.
But increasing space for humans on such a massive structure designed for motor traffic is another sign we have finally entered the 21st Century in this city.
8 Guest // Jun 20, 2012 at 12:17 pm
I would rather see the two middle lanes of Granville Bridge used for surface LRT – and placing a parkway there will ultimately prevent LRT from being installed there (i.e. ever try to remove a park?)
As Gordon has mentioned, the usefulness of the middle lane route is also questionable – as it would have to have connections to sidewalks and bike paths at its ends. Despite a view cone to the north from the peak of the bridge, there’s no view down to the water from the middle lanes of the bridge (although it could be a suicide avoidance measure to have it in the middle).
Will cyclists wait at a traffic light (!!!) to cross to the middle lanes of the bridge? or will circuitous ramps (creating long and inconvenience travel routes) be constructed to West 6th Ave. and Pacific Blvd below the bridge?
To me, it would make more sense to cantilever wider sidealks off the sides of Granville Bridge (no one cares how it looks, unlike Burrad Bridge) and cylists would then access the wider sidewalks from Hemlock, Fir, Seymour and Howe or, if there’s more money around (or as Phase 2), underpasses could be built to connect under the ramps back to Granville Street.
9 Chris Porter // Jun 20, 2012 at 12:18 pm
The renderings are from the city’s documents. If you did the survey, it was linked to in the pedestrian section (the point about False Creek crossings). It can be found in this pdf http://talkvancouver.com/document/show/208 page 10.
10 Chris Porter // Jun 20, 2012 at 12:23 pm
Re: helmets. The issue has been a hot topic within cycling circles for years. Bike sharing programs seem to be the driving force for getting rid of the laws (in Israel, Mexico, Australia, and BC). Momentum Magazine has one of the best summaries of debate (written 1 year ago). http://momentummag.com/articles/the-helmet-debate
The conclusion:
“It seems we have reached a decisive moment in the history of urban cycling. If the pro helmet faction wins, it’s likely that we will see mandatory helmet laws sweeping across Canada and the US. If, on the other hand, the pro choice group wins, existing helmet laws will soon be abolished, potentially changing the face of cycling in those cities that currently require helmet use by law.
There is a lot riding on this debate, and it’s unlikely to fade into the distance anytime soon.”
11 IanS // Jun 20, 2012 at 12:28 pm
@MB #6,
I’m not necessarily against the idea, though I find it interesting that the points you cite in support of it go to the issue of whether the bridge has capacity (ie. whether the removal of the lanes will cause harm) rather that towards anything suggesting that such a change is required or substantively beneficial. Certainly, putting a greenway over the Granville St Bridge is less likely to cause harm than the removal of the viaducts, IMO.
The specific question Frances posed was “Is it actually useful to have people jog over to the middle of Granville for part of their journey and then jog out again? Or is this something that’s more in the nature of a big advertisement for a green Vancouver that doesn’t really add much to the cycling network?”
My view is that it’s more in the nature of Vision’s “branding” efforts, ie. an advertisement. From the ultimate paragraph in your post #6, I infer that you don’t disagree.
(Also, I reiterate that we might want to wait to assess capacity once the viaducts are destroyed. That just seems like common sense.)
12 MB // Jun 20, 2012 at 12:30 pm
Guest, why propose an expensive LRT line on a route that has several perfectly good trolley bus routes converging into a high capacity service?
Moreover, you still have the same problem with getting LRT passengers from the middle of the road to the edges at stops (picture Granville x 6th) as you do with pedestrians in this greenway proposal. With the greenway, perhaps this is best accomlpished by punching holes in the bridge deck supporting the greenway to accommodate elevators and stairs down to suspended walkways.
Trams could serve False Creek south and north via Quebec St, as well as the Arbutus corridor and downtown as proposed in the hertitage streetcar project.
13 Max // Jun 20, 2012 at 12:43 pm
Question:
If an out of country tourist rents/borrows one of the bike share bikes, doesn’t wear a helmet and has an accident, who is on the hook for the medical bills and possible ‘liability’?
From what I understand, US citizens aready owe tens of millions to the BC medical system and I don’t see them being collected, which means the taxpayers are covering the losses of an already stressed system.
Do we just shrug our shoulders and accept this as a cost of ‘riding a bike’ or should a financial safety net be put into place protecting BC taxpayers?
Personally, if you are more worried about messing up your hair than your personal saftey, I don’t consider you a true cyclist. The argument that bike helmets do nothing at impact has been refuted by medical doctors who deal with the aftermath.
I had the unfortunate displeasure of seeing one of those ‘aftermaths’ several years back at 4th and Trafalgar.
No helmet; the blood on the street was horrific. And no, the man did not live.
14 MB // Jun 20, 2012 at 12:46 pm
@ Ian S 10
I see this and similar projects in urban design terms, not in political terms. In fact, I find it very intereting that you have such a strong political take on it.
I’ve never seen “branding” as anything but a political or commercial machination. I prefer “original thinking” over “branding” to define creative ideas, and disregard the view that everything must have a poltical or commercial motive, even in the cars vs. humans debate.
In the end, perhaps it is simple supply and demand economics that will define reality.
15 ThinkOutsideABox // Jun 20, 2012 at 12:47 pm
The bike helmet debate is becoming topical in Ontario at the moment as the coroner is suggesting the province make cycling helmets mandatory for all and not just for those under 18.
16 MB // Jun 20, 2012 at 12:55 pm
@ keith 4 + Max 12 + TOAB 14
I’m all for mandatory bike helmet laws until such time as our cities operate like Utrecht. Separated bike lanes and greenway proposals like this one are in the right direction.
Thanks for the vid link, keith.
17 IanS // Jun 20, 2012 at 1:15 pm
@MB #13,
“In fact, I find it very intereting that you have such a strong political take on it.”
