[Locked] Burrard Street Bridge Cycling Improvements | Completed

[worldwide]

Originally Posted by 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.

that merging traffic is a huge hazard to cyclists. there's no reason why it should be 2 merge lanes there, but i know ive had many close calls there with cars trying to merge on me. they should get rid of the merge and make it so you have to go eastbound on Pacific to northbound Hornby to an improved westbound Drake to southbound burrard.

i know it would slow things down a bit, but thats how it should be. downtown is not a race track, but drivers like to act like it is. if youre going to drive downtown you should be getting screwed over. theres absolutely no reason why you should be able to boot around in a car like its highway 1 when there are hundreds of pedestrians and cyclists on every block.

[racc]

Originally Posted by 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.

Not really. Right now, this is just horrible for motorists and everybody else for that matter. The road seems like it constantly littered with car bits from the accidents constantly occur there. The city should have fixed this years ago. The problem is the outer lane conflicts with the left turns from Pacific and often the drivers in the inner lane can't see on Burrard vehicles due to the vehicles in the other turn lane. The result is that in each signal cycle, there is only 10 seconds or so of clear time for the turns and a good part of this time, the cars have to stop for the peds at the crosswalk.

The city is also proposing to remove one of the left turn lanes from Pacific to Burrard so that should greatly improve the through put of the remaining right turn lane. At any rate, the accidents should be greatly reduced.

I also suspect that speeds will be reduced on the bridge making it easy and safer to turn onto the bridge.

[WBC]

Isn't everybody here arguing over something that has already been tested? Why was the last study discontinued? What were the factual results? Was the cycling increased on the bridge and by how much? What was the impact on car congestion? What is going to happen when the fall and winter come and the number of cyclists goes down? If theres is significant difference between winter and summer can this be done seasonally?

[SFUVancouver]

The Burrard Bridge has a finite amount of room that is shared by people using different modes of travel. The current allocation of space creates a conflict between pedestrians and cyclists, which are prioritized by City Council policy ahead of transit, goods movement, and private automobiles. The conflict stems from slow cyclists, inattentive pedestrians, and too little space.

There is not enough room on the sidewalk for cyclists to safely pass one another, nor maneuver to safety when pedestrians abruptly step into the bicycle lane to pass slower walkers. Installing a guard rail between the raised sidewalk and motor vehicle lanes could save lives but would also exacerbate the underlying conflict. This is because cyclists are already riding at the practicable edge of the sidewalk with their pedals and handlebars extending out into space beyond the sidewalk edge. With a guard rail cyclists would have to ride closer to the centre of the sidewalk and come unacceptably close to pedestrians.

The status quo is not acceptable. There are alternatives, such as building a dedicated pedestrian and bicycle bridge across False Creek, widening the Burrard Street Bridge deck, or reallocating existing space on the bridge.

The new bridge would likely be the most expensive option but could potentially yield the best outcomes. To offer maximum utility and amenity to recreational and commuter pedestrians and cyclists any new bridge would have to connect to the existing street network and the Seawall and not present onerous grades or time consuming detours. The requirement of uninterrupted maritime navigability on False Creek would mean that a bridge would have to be quite tall.

Widening the Burrard Bridge deck has been proposed by the City as part of a $65 million revitalization of the bridge. Much of the work included in this budget, such as repairs to the bridge’s art deco architecture, new lighting, and reopening the Seawall stairwell in the south pier, will go ahead in the coming years. The bridge deck expansion is controversial because it would significantly alter the appearance of the bridge and possibly compromise its heritage character. However it would provide the much-needed additional space that is required for a separated pedestrian and bicycle right of way.

Reallocating bridge space to provide more room for pedestrians and cyclists is the third, and by far the least expensive option. This could mean removing one motor vehicle lane and building up each sidewalk with half a road lane’s worth of concrete to nearly double the width of the sidewalk. One half of this new space could be allocated to allow pedestrians to walk two abreast and the other half would be used to widen the cycling lane and create the opportunity for cyclists to occasionally pass one another when clear of pedestrians. The pinch points at the piers for the main span of the bridge would still prove challenging and the cycling lane would likely split into two narrow paths for this portion of the bridge, with one half on the roadway side of the steel superstructure and the other on the outside as it is in its current state. Reallocating a second motor vehicle lane would allow for the creation of a shared bicycle and pedestrian pathway of similar to the highly successful one on the East side of the Cambie Street Bridge or much of the Seawall.

If the oft-cited concern for the rate of travel for transit commuters is sincere, then steps should surely be taken immedately to introduce transit lanes on the Burrard corridor where they do not currently exist. This would include the Burrard Street Bridge itself, along Burrard street to Broadway, and as far as possible along Cornwall. Transit lanes on the bridge will not be possible if road lanes are reallocated to pedestrians and cyclists, which have high priorities under Council policy, but if the bridge deck is expanded or a new non-motorized bridge is built then transit lanes should be installed no matter what. In fact, I think that after the six-month bicycle lane trial is complete a six-month Burrard Bridge transit lane trial should be implemented.

