[Locked] Burrard Street Bridge Cycling Improvements | Completed

[s211]

Originally Posted by racc

For those who think the Bridge is safe, tell that to the two people who have been seriously injured on the bridge due to the narrow sidewalks. They simply are not wide enough for the 60,000 people who walk and cycle over the bridge each week.

Bullshort.

Those sidewalks are WAY wide enough. If one gets injured, one shouldn't even leave the house because he/she is obviously lacking in basic motor skills (so to speak).

[osirisboy]

Originally Posted by DKaz

Now you're likely assuming that I'm one of the many pedestrians who walk on the Burrard St. Bridge everyday. I'm not, but I used to be when I lived downtown and worked on West Broadway even though I had a car! I would drive or bus it once in awhile if I was too lazy, the problem is not the bridge, the problem is the traffic lights at either end. They could miraculously widen the bridge to 8 lanes and you would still have gridlock, especially for the Pacific Blvd bound drivers.

Reported btw. You're a driver, we get that, a lot of us here are drivers too. But your attitude is not appreciated.

yes i do drive but i actually spend the majority of my time walking everywhere. I have had to cross intersections often to avoid closed sidewalks etc and yes it can be annoying but i dont think that its that bad and I would rather the city spend its money on something else.

and racc you whine and complain more than anyone on here so get over it.

[go_leafs_go02]

you think a 5 lane traffic bridge with a contraflow centre lane would work?

then narrower bike lanes on either side.

[racc]

Originally Posted by s211

Bullshort.

Those sidewalks are WAY wide enough. If one gets injured, one shouldn't even leave the house because he/she is obviously lacking in basic motor skills (so to speak).

Please bother to do some research so we can at least have an informed debate. It is not that hard with google and the internet.

Start at the city report:
http://vancouver.ca/ctyclerk/cclerk/20090505/documents/TT2.pdf

Anyway, even if someone has the motor skills needed, someone else on the sidewalk may not and knock you onto the road. Cyclists and pedestrians should not have to go into each others path to pass each other. Please learn at least something about basic engineering standards. A path containing this volume of cyclists and peds with a railing on one side should be at least 4.5m wide. The sidewalk is only 2.8m wide.

$700 million was spend for only 12,000 motorists per day on the Sea to Sky because drivers would not follow the rules of the road.

[racc]

Originally Posted by go_leafs_go02

you think a 5 lane traffic bridge with a contraflow centre lane would work?

then narrower bike lanes on either side.

No.

From:
http://vancouver.ca/ctyclerk/cclerk/20090505/documents/TT2.pdf

Two additional lane configurations were reviewed but are not considered feasible for a trial:

• Two (2) bicycle lanes, five (5) motor vehicle lanes – One existing general purpose lane
would be converted to provide 1.5-m bicycle lanes in each direction with no separation
from motor vehicle traffic. 1.5-m bicycle lanes on the Burrard Bridge (adjacent to high-
speed traffic and high curbs) would not meet Canadian guidelines for new cycling
facilities, and may be less safe than the existing sidewalk operation. In fact, this option
may deter cyclists from using the bridge.

Burrard Bridge Lane Re-allocation Trial 8

• Reversible motor vehicle lane – In a configuration with five motor vehicle lanes, a centre
reversible lane designed to accommodate changing directional traffic volumes would
require the installation of extensive and complex traffic management measures and is
therefore not possible as a trial measure in 2009. Lane management for reversible lanes on
the Lions Gate Bridge and the Massey Tunnel extend 600-1000m in advance of the
reversible lanes. Similar arrangements on Burrard Street could extend as far north as
Robson Street and as far south as Broadway. The Lions Gate Bridge and Massey Tunnel do
not have arterial street intersections within their lane management zones. Because the
Burrard Bridge has fairly equal northbound and southbound traffic volume through most of
the day, such an arrangement may not be effective even as a permanent measure.

[racc]

Originally Posted by osirisboy

and racc you whine and complain more than anyone on here so get over it.

There is a difference between informed opinions and reactionary uninformed whining and complaining.

[s211]

Originally Posted by racc

Please bother to do some research so we can at least have an informed debate. It is not that hard with google and the internet.

Face it, pal. If anyone gets farked up on that sidewalk, it's their own — fault because they either can't walk or ride in a straight line. You don't need a Ph.D. in Googology to figure that out.

Anyone can arbitrarily say what a proper sidewalk width should be. Just because a sidewalk doesn't measure up to someone's standards doesn't mean that it's still not usable in its present state.