I will have to disagree with your characterization of my “take” on it. I don’t think it’s political at all. I think of it as pragmatic or, perhaps, utilitarian.
“I’ve never seen “branding” as anything but a political or commercial machination. ”
I agree with this completely. I see it the same way.
“I prefer “original thinking” over “branding” to define creative ideas, and disregard the view that everything must have a poltical or commercial motive, even in the cars vs. humans debate.”
Fair enough.
For my part, I prefer to look at it more from a pragmatic point of view: Will the proposal make things better? Will it accomplish anything of substance? Is it a good use of our limited resources? Viewed through that lens, “original thinking” is only a means to an end, not an end itself.
18 Bryn // Jun 20, 2012 at 1:18 pm
Overall I see the greenway on the bridge as an interesting idea. The existing sidewalks are pretty narrow – I used to live at Alder and 11th so I’d walk the bridge occasionally. It’s not at all comfortable given the high traffic speeds and limited space. The bridge definitely isn’t pedestrian-friendly in its current form. I recall one night walking over with my wife and someone hurling an egg at us from a speeding car… Guess what, eggs don’t break when you hit someone with them at that speed, they just HURT like you’ve been nailed with a rock. It would definitely be nice to have some division between the sidewalks and the street!!
I’m mixed about the greenway idea. It would certainly be possible to tie it in to the existing pedestrian tunnels under the bridge at 6th Avenue which would pretty much sort out the access issues on the South end. On the North side I think it’s a great idea if the long term plans for the city include removing vehicle traffic from Granville on a more permanent basis – ie no vehicles on weekends ever. It would allow for a really vibrant street with things like outdoor events, markets, vendors, etc at which point I see the greenway being a very valuable link, especially given the population density around the South end and the plans for it to increase over time. But if Granville is to stay the way it is – a primarily transit corridor with several blocks of vehicle traffic on the North end then I don’t really see it being that useful.
Regarding the helmet debate – I don’t think it’s ever totally gone away, but the failure of Australia’s bike share program coupled with the popularity of bike share programs in no-helmet areas has really highlighted things. I’m rabidly pro-choice regarding helmet use, meaning I choose to wear one but I don’t think it should be mandatory. However I really don’t get why so many people seem to think helmets have magical powers. I saw a “pro helmet” interview where the individual was badly hurt – broken jaw, broken shoulder, broken ribs and exclaiming that he wished he was wearing a helmet. It’s like somehow people think a styrofoam cup on your head is going to change what happens to the rest of your body!! Guess what, helmets don’t prevent spinal injuries, broken bones, punctured lungs or any of the other horrible things that can happen in a serious accident. Bike helmets are designed for a fall from riding height at about 12 km/h, that’s it. They do a very good job of that particular aspect of things, but thinking they somehow will alter the outcome of a cyclist in a motor vehicle accident is just uniformed thinking, usually from non-cyclists. Frankly a loud bell and good habits are far more important.
19 Silly Season // Jun 20, 2012 at 1:45 pm
@MB #15
I think you’ve hit the nail on the…er…head.
I have 3 biking friends who sustained massive head trauma, when they came off their bikes.
None of them had any interaction with a car. All were cycling alone, during the day. Tires and pebbles and anything in the way of a road bike can easily send it sideways.
One spent significant time at GF Strong in rehab. The other had to pin and shoulder her clavicle back together. The other had ringing in his ears. They all hit their heads when they came off—some worse than others.
Luckily all three were wearing their helmets, because they have a sense of responsibility for their own safety, a sense of responibilty to the sport, and a sense of responsibilty to the community.
Distinctly different from the vocal minority who seem to just want “the right” to choose. I don’t have the right to ignore seat belt laws, cars are outfitted with bags, so wearing a helmet is the least that cyclists should be doing, if they are taking all of society into consideration, and not just themselves.
I put my faith into the emergency doctor from St. Pauls’ who was on Bill Good this am. This is an ideological discussion, not a safety one. The safety aspect must outweigh the ideological argument until the city has either the kind of cycling infrastructure of the European cities biking proponents are continually holding up as helmetless meccas—or until local cyclists understand they are not on the Tour. Slow down.
I think that the vociferous “anti- helmet” supporters” just aren’t using their…heads.
20 Richard // Jun 20, 2012 at 1:46 pm
Granville Bridge and the whole Granville corridor in general is probably the largest remaining gap in the cycling network in the whole city. The success of the Greenway in the middle of the bridge would depend on the connections at either end.
South of False Creek, there currently is no north south route between Heather and Cypress, a distance of over 2km.
Initially, the Greenway should connect south at least until the 10th Ave Bikeway and preferably up to 37th where it could connect over to Hudson. Downtown, Seymour and Howe were identified for bike lanes in the 1997 Transportation Plan. Granville Street with a bit of upgrading might be a better choice now.
Regarding pedestrian connections, an elevator from the bridge deck down to Granville Island would be a great idea. On the north side, an elevator or stairs down to the Seaside Path would be great.
On the south side, I’m wondering if there could be a connection to the pedestrian underpass. That could make it easy for peds and bikes to escape from the path in the middle.
All and all a very interesting concept. Looking forward to further details.
21 Richard // Jun 20, 2012 at 1:55 pm
On to the helmet debate.
There is all together too much focus on helmets on both sides of the debate. As proven in countries like Denmark and the Netherlands, where pretty much no one wears a helmet, the injury and fatality rates are far lower than they are here.
The focus really needs to be on collision reduction, which eliminates both head injuries and serious injuries to the rest of the body. Measures that have proven effective include networks of separated bike lanes, motor vehicle speed reduction, better enforcement of laws that reduce collisions, better maintenance of bike routes and the removing of hazards on roads and bike paths.
Many of these measures also make roads safer for motorists and pedestrians.
More at:
http://bccyclingcoalition.blogspot.ca/2011/05/cycling-safety-through-collision.html
Innovative new measures include exterior airbags for motor vehicles.
