Following up from yesterday, I did do a story on the Granville Bridge greenway, which doesn’t actually appear in any text of the city’s draft Transportation 2040 plan, but does appear in the “maps and graphics” section attached to it as one of the illustrations to suggest how future policies might look when carried out.
People I talked to were relatively positive, as you can see, though surprised by the last-minute appearance of this idea in the transportation plan talks.
Many (not all of them quoted) pointed out that, as difficult as it might seem to move walkers and cyclists from the side of the road over to the middle to use the greenway, it wouldn’t be any more difficult than the current situation, where those groups now have to negotiate the scary loops of the on and off ramps to use the bridge’s sidewalks.
33 responses so far ↓
1 Brandon Yan // Jun 21, 2012 at 8:55 am
Could possibly make it 100% accessible. Steps on the bridge make it impossible for wheelchair access.
2 Roger Kemble // Jun 21, 2012 at 9:11 am
Frances” . . . it wouldn’t be any more difficult than the current situation, where those groups now have to negotiate the scary loops of the on and off ramps to use the bridge’s sidewalks.”
Ummmm, I dunno about that! I used to walked that bridge frequently. Stepping off the sidewalk at the entry/exit loops is very hazardous such that if that is how we use the center greenway it sort of defeats its salubrious purpose. Also the close hectic swoosh of passing traffic can be very disturbing.
I don’t want to pan this otherwise wonderful idea but much, much more thought has to go into it before it can become reality. So far it looks iffy . . .
As for bicycle helmets, were they not accepted until the bike share programme was introduced?
I know from my few visits to Amsterdam and Rotterdam, I could not have used any one of the thousands of rusty bikes awaiting public use because it never occurred to me to pack a helmet! In Holland I don’t thinq it matters!
I’m coming to Vancouver in a couple of weeks. Will there be a pile of rusty bikes awaiting me? If so I’ll remember to pack a helmet although it’ll just add more heavy baggage.
Maybe I’ll take a cab!
3 Sean Nelson // Jun 21, 2012 at 12:04 pm
I can see a few ways to reduce the issue of pedestrian/vehicle conflicts – listed in order of (IMO) desirability, least to most:
1) Extend the pedestrian mall north and south from the bridge to the first intersections. People would access the mall from the intersection crosswalks. Downside: the street narrows beyond the bridge proper and providing two traffic lanes per direction could be difficult. Also, poor pedestrian connections to Granville Island and the seawalls.
2) Provide a pedestrian-activated stop signal at each end of the bridge to allow pedestrians to more safely cross the traffic lanes. Downside: poor pedestrian connections to Granville Island and the seawalls.
3) Forget about extending the pedestrian mall to the very ends of the bridge and provide elevators at the north and south approaches so that people can easily access it from ground level. Downside: difficult to provide an elevator straight down on the south approach because it would end up in the middle of the very busy Granville Island access road. Would need a concourse level with a second elevator that descends to the east or west side of the bridge. Downsides: capital and ongoing maintenance costs for the elevators. Upsides: good connection to Granville Island, better integration into the seawall system, reduces or eliminates the need for a separate pedestrian crossing of False Creek.
4 Sharon // Jun 21, 2012 at 12:22 pm
Sean #2
You would appear to only be concerned about access to Granville Island. What about access to Broadway and Granville? Realistically, that is where a major station will be for the Broadway rapid transit system (whatever form that takes).
There is a huge hill north of Broadway that must be taken in to consideration. Not sure which is worse, going down hill or getting up hill. In slippery weather it is not an easy task on a bicycle.
Any attempt to level out that stretch will wipe out 2-3 blocks of commercial and impact the Bosa development on the east side.
It seems odd to me that the city just spend a gazillion dollars upgrading the bridge to handle heavier vehicles and extending the truck route and now we are talking about a totally different plan.
Before we start spending money, perhaps we should take a little time to think it through.
If it is just a pipe dream sketch, it should not be in the plan in the first place.
5 Bill Lee // Jun 21, 2012 at 12:37 pm
Yes, the south side of the Granville Street bridge and its deadly potential.
Yes, and the south end, (as with the north end but a different matter) some people and cars don’t make the turn, as one can see by smashed railings, burst sand barrier barrels etc. later in the next morning.
From : icbc.com/about-ICBC/news_room/icbc_facts
Leading to:
http://public.tableausoftware.com/views/AzIntersectionCrashesintheLowerMainland20072011/LMDashboard?:embed=y
Showing 10 out of 10 rows.
