[Locked] Burrard Street Bridge Cycling Improvements | Completed

[b5baxter]

Originally Posted by zivan56

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.

Read the story again. The pedestrian swung a back pack into the bike lane. This doesn't have anything to do with "yield to pedestrians."

[racc]

Originally Posted by twoNeurons

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

The city has looked at this. It is more expensive than widening the bridge, which is now $30 million. As well, some people are concerned about personal security issues. I don't personally think that is a problem but then again, I'm not a woman.

The bottom line is that the trial lane reallocation will like not prove to be a major problem. We can then move on and spend some money upgrading the other bridges. A path under Granville Bridge to Granville Island would be great.

[zivan56]

Originally Posted by b5baxter

Read the story again. The pedestrian swung a back pack into the bike lane. This doesn't have anything to do with "yield to pedestrians."

I think you need to read it again:

...
I saw the situation about to
happen and rolled towards the right into the female and crashed to the
..

This person almost collided with one person (their backpack) and plowed into a second person by choice. So yes, she did not yield to the pedestrian and purposely plowed into another one. This was all most likely caused by speeding.
Since the bridge has 2 shared lanes (hence the white dashed lines), the pedestrians have right of way on both paths. So it was her fault regardless of whether someone drifted into the bike lane...however, it is especially her fault when she swerved right and hit that other person.
But since you only quoted that part, I'm sure you already agreed with that.

[s211]

Originally Posted by b5baxter

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.

C'mon, how freaking hard can it be to SLOW DOWN, use a bell and use your voice, and not proceed until the way is clear? Stop before proceeding, if you have to.

I walk to work every day. I cycle quite a bit, too, and have very little sympathy for people that can't conduct themselves safely.

[twoNeurons]

move along. nothing to see here. move along...

[dreambrother808]

what grumpy trolls... there is no winning an argument with people who thrive on judgement and lack of understanding.

so perhaps the cyclist in that moment of confusion should have rolled into traffic and been crushed like the backpack? once again the problem is that the backpack was swung INTO the bike lane at the last minute. perhaps the cyclist should have been WALKING her bike across in order to react in time. would that be slow enough for you? god... just because you have some kind of irrational prejudice against people on bikes doesn't mean you have to completely leave your senses at the door.

it's not even a matter of blame or fault here. it's a matter of having a safe passage for EVERYONE across False Creek at that point.

[cornholio]

Well it is safe for everyone, I mean if the bridge is that congested the riders can walk their bike across. In any case I DO have sympathies for the lack of bike infrastructure and bike lanes, if there was more I would bike allot more also. The point is that this infrastructure is lacking on the bridge and riders have to be extra careful, they have to yield to pedestrians, and as has been said by someone else stop if its not safe to proceed.


In any case I have much cheaper solution for the bridge(assuming people will listen). Have all southbound pedestrians use the east side side walk and the northbound pedestrians the west side side walk. This way the bikes will be on coming and can everyone can make eye contact. The reason this would be a better idea than using one side walk for bikes and one for pedestrians is because it would only inconvenience one group, and pedestrians would be the least inconvenienced by having to cross the street sometimes.
The main part would be to not cheap out on the signage and flashing lights and side walk markings to really let pedestrians know which side to use...on top of that you can draft a by-law aimed at creating a fine for people who disobey these signs and make this clear with signage and dont be afraid to enforce it.

[racc]

Originally Posted by cornholio

In any case I have much cheaper solution for the bridge(assuming people will listen). Have all southbound pedestrians use the east side side walk and the northbound pedestrians the west side side walk. This way the bikes will be on coming and can everyone can make eye contact. The reason this would be a better idea than using one side walk for bikes and one for pedestrians is because it would only inconvenience one group, and pedestrians would be the least inconvenienced by having to cross the street sometimes.

For the tenth time, the sidewalks simply are not wide enough to be shared by cyclists and pedestrians. They would have to be at least 4.5 m for this to work given the high numbers of people walking and cycling over the bridge.

Secondly, it takes a lot of time to cross from on side of Burrard to the other at the intersections. With your suggestion, if someone is on one side of the bridge and heading to a destination on the same side, they would be forced to cross twice which can take 3 to 4 minutes. This just is not reasonable to expect people to do this.

Lets give the trial a chance. It is going ahead. After a few days, people will adapted. Again, people's safety is more important than minor traffic delays. People really need to have some perspective here.

[s211]

Originally Posted by dreambrother808

what grumpy trolls... there is no winning an argument with people who thrive on judgement and lack of understanding.

<snip>

just because you have some kind of irrational prejudice against people on bikes doesn't mean you have to completely leave your senses at the door.

Lack of understanding? Irrational prejudice against people on bikes? How about you go back, read my message again, take a chill pill, and realize how pitiful your response was.

[dreambrother808]

there is absolutely nothing for me to gain by arguing with you you can believe what you want.

[cornholio]

Originally Posted by racc

For the tenth time, the sidewalks simply are not wide enough to be shared by cyclists and pedestrians. They would have to be at least 4.5 m for this to work given the high numbers of people walking and cycling over the bridge.