Volvo has a car in production that both includes these airbags and an automatic braking system to help avoid collisions with pedestrians and cyclists in the first place. The airbags can reduce injuries to cyclists and pedestrians by up to 50%.
22 Sharon Townsend // Jun 20, 2012 at 1:58 pm
I find it interesting that there has been zero conversation with the South Granville business community about the Greenway idea – not even to give feedback, offer ideas or perhaps get some support.
Obviously, our first question would be how the Greenway would terminate. If the entire focus is to get people across the bridge and funnel them into Granville Island, we would have definite concerns.
Must confess, the pictures are exciting!
23 Roger Kemble // Jun 20, 2012 at 2:04 pm
Access?
Egress?
This looks like a hasty scratch idea: no serious thought behind it.
I’ll believe it when I see it.
24 Mira // Jun 20, 2012 at 2:08 pm
Lunatics in charge of the Asylum!
Nuff said.
25 Frank Ducote // Jun 20, 2012 at 2:23 pm
Sharon – Good question. The intersection (or beginning, not terminus) at 6th would offer pretty reasonable and attractive pedestrian and bike access at the (northside?) crosswalk, similar to other wide medians.
I don’t think the idea is funnel anybody anywhere particularly, just to improve movement for alternative transportation modes across False Creek. In doing so, I would think it would increase non-vehicular movements to the South Granville shopping and art precinct, I would think.
Now is the time for the public process, and I hope your and downtown Vancouver’s BIAs can discuss the merits of all the initiatives. I don’t see many cons at this early date for this one, IMO.
26 IanS // Jun 20, 2012 at 3:18 pm
@ Bryn #18:
Good post and you raise a number of good points.
I’m on the fence myself about mandatory helmet use. However, I do want to note that your final sentence – “Frankly a loud bell and good habits are far more important” – while perhaps true, does not really support the assertion that mandatory helmet use is a bad thing. Unless wearing a helmet is incompatible with a loud bell and good habits, there is no reason why we should not be choosing “all of the above”.
27 Paul T. // Jun 20, 2012 at 4:10 pm
Love the idea of a middle of the bridge greenway on Granville. 99% of the time the bridge has wayyyyy more capacity than what it needs. This should have been done before the Burrard bridge bike lanes IMHO. As for Cambie street, instead of middle of the road, I’d probably want to see the east side walk expanded by one more lane. Northbound traffic is already constricted from getting on the bridge by the heavy traffic at 7th, 8th and Broadway. So you could take away one of the lanes without much of a detriment to accessibility for vehicles.
Gregor can stand up and wage his war on the car all he wants, but a sound decision like re purposing routes with extra capacity is the way to achieve our goals. If we’re constantly battling over cars vs. bikes vs. transit vs. walking we’ll go no where. If there’s extra capacity somewhere, USE IT! Leave other areas alone.
28 Guest // Jun 20, 2012 at 5:05 pm
Because when a second rapid transit line from downtown to Richmond is required (via the Arbutus RoW) the alternative would be a very expensive tunnel – and Granville St. and Granville Bridge have been considered in many of the past LRT plans using the Arbutus RoW to be a logical route to downtown for the trains.
I don;t think they are thinking of the future.
It’s like the demolition of the Georgia Viaduct and te construction of a new street ramp to Pacific Blvd will occupy the lands slated for the grand pedestrian connector to the False Creek waterfront known as the “Georgia Steps”.
29 Guest // Jun 20, 2012 at 5:13 pm
The options for the Georgia Steps (in effect a pedestrian greenway) can be seen here:
http://forum.skyscraperpage.com/showthread.php?t=151228&highlight=georgia+steps&page=87
30 brilliant // Jun 20, 2012 at 5:18 pm
@Richard 21- B.S. Dr. Perry Kendall neatly skewered that bike lobby lie in the Sun earlier this week. The Darling Dutch have a cyclist head injury rate substantially higher than ours.
31 mike0123 // Jun 20, 2012 at 6:33 pm
A Granville Bridge greenway would reduce the elevation change for cycling trips between South Granville and Downtown. There is a a substantial change in elevation between 10th Avenue, the south end of the Burrard Bridge, and the middle of the Burrard Bridge. A Granville Bridge greenway using the Fir Viaduct would create a new cycling route between the 10th Avenue greenway and Downtown that is nearly flat.
The bulk of vehicle trips over the Granville Bridge use the outer lanes at the north end and the central lanes at the south end. The rendering shows the central lanes at the north end converted to greenway, where the capacity isn’t needed. The south end of the bridge isn’t shown. There are a few options: redirect most traffic from the central lanes to the Heather and Fir Viaducts, connect the central lane greenway to a greenway using one or both of the southern viaducts, or make the greenway narrow enough to fit onto the main part of the south end of the bridge. Probably a combination is best for cyclists for connections to the top and bottom of the hill.
32 Rick // Jun 20, 2012 at 7:06 pm
It seems the city wants it’s own High Line Park…is that a bad thing? No…but it does seem to be a bit of following the urban planning cool kids.
33 Bill Lee // Jun 20, 2012 at 7:07 pm
To follow up on @Brilliant’s comment Jun 20, 2012 at 5:18 pm #30
Dr. Perry Kendall’s comments were in a letter to the editor
http://www.vancouversun.com/news/Bikes+bridges+viaducts+Pick+your+priorities/6798735/story.html
[ by the way, a whole bunch of letters with the same general title that week ]
The general PHO site health.gov.bc.ca/pho/
The (ex-Pine Free clinic in Kits, ex MHO of Toronto, many other titles) Provincial Health Officer said:
[Text from Vancouver Sun web page. I have inserted the references to the easy articles he is citing. ]
===
Re: More data needed to assess effect of cycling helmet law, June 6
In response to the letter from Arno Schortinghuis, I wish to clarify my remarks cited in Craig McInnes’ column, Helmet head or heart attacks, May 28.