City CrashCount CrashType Intersection Latitude Longitude Year
VANCOUVER 21 Casualty FIR ST & FIR ST OFFRAMP & GRANVILLE ST & GRANVILLE ST BRIDGE & HEMLOCK ST & HEMLOCK ST ONRAMP & W 4TH AVE & W 4TH AVE OFFRAMP & BUS LANE 2007
——————————
21 Casualty 2007
11 Casualty 2008
4 Casualty 2009
6 Casualty 2010
9 Casualty 2011
——————————
22 Property Damage Only 2007
23 Property Damage Only 2008
20 Property Damage Only 2009
11 Property Damage Only 2010
11 Property Damage Only 2011
Go and visit and find other intersections. (the map is planar and so Granville island roads and Dots are on the Granville Bridge line, but they are labled if you look at labels.
At least various bridge changes are lessening deaths and crashes (as reported to ICBC, other lesser knocks and misses are not recorded)
See the links on the Wikipedium for /Category:Bridges_in_Vancouver
6 Sean Nelson // Jun 21, 2012 at 1:00 pm
@ Sharon #3: “You would appear to only be concerned about access to Granville Island. What about access to Broadway and Granville? Realistically, that is where a major station will be for the Broadway rapid transit system (whatever form that takes).”
It seems pretty unlikely to me that someone would walk from downtown over the Granville Street bridge in order to get to a rapid transit station on Broadway. If they’re going to pay a transit fare anyway, they’re a lot more likely to just hop on a bus to Broadway. Granville Island and the south seawall represent a much larger percentage of pedestrian (and even cyclist) traffic.
But an elevator down to Granville Island doesn’t mean that you couldn’t ALSO provide pedestrian access directly to South Granville. The elevator would still eliminate the majority of pedestrian / vehicle conflicts since that’s doubtless the way most of the people would go.
7 IanS // Jun 21, 2012 at 1:48 pm
The elevator idea sounds kind of neat, but I wonder what the cost would be. At some point, wouldn’t it just be simpler to build a dedicated bike / pedestrian underpass under the bridge?
8 Richard // Jun 21, 2012 at 1:58 pm
One improvement would be to install pedestrian signals were the off and on ramps meet the main bridge deck. With the greenway in the middle, only one direction of traffic would have to be stopped at a time. This would help slow down traffic on the bridge making it safer for everyone and make it less of a freeway.
The connections especially for pedestrians would be much improved. For example, someone could walk along the Howe ramp, cross to the middle greenway, then exit via the Helmlock ramp. This would be much more direct than it is now.
9 Richard // Jun 21, 2012 at 3:46 pm
@IanS
There would likely need to be an elevator with a path under the deck any for wheelchair and bicycle access. The city looked into this years ago and there was no room to bring a ramp down from the distance required to clear False Creek at the 5% or less grade needed for wheelchairs. Such a ramp would be very expensive as well and would also take awhile to walk the distance.
I also think they were finding it challenging to get paths of decent width through the bridge beams under the deck.
10 spartikus // Jun 21, 2012 at 4:33 pm
FWIW: There is already a pedestrian tunnel/underpass at the south end of Granville Street Bridge (one entrance near the “100″ statue by the bus loop) that could be adapted to allow an opening in the middle of the structure.
http://www.flickr.com/photos/rod_kenny/3412137601/
11 Sharon // Jun 21, 2012 at 4:40 pm
Spartikus, would you go down the alone at night?
12 Richard // Jun 21, 2012 at 5:44 pm
@Sharon
It is not so great in the day even. The underpass would need a major rebuild like the one under Georgia Street by Stanley to make it less scary.
Another option would be to replace it with an overpass allowing bikes and peds to escape the Greenway in the middle as well as allowing people to cross Granville.
13 Bill Lee // Jun 21, 2012 at 6:12 pm
The underpass has been substantially cleaned up several times since 1954.
Painted, better lighting. Anti-graffitti paint patterns. Peer-around-corner mirrors.
Daily inspections. Landscaped easy entrances on east and west side.
Some individuals might be anxious but it is a vast improvement to what it was 40, 20 years ago
I would be cautious about having bikes ride through the underpass quickly while pedestrians are in it.
It replaced an old 1909 swing bridge with Trams with cars and sidewalks low level crossing. There was still barge and tug traffic to industries in False Creek and it would open often to let ships pass. Would we need such a high bridge when the Ocean Cement oligopoly or the City works yard don’t need barges passing into and out of False Creek?
14 spartikus // Jun 21, 2012 at 8:33 pm
Spartikus, would you go down the alone at night?
I’m assuming by other comments “Sharon” and “Sharon Townsend” are one and the same.
