Bike Lane Panic in Vancouver
 

Sorry if this has been posted here. I don't think it has, but I'm just back from holidays…

Plans are afoot to convert two of the six lanes of the Burrard Street Bridge to bicycle lanes. (For out-of-towners, this is the westernmost crossing of False Creek, connecting the downtown core with the city's west side) The change is scheduled for April 2006.

Bicyclists currently share a narrow sidewalk with pedestrians, and there are many of both. At least one cyclist was forced off the sidewalk and into the path of a vehicle recently. She recuperated from life-threatening injuries.

The decision to dedicate bike lanes is already being vilified by the downtown merchants coalition—I suppose they probably have an acronym; I just haven't bothered to learn it—as an impediment to the movement of goods. This is a bit stupid, as you can stand on the bridge for five minutes and observe that the VAST majority of vehicles are single-occupant cars, trucks, minivans, and damnable SUVs.

Looks like we've got a long road of activism and letter-writing to keep this on track.

That's it. Just wanted to rant and promote. Fellow cyclists of the GVRD—make your voices heard on this.

Thank you for your time.

Six lanes... how heavily is this bridge used? Is there ever any backup? Is this the only road into town?

It's one of three bridges over this body of water, (which you can actually drive AROUND, if you want to spend the time) and by far the one with the most cycle and pedestrian traffic. Despite its horrible drawbacks, it is currently designated as a "bicycle route." Six blocks to the east there is a vehicle-friendly eight-lane bridge.

This is what it looks like: http://www.urbanvancouver.com/images..._south-112.jpg

One lane split in two is more than enough for bikes in both directions. They could repaint the lines on the remaining 5 lanes so bikes go with traffic on each side and use the middle lane for rush hour traffic.

Don't forget, there's not just the Burrard, and the Granville, but there's the Cambie bridge that has much cycle and pedestrian traffic as well.

The plan is to be a trial for 1 year starting in April, and considering there will be a munuciple election before that, and the COPE party may be looking at defeat to NPA, it's questionable if it'll be put to trial to start. If the NPA get in, I doubt this will be implimented. If COPE wins, it's still possible that sometime within the 1 year trial, the trial could be cancelled due to proper pressure from different groups. This is just a trial to see if the city can save money by not building new outside lanes for cyclists for about $13 million dollars. If the trial works, they can save the cash. I wonder how many would complain if council just paid the money for the outside lanes without trying other optios first? I can hear it now. $13 mill for cyclists? That's crazy. Councils' dammed if they do, and dammed if they don't.

The David Berner show on 'NW 98 had this topic on for an hour the other day (I was waiting in the car and heard half the show) and he went on about how stupid the plan was. Not only that, but the host went on to say a number of other uncomplementary things about bikes in the city (like how when he drives on Point Grey Road he is frustrated at the cyclists "holding up traffic" and they should be on the designated cycle routes close by - funy how the speed limit on this road is 30 kmh and in all my rides on it, I've seen few cyclists travell under this speed). He also questioned the citys estimate of the 5% use of the bridge by cyclists and he felt it was closer to 1% even though he gave no reasoning for this figure outside of what he sees when he drives over the bridge himself (he said when he drives over the bridge he sees less than 5 cyclists, but I say he must not be paying attention. Just recently, I had occasion to wait over an hour at the base of the bridge in my car an I was curious on how many cyclists passed this area, so in just under an hour I counted 102 cyclists pass). He even called advocates for the plan, "Idealogs and Nutbars".

You can listen to the program at cknw.com, under Audiovault.

I tried to get through to talk on air but couldn't, so I emailed him when I got home and haven't seen a response from him. Don't expect to either. Wish he would though. I gave him my number and would love to straiten him out.

I remember the last trial similar to this proposal a couple of years ago that only removed 1 lane (instead of 2) and lasted only 6 days. The traffic was very bad, but maybe after 4 months into the new trial, drivers will divert to other routes and the traffic would improve. I think Mr. Brenner is just upset that his driving route to work will be affected (he certainly drives over this bridge) and he doesn't want to try a different way in.

My big problem with going over this bridge is not so much the sidewalk (although there are tooo many pedestrians/cyclists sharing space for my liking) as it is at the end of the bridge where cars want to turn off to the right and the cyclist may want to continue on straight. The traffic goes pretty fast and you really have to watch not to get hit if you don't want to go right, but go straight. I usually go right and make a loop.

Here's a story on the issue from CBC
http://vancouver.cbc.ca/regional/ser...-bikes20050719
It has some pictures.

There was also a story by CBC on how bad it is crossing the bridge as a pedestrian or as a cyclist because they collide and sometimes fall into the traffic lanes in front of cars, but I can't remember where I put the link.

The Burrard Bridge is on the left next to where all the green is. (Vancouver has so many parks)

We are in the process of getting some new bike lanes here on Oakland Ave. In most people's opinion, it's about time. No hue and cry from anyone that I've heard of so far. I guess I'm lucky to live in a town that increasingly views biking as an important activity :D

Vancouver does place bikes in priority over cars in certain areas to help in transport in the city. This is an example of this. Drivers think it hits a little too hard when 33% of a major artery is taken away for 5% (some think 1%) of traffic. I think it's worth a try to see if the back-ups subside after drivers find alternative ways to get into the city core. If the backs-ups don't subside, they'll just give the lanes back to the drivers.

