Comments on: And here are the Burrard Bridge bike lane details

By: James S

James S — Sat, 10 Jul 2010 07:17:06 +0000

Why don’t the drivers give Critical Mass and the other cycling fanatics a dose of their own medicine? One day each month, maybe two, let’s choose the cycle lanes on the Burrard Bridge for a pedestrian version of “Critical Mass”?

Let’s plug the cycle lanes in both directions with wall-to-wall pedestrians slowly making their way across the bridge. Since the cyclists love the fresh air so much, this gives them the opportunity to get off their cycles and enjoy a leisurely walk across the bridge. After all, what’s a little inconvenience when it comes to the “greater good”?

Add more fun? Pressure the VPD to actually do their job and be at each end of the bridge to ticket every cyclist who isn’t wearing a cycle helmet. The additional revenue will help balance the City’s budget.

In fact, if the City and the VPD enforced the laws against running Stop Signs; Red Lights and No Helmets, they could divert the fines generated into creating even more cycle lanes; which in turn could generate even more revenue from the cyclists – the result being more revenue to creation of even more cycle lanes, and on, and on and on.

This way everybody wins!

By: Grover

Grover — Wed, 05 May 2010 17:49:14 +0000

I love the Burrard Bridge bike lanes and hope they will be retained, enhanced even, once the current test is over. There has been a lot of squawking in the media by a handful of businesses who maintain that the changes have reduced the number of customers frequenting the area. Whether true or just the reflex actions of change-resistant business types is of little interest to me. What they should be doing is embracing the change, mounting bike-friendly events [discounts if you bike in, special delivery services for two-wheeled shoppers who spend over a certain amount, etc. ad nauseum]. Get creative guys. With all this whining going on I certainly can’t see myself patronizing these businesses. I dine at Kettle of Fish once in awhile and I visit Art Knapp’s every spring. This year I’ll hold my nose and buy my plants at one of the big box retailers since the little box retailers can’t seem to see outside of the box itself. In the case of Art Knapp’s, the opening of the Canada Line, Canadian Tire and Home Depot on Cambie Street are probably having a bigger impact on retail sales than any bike lanes could ever have.

Change is going to happen with or without them on board. What needs to be done is make hard choices and it’s heartening to see that the mayor and council are willing to make those choices rather than bowing to anachronistic interests. Thanks for pioneering a new way forward.

By: barb justason

barb justason — Sat, 15 Aug 2009 15:02:08 +0000

I’m a daily cycling commuter who uses the burrard bridge. But I think I am the only cyclist who opposed the bike lane trial. The real problem on the bridge, in my view, was cyclists who seem to believe they have a right to cycle at top speed over the bridge unencumbered by other cyclists and pedestrians. it’s these cyclists who have created the safety hazard. My approach on the bridge had always been steady, not too fast, one thumb ready on the bell and always ready on the breaks.

Now, having experienced several weeks of the bike-only east sidewalk and a lane all to myself, my views haven’t changed. Every day, I encounter pedestrians on the east side walk. I always politely tell them it’s a bike-only path and most are grateful for the information and apologetic. I can’t blame them. The signage is terribly unclear and a simple “no pedestrians” sign (including the universal diagonal bar across a stick human) is conspicuously absent. I wouldn’t dare suggest the planners behind the confusion wished to ensure the bike lane trial would fail!

By: bjh

bjh — Thu, 23 Jul 2009 00:35:04 +0000

Cyclists that come off the bridge should be made to stop at the red lights and slow down , there are a lot of jackass cyclists that think they can just pull out into a car lane along cornwall. Cyclists pose more danger on the roads than cars because of their inability to obey traffic signals and no cyclist can make up their mind ,when they choose to they are on the sidewalk . If cyclists want to ride downtown pay road tax,license bikes so they can be ticketed,keep to your assigned lanes,stop at red lights and stop be an annoyance to car drivers after all most of you only ride bikes because you don’t have the basic road sense to drive a car.