You were asking on other threads about how pedestrians would get from the causeway to the sidewalks on Granville to access your business district.
Here’s a possible solution for the south end.
If you can cite the VPD that the underpass is a location of heightened criminal activity please do so now.
Thanks.
15 Sharon Townsend // Jun 21, 2012 at 9:32 pm
Yes, Spartikus, I am one in the same.
Your VPD request is absurd.
16 spartikus // Jun 21, 2012 at 9:43 pm
Absurd? You state “Spartikus, would you go down the alone at night?”
If this is, as is clearly implied, a place of danger then the VPD should have information to the same.
If not – and by your comment you seem disinterested in even attempting to find out – you’re fearmongering.
17 gmgw // Jun 22, 2012 at 1:07 am
@Spartikus #14: You might want to talk to a few women about their feelings about walking through that tunnel, especially after dark. My wife, for one, avoids it as much as possible, even in the daytime. I find it creepy myself. I have, a number of times, seen women risking their lives by running across Granville at that location at night. I can only assume they were trying to avoid using the tunnel. Perceived danger has absolutely nothing to do with the VPD stats whose citation you so arrogantly request.
gmgw
18 spartikus // Jun 22, 2012 at 8:10 am
Requesting substance to claims = arrogance.
Ah, internet.
You’re right, let’s rely on subjective feelings.
You’ve been advocating for better pedestrian options for years, gmgw. And here they are staring you in the face and all you can do – rather than make constructive suggestions – is to demean the creator of the concept drawing for failing to show bicycles hitting pedestrians in balls of flames. Amongst other things.
Good faith engagement. Such a quaint, and obviously rare, concept.
Enjoy your day. Enjoy your thread.
19 Sharon Townsend // Jun 22, 2012 at 8:30 am
I know men that hesitate going through that tunnel at night. Spartikus, those ‘anxieties’ or acts of common sense do not form part of VPD stats.
The concept of a pedestrian mall could be the greatest thing since sliced bread or a recipe for disaster. The details will tell and we look forward to seeing them and supporting any concept that will enhance the South Granville community.
20 spartikus // Jun 22, 2012 at 11:52 am
I’ve sent the following inquiry to the Kitsilano-Fairview Community Policing Centre:
I was wondering if the pedestrian underpass under the south end of the Granville Street bridge should be considered a place of heightened concern for personal safety? Here is a photo for location reference:
http://www.flickr.com/photos/entheos_fog/6176891731/
If there are statistics available for this spot or if you could provide advice on how to find them, that would be much appreciated.
I shall post their response when received.
21 Guest // Jun 22, 2012 at 12:10 pm
Being disconnected from the eyes of drivers was one reason that a pedestrian / bike path under the Burrard Bridge was panned – potentially dangerous / isolated for users. the same is probably true for a pedestrian / bike system suspended under the Granville Bridge.
In my view widening the outside sidewalks on the bridge provides the simplest solution. Underpasses below the ramps could connect back to Granville Street, but the sidewalks would continue on to Fir, Hemlock, Seymour and Howe – so that at night a pedestrian would have the option of staying at grade to one of those streets without using the underpass.
Keep it simple.
22 spartikus // Jun 22, 2012 at 7:07 pm
I’ve doodled a little mockup of how the Granville Bridge underpass could work.
23 Sharon Townsend // Jun 22, 2012 at 10:36 pm
based on the effort you have made you have acknowledged the safety and security issue is less than ideal – which was exactly my point. I suspect the vending/concession idea is optimistic in terms of it being viable.
24 spartikus // Jun 23, 2012 at 9:29 am
Actually it’s a demonstration of what good faith participation in a public discussion looks like.
I have no clue whether the Granville Street underpass is actually a safety concern. Unlike you I at least attempted to find out. Unlike you I at least attempted to show a way those concerns, if real, could be mitigated.
Maybe the whole thing is ultimately unrealistic. Or maybe not.
The real arrogance and absurdity is from those that reflexively dismiss the questioning of their assumptions.
25 Sharon Townsend // Jun 23, 2012 at 9:49 am
The tunnel was endlessly discussed with city staff and in some instances the VPD in anticipation of the Olympics particularly when it came to the movement of pedestrians in and out of the downtown/Granville Island etc. I have at least 100 photos of that area as it currently exists.
You missed something. Good faith participation should also involve civility.
26 gmgw // Jun 23, 2012 at 10:01 pm
@Spartikius;
OK, here’s my own request for information. How many times a week do you walk across the Granville Bridge, Spartikus? For how many years have you been doing so? And how many times a week do you walk through the pedestrian tunnel? And how often do you do so late at night?