The information I referenced regarding cycling injuries in Holland comes from the SWOV, Dutch Institute for Road Safety Research, and was published in Leidschendam in September of 2011.
[ see Autumn 2011 Annual report in English (or Nederlands) at http://www.swov.nl/rapport/Ss_RA/RA47.pdf (12 pages, 1.28 Mbytes) "Most SWOV reports are published in the Dutch language, but have an English summary." The SWOV Fact sheet on Bicycle Helmets is published in September 2011, http://www.swov.nl/rapport/Factsheets/UK/FS_Bicycle_helmets.pdf 7 pages (English) 245 Mbytes. (Fietshelmen in the NL Factsheets) ]
The comparison I make to cycling injuries in B.C. uses data from a July 28, 2011 special report prepared by the Canadian Institute for Health Information on cycling injuries in B.C., and the Canadian Community Health Survey, 2009 (CCHS).
[ Press release titled "Summer is peak season for wheel- and water-related injuries :Number of cycling injuries remains stable over past decade but head injuries on the decline. July 28, 2011" http://www.cihi.ca/CIHI-ext-portal/internet/en/Document/types+of+care/RELEASE_21JULY11 with many tables. PDF of 3 pages 138 Mbytes at http://www.cihi.ca/CIHI-ext-portal/pdf/internet/INFO_CYCLING_INJURY_09-10_EN (Obviously in la langue de Moliere as well) CIHI also has lists of their Trauma Registeries at http://preview.tinyurl.com/86ll3lu ]
I acknowledge that, in general, the Netherlands is a safer place for cycling than North America. What I pointed out to Mr. McInnes was that in B.C. the percentage of all hospitalized cycling accident cases that are attributable to head injuries is significantly lower than the Dutch rate.
The SWOV report notes that about one third of all cycling accident hospital admissions in Holland (2005-09) are head/brain injuries whereas the proportion in B.C. (2001-2010) is about 19 per cent.
Approximately three-quarters of the head and brain injuries among cyclists in the Netherlands are caused by crashes that do not involve motorized traffic. This despite major advances in infrastructure and mass cycling in the Netherlands.
I think this difference (a lower pro-portion of head/brain injuries in B.C.) is largely attributable to the high use of bike helmets in B.C. (78 per cent of adults over age 31, always or most of the time wear helmets, CCHS) compared to the low rate of helmet use in Holland.
An opportunity clearly exists for the cycling population in Holland to achieve fewer head/brain injuries through higher bike helmet use.
The SWOV report notes “that a bicycle helmet is an effective means of protecting cyclists from sustaining head and brain injury in a fall with a bicycle.” I completely agree.
Perry Kendall Provincial health office
Read more: http://www.vancouversun.com/news/Bikes+bridges+viaducts+Pick+your+priorities/6798735/story.html
To which I will add: Go to PubMed, look up your topics (cycling, bicycle helmets etc. ) and check the Cochrane Review entries from the Cochrane Collaboriation. Check Wikipedias if you want backgrounds on these three groups. Read the PubMed tutorial if you haven’t used Index Medicus and the MeSH before.
———
Now could we consider doing the same on the soon to be “old Patullo Bridge” a garden across the centre lane? What about the new bridges to be built under this Transport 2040 tear-up-the-streets with flyovers on Powell, Raymur, Gore, Glen, Parker and others.
Maybe we can revitalize the bike only (coyotes and rats sometimes) crossing next to the Canada Line Fraser River crossing.
Should we rebuild the former Fraser Street Bridge (1905-1974 with a garden way?
The Canoe Pass bridge is too narrow and outside to Vision Vancouver’s bucolic vision.
34 RIEG // Jun 20, 2012 at 7:53 pm
The noise created by cars speeding on both sides of this greenway would make it a very unpleasant jog/walk. It kind of reminds me of the strip of green space in the middle of University Avenue in Toronto; it would always have someone walking or sitting while sipping a coffee, but no one would ever use its entire length because it’s just too loud to be comfortable. I think it might work if two more lanes of traffic are taken out. (In an ideal world there would only be two lanes on the bridge, bus-only.)
35 Sharon Townsend // Jun 20, 2012 at 8:17 pm
The South Granville business community has always advocated better usage of Hemlock and Fir but the response fired back always points to ‘provincial highway’ and transit right of way. Perhaps the Olympics showed everyone that Granville can take on a more pedestrian friendly posture and still get the job done.
36 Charles Gauthier // Jun 20, 2012 at 8:32 pm
So many different proposals that could dramatically transform our city require more time than what has been allocated for a proper consultation process. Three weeks to have a thorough dialogue with all stakeholders is not sufficient. This is being rushed and I don’t understand why.
37 Frank Ducote // Jun 20, 2012 at 8:54 pm
Sadly, You are right there, Charles. It’s not like there’s an Olympics or Expo or something pushing the timing for review, comment and Council consideration, is there? I feel the same way about the proposal to remove the viaducts which are, in effect, bridges serving the east side of Vancouver.
There just seems to a general impatience on Council’s part that is driving a lot of very large initiatives all at the same time – removing the viaducts, rezonings at Rogers Arena, the Transportation Plan “update”, and on and on it goes.
Citizens are not equipped to fully understand all of these potential transformative changes individually, yet alone collectively. Especially so when the possible impacts are not put forward to assist our understanding.
Having said all this, it does seem on the surface that the Granville Bridge Greenway idea has few potential adverse impacts, as far as I can see. And a lot benefits, both symbolically and functionally.