Best be careful what we wish for...we just might get it. Don't get me wrong, I'm all for bikes, and I hate riding on Pt. Grey road (I've gotten my handle bars clipped twice there...I wonder if it's statistically more dangerous than the bridge...) but there are other concerns at play. No. 1 is emergency vehicle access into downtown across the bridge in the event of a major problem. With 4 lanes, traffic will back up Burrard, both directions of 4th and of course on our favorite Pt. Grey. It will be more dangerous to ride on any of the approach roads. Bikes and bladers really do need to slow down on the downhill stretches of the bridge. 50kph within 3 feet of pedestrians and/or bladers is lunacy and I'm sure the cause of much grief especially when the posted speed for everyone on the sidewalk is 15kph. Bikers like cars can benefit from slowing down and separating their hazards. Personally I find the ride across to the airport for doing an Iona or Richmond loop much scarier.

A friend who lived in the area once complained to me about "those bikers" riding on Point Grey Road about them, "holding up traffic" so the next time I was on it I looked, and sure enough, there are many signs stating the 30 kmh speed limit beside the playground warnings. You have to take the lane on the road. I always maintain 30 kmh. The road is only a few kms long. If some bozo is behind me reving his engine or honking, that's his problem. I've got a cell and have no problem calling 911 if he wants to argue. Tell a cop you want to speed in a playground zone. See what he says.

As far as emergency vehicles goes, I would think the bike lane idea is in their favor. Imagine, a lane in each direction always free. Bikes can get out the way much easier than cars can on a jammed bridge.

I think bikes and pedestrians need to be separated. 50 kph on the downside is easy and a ped just has to make a small move laterally to create a dangerous situation.

I think the ride accross the Arther Laing to go out to Iona Isl. perfect as long as you take the right lane to go over the overpass to go up Miller and don't try to go straight down the main drag accross right turning traffic at the end of the bridge.

yeah, I don't mind it too much, but there isn't alot of room with the drainage grate dips. I always wonder why the bike paths around the bridge are designed with such acute angles. All said and done, Van is pretty good considering the amount of traffic and population.

I am adding my two cents a bit late on this thread...is anyone still reading it?

I ride the bridge at all normal times of the day and evening any day of the week. Its not my commute as I live and work on the North Shore but a couple or 3 days a week it can be part of my extended commute for fun. I have followed the cycling lane debate for years and remember fondly the last "trial". It was over in less than two weeks if memory serves me. Then there was the bridge under the bridge for cyclists, and the extend-a bridge option with lanes cantilevered outboard of the normal sidewalk. Now this.

Personally I have always thought the current lanes worked pretty well. Maybe a couple improvements like a railing ala 2nd Narrows (maybe not so big) and a raised surface for bikes or peds ala the Seawall. Look at Lions Gate. That is now just up to the same width as Burrard and we see that as a win, granted there is probably less bike/ped traffic.

Taking away 2 lanes of traffic is a stupid and dangerous move. It will only serve to p/o drivers and set us back a bit. At the most, if they must, maybe take one lane, split it and leave five for the pod people in there cars. I dont know how practical setting up an alternating lane for rush hour would be. Maybe just determine which direction has the most flow and leave it with 3 lanes.

Having said all that, I have ridden across when the bridge was completely closed to traffic for filming and it was pretty nice.

I am done now.

S

There was a letter in "The Province" on Sunday from the downtown residents association speaking in favor of the trial. They claim all 3 bridges to downtown are under capacity and the Burrard bridge has seen a 6% drop in traffic since 1996. Cycling on the bridge has increased 30% in the same time frame.

There was a corresponding letter that was just a "nut-case" job. In it, the writer claimed the old, "we pay for the bridge (roads) from insurance and gas taxes" argument. That's such a pathetic line of logic that it defeated itself.

Those other options of the bridge under the bridge for cyclists, and the extend-a bridge option with lanes cantilevered outboard of the normal sidewalk, are still possible. Just as I wrote on my first post, this is just a trial to see if the city can save money by not building new outside lanes for cyclists that would cost about $13 million dollars. If the trial works, they can save the cash.

My appologies to the group for an off-topic post... I take it you're a professional photographer? Your work is beautiful, you're very talented! :) Just wanted to comment on that :o

I laughed my face off when I read that letter! His INSURANCE premiums pay for the bridge? What a zoomer. Here I laboured under the assumption that his insurance paid for the hundreds of millions of dollars of damage done by him and his fellow motorists. Live and learn.

I notice that the argument is always framed in the context of using 33% of the bridge space for cyclists. I think a more appropriate measure would be the total number of lanes available to get in and out of the downtown core, which would include the eight lanes of Granville Bridge and the six or eight lanes of Cambie, as well as any access via Main and Quebec Streets. Two lanes for cