[Locked] Burrard Street Bridge Cycling Improvements | Completed

[quobobo]

Originally Posted by racc

Not sure on what planet this would work on but it certainly is not Earth. The gates would prevent access to wheelchairs and strollers so that would never fly. Separation from traffic is needed to encourage people to cycle and protect them from the drivers illegally going 50kph over the speed limit so pedestrians would still feel comfortable using the bike path. If drivers don't obey speed limit signs, why do you expect peds to obey signs banning them from a bridge?

And finally, it seems ridiculous to suggest banning bikes or peds from Burrard when no one is suggesting banning cars from Burrard just reallocating lanes of traffic. Drivers will still have access to the bridge. There still will be 18 or 19 lanes across False Creek to choose from. For 22 hours a day, drivers won't notice much difference at all beyond a greater likelihood that other drivers will be more likely to obey the speed limit making the bridge safer for everyone.

I'm not even going to continue this conversation, you've proven that you can't be civil to anyone in this thread.

[SpongeG]

it still has 2 lanes one way and 3 the other

its not that horrible - i do see more bike traffic on that bridge compared to the other ones

[racc]

Originally Posted by quobobo

I'm not even going to continue this conversation, you've proven that you can't be civil to anyone in this thread.

I just get tired of people not bothering to do any research on the issue so the debate can be informed or even bother reading previous posts where others actually do the research for them. Knee jerk reactions are equally tiresome.

The disregard that people on this thread show towards the safety of people who choose to cycle on the bridge is inexcusable. To think that somehow people's safety is less important than a possible small delay to drivers is not very civil. People really need to rethink their priorities.

[WBC]

I think this trial should be given a shot so that once and for all this issue can be resolved. But City of Vancouver better have guts to see this one through and not stop this in 2 weeks thus wasting everybody's time and money. The trail should also be taking place during both warm and cold/rainy months so that the complete picture of the traffic over seasons is taken into account. If the trial is abysmal failure then have the guts to admit so. If it is a success all the power to them. But show some cohones and get it done.

[racc]

Originally Posted by WBC

I think this trial should be given a shot so that once and for all this issue can be resolved. But City of Vancouver better have guts to see this one through and not stop this in 2 weeks thus wasting everybody's time and money. The trail should also be taking place during both warm and cold/rainy months so that the complete picture of the traffic over seasons is taken into account. If the trial is abysmal failure then have the guts to admit so. If it is a success all the power to them. But show some cohones and get it done.

They will. They know what happened last time and expect people might be rather steamed for a few days until people adapt although hopefully people will know about it ahead of time as a result of the communications campaign.

They haven't that length but they have discussed having it extend to the end of November.

[whatnext]

Originally Posted by racc

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.

What percentage of those 20 cyclists contributed to their own demise? By not signalling a turn, by veering into a car's path, by riding the wrong way, by not wearing a helmet etc etc?

I'm baffled by the pro-cycling advocates claiming that $60 mil is too much to spend on a proper solution for cyclists. That's a drop in the bucket compared to what's spend on transit riders or drivers. Furthermore, why should the needs a handful of boat owners and Ocean Cement prohibit the construction of low level cycling bridge? They can relocate.

[racc]

Originally Posted by whatnext

What percentage of those 20 cyclists contributed to their own demise? By not signalling a turn, by veering into a car's path, by riding the wrong way, by not wearing a helmet etc etc?

I'm baffled by the pro-cycling advocates claiming that $60 mil is too much to spend on a proper solution for cyclists. That's a drop in the bucket compared to what's spend on transit riders or drivers. Furthermore, why should the needs a handful of boat owners and Ocean Cement prohibit the construction of low level cycling bridge? They can relocate.

First of all, read the post. It is 20 pedestrians killed per year by drivers not 20 cyclists. For cyclists, it is between 0 and 2 or so per year. In cycling collisions, the city did a survey back in 1999 and found that over 50% of the collisions were caused by motorists.

We are not saying $30 million (the other $30 million is required for upgrades that are required anyway), is too much, we are saying that why spend it if there is a less expensive way. You forget that widening the sidewalks (and the required repair of the rails) on the bridge will cause worse delays traffic for a couple of years. Lets give the trial a chance.

With oil likely to skyrocket after the recession, the amount of driving is going to plummet anyway.

Regarding the boat owners etc. It is Transport Canada regulations that govern this. It would take years to get approval for a low level crossing that would likely have to be an expensive draw bridge. Anyway, the battle would be against the same rich westsiders that drive over the bridge. They own the boats as well.