38 Chris Keam // Jun 20, 2012 at 9:06 pm
One would think that the just finished hockey season would have provided ample evidence for Canadians that helmets are not a panacea or a guarantee that you won’t suffer a head injury when your skull impacts something hard at high speed. Even trogs like Don Cherry have made the connection that visible safety equipment (visors being Grape’s pet peeve) results in less concern from others, for the wearer’s well-being. This phenomena has also been noted in experiments which appeared to bear out this contention, as motorists gave more space to lidless cyclists than those wearing the magic styrofoam hat. Laws that can’t be effectively enforced and have little statistical evidence in their favour must be reexamined, and IMO unless there is a clear reason to infringe on personal choice, those laws should be set aside. Further, the failure of helmet advocates to barrack for mandatory helmets for all activities that have a similar per capital head injury rate should also be a warning flag that their demand to tell others what to wear isn’t coming from a uniform desire to ensure the public’s safety.
39 Chris Keam // Jun 20, 2012 at 9:34 pm
‘per capita’ per capital would be a funny way to measure anything except the sex appeal of 18th c. robber barons.
40 Chris Keam // Jun 20, 2012 at 9:34 pm
19th c.
I quit.
41 Charles Gauthier // Jun 20, 2012 at 9:35 pm
Frank, I’m intrigued by the Granville greenway but I have similar questions as many of you on how this would connect to the road network on either sides of the bridge.
Also wondering if there are other surprises that have to be revealed.
And, since you mentioned the viaducts, am I the only one who is concerned about making Dunsmuir Street a dead-end street for motorized vehicles yet wanting to spend $10 million on a bike bridge to maintain access to Dunsmuir? Why not leave that viaduct as is?
42 Sharon Townsend // Jun 20, 2012 at 9:46 pm
Charles, I concur with you and Frank. Where is the fire? If it is a good idea, the idea can withstand some community scrutiny. I don’t know about you, but this Greenway idea is all news to us and I would think we are a primary stakeholders.
Consultation anyone?
43 Silly Season // Jun 20, 2012 at 9:59 pm
@Richard,
And even more helmets…
Two of your statements on your post, that I would appreciate you getting back to us with clarifications:
1) ‘As proven in countries like Denmark and the Netherlands, where pretty much no one wears a helmet, the injury and fatality rates are far lower than they are here’.
I suspect that speed of the ride, as well as topography (flat versus hilly) may have something to do with this, if statistically comparable .
Is there a comparison you can share that compares the number and severity of accidents between cyclists travelling UNDER, let’s say, 10-12km and hour and those travelling OVER 15km an hour, in both Vancouver and Copenhagen?
2) ‘The focus really needs to be on collision reduction, which eliminates both head injuries and serious injuries to the rest of the body. Measures that have proven effective include networks of separated bike lanes, motor vehicle speed reduction, better enforcement of laws that reduce collisions, better maintenance of bike routes and the removing of hazards on roads and bike paths.
Yes, I can agree to that. BUT, I am kind of astonished to note that nowhere do I see ‘mandatory education and the personal responsibility’ of cyclists listed on your post.
It almost seems that, in your drive to make helmet wearing optional, you come across as not wanting to admit that cyclists (or cycling advocates) bear ANY responsibility on the roads. In the fight for public support, this approach is not a sound one.
Not once have I seen cycling advocates on these pages address the amount of head trauma sufferd by cyclists. By refusing to acknowledge it is a health AND safety issue, you greatly minimize your own argument for change, IMO. In fact, you never talk about bike-only accidents at all.
Surely, as you appear to be a civil rights fighter for the personal option of choice to NOT wear helmets, you can’t possibly mean to count on the state alone to provide ALL the operational aspects to cut down on biking accidents?
What is your personal stand on cyclists responsibility on this issue?
BTW, here are the laws and regulations that govern bike riding in Denmark. Do note the Danes have MUCH stricter regulations with regards to equipment cyclists are required to have, by law.
(Also sounds like they are tough on enforcement and fines, too).
http://www.fyidenmark.com/bicycling-in-Denmark.html
Perhaps in Denmark they realize you can’t have a freedom without responsibility?
44 Frank Ducote // Jun 20, 2012 at 10:01 pm
Charles@39 – you are not alone on the issue of the proposed Dunsmuir bike ‘viaduct”, but we may be the only two voices – so far at least – speaking about this expensive and ugly intrusion. Replacing an existing piece of infrastructure with one that does a similar job at a huge additional cost does boggle one’s mind.
45 Silly Season // Jun 20, 2012 at 10:05 pm
PS. From my reading, both Sweden and denmark do not have a system (or at least a complete system0 of mandatory bike lanes. This is an ongoing debate.
Sweden, in the past 15 years has seen a remarkable rise in the number of cyclists on its roads. So much so, that the 50,000 people that use bike paths are running into a situation common to car drivers in Vancouver: Congestion!
Plus ca change…
46 Charles Gauthier // Jun 20, 2012 at 10:10 pm
Sharon@40- I heard about it during Tuesday’s 6 o’clock news on Global. Good thing I still watch TV!
47 Sharon Townsend // Jun 20, 2012 at 10:19 pm
Charles, I don’t know about you but does it not cause you alarm to find out about huge impacts to your community – positive or negative on the evening news?
48 Richard // Jun 20, 2012 at 11:59 pm
@brilliant?
The injury and fatality rates per kilometre travelled in Denmark and the Netherlands are significantly lower than in Canada. What I believe Kendall was referring to is that the percentage of injuries that are head injuries is higher but still the head injury rates per kilometre travelled are lower there.
Anyway, pretty obvious that reducing collisions is by far the best approach. Unfortunately, as demonstrated by the horrible media coverage of the Ontario Coroners Report, many just focus on helmets and ignore the recommendations that reduce collisions.