I reject the assertion that reallocating either one or two road lanes on the Burrard Bridge deck will result in significantly increased traffic volumes on the corridor's arterial streets. The Bridge plays far less of a role in determining the rate of travel for motorized vehicles along the Burrard Street corridor than traffic signals along the corridor and the bridgeheads. In fact one of the biggest causes of delays along the Burrard corridor are drivers who run orange or red lights and get stuck out in the middle of the intersection.

The bottom line is that there are many options available to improve the movement of people into and out of downtown along the Burrard Street corridor. For all the mathematical modeling and expert input the only way we will know for certain if the reallocation of space on the bridge deck will yield an improvement in the safety, amenity, and utility of the Burrard Bridge to those at the top of the City’s official transportation policy is to do a trial.

[worldwide]

Originally Posted by SFUVancouver

If the oft-cited concern for the rate of travel for transit commuters is sincere, then steps should surely be taken immedately to introduce transit lanes on the Burrard corridor where they do not currently exist. This would include the Burrard Street Bridge itself, along Burrard street to Broadway, and as far as possible along Cornwall. Transit lanes on the bridge will not be possible if road lanes are reallocated to pedestrians and cyclists, which have high priorities under Council policy, but if the bridge deck is expanded or a new non-motorized bridge is built then transit lanes should be installed no matter what. In fact, I think that after the six-month bicycle lane trial is complete a six-month Burrard Bridge transit lane trial should be implemented.

thanks for the great post SFU. It should be noted that the vast majority of busses using the burrard bridge turn on/from cornwall at the south end of the bridge. at peak hours there is only 4 busses per hour on burrard between cornwall and 4th and no busses travel south of 4th. bus lanes on cornwall for the 2, 22, 32 etc would be of great benefit but cornwall is narrow so street parking would have to be eliminated.

[whatnext]

Originally Posted by worldwide

..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.

So, what's your point? Given that the vast majority of people make their trips by car, why should cyclists have more "clout"? Increasing overall emissions for the sake of what will never be more than a small minority is ridiculous.

What nobody seems to notice is the CoV's over the top eco-weenie actions are throttling downtown. And when people stop coming downtown there goes the shopping, the cultural facilities, the entertainment etc. that made it an exciting place to live in the first place.

[biketrouble]

the CoV's over the top eco-weenie actions are throttling downtown

What are the other over the top eco-weenie actions you're referring to, and in what way are they throttling downtown?

[s211]

So... after taking eco-sh!t for exposing cycle insanity (apparently because car drivers are worse than nazis...) I rode my bike across Burrard on Saturday mid-afternoon, and can confirm there is no — need for bike lanes. Cyclists and pedestrians were cooperative and respectful, lots of passing, and no problems whatsoever.

This extra lane scheme (or should I say scam) was killed once before. I shouldn't have to kill it again, Gregor.

[racc]

Originally Posted by WBC

Isn't everybody here arguing over something that has already been tested? Why was the last study discontinued? What were the factual results? Was the cycling increased on the bridge and by how much? What was the impact on car congestion? What is going to happen when the fall and winter come and the number of cyclists goes down? If theres is significant difference between winter and summer can this be done seasonally?

During the 1996 trial, the results were encouraging, by the end of the week,
- There was an increase of 870 cyclists per day
- A decrease of 8800 people crossing the bridge in cars
- The delays were minimal by the end of the week once people adjusted

http://vancouver.ca/ctyclerk/cclerk/960709/a7.htm

Of the people who contacted city hall, around half were in favour of the trial while half were against. It is suspected that it was the well connected creme de la creme, the well NPA supporters on the west side that pressured council to kill the trial.

The report suggests several factors that likely would have resulted in an improved trial. Most of those suggestions are being recommended for this trial.

[racc]

Originally Posted by whatnext

What nobody seems to notice is the CoV's over the top eco-weenie actions are throttling downtown. And when people stop coming downtown there goes the shopping, the cultural facilities, the entertainment etc. that made it an exciting place to live in the first place.

This will simply not be the case. The only time when congestion maybe an issue is during AM and PM peak hours during weekdays. During mid day, evenings and weekends, when people are most likely to go downtown for shopping, the cultural facilities, the entertainment etc, two lanes are more than enough to handle the traffic.

[quobobo]

Originally Posted by racc

This will simply not be the case. The only time when congestion maybe an issue is during AM and PM peak hours during weekdays. During mid day, evenings and weekends, when people are most likely to go downtown for shopping, the cultural facilities, the entertainment etc, two lanes are more than enough to handle the traffic.

I don't agree. I ride the 2 and the 22 a lot, and the bridge is usually hell if you're trying to get downtown in the evening. I budget 15-20 minutes more than the Translink trip planner calls for (for a 15-20 minute bus ride!), it's pretty bad.