Secondly, it takes a lot of time to cross from on side of Burrard to the other at the intersections. With your suggestion, if someone is on one side of the bridge and heading to a destination on the same side, they would be forced to cross twice which can take 3 to 4 minutes. This just is not reasonable to expect people to do this.

Lets give the trial a chance. It is going ahead. After a few days, people will adapted. Again, people's safety is more important than minor traffic delays. People really need to have some perspective here.

50% of the pedestrians would need to cross once, 25% wouldnt need to cross at all and 25% would need to cross twice.
*this is assuming pedestrian traffic patterns are relatively equal for trips east to west across the bridge, west to east, west to west and east to east.
**keep in mind that right now 50% of the people in theory need to cross once anyways and 50% dont need to cross at all, depending on where their coming from and where their going.(that means its not as big of a deal as one might think...only 1 in 4 people would be affected the way you say...while 3 in 4 would be unaffected.......although another way to look at it is that the number of total crossings across the street that pedestrians would need to make would double, which isnt as rosy sounding as looking at it the other way(plus it means the negatives of the changes would disproportionally affect only a small group of people)...but still its doable imo)

there is plenty of room for both bikes and pedestrians, just need to show some patience when there are slower bikes in the bike lane...if the pedestrians are oncoming and people can make eye contact with each other(something very important) than 95% of the conflicts between bikes and pedestrians would be removed.

[city-dweller]

I would point out using mode of transport to group or stereotype people is incorrect. Human nature will persist across all modes. There are jerks who walk, ride, and drive as well as self-righteous in each.

People who tail-gate are just as bad as cyclists who speed or don't ride single file are just as bad as pedestrians that don't look before stepping in your bike lane unexpectedly. Drivers complain of bikes in 'their' lane. Riders are paranoid of drivers. Pedestrians walk everywhere.

I walk, ride, and drive (when someone lends me a car). Riding always has the highest chance for incidents -either myself or someone else on my ride every time. This is on the bike routes so I don't have a lot a sympathy for drivers on bike routes.</stop personal rant>

[b5baxter]

Originally Posted by zivan56

I think you need to read it again:


This person almost collided with one person (their backpack) and plowed into a second person by choice.

Yes, but her other choice was to go over the curb and probably get run over by a car.

She made the right choice.

[b5baxter]

Originally Posted by s211

C'mon, how freaking hard can it be to SLOW DOWN, use a bell and use your voice, and not proceed until the way is clear? Stop before proceeding, if you have to.

I do use a bell or voice on Burrard bridge everytime I am near a pedestrian. But often it is useless. The sound of traffic will drown it out. And if the pedestrian has headphones on it does not do any good.

I agree that it is a good idea to stop if the way is not clear. But that is why the current situation is unacceptable. If the cyclists had to stop every time they approached a pedestrian with their back to them that might make quick move in the wrong direction, they would be stopping every 30 seconds on Burrard bridge.

Plus, it is clear violation of the City of Vancouver's traffic management plan.

[racc]

Originally Posted by cornholio

there is plenty of room for both bikes and pedestrians, just need to show some patience when there are slower bikes in the bike lane...if the pedestrians are oncoming and people can make eye contact with each other(something very important) than 95% of the conflicts between bikes and pedestrians would be removed.

No there is not. For the 11th time. The standard for a shared path with this volume of this volume is 4.5m and actually, it is preferable for both cyclists and pedestrians to have there own separate paths of 3 to 4m. Cyclists and peds travel at different speeds especially on the long downhill sections. There is a reason why standards are developed. And that reason is to avoid exactly the types of problems we are having on the bridge.

And the bottom line is that people that really know about this type of stuff, the city engineers, know that more space is needed. Most people that use it know that more space is needed. I'm not sure why you to think that somehow you have a better solution than the people that really know about stuff like this.

[Spork]

Some interesting bridges that could inspire a Vancouver Paserelle (sp?):

http://www.toxel.com/inspiration/2009/06/17/10-unusual-and-creative-bridges/

[officedweller]

The trial will proceed on July 13th, subject to weather allowing painting of lines, etc.


"Technical Details" here:
http://vancouver.ca/projects/burrard/technicaldetails.htm

BTW - Those "technical details" are the very details that the City should put in every advertisement - i.e. not just the cross-section of the bridge, but also the changes to the lanes on the approaches. The City seems to have minimized them as in "don't worry about the details".



North end:
(Note the "No Right Turn" at Kettle of Fish from Pacific to Hornby! That will be contentious.)


South end:
(They'll need to close off the staircase at the southeast corner of the bridge to prevent pedestrians from entering the cycle path)


Alternate routes:
(Looks like the Cambie off-ramp to 6th will be open by then)
(I like how the City's map shows a Granville Bridge cloverleaf loop (southeast end) that no longer exists)

[deasine]

I'm still surprised they aren't doing three lanes southbound and two northbound.

[flight_from_kamakura]

thanks od.

my immediate thought is that if they were to close the northbound off ramp onto pacific in favor of a right signal turn, it would likely dramatically decrease the likelihood of cycling accidents going northbound (like to zero). and with three lanes going into the core, it seems like the effect on circulation would be pretty minimal.

[s211]

Stupid. Criminally stupid. How many times do we have to drive a stake into the heart of this pathetic plan?