49 gmgw // Jun 21, 2012 at 12:37 am
Re the alleged under-usage of the bridge: According to repeated Engineering counts, 50,000 vehicles a day cross the Granville span. I grant you that there are times when, to the untutored eye, usage seems sparse, but the same could be said of the Lions Gate Bridge. All that is necessary to reveal the true level of usage is a for a traffic problem to appear northbound on Granville or Seymour on any afternoon. Within minutes there will be three solid lanes of northbound traffic backed up all the way across the bridge from the north end to the Hemlock on-ramp and beyond. This happens several times a month, often when a major event is taking place downtown, such as a major concert or sports event. To remove lanes from the bridge will ensure that this level of congestion will become a more frequent occurrence, also ensuring even greater levels of noise and atmospheric pollution for anyone living near (beside or below) or walking/biking across the bridge.
It’s unclear from the concept drawing whether this “greenway” is to be at-grade or elevated. If it is to be at-grade, only a planner who is unfamiliar with the experience of crossing the bridge might think it a valid concept. What kind of quality experience is to be derived from walking or biking while hemmed in on each side by three lanes of roaring traffic, cutting ped/bikeway users off from the stupendous views still to be had from mid-span? One way this latest planners’ pipedream might make sense is to designate the curb lane for bikes and reserve the sidewalk for pedestrians. The Utopian nature of the concept drawing is risible in the extreme, showing happy walkers (some elderly, naturally) strolling peaceably along one lane while cyclists (many of them children, of course), glide sedately by in the neighbouring lane, the two lanes not physically separated in any way. All this courteous coexistence while hardly any vehicles are to be seen passing by! How lovely! Were it only possible… Unfortunately, the large numbers of aggressive cyclists in this city (not to mention those 50,000 vehicles), ensure that it is not. There is a natural physical separation between the bridge’s sidewalks and the neighbouring lanes. Why not make use of it (and while we’re at it, install railings along the edge of the sidewalk to discourage cyclists in an unusual hurry from using them)? At the very least, reserve the greenway for cyclists and the sidewalks for peds. By best guess, I’ve crossed the bridge something like 2500 times on foot over the years and I am sick to death of having to glance over my shoulder, ever alert for kamikaze bikers gaining on me from behind. Let them have their own little adrenalin highway, where they can fight it out with each other, safely segregated from those of us who cross on foot.
At the risk of refuting my own argument, I must point out that at times when buses are denied access to Granville (eg. any night when the meatrack-punchup-and-vomit district is ped-only or during major downtown events), northbound buses are required to use Seymour and its off-ramp. This means northbound trollies must move to the curb lane shortly after passing the Hemlock on-ramp. So perhaps this is the reason why the planners have elected for the middle. Overall, at first glance I don’t think much of this proposal, but at least attention is being paid to non-vehicular methods of crossing the Granville Bridge, for the first time in living memory.
gmgw
50 brilliant // Jun 21, 2012 at 1:02 am
@Richard 46-I’m sure you merely forgot to mention that Kendall showed that 3/4 of the Dutch propensity to skull smashing bicycle accidents didn’t involve the evil auto. Coupled with the nearly doubled percentage of head and brain injuries suffered by Dutch cyclists, it is mystifying that so-called leaders of the bike lobby would argue against them. Furthermore the argument that helmets disourage new cyclists does nothing to explain the reckessness of exoerienced cyclists who refuse to wear a helmet.
51 Norman // Jun 21, 2012 at 7:07 am
THis will only work if there are effective measures to keep bikes out of the pedestrian lane. The seawall is becoming a real mess because of bicycle bullies, and some city sidewalks are no better.
52 Chris Keam // Jun 21, 2012 at 7:25 am
“Do note the Danes have MUCH stricter regulations with regards to equipment cyclists are required to have, by law.”
In the link you referenced I only found two rules that applied to cyclists in Denmark that didn’t apply here. One is that a child under six must be accompanied by an adult when cycling, and the other was that bike paths must be used where they exist.
53 Chris Keam // Jun 21, 2012 at 7:31 am
” All that is necessary to reveal the true level of usage is a for a traffic problem to appear northbound on Granville or Seymour on any afternoon.”
If we take the exception to be the rule, then we must do so for all modes of transportation, and roads, bike lanes, and sidewalks should all be built for peak usage. The reality IMO is that given the amount of single occupant vehicles on the road, we are running our transportation system at roughly 25% capacity, assuming the vehicle is capable of carrying four people.
54 Chris Keam // Jun 21, 2012 at 7:38 am
“Furthermore the argument that helmets disourage new cyclists does nothing to explain the reckessness of exoerienced cyclists who refuse to wear a helmet.”
You do understand of course that it is pretty difficult to fall off your bike? Elementary physics makes the machine want to stay upright when moving, and the slower you go, the less serious your injuries are going to be.
The bottom line is that removing the helmet law doesn’t equal abolishing or banning them. Strange to me that people would fiercely defend their choice to sit in a machine that injects toxic gases into their surrounding atmosphere and inflicts them on the populace at large, yet they feel free to criticize helmet choice advocates for a decision that in worst case scenarios is only going to impact their own physical well-being.
55 Tessa // Jun 21, 2012 at 7:53 am
“I truly have no idea what the opinions are out there. I’m still recovering from the sudden discovery that the cycling lobby is opposed to mandatory bike-helmet laws, saying they discourage cycling — a debate I hadn’t heard a word of in the last five years of cycling arguments until this whole issue of mandatory helmet laws and the bikeshare system arose recently. So now I feel as though I don’t know how anyone feels about anything.”
Really? Hadn’t heard a word of it? I suggest you add http://www.pricetags.wordpress.com to your regular blogroll.
56 Tessa // Jun 21, 2012 at 8:13 am
To clear up some misconception: there is good reason to choose the middle lane, and it’s good for drivers, peds and bikes: very few drivers go to Granville street, most take the off-ramps to Senior or arrive via the on-ramp from, I believe, Hemlock, on the north end, so the driving lanes onto Granville Street, in the middle, are very under-used. At the same time, that’s exactly where pedestrians and cyclists currently go, and all of those people now have to cross the on or off-ramp AT-GRADE on a crosswalk, by waiting until there are no cars. That’s dangerous. This plan would get rid of that.