[EastVanMark]

Originally Posted by whatnext

What nobody seems to notice is the CoV's over the top eco-weenie actions are throttling downtown. And when people stop coming downtown there goes the shopping, the cultural facilities, the entertainment etc. that made it an exciting place to live in the first place.

Good one. And so true. This would be yet another nail in the coffin of dowtown becoming a really nice RESIDENTIAL neighbourhood.

[Locked In]

Originally Posted by EastVanMark

Good one. And so true. This would be yet another nail in the coffin of dowtown becoming a really nice RESIDENTIAL neighbourhood.

Are you serious? With the addition of the Canada line, new skytrain cars, additional seabus, etc. you'd actually argue that the removal of one lane of vehicle traffic is throttling access to downtown?

The 'sky is falling' rhetoric on this thread is getting a bit silly... how about waiting for the results of the trial before we decide that downtown's cultural, entertainment, and shopping life is doomed because we decided to add a bike lane.

[EastVanMark]

Originally Posted by Locked In

Are you serious? With the addition of the Canada line, new skytrain cars, additional seabus, etc. you'd actually argue that the removal of one lane of vehicle traffic is throttling access to downtown?

The 'sky is falling' rhetoric on this thread is getting a bit silly... how about waiting for the results of the trial before we decide that downtown's cultural, entertainment, and shopping life is doomed because we decided to add a bike lane.

Yes, quite serious. All those other forms of transportation are great and wonderful additions, but reducing the number of lanes is slowing down vehicular traffic and that is not good either. The example of the Dunsmir Viaduct best displays this. Before the removal of one lane; little to no traffic anytime. Now in the mornings, it is almost always clogged. Vancouver is always trying to "slow things down'.

[WarrenC12]

Originally Posted by EastVanMark

Yes, quite serious. All those other forms of transportation are great and wonderful additions, but reducing the number of lanes is slowing down vehicular traffic and that is not good either. The example of the Dunsmir Viaduct best displays this. Before the removal of one lane; little to no traffic anytime. Now in the mornings, it is almost always clogged. Vancouver is always trying to "slow things down'.

The COV under all parties' leadership has been reducing parking spots downtown substantially. Where was the outcry over that?

[EastVanMark]

Originally Posted by WarrenC12

The COV under all parties' leadership has been reducing parking spots downtown substantially. Where was the outcry over that?

Several downtown small business associations did complain both about that AND the increases in parking rates, but as usual, they were ignored in favor of more idealistic —. (as usual).

[racc]

Originally Posted by quobobo

I don't agree. I ride the 2 and the 22 a lot, and the bridge is usually hell if you're trying to get downtown in the evening. I budget 15-20 minutes more than the Translink trip planner calls for (for a 15-20 minute bus ride!), it's pretty bad.

This is likely because the bus lanes on Burrard are only during peak hours and because there is parking along Cornwall, not the number of lanes on the Bridge.

[quobobo]

Originally Posted by racc

This is likely because the bus lanes on Burrard are only during peak hours and because there is parking along Cornwall, not the number of lanes on the Bridge.

I don't understand this comment at all. Could you clarify what you mean?

The traffic is already very bad, opening a bus lane would obviously make it better for buses but worse for everyone else. The slowdown is mostly on the bridge (and the rest of Burrard, although not quite as much), I don't know what parking on Cornwall has to do with it.

[worldwide]

Originally Posted by whatnext

So, what's your point? Given that the vast majority of people make their trips by car, why should cyclists have more "clout"? Increasing overall emissions for the sake of what will never be more than a small minority is ridiculous.

the vast majority of people do a lot of other stupid things too. that doesnt mean that they should be encouraged at the expense of the people doing the right thing.

cyclists don't deserve more clout than drivers, but they do deserve more clout than they have right now.

we deserve safe accessible routes throughout the city, because what we have right now is dangerous. I know, I worked in it 8 hours a day all winter. you can't base an opinion on the one time you rode on a saturday afternoon. try getting downtown at 8am on a weekday. and the worst part is that burrard is the best of the 3 crossings. try taking granville southbound and merging onto the fir off-ramp.

I don't see this increasing overall emissions, but I do know that my bike has no emissions whatsoever. same with the thousands of other bikes out on our streets everyday. Think about how many people tried riding their bike to work a few times and were scared shitless of crossing burrard bridge, only to keep driving everyday. how do you think those people would feel crossing the granville bridge instead? they wouldnt do it.

ive done all this — cause ive got a pair of balls on me, but the vast majority of people are not like me. they are scared of the dangerous infrastructure we have now and have opted not to use it.

[DKaz]

I saw a brief video clip of a woman who fell on her bicycle on the Burrard St Bridge and was struck by a vehicle, she was in pretty bad shape, red eyelids and everything.