Time for Vancouver to Tear Down Its Viaducts? - Page 119

WaxItYourself · #**2361** Posted **Jun 19, 2012, 7:21 PM**

There was actually a write-up over at Vancitybuzz about this and the previously proposed pedestrian only bridge that was proposed in 2009.

http://www.vancitybuzz.com/2012/06/bike-lanes-coming-to-granville-street-bridge/

Personally i like this idea. I think the main reason that it was placed in the center though was more for safety concerns. I guess memories of what happened on the Pattullo when it was opened for 4 lanes of traffic at night time still resonate in the community. There have been many yells and screams as well calling for a raised park similar to the one in New York. Perhaps this is another way to keep them happy as well?

If this gets built as it does in the picture I expect that traffic over the Granville Street Bridge will begin to decrease substantially over the next 15 years or so. Eventually you could possibly even take both of the outside lanes away and include the long awaited streetcar in their own lanes. You could also have a food cart or two set up on the walkers side and include bike parking areas in approximately the same spots on the biking side. The middle of course would have about a 2 inch curb or so so that walkers did not congest with bikers and the danger of accidents was limited. This would create more of a psychological link between both sides of False Creek. I'm surprised that there are so many against new and innovative ideas.

mezzanine · #**2362** Posted **Jun 19, 2012, 8:38 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by wrenegade

Christ, how many bike lanes do we need? I will admit that there is excess capacity on the Granville Street bridge, but I fail to see how adding bike/walking lanes in the middle of the bridge without connections at either end will help anything?

IMO a centre lane would make sense. The transit mall on granville keeps thru traffic on granville down, while most private vehicle traffic travels on the howe/seymour ramps. the zebra crossings at the on/off ramps look dangerous for pedestrians.

IMO placement of the stairs would be a crapshoot. they might work best over ~ 4th ave where the bridge deck height is fairly low, but still close enought to the island. from my obbservation, the stairs on the south end of the cambie bridge seem to be used by people using it for their run/workouts, and not a lot by people who are walking for travelling.

mezzanine · #**2363** Posted **Jun 19, 2012, 8:41 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by WaxItYourself

I'm surprised that there are so many against new and innovative ideas.

I agree.

Even the 2 NPA councillors agreed to make the burrard/dunsmuir bike lanes permanent.

Metro-One · #**2364** Posted **Jun 19, 2012, 8:48 PM**

what? I am not against this idea, but I am dead set against the removal of the viaducts.

Alex Mackinnon · #**2365** Posted **Jun 19, 2012, 11:29 PM**

It makes a lot more sense than the previously mentioned glass roof bike tunnel.

Is it possible that this is Vision's least harmful infrastructure idea yet?

aberdeen5698 · #**2366** Posted **Jun 19, 2012, 11:57 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by Metro-One

I would support this 10 times over tearing down the viaducts. But, that being said, a proper pedestrian connection to Granville Island should be made via staircases.

If this goes ahead and the merchants on Granville Island were smart, they'd pool their resources to help pay for a pair of elevators to carry people between the bridge deck and the island.

WaxItYourself · #**2367** Posted **Jun 20, 2012, 3:45 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by aberdeen5698

If this goes ahead and the merchants on Granville Island were smart, they'd pool their resources to help pay for a pair of elevators to carry people between the bridge deck and the island.

A few hours after I originally made my previous post I thought of much the same thing. It would provide a much shorter route for people to get to Granville Island from
downtown Vancouver as well as give the bridge more of a pedestrian/citylike feel. The more I think of it the more I'm actually impressed by the things that could be done with it.

WaxItYourself · #**2368** Posted **Jun 20, 2012, 3:57 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by Metro-One

what? I am not against this idea, but I am dead set against the removal of the viaducts.

I'd prefer to keep them as well. Or at least one of them. Those images of how the buildings around Rogers Arena would look with an extra pedestrian path up to the top levels is amazing. I would much prefer a multilayered city other than a stale old one layer city. Gives it much more characteristic in my opinion.

Stingray2004 · #**2369** Posted **Jun 20, 2012, 4:56 AM**

Saw the news story tonight on Global. The CoV apparently also intends to introduce the same concept to the Cambie Street Bridge.

BTW, the Granville Street Bridge is part of Translink's MRN. Translink will also have to rubber stamp this concept at the end of the day.

The Burrard St Bridge, Hornby St., the Dunsmuir Viaduct/Dunsmuir St. are not part of Translink's MRN whereupon bike lanes were introduced with the removal of a traffic lane.