Secondly, there will never be a congestion problem on this bridge right now. This bridge was built assuming it would connect to highways on both ends, not city streets, and currently the street lights, roads and traffic on either end mean the bridge can never reach capacity without a serious collision occurring. A potential collision is not reason enough to widen all of our roads to eight-lane monstrosities. This space is simply not used, and not needed by cars, and this is the perfect use for it if you ask me.
Yes, there are plenty of problems to fix, in particular the access points on either end of the bridge. I don’t want to see pedestrians and bikes forced under the bridge into dark, shady paths with poor sightlines, that’s for sure. And a simple crosswalk at the bottom of a bridge seems poor, especially for cyclists who may have to dismount depending on how it’s designed. It would be nice if the greenway could extend up the middle of Granville Street South, but there likely isn’t room to do that without compromising auto and transit traffic. It’s a complicated process, but worth further investigation.
57 Frances Bula // Jun 21, 2012 at 8:27 am
@Tessa. I do read Gordon’s stuff frequently. I’ve also had literally thousands of comments posted on this blog re cycling. Until the last six months, I had not heard a huge upswell of cyclists suggesting that mandatory helmet laws were useless, were actually impeding bicycle use, and should be gotten rid of. Now, suddenly, there is a massive push going on to suggest that helmet laws are counter-productive and I think all of the public, not just me, is only slowly beginning to grasp the pros and cons of this argument.
58 Everyman // Jun 21, 2012 at 8:35 am
@Tessa 54
Like those poor souls forced into the dark shady area under the Granville Street Bridge, otherwise known as Granville Island? I think most cyclists could handle that.
59 IanS // Jun 21, 2012 at 8:45 am
@Charles #39:
You write: “… am I the only one who is concerned about making Dunsmuir Street a dead-end street for motorized vehicles yet wanting to spend $10 million on a bike bridge to maintain access to Dunsmuir? Why not leave that viaduct as is?”
Good point.
I can think of two reason why Vision would take that route.
Firstly, leaving the viaduct in place does not hurt drivers enough, which is a significant part of the agenda. (To be fair, I’m sure they rationalize it as “encouraging drivers to utilize other modes of transportation”.)
Secondly, if the viaduct is left up, even if repurposed as bike and pedestrian only, that would leave open the possibility of reversing the planned changes once the real traffic impact becomes known. That, IMO, is why we won’t see any kind of true test of what will happen until the viaducts are gone and it’s too late.
60 spartikus // Jun 21, 2012 at 9:14 am
Firstly, leaving the viaduct in place does not hurt drivers enough, which is a significant part of the agenda.
Uh…what?
I’ve looked through the Vision Vancouver platform and have to admit I did not spot the part about “hurting drivers”.
As someone who makes a point about being evidence-based and employing measured rhetoric this seems…well…wingnutty.
61 IanS // Jun 21, 2012 at 9:51 am
@Spartikus #58,
Usually, when one is trying to cut and paste only a portion of another poster’s statement like that, it works better if you wait until the thread has scrolled down a bit further. That would make it more difficult for people to see the next sentence of the original post. Just a tip.
(Having said that, I’ll just don my tinfoil cap now and get back to work on my new conspiracy theory! Turns out… Vision was behind 911!)
62 Paul T. // Jun 21, 2012 at 10:19 am
Frances, to be honest, I can’t believe you didn’t realize that helmet law repeal was one of the bike lobby’s goals. Need I remind you of the picture of their patron saint, Major Robertson, riding across Granville Street Bridge, no hands, no helmet?
I know sometimes you think that people who opposed the segregated bike lanes are just anti-bike, car-loving nutters, but if you’d take off the green-blinders for just a second you might realize that we actually are trying to make valid points. Some of us use colourful language but the points we make can be used to make a superior transportation system in our city.
63 Silly Season // Jun 21, 2012 at 11:12 am
@ Chris Keam
“bike paths must be used where they exist”.
Indeed. And the poster also stated that laws are enforced there. Will see if I can access that info, too.
64 Silly Season // Jun 21, 2012 at 12:07 pm
Oooh, here’s something very interesting that’s in development: a personal helmet that “pops up” when it senses unususal motion. From Sweden:
65 MB // Jun 21, 2012 at 12:56 pm
@ Guest 28
… when a second rapid transit line from downtown to Richmond is required (via the Arbutus RoW) the alternative would be a very expensive tunnel – and Granville St. and Granville Bridge have been considered in many of the past LRT plans using the Arbutus RoW to be a logical route to downtown for the trains.
A second rapid transit line to Richmond? A city that will probably have to learn how to float in future?
The Burrard Peninsula and Surrey, in my mind, have much higher priority for more rail transit. The King George Hwy, especially if connected to Coquitlam Cente via the Port Mann, would be an ideal candidate for LRT.
66 spartikus // Jun 21, 2012 at 1:10 pm
Just a tip.
My mistake. So their agenda to hurt motorists is rationalized with other reasons, presumably for public consumption.
Diabolical.
67 Chris Porter // Jun 21, 2012 at 1:39 pm
Frances, I think there’s a real demand for your “Statistics for Journalists” course. http://www.theprovince.com/news/Statistics+show+helmets+help+save+cyclist+lives+coroners/6814827/story.html
The first person you should invite is John Coleburn at the Province.
The BC Coroner’s office went back through the fatality records for cycling accidents and found that over the past 5 years, in fatal accidents with cars 45% of fatal cyclists were wearing a helmet. 55% were not.
As far as I can tell, that only shows that wearing a helmet doesn’t guarantee you won’t die when a car hits you. Somehow, the conclusion reached by the Coroner’s service and reported by Mr. Coleburn is “statistics show helmets help save cyclist lives”. Huh?
I think they were trying to show that dead cyclists were more likely to be helmetless cyclists, but without knowing what percentage of cyclists involved in accidents (including the non fatal ones) that wear helmets , that’s an impossible conclusions to come to.
