[Locked] Burrard Street Bridge Cycling Improvements | Completed

[racc]

Originally Posted by DKaz

Why don't we build a new pedestrian/cyclist bridge about a block west of the existing Burrard St. Bridge? It doesn't have to be so high anymore since industrial use of False Creek is almost at nil now. If this whole cyclist vs. pedestrian vs. vehicle thing will mean all out war, let's just do the easy thing. The bridge won't be expensive, just do a cable stayed bridge (seems to be the theme in Vancouver these days) with two concrete towers and a steel deck that doesn't really have to support too much weight, done and done.

People, this has been going on for 16 years. Every possible option has been examined and reexamined and rererereexamimed. If the politicians thought they could avoid the heat that they are getting from people that have not bothered to learn about the issue by building a new bridge, that is what they would be doing. To think that somehow you can figure out a workable solution that has not already been rejected is quite simply ridiculous.

For the 20th time, a new bike ped bridge is at least $50 million and probably $100 million by now. If you don't believe that, go ask an engineer. Even better, put together a team and approach the mayor to build it. Otherwise, please stay with realistic options that can be done now.

[racc]

Here is a helping hand with your research.

http://www2.cege.ucl.ac.uk/cts/tsu/disapp.pdf

Disappearing traffic? The story so far
S. Cairns, S. Atkins and P. Goodwin

Reallocating roadspace from general traffic, to improve
conditions for pedestrians or cyclists or buses or on-street
light rail or other high-occupancy vehicles, is often pre-
dicted to cause major traffic problems on neighbouring
streets. This paper reports on two phases of research,
resulting in the examination of over 70 case studies of
roadspace reallocation from eleven countries, and the
collation of opinions from over 200 transport professionals
worldwide. The findings suggest that predictions of traffic
problems are often unnecessarily alarmist, and that, given
appropriate local circumstances, significant reductions in
overall traffic levels can occur, with people making a far
wider range of behavioural responses than has tradition-
ally been assumed. Follow-up work has also highlighted
the importance of managing how schemes are perceived
by the public and reported in the media, with various
lessons for avoiding problems. Finally, the findings high-
light that well-designed schemes to reallocate roadspace
can often contribute to a multiplicity of different policy
aims and objectives.

[s211]

Originally Posted by racc

For those who think this is just about safety for cyclists, think again. This letter is really quite shocking.

Shocking as in "who will think of the children" shocking?

[officedweller]

People are scared of the trial because they have been given the opportunity to be consulted and are voicing their opinion.

If council had just taken a stand and taken one lane (and re-marked/ redistributed the remaining 5 lanes) and just implemented it, there wouldn't be the debate and traffic flow would eventually redistribute - like it and InTransitBC did when the Cambie Bridge was reduced to one lane each way for Canada Line construction.

[crazyjoeda]

Originally Posted by racc

How on the earth do you know what will happen? Lanes of traffic are being reallocated on bridges and roads all around the world. Some people always predict chaos and it usually doesn't happen. People really need to be open-minded about the trial and give it a chance.

This is not the first trial! It created chaos a decade ago and now with more people basic logic says it will create more chaos this time.

[cornholio]

They should just add a second level bellow the bridge since the bridge has been built to handle it. I know clearance for boats is a issue BUT it shouldnt be with just a pedestrian or bicycle level since it wouldent need the same suport or clearance that a crossing for trains or cars would need. You can run the thing straight bellow the deck, or even design it in a way where it runs bellow the deck and than rises to almost deck level as it weaves out to the side of the bridge and is supported from bellow the bridge by a new arch.

I mean I just think there has got to be a million possible ways to do this if the bridge is already built to be able to support a rail crossing. Just a bit of creativity.

[DKaz]

Originally Posted by cornholio

They should just add a second level bellow the bridge since the bridge has been built to handle it. I know clearance for boats is a issue BUT it shouldnt be with just a pedestrian or bicycle level since it wouldent need the same suport or clearance that a crossing for trains or cars would need. You can run the thing straight bellow the deck, or even design it in a way where it runs bellow the deck and than rises to almost deck level as it weaves out to the side of the bridge and is supported from bellow the bridge by a new arch.

I mean I just think there has got to be a million possible ways to do this if the bridge is already built to be able to support a rail crossing. Just a bit of creativity.

I think they should just save that for the Arbutus LRT when it eventually gets built.

[WBC]

Well it is only lane in the end (the westernmost lane).

[jlousa]

Racc you keep quoting this $50-100Million figure for a bike/ped bridge please show me where these figures come from. This isn't my line of work, but I would sell you a bridge across false creek high enough for sailboat clearance for $20Million and I would have it up by this time 2011.
San Jose just built a fancy one for $15Million that crosses 11 lanes of traffic and is 325ft long, Eugene is building a simple one for $6Million that's even longer then ours would need to be.
I don't beleive anyone is against giving bikers and peds a safe crossing, they are against this proposal. Leave the iconic motorized passerelle idea and a simple functional bridge can be had very Cheaply and everyone is happy w/o having to ding taxpayers hard.

[whatnext]

Originally Posted by mr.x

Burrard Bridge bike lanes doomed for failure

By Miro Cernetig , Vancouver Sun columnist
May 6, 2009

COLUMN: It’s pretty much a given that Vancouver’s Burrard Bridge is ground zero in the city’s bicycle wars.