Just seeking a little clarification here. I’m curious what makes you so aggressive on this particular topic.
gmgw
27 Sharon Townsend // Jun 24, 2012 at 2:02 pm
The tunnel debate is a general distraction to achieve what? I have no idea.
I cannot imagine any sort of pedestrian mall being created without a major overhaul at both ends of the bridge. Whatever that involves, I trust that some good consultation will occur with those most affected so livelihoods can be protected and opportunities maximized.
I wonder how this fits in with the 3+ million dollar upgrade the city undertook in time for the Olympics to beef up the load capacity for trucks and tour buses. Is this a change in the transportation plan? If so… was all that money spent for nothing?
We really need to start planning beyond election cycles.
28 spartikus // Jun 24, 2012 at 8:56 pm
@gmgw
About once a month, for both. As for “aggression” I could ask you the same…
The Utopian nature of the concept drawing is risible in the extreme…
…says you.
Heal thyself.
29 spartikus // Jun 25, 2012 at 12:24 am
Given gmgw’s and Sharon’s contributions I think we should abandon any pedestrian upgrades to the Granville Bridge.
Why bother.
30 Sharon Townsend // Jun 25, 2012 at 4:11 am
Why bother? I did not realize consultation is now considered a barrier!
31 gmgw // Jun 25, 2012 at 12:35 pm
@Spartikus #29:
This cranky, petulant behaviour is out of character for you. If there is anyone in this forum who has argued more consistently than I have for the need for pedestrian upgrades to the Granville Bridge, I’d like to shake his/her hand. However, for some incomprehensible reason, you appear to be unwilling or unable to accept the fact that some people, particularly women, feel unsafe when using the pedestrian tunnel at the south end of the Granville Bridge (it is possible that you also are offended at my comments re the proposed center-lane bike/pedway, but as you have not addressed those comments directly, there’s no way to tell). Apparently because I have asserted that some users– primarily women– feel this sense of heightened risk, something I know from long-time personal experience and many conversations with fellow residents of the area (I live five minutes’ walk from the tunnel), you have elected to throw a tantrum, take your bat and ball and go home, simultaneously throwing away the entire bridge proposal.
When you are over your snit, perhaps the discussion can resume. On the other hand, “Why bother”? In any case, I respectfully suggest that you grow up.
gmgw
32 spartikus // Jun 26, 2012 at 6:40 pm
I spoke on the phone with Constable Paul Hogan of the Kitsilano Fairview Community Policing Centre. There are not statistics available to a location without an address, but he stated in his 10 yr experience as policeman in the area that the underpass is not known as a dangerous spot. The last call was a few months ago about alleged drug use by homeless people in the park (not the underpass). He said a FOI for a nearby address could provide more detail.
As for you gmgw, for some incomprehensible reason you seem unable to accept the fact a) you’re relying entirely on ancedotes and b) if the underpass was used as a way to access the hypothetical greenway, it wouldn’t be what it is now.
As I look over some of your old comments on this website on the subject of the Granville Street Bridge – a sample:
The Granville Bridge, to cite my favourite dead horse, is still a pedestrian deathtrap, and Engineering still refuses to concede that there’s a problem (actually, a number of problems). Given that Gregor grandly appointed a councillor– I think it was Heather Deal– a year and a half ago to be his pedestrian-safety czar, and that not one public word on the subject has been forthcoming from either Deal or the Mayor since (as well as the fact that Deal, apparently, does not return phone calls on the subject), I’m not going to hold my breath in anticipation of a brave new wave of citywide ped-safety enhancements, “new initiatives” or not.
…and compare it to your reaction on this and the previous thread I cannot help but think there is nothing, literally nothing, that will ever make you happy.
However, if it helps you take a step in that direction I will promise to grow up…if you promise to stop looking gift horses in the mouth.
Thanks.
33 gmgw // Jun 27, 2012 at 12:28 am
Spartikus:
When a genuine gift horse shows up, I don’t inspect its teeth any more than seems appropriate. However, the swaybacked, spavined nag that is the centre-of-bridge bike/pedway is not only impractical but also a far more complicated fix than the bridge needs. Install pedestrian-activated warning lights at the assorted crosswalks on the bridge, find a way to keep cyclists off the sidewalks (or widen them enough to safely accommodate both cyclists and pedestrians), and I promise to stop complaining for a while. Even better, find a city transportation engineer who is willing to seriously consider either option, and you will have accomplished something I have been unable to do in ten-plus years of intermittent trying.
Meanwhile, I think the party has moved a couple of doors down. I’m outta here.
gmgw
Leave a Comment