SFUVancouver · #**2370** Posted **Jun 20, 2012, 5:14 AM**

It's worth mentioning that the Granville Street Bridge idea is being floated as part of the Transportation 2040 plan for the CoV. 28 years from now I think this sort of debate will seem quaint. 1984 is as far back as 2040 is forward.

TransitJack · #**2371** Posted **Jun 20, 2012, 5:30 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by WaxItYourself

A few hours after I originally made my previous post I thought of much the same thing. It would provide a much shorter route for people to get to Granville Island from
downtown Vancouver as well as give the bridge more of a pedestrian/citylike feel. The more I think of it the more I'm actually impressed by the things that could be done with it.

Had the same idea. Would be great to access GI but also when you are already there and want to go up.

As for the Cambie bridge, I'm not certain such a greenway is warranted. That bridge is much smaller and is a pretty major entrance/exit for cars to/from downtown. Granville has 8 lanes to work with because it is so high and freeway-like it makes more sense to soften its appearance and make it more walkeable/bikeable.

IanS · #**2372** Posted **Jun 20, 2012, 2:32 PM**

Regarding the Cambie Street Bridge, I remain of the view that it would make more sense to gauge the fallout from the planned destruction of the viaduct before taking steps to remove more capacity from the bridges. We may find that we need that capacity.

twoNeurons · #**2373** Posted **Jun 20, 2012, 2:45 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by TransitJack

Had the same idea. Would be great to access GI but also when you are already there and want to go up.

Going DOWN a long set of stairs is one thing... going UP them is an entirely different matter. The Granville Grind. :-)

WarrenC12 · #**2374** Posted **Jun 20, 2012, 2:57 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by Stingray2004

Saw the news story tonight on Global. The CoV apparently also intends to introduce the same concept to the Cambie Street Bridge.

Hmmm, can't say I agree with that one. Cambie is much closer to capacity (especially around events at BC Place and Rogers Arena). And the sidewalk on the east side is wide enough. Actually taking out the benches would make more room for cyclists and pedestrians... nobody ever sits in them.

EastVanMark · #**2375** Posted **Jun 20, 2012, 3:20 PM**

This latest attack on the auto is of course ludicrous but hey, why not do it anyways. The Cambie bridge already has super wide sidewalks that easily could accommodate any kind of bike path that anyone could dream up. So this would essentially be putting bike lanes next to bike lanes (at a considerable cost).

All this spending for 3% of the mode of travel. Meanwhile, as has already been pointed out, community centre closures affect much, much more people and hurt our city's most vulnerable most (i.e.seniors, kids).

EastVanMark · #**2376** Posted **Jun 20, 2012, 3:25 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by SFUVancouver

It's worth mentioning that the Granville Street Bridge idea is being floated as part of the Transportation 2040 plan for the CoV. 28 years from now I think this sort of debate will seem quaint. 1984 is as far back as 2040 is forward.

...Oh I dunno, this council has a way of pushing certain agendas through quicker than others and have a particular talent at making "temporary" things permanent very quickly.

i.e. the viaducts went from a long-off "discussion" we might have to have one day to- viaducts are unquestionably evil and must immediately be torn down or we all will drop dead.

jlousa · #**2377** Posted **Jun 20, 2012, 3:54 PM**

While it's part of Transit 2040, one of the city's staff members has stated that the changes to the Granville bridge could be in place by 2015 if desired.

EastVanMark · #**2378** Posted **Jun 20, 2012, 4:01 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by jlousa

While it's part of Transit 2040, one of the city's staff members has stated that the changes to the Granville bridge could be in place by 2015 if desired.

Exactly. Thanks for pointing that out. I have a sneaking suspicion that the 2015 option will be prove to be what this council will pursue

(but only after they go through the usual sham of public "consultations" and conclude that "everyone" wants this)

IanS · #**2379** Posted **Jun 20, 2012, 4:07 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by EastVanMark

Exactly. Thanks for pointing that out. I have a sneaking suspicion that the 2015 option will be prove to be what this council will pursue

(but only after they go through the usual sham of public "consultations" and conclude that "everyone" wants this)

My guess is that Meggs wants to carry out as much of his agenda as possible before heading to Victoria.

EastVanMark · #**2380** Posted **Jun 20, 2012, 4:19 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by IanS

My guess is that Meggs wants to carry out as much of his agenda as possible before heading to Victoria.

I think you're right. Kind of a scorched earth plan going on here