[racc]

Originally Posted by s211

Face it, pal. If anyone gets farked up on that sidewalk, it's their own — fault because they either can't walk or ride in a straight line. You don't need a Ph.D. in Googology to figure that out.

Anyone can arbitrarily say what a proper sidewalk width should be. Just because a sidewalk doesn't measure up to someone's standards doesn't mean that it's still not usable in its present state.

It is obviously useable, that is not the point. It is obviously not safe.

It is when someone gets "farked up" because someone else can't walk or ride in a straight line that is the problem.

There is a reason why it is illegal for cyclists to ride on sidewalks everywhere else in the city. It is because it is dangerous for both cyclists and pedestrians.

We are so used to crappy cycling facilities here that no one even seems to know that they are bad. I suggest going to Europe and seeing what good facilities are and the high numbers of people that use them.

Anyway, if usability is your requirement, then don't complain about the lane reallocation. The bridge will still be useable, it may just be a bit slower for a couple hours a day. If someone can't get some good music and enjoy the wait then it is their only — fault using your logic or lack their of.

[Lee_Haber8]

I don't see why Option 1 is a bad idea. There is no god-given rule that the Burrard Bridge must have 6 lanes of car traffic. I think it would be great having wide cycle lanes with expanded sidewalk space. At the very least, take away one lane of traffic for a bi-directional cycling lane.

Also, these arguments that only 5% of people who cross the bridge are cyclists doesn't hold any water. You're not going to get many cyclists if you don't provide space for them. Once you build the space, you will get more cyclists. However, the city should also improve the cycling connections on both sides of the bridge if these changes are going to be really successful.

I also don't buy this argument that reducing vehicle traffic will cause congestion. Automobile traffic expands to fill the space it is provided. Every major project where road supply has been reduced (such as highway removals) has actually resulted in no overall increase in congestion. People change their travel patterns, either by choosing different modes, different routes or different destinations.

The effect of closing two lanes of traffic will be minimal. There are still many ways to get into downtown, and there will be even more once the Canada Line is up and running.

I hope these trials are successful. It's time Vancouver showed some balls when it comes to making itself livable by taking away space from the car

[ckkelley]

Originally Posted by osirisboy

well frankly i dont care if pedestrians are puit out by only being able to walk on one side. I just dont have much interest spending tax money on this pointless project.

At the end of the day, do you think you're going to end up with 6 lanes of vehicular traffic?

[officedweller]

Originally Posted by Lee_Haber8

I don't see why Option 1 is a bad idea. There is no god-given rule that the Burrard Bridge must have 6 lanes of car traffic. I think it would be great having wide cycle lanes with expanded sidewalk space. At the very least, take away one lane of traffic for a bi-directional cycling lane.

The main reason that taking 2 car lanes away may not be a good idea is that when there's not much bike traffic (think rainy winter days) but cars are backed up, stewing drivers will be waiting on the bridge staring at an empty lane that they could otherwise drive down (i.e. appropriate width).

On the other hand, if only one car lane is removed and lanes reallocated (5 car lanes and 2 x 1.5m bike lanes), a backed up driver won't look at it and think - I could be driving there in that unused space.

I think a five lane option would help mitigate public backlash.

Anyways, the options are for the trial only.

[s211]

Originally Posted by racc

Anyway, if usability is your requirement, then don't complain about the lane reallocation. The bridge will still be useable, it may just be a bit slower for a couple hours a day. If someone can't get some good music and enjoy the wait then it is their only — fault using your logic or lack their of.

Then — in the inevitable extra idling fumes that will be generated while you smugly ride by in your bike, lest you somehow think that by some miracle expect that the bike lane will take cars off the road.

[DKaz]

Originally Posted by s211

Then — in the inevitable extra idling fumes that will be generated while you smugly ride by in your bike, lest you somehow think that by some miracle expect that the bike lane will take cars off the road.

See osirisboy, you could've been more polite and concise like s211. Don't go around prancing cars rule everyone else drools, back up your opinions with reasons.

[racc]

Originally Posted by s211

Then — in the inevitable extra idling fumes that will be generated while you smugly ride by in your bike, lest you somehow think that by some miracle expect that the bike lane will take cars off the road.

Actually, if indeed there is congestion, which is doubtful, the idling cars will actually spew less fumes than cars travelling fast on the long uphill sections. That is when I'm breathing hard. On the downhill, I'll wave at you while I speed by on my bike. Cheers.

[biketrouble]

Just wanted to give some support to racc in this "debate", I don't think I would have the same level of patience. As a foreigner I am a little surprised at (I am guessing) some native vancouverites' lack of recognition of the things that have made this city a great place to live. Here's a hint: putting the needs of car users above "livability" is not one of them.