By: Kevin

Kevin — Thu, 16 Jul 2009 22:32:53 +0000

I’ve used the Burrard Bridge as a driver, cyclist and pedestrian and I can see points of merit on all sides. The present plan seems flawed by the lack of planning and consultation. I think everyone would like to see more opportunities for bicycles/pedestrians to travel safely, but has this trial really been well thought-out?
A pedestrian travelling from the southeast side of the bridge to south Hornby now may have to cross up to 20 lanes of traffic (depending on your definition of a ‘lane’)…and some of those lights change before you have crossed the intersection. I’m pretty quick, but not everyone is. That doesn’t seem like a very good (or safe) deal for pedestrians! That is also a lot of wasted time waiting for lights to change (for the pedestrian). The Mayor should try walking the route I described every day for a week, and do some serious thinking afterwards. I am surprised that the pedestrians haven’t been more vocal.
I understand this trial was prompted in part by accidents involving cyclists entering the roadway from the bridge bike/pedestrain pathway and being hit by cars…how about some more info about the causal factors behind how the bikes came to be entering the roadway? My experience is that cyclists don’t respect other cyclists/pedestrians/traffic law on the Burrard Bridge pathway and that the primary cause of them entering the roadway is cyclist error (they don’t slow down/failure to yield/lose control/speeding/ riding in the wrong direction). So let’s not blame the cars for this one. A simple barrier would prevent the cyclists from entering the roadway. Obeying a speed limit and respect for other cyclist/pedestrians would also ensure a reduction in accidents…but such laws aren’t applied to cyclists in this city, only to cars. Then, install an overpass so that it isn’t so inconvenient for a cyclist/ pedestrian caught on the wrong side to transition over…this could be done relatively inexpensively.
A few thousand extra cyclists may save fuel, but it is a detour of at least several kilometres for most drivers to use the Granville Bridge instead of the Burrard Bridge…and many more cars will be forced to take this detour or idle in traffic congestion, also wasting fuel…multiply that by the number of cars and then check your real savings (as an example, one cyclist may save 1 litre of fuel, but cause several cars to divert or idle in traffic due to the lane denial, wasting far more fuel). The calculation gets far worse on ‘rain’ and ‘snow’ days, when there will presumably be very few cyclists in the dedicated lane. The reality is that we live in an environment in which it often rains severely and sometimes snows, and most people will not commute by bicycle in such weather.
If the Granville Bridge is so under-utilized (as the city claims), why not convert one of its lanes to cyclists, thus lowering the cyclist’s demands on the Burrard Bridge? Then proceed with the aforementioned improvements to the Burrard Bridge.
I drive Eastward on Adanac, turning across westbound traffic to go north on Clark. There are stop signs going east and west and a stop light north and south. Every day when the north/south light is red, I stop (as per the law), then make my turn. Nearly every day, I am confronted with oncoming cyclists (going west)that DO NOT STOP and ‘run’ the sign. In actuality, they often accelerate in order to get through the intersection before the north/south light goes green. I have to slam on my brakes, veer to avoid them etc. I have complained to the Vancouver Police and to City Hall, and they agree the cyclists are breaking the law, but are not interested in pursuing it any further. Presumably, when the inevitable catastrophic accident ensues, Adanac will be closed to car traffic!
As a cyclist, over the years I’ve been hit/nudged a couple of times by cars in traffic, sometimes by negligent drivers and sometimes by plain aggressive drivers, so I can understand the urgent need for space for cyclists. As a cyclist and as a driver, it upsets me to see cyclists run stop lights/signs with regularity and impunity, cyclists riding on the sidewalk with disregard for pedestrian safety and cyclists riding against oncoming traffic. I feel it detracts from the credibility of their arguments. I do agree that cyclists should all be licensed and pay insurance if they are using the roads. I know many of them pay taxes, but so do drivers. You could extend that argument to scooters, but that is another issue! Maybe that will also encourage cyclists to obey traffic laws and avoid accidents, and justify to drivers that they are responsible for their actions and have a right to use the road! Right now I see an an activist group that wants all of the benefits but none of the responsibilities of route-sharing. So on the Great Burrard Bridge Bicycle Lane Trial…back to the drawing board, but do keep trying! A note of encouragement…maybe lessen the animosity and find a way to promote one format without branding the other as evil and punishing them…that will lead to a more harmonious integration. Less congested roads are better for everyone, even the drivers; I just don’t think this strategy achieves that goal.

By: MB

MB — Thu, 25 Jun 2009 18:50:27 +0000

Richard, thanks for that link. The article dovetails with Jeff Kenworthy’s work on sustainable cities.

The Conclusion section contains this sentence:

“When pedestrianisation schemes or wider
pavements or cycle lanes or bus (and other priority vehicle) lanes or road closures are introduced, pre-scheme predictions of what will happen are usually excessively pessimistic.”

Sound familiar?

By: rf

rf — Thu, 25 Jun 2009 17:31:25 +0000

Why don’t we scrap the bike lane and turn the lane into a HEAT shelter?

By: Darcy McGee

Darcy McGee — Thu, 25 Jun 2009 13:09:06 +0000

Oh…I suppose another way to come to Alex’s conclusion would be to remain firm in your belief that North American car drivers are actually THAT much more dedicated to remaining in their cars than their European equivalent. Since the evidence in the article is European in origin, one /could/ believe that it would never apply to North America.

I have more faith (misguided though it may be) in the people I share this city with. Some of them, at least…

By: Darcy McGee

Darcy McGee — Thu, 25 Jun 2009 12:58:34 +0000

> The closing of the lane will produce problems. I am unmoved by the link, as it
> has nothing to do with the real issue.

There is NO way that you could have read that document and come to that conclusion, unless you believe that your personal knowledge is greater than those that write the document.

Richard’s comments about safety are bang on.

By: Richard

Richard — Thu, 25 Jun 2009 08:35:02 +0000

Alex

What do you mean by “This is all about forcing people into a position that is unsafe.”?

Right now the bridge is not safe for anyone really. The trial will make it safer for cyclists, peds and motorists.

You will notice that they have removed on of the right turn lanes from Pacific onto Burrard where the traffic on the outside lane was blocking the visibility of the traffic on the inner lane. That area is pretty much constantly littered with all the car parts from the collisions that keep happening there.