The Ontario Coroner was very careful not to come to that conclusion.
“Because our Review did not look at all cycling injuries (both fatal and non-fatal), we cannot state with certainty the degree to which wearing a helmet decreases the likelihood of a head injury. ”
To put it another way, if only 45% of cyclists involved in accidents wear helmets (I think it’s higher in BC), and 45% of cyclists who died were wearing a helmet, then the helmet likely had no positive effect.
68 Chris Porter // Jun 21, 2012 at 1:42 pm
Curiously, 2 months ago the Coroner’s office did a similar analysis of deaths of horse riders. 24 in the past 10 years. I don’t know how many horse-miles are logged by horse-riders every year, but on the surface that makes horseriding seem like a more dangerous activity than cycling.
Anyway, the coroner recommended helmet use when horse riding. I’m shocked we don’t have a law making it mandatory yet.
http://www2.canada.com/theprovince/news/story.html?id=0b37327d-40e2-4fc6-b41e-04f1b7f7e7e5
69 IanS // Jun 21, 2012 at 1:44 pm
@Silly Season #62,
That’s pretty neat.
70 Frank Ducote // Jun 21, 2012 at 3:17 pm
Fabula – putting the Greenway idea and helmet laws or their repeal on the same posting was not the best idea, in retrospect. Obviously there are many pros and cons on the latter subject, as with any other bike-related story, to go on forever.
Would it be possible for people to discuss the merits of the Greenway idea without getting a tad sidetracked on the helmet law discussion?
Why? Because spokespersons for the two most directly affected business associations (South Granville and Downtown) are looped into this discussion, and they may wish to hear more on the Greenway idea and how it might affect their consituencies.
Just a suggestion, folks.
71 Frances Bula // Jun 21, 2012 at 4:59 pm
@Frank. You’re right. I had a niggling feeling when I was posting that I was doing a bad thing. I’ll start a new post now.
72 Sharon // Jun 21, 2012 at 6:22 pm
thanks Frances. My phone is going nuts and I am being asked to wade in to an issue that is total news to me! I suspect Charles is in the same boat.
73 brilliant // Jun 21, 2012 at 6:23 pm
@Spartikus 60-Oh please, it’s pretty obvious Vision’s agenda is against motorists. But its only hurting Vancouver businesses. Like many Vancouverites and even more Metro citizens. I make it a point to avoid downtown. Despite its increasingly ghettoized tesidents belief, it is not some garden of eartly delights. Resisting its unremarkable charms is quite easy.
74 Charles Gauthier // Jun 21, 2012 at 8:37 pm
Sharon @47 Yes, it is not what I have become accustomed to. As you know, we’ve raised this issue with City staff on more than one occasion.
75 spartikus // Jun 21, 2012 at 8:39 pm
Resisting its unremarkable charms is quite easy.
Fantastic, brilliant.
So…how do you explain the 75% growth in population for the downtown area between 1996 and 2011?
76 Tessa // Jun 22, 2012 at 4:53 am
@Everyman 58
Granville Island was not what I was trying to describe, which should be evident by my description, but rather more like underpasses under highway offramps or highways or things like that. There is one in particular in North Vancouver near the north end of the second narrows bridge that people, including myself, ignore, crossing the offramp without a crosswalk, because that feels safer than going through a small tunnel with a blind corner. Going under the bridge can be done well – it can also be done terribly.
77 Tessa // Jun 22, 2012 at 5:02 am
@IanS 59
“I can think of two reason why Vision would take that route.” (that route being the route of dismantling the viaducts)
Only two? Really? There are multiple other reasons listed in the reports: that removing the viaducts allows better connections for everyone between Chinatown/DTES and the waterfront, that it will allow for more land for parks, that it will allow for more land for development (maybe some people think this is a bad thing – I don’t, not when you’re replacing what I believe is excess space for cars with a neighbourhood with people’s homes). Less often mentioned, it would fix a flaw in our transportation system, which sees a highway cars dumped into thin, tree-lined residential streets on the East Side, clogging streets with traffic that were never designed for it (Prior, Venables, Victoria, and all those little side-streets people use to skip the traffic on First, etc.) It allows for a significant neighbourhood revitalization which simply won’t happen with the viaducts there, regardless of what goes on top of them. Those are substantial reasons.
78 Tessa // Jun 22, 2012 at 5:04 am
@Frances 57
My apologies for assuming, but while he’s certainly picked up the issue more often in the last six months, it goes back much further than that. I understand many people haven’t been aware until recently but it’s been a longstanding concern.
79 Guest // Jun 22, 2012 at 11:59 am
… or the downtown streetcar – which is currently in limbo – whatever rapid (or not) transit form that will use the Arbutus RoW the City has in the past fought hard to protect as a transportation corridor.
RIEG @ 34
Good analogy wrt University Boulevard in Toronto.
You can look closer to home and ask whether people use the Cambie Heritage Boulevard, the King Edward Boulevard, 1st Avenue Boulevard or 16th Avenue Boulevard, as “parks”.
Maybe there should be a movement to “reclaim” the boulevards for picnics and sports activities (rather than doggie doo doo).
80 Lee L // Sep 20, 2012 at 12:31 am
To those of you who think ‘there has been no serious thought behind it’.. well you are quite wrong. There is a lot of serious thought behind this proposal as it fits in with the overwhelming vision being executed by city council.. namely to choke off car traffic any way it can and in particular any access roads in and out of downtown. Start with Burrard bridge ( tick ), move over to the Viaduct ( tick ), see if you can tear DOWN the Viaducts (… hmm still cooking that cake..), uhh how about Granville Bridge next?
Vision Vancouver has managed to stack municipal government and, as zealots, really don’t give a hoot if you or I object. They are doing holy work, dont you know?
Leave a Comment