[b5baxter]

This appeared on an email list I am on today:

Tuesday June 2nd, 2009 Day Two of Commuter Week

Dear Vancouver City Councillors,

Last night I had an accident on Burrard Street Bridge involving two
people walking side by side on the pedestrian side. I was travelling
west bound, north side towards Kits Point on the down hill. I noticed
a couple in the distance walking uphill, towards the West End and he
kept walking into the bike lane. I started to break to slow down and
rang my bell. He swung his back pack onto his shoulder, hitting me at
the exact moment I was passing them. I saw the situation about to
happen and rolled towards the right into the female and crashed to the
ground, hitting my head and hip. I was wearing gloves, solid shoes and
a very good helmet. His pack flew into traffic and was destroyed.
"That could have been me, I thought."

I will not be riding or walking on the Burrard Street Bridge again
until the one-lane bike route is implemented. I have stopped taking
the bike way at the end of False Creek into Gastown, because of the
Olympic Village building gravel and construction. I will not ride on
Granville Street or the sidewalk (too small and illegal). So my bike
option to Gastown is through a construction zone and go on the Cambie
Street Bridge. Well at least I have that option.

I have been biking and commuting in this city for 30 years and I rode
motorcycle for 10 years.

[zivan56]

That story smells of BS. (S)He was probably speeding down the bridge and wasn't patient enough to slow down when passing two people walking side by side. I guess they couldn't slow down to 5km/h and lose a precious few seconds in order to ensure they safely pass? Typical "i'm the most important person in the world" arrogant attitude which causes these sorts of accidents. I've seen these types on the bridge before...one such idiot passed me while going down the south side of the bridge (I was on a bike going ~25km/h) while going over 60km/h (faster than some cars on the bridge!). Then he cut in front of me and some pedestrians going north over the bridge. IMO they are asking to be hurt.

[racc]

Originally Posted by zivan56

That story smells of BS. (S)He was probably speeding down the bridge and wasn't patient enough to slow down when passing two people walking side by side. I guess they couldn't slow down to 5km/h and lose a precious few seconds in order to ensure they safely pass? Typical "i'm the most important person in the world" arrogant attitude which causes these sorts of accidents. I've seen these types on the bridge before...one such idiot passed me while going down the south side of the bridge (I was on a bike going ~25km/h) while going over 60km/h (faster than some cars on the bridge!). Then he cut in front of me and some pedestrians going north over the bridge. IMO they are asking to be hurt.

Please show some respect. I know the woman who was involved and have no reason to doubt her story. Anyway, looks like you have been nowhere near the bridge. On days like this, there is typically a long line of people walking over the bridge. If you slow down to 5km when you go by a ped, it would take forever. The speed limit is 15km anyway.

Until drivers obey the speed limit of 60k and stop doing 100k, please be quiet and don't expect people on bikes to behave any better than those in cars.

[Spork]

Ah, the old "They're doing it so we will too!". Israel vs. Palestine is now Bikes vs. Cars.

[johnjimbc]

I've been trying to look for a photo example, but cannot find any. A friend of mine lives in Perth and says there are a couple of bridges there in which bike crossings were added to existing bridges. From their description, it sounds like they added bike lanes underneath the roadways (sort of under the existing pedestrian sidewalks on the side edges of the bridges).

Has there ever been a study considering the possibility of doing something like that. On just looking at them, the Burrard bridge looks tricky (with the center piece section and the different sections on either side of it). But it certainly looks like something to consider on the Granville bridge. It's been a few years since I had my basic engineering courses in college, but structurally it certainly seems like something that could be studied.

To anyone's knowledge, has that option ever been considered by the city? It would allow a dedicated path for bikes, yet spare the expense of a separate crossing.

I still think a separate pedestrian and bike crossing (despite the expense) is the best option.

Between that and wanting to see a rail line on the arbutus corridor, those are my personal top two for transit improvements for Vancouver itself (not whole metro region) that would take it to the next level.

[johnjimbc]

Of course, I suppose the widening would accomplish the same thing.

Get on with it already

[cornholio]

Originally Posted by zivan56

That story smells of BS. (S)He was probably speeding down the bridge and wasn't patient enough to slow down when passing two people walking side by side. I guess they couldn't slow down to 5km/h and lose a precious few seconds in order to ensure they safely pass? Typical "i'm the most important person in the world" arrogant attitude which causes these sorts of accidents. I've seen these types on the bridge before...one such idiot passed me while going down the south side of the bridge (I was on a bike going ~25km/h) while going over 60km/h (faster than some cars on the bridge!). Then he cut in front of me and some pedestrians going north over the bridge. IMO they are asking to be hurt.

Couldent agree with you more.
Generally the minority group(or the odd ball) tends to be arrogant, aholish, rude, and anti social in many ways. You see that with most people on bikes, when their riding or talking about the subject they feel they are better than everyone because their different then the majority, this results in their reckless and anti social behavior.