For years, bicyclistas have sought to take over its lanes. Autoistas want to keep the bridge all for themselves.

Now Vancouver’s new, green mayor is poised to enter this silly, polarized battle. But Gregor Robertson may want to think twice before he backs the newest proposal to close one, perhaps two lanes of the landmark bridge to cars...

Cernetig is bang on in showing that Emperor Gregor has no clothes on this one, for so many reasons.

It will be chaos, just as it was the last time. Couple that with the boneheaded idea to remove ramps from the Granville Street bridge and you have a recipe to kill downtown Vancouver anything more than a glorified Brentwood Mall neighbourhood.

I'd have a little more sympathy for cyclists if they weren't the worst vehicle operators in the City. When was the last time you say a cyclist actually use hand signals? I'd say its about 1%. Add to that the large number who flout the law by not wearing a helmet.

Oh well, its Vision Vancouver's funeral. Looks like Gregor wants to be a one term mayor.

[deasine]

Originally Posted by whatnext

Oh well, its Vision Vancouver's funeral. Looks like Gregor wants to be a one term mayor.

Hate to make it political, but I never understood why he got the seat in the first place.

[mattropolis]

I support the 2 lane trial. I thought this board was a bit more progressive, but I see that isn't the case.

[fever]

This forums tends to favour anything big... big government, big buildings, big highways, big transit lines, big municipalities.


If they said they were going to close down two or three lanes to refurbish the bridge, there'd be no opposition to this. Like with Cambie, the traffic would go away after a week. Then they could quietly reopen it as a five lane bridge and nobody would notice that there was one fewer lane. I agree it's the publicity (and maybe the symbolism) that's making people react hysterically.

[David]

Originally Posted by mattropolis

I support the 2 lane trial. I thought this board was a bit more progressive, but I see that isn't the case.

at one time it was... it's gone way down hill lately. fever is sadly very, very right.

[racc]

Originally Posted by whatnext

I'd have a little more sympathy for cyclists if they weren't the worst vehicle operators in the City. When was the last time you say a cyclist actually use hand signals? I'd say its about 1%. Add to that the large number who flout the law by not wearing a helmet.

Open your eyes then. Speed limits are maximums not minimums. When was the last time that a motorist obeyed the speed limits on any of the bridges except when they had to due to congestion. Driving while distracted is also against the law as well, which makes talking on a cell or eating while driving illegally. Cyclists may be just as bad as motorists as far as obeying laws but at least they are not killing other people. Vancouver drivers kill about 20 pedestrians a year in Vancouver. Focus on real problems, not minor annoyances.

[worldwide]

Originally Posted by whatnext

I'd have a little more sympathy for cyclists if they weren't the worst vehicle operators in the City. When was the last time you say a cyclist actually use hand signals? I'd say its about 1%. Add to that the large number who flout the law by not wearing a helmet.
.

as if that has any relevance to this discussion. get over it already

Originally Posted by deasine

Hate to make it political, but I never understood why he got the seat in the first place.

I voted for him... mainly because of his stance on the bridge

Originally Posted by David

at one time it was... it's gone way down hill lately. fever is sadly very, very right.

I agree... people are even posting development updates on sprawl nowadays.

[Stingray2004]

Originally Posted by officedweller

If council had just taken a stand and taken one lane (and re-marked/ redistributed the remaining 5 lanes) and just implemented it, there wouldn't be the debate and traffic flow would eventually redistribute - like it and InTransitBC did when the Cambie Bridge was reduced to one lane each way for Canada Line construction.

You have a good reasonable mind and I usually always agree with you, but on this one I'm gonna disagree.

For too many reasons... but at the end of the day the perceived "right" reasons for this decision are all "wrong".

[quobobo]

Originally Posted by whatnext

It will be chaos, just as it was the last time. Couple that with the boneheaded idea to remove ramps from the Granville Street bridge and you have a recipe to kill downtown Vancouver anything more than a glorified Brentwood Mall neighbourhood.

I think you might be just a little bit overdramatic on this subject.

[EastVanMark]

Originally Posted by deasine

Hate to make it political, but I never understood why he got the seat in the first place.

Cause their was no other alternative. The other candidate was just as stupid. Can't somebody with even half a brain run for mayor and or council? Its always a choice between lefty weirdos or blue blood nimbys. This great city deserves so much better!

[racc]

Originally Posted by jlousa

Racc you keep quoting this $50-100Million figure for a bike/ped bridge please show me where these figures come from. This isn't my line of work, but I would sell you a bridge across false creek high enough for sailboat clearance for $20Million and I would have it up by this time 2011.
San Jose just built a fancy one for $15Million that crosses 11 lanes of traffic and is 325ft long, Eugene is building a simple one for $6Million that's even longer then ours would need to be.
I don't beleive anyone is against giving bikers and peds a safe crossing, they are against this proposal. Leave the iconic motorized passerelle idea and a simple functional bridge can be had very Cheaply and everyone is happy w/o having to ding taxpayers hard.

Amateur engineer hour is getting a bit tiresome. The city looked into this and came up with the estimates of actually $50 million for a basic bridge to $250 million for a signature bridge. That was a few years ago, so the cost would be greater by now.