[fever]

Some of the comments in this thread are ridiculous. I can't see how there will be any measurable change in congestion from the loss of one southbound lane, even without people adjusting. As it is, only two lanes worth of relatively slow moving traffic feed onto the bridge at the same time. The loss of a lane won't affect the timing for the double right turn from Pacific to Burrard because when you're merging there it's not possible to predict which lane cars from Pacific or Burrard will end up in. Traffic speeds up once it's on the bridge, so the two lanes there have more capacity than whichever two lanes are leading to it.

Basically, the bottlenecks leading to the Burrard Bridge southbound - Burrard, Pacific, and the light at Burrard and Pacific - already have less capacity than a two lane Burrard Bridge southbound will have.

[whatnext]

The suggestion that Vancouver will become some cycling mecca is false. The same folks usually throw out some nonsense about the amount of cyclists in the Netherlands or some such. Take a look at the links below. Vancouver is colder and far wetter than Amsterdam for example. Your never going to get a lot of people wanting to arrive and work cold and damp to the bone.
http://www.wordtravels.com/Cities/Netherlands/Amsterdam/Climate
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Climate_of_Vancouver

Its not about cars, this nonsense will slow transit down and that is a far more viable alternative to the car than cycling.

[racc]

Originally Posted by whatnext

The suggestion that Vancouver will become some cycling mecca is false. The same folks usually throw out some nonsense about the amount of cyclists in the Netherlands or some such. Take a look at the links below. Vancouver is colder and far wetter than Amsterdam for example. Your never going to get a lot of people wanting to arrive and work cold and damp to the bone.
http://www.wordtravels.com/Cities/Netherlands/Amsterdam/Climate
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Climate_of_Vancouver

Its not about cars, this nonsense will slow transit down and that is a far more viable alternative to the car than cycling.

Cold and wet are not huge problems. Good rain gear is all you need. Regarding cold, that is not a problem as you are getting exercise and staying nice and warm. A good set of gloves keeps the hands toasty.

Snow is a bigger problem than rain but even that doesn't stop cyclists in Copenhagen. They even plough the bike paths before they plough the streets.

Image from treehugger.com

In fact, it seems that very hot whether is more of a barrier to cycling than cold weather. Northern European countries seem to have higher levels of cycling than southern European countries. It is always possible to put more clothes on but there are only so many clothes you can take off to avoid the heat.

Our mild summers are perfect for cycling and we don't get much snow and ice in the winter. Sure, cycling levels drop off here in the rain but it is surprising how many cyclists are on the bikeways even in downpours.

I would actually far rather be on a bicycle on a cold rainy day than waiting in the cold and rain at a bus stop.

And, if you would actually do your research before posting, you would have noticed that the city is planning bus lanes on the south approaches to the bridge and perhaps priority signals for buses to ensure transit is not delayed. Oh, and by the way, it is cars that are responsible for most of the transit delays around the city, so get out of your car if you are really worried about transit.

[worldwide]

Originally Posted by DKaz

Um, no. Walking is already the slowest mode of transport without having to cross the street twice.

They should just let cyclists on the road and reduce the vehicle speed limit to 40km/h. It'll be the cheapest thing to do, just replace a few speed limit signs. As far as I know, cyclists on Granville St. Bridge are supposed to use the roadway, they should do the same for Burrard.

yes. you nailed it. cyclists should be on the streets. having a bike sidewalk there makes absolutely no sense to begin with. there's not one other place in the city where a busy cycling commuter route is a sidewalk. pedestrians generally are completely unaware of their surroundings and pose a huge threat to anyone riding a bike faster than about 10kmh.

when I was a bike messenger i did a lot of southside runs so I have used the burrard bridge sidewalks many times. sometimes if i saw too many people on the sidewalk i would just stay in the street because the sidewalk is congested and dangerous. also on the sidewalk you are restricted to a slow speed by default because of all the people in your way. on the roadway i can just do 40 going up and 55 on the way down. sometimes people would honk or yell but i dont care i just give them the big FU.

hearing some of these suggestions that you guys have I would be surprised if any of you even own a bike, let alone walk somewhere. you have no understanding of what its like to ride a bike in the city, and therefore your ideas have zero clout. they make no sense and should be ignored by everyone.

[sacrifice333]

It's probably already been mentioned, and I didn't spot it in the thread, but the big problem with a South bound lane being removed is the merging traffic from Pacific. That's going to be terrible.