All we need to do is to go after people on bikes who cause accidents and hit them where it hurts, the wallet, make them accountable for their actions. So buddy that hit the pedestrian should be paying the injury claim, and for a new back pack, and fine for reckless riding. That is unless the pedestrian jumped in his way, which by all accounts was not the case. The guy on the bike sounds like a total psychopathic self centered ahole.

[zivan56]

Originally Posted by racc

Please show some respect. I know the woman who was involved and have no reason to doubt her story. Anyway, looks like you have been nowhere near the bridge. On days like this, there is typically a long line of people walking over the bridge. If you slow down to 5km when you go by a ped, it would take forever. The speed limit is 15km anyway.

Until drivers obey the speed limit of 60k and stop doing 100k, please be quiet and don't expect people on bikes to behave any better than those in cars.

Bottom line is, if she slowed down...it would be nearly impossible to be in the situation she was in.
Nowhere on the bridge? I guess you stalk me and can confirm this?
Obviously I have been over the bridge plenty of times on my bike, hence my countless experiences with such people.

What does this have to do with cars? Last I heard, this was between 2 pedestrians and a cyclist. Not to mention that the person in question was at fault for not obeying the "yield to pedestrians" sign as soon as you get on the bridge deck. Likewise, a speed limit is just that...a speed limit. Speed limits are the maximum speed under ideal conditions. Would you be going that speed if the deck was iced over?

So you are justifying doing something wrong by committing another wrong and you want me to "be quiet"?

[Canadian Mind]

Originally Posted by cornholio

The guy on the bike sounds like a total psychopathic self centered ahole.

Have some tact. It's one thing to say that directly to people about themselves, worse to talk about other people like that, and even worse still to do it infront of their friends or people they know.

You defined yourself adequately with that statement.

[Yume-sama]

Originally Posted by cornholio

Couldent agree with you more.
Generally the minority group(or the odd ball) tends to be arrogant, aholish, rude, and anti social in many ways. You see that with most people on bikes, when their riding or talking about the subject they feel they are better than everyone because their different then the majority, this results in their reckless and anti social behavior.

I love how you make people on bikes sound like crazy fringe group.

Personally I have never met any holier than thou bicyclists, though I know they exist and resent you for killing the planet in your Prius!

[twoNeurons]

Originally Posted by johnjimbc

I've been trying to look for a photo example, but cannot find any. A friend of mine lives in Perth and says there are a couple of bridges there in which bike crossings were added to existing bridges. From their description, it sounds like they added bike lanes underneath the roadways (sort of under the existing pedestrian sidewalks on the side edges of the bridges).

Has there ever been a study considering the possibility of doing something like that. On just looking at them, the Burrard bridge looks tricky (with the center piece section and the different sections on either side of it). But it certainly looks like something to consider on the Granville bridge. It's been a few years since I had my basic engineering courses in college, but structurally it certainly seems like something that could be studied.

To anyone's knowledge, has that option ever been considered by the city? It would allow a dedicated path for bikes, yet spare the expense of a separate crossing.

I still think a separate pedestrian and bike crossing (despite the expense) is the best option.

Between that and wanting to see a rail line on the arbutus corridor, those are my personal top two for transit improvements for Vancouver itself (not whole metro region) that would take it to the next level.

Well, the burrard St. Bridge was designed to have a railway underneath it, so you could put bike lanes there, I would guess.

[cornholio]

Originally Posted by Canadian Mind

Have some tact. It's one thing to say that directly to people about themselves, worse to talk about other people like that, and even worse still to do it infront of their friends or people they know.

You defined yourself adequately with that statement.

Ok, ok I went a bit far with my statement. But I do think the 🞵🞵🞵🞵🞵🞵🞵🞵 riders are the minority and often times have a BIT of a holier than though attitude when their on their bikes. Its just what I have noticed(with many of the every day riders). Its just how things tend to work, the little guy often times overcompensates with aggressiveness to survive, 🞵🞵🞵🞵🞵🞵🞵🞵 bike riders in the city being the little guys.
By the way I do ride my bike here and there, have gone a few times from Vancouver to work in Poco(which was a nightmare when I got off late).

And again I admit I came across as a ahole my self in my post, oh well..thats why im not a politician.

[b5baxter]

Originally Posted by cornholio

Couldent agree with you more.
The guy on the bike sounds like a total psychopathic self centered ahole.

No, actually it is you that sounds like one. You have no idea who this person is but yet you jump to erroneous conclusions.

The "guy" is an older women. She is very cautious and doesn't bike that fast.

I can't believe people have such callous attitudes to someone who was injured through no fault of her own.

I went over the Burrard Bridge today during rush hour. It was packed with lots of pedestrians and several walked into the bike land during my trip across. It is very easy to be knocked into traffic even if you travel at low speeds.

I can't wait till they open the bike lane.

And then the second one.