[Locked] Burrard Street Bridge Cycling Improvements | Completed - Page 15

phesto · #**281** Posted **Jun 25, 2009, 6:16 PM**

I was jogging northbound on the west side of the bridge yesterday at about 5:15pm and encountered a grand total of 10 cyclists headed southbound. Meanwhile vehicular traffic (all 3 lanes) was backed up about a third of the way on the southbound side, which, as a former commuter from Kits I know is relatively light during summer.

Needless to say I’m happy I moved downtown and don’t have to deal with what I expect will be a traffic nightmare.

For the record, I’m in support of the trial as it will undoubtedly result in some constructive findings with respect to cyclist safety, traffic flow etc. But surely such a haphazard implementation is not an ideal solution and won't be permanent.

WarrenC12 · #**282** Posted **Jun 25, 2009, 6:57 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by phesto

I was jogging northbound on the west side of the bridge yesterday at about 5:15pm and encountered a grand total of 10 cyclists headed southbound. Meanwhile vehicular traffic (all 3 lanes) was backed up about a third of the way on the southbound side, which, as a former commuter from Kits I know is relatively light during summer.

But what was the cause of the backup? That the bridge has "only 3 lanes" or the lights and traffic patterns on the south side (particularly down Cornwwall)?

phesto · #**283** Posted **Jun 25, 2009, 7:08 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by WarrenC12

But what was the cause of the backup? That the bridge has "only 3 lanes" or the lights and traffic patterns on the south side (particularly down Cornwwall)?

Most definitely the lights are the cause.

I’m well aware that road capacity doesn’t translate into improved traffic flow in this scenario. But I suspect that southbound traffic will at times be heavy enough to backup the entire length of the bridge and block traffic beyond the Burrard/Beach intersection which will cause headaches, complaints, and might even draw negative media attention.

Perhaps this is partially the intent of the trial - not only to promote cycling, but to test driver tolerance (and behavioural change), but in the end, the plan is doomed to fail.

racc · #**284** Posted **Jun 25, 2009, 8:35 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by sacrifice333

I thought if anything cities tried to have a greater volume of outflow lanes than inflow lanes.

The diagrams for the new lane arrangement shows greater volume of inflow lanes?

Anyone care to explain... maybe it has to do with the fact that Vancouver doesn't have any sort of actual freeway through it and the third inflow lane directs traffic toward Hornby?

The evening peak period tends to be longer than the morning peak. As a result, the traffic flows per hour tend to be lower.

twoNeurons · #**285** Posted **Jun 25, 2009, 9:55 PM**

I WANNA NEW PED BRIDGE! Come on people... show some vision!

WarrenC12 · #**286** Posted **Jun 25, 2009, 10:02 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by twoNeurons

I WANNA NEW PED BRIDGE! Come on people... show some vision!

I bet if you show up at council meetings and yell that, it will happen. Seriously.

racc · #**287** Posted **Jun 25, 2009, 10:10 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by twoNeurons

I WANNA NEW PED BRIDGE! Come on people... show some vision!

Vision is not coming up with something obvious that costs lots of money. Vision is doing something that most people think won't working and having the courage to it happen.

Maersk · #**288** Posted **Jun 26, 2009, 1:10 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by racc

Vision is not coming up with something obvious that costs lots of money. Vision is doing something that most people think won't working and having the courage to it happen.

Speak english

racc · #**289** Posted **Jun 26, 2009, 5:25 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by Maersk

Speak english

Learn English. I was replying to:

Quote:

twoNeurons
I WANNA NEW PED BRIDGE! Come on people... show some vision!

biketrouble · #**290** Posted **Jun 26, 2009, 6:33 AM**

racc: I think they were taking a cheap shot at the fact you missed the word "make" out from "to (make) it happen". Because that renders any argument you might make in favour of the BB trial invalid, naturally.

racc · #**291** Posted **Jun 26, 2009, 7:42 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by biketrouble

racc: I think they were taking a cheap shot at the fact you missed the word "make" out from "to (make) it happen". Because that renders any argument you might make in favour of the BB trial invalid, naturally.

Thanks, fair enough:

Vision is not coming up with something obvious that costs lots of money. Vision is doing something that most people think won't work and having the courage to make it happen.

Maersk · #**292** Posted **Jun 26, 2009, 5:26 PM**

Oh jeez...

Keep trying

AKA-007 · #**293** Posted **Jul 3, 2009, 1:09 AM**

A report just came out on the 6 news on Global about a pedestrian and bike only bridge over False Creek to the west of the Burrard Street Bridge. There are very few details about the bridge out at this time.

deasine · #**294** Posted **Jul 3, 2009, 1:20 AM**

It's also the final forum topic: http://communities.canada.com/globaltv/forums/269757/ShowThread.aspx

Spork · #**295** Posted **Jul 3, 2009, 1:25 AM**

Nice and ugly. AWESOME!

crazyjoeda · #**296** Posted **Jul 3, 2009, 1:47 AM**

I think a new bridge is a better solution then removing a lane from the Burrard bridge. I think the city should look at adding a separate deck below the vehicle deck of the Burrard Bridge. My concern with this new bridge is that it could be an eyesore. On the other hand if done right it could become an icon for Vancouver, a landmark like the bridge in Rotterdam.

Yume-sama · #**297** Posted **Jul 3, 2009, 1:50 AM**

Or we could go all Dubai on them!

I think a Pedestrian bridge is a good idea. Calgary is wasting $50 million on two Caltrava designed bridges that nobody will ever use because nobody lives in the area except the homeless.

deasine · #**298** Posted **Jul 3, 2009, 1:52 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by AKA-007

I think a Pedestrian bridge is a good idea. Calgary is wasting $50 million on two Caltrava designed bridges that nobody will ever use because nobody lives in the area except the homeless.

Well I'm sure Calgary is trying to revitalize those areas by building iconic bridges...

For once, I'm not sure if I want Caltrava to design the bridge if we do decide to go with one... his designs are all the same.

Yume-sama · #**299** Posted **Jul 3, 2009, 1:54 AM**

Well, they don't have to be super fancy

But it'd be nice to have a separate cycling / pedestrian bridge.

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

Stingray2004 · #**300** Posted **Jul 3, 2009, 2:03 AM**

Just have to chime in here.

It's a $45 million proposal from Sunset Beach to Vanier Park (with bike/pedestrian connections) proposed by Henriquez Partners Architects.

It's not the stale retread rendering in the above link but "curves out and around" from the bridge tower, if that makes any sense. The design actualy has some neat defining features.

Curious though... why is Gregor unveiling the proposal exclusively to BCTV Global when his councillors don't even know about it yet. I mean... doesn't council as a whole have to vote to proceed with such a design... or is it just a Henriquez Partners Architects proposal?

I guess that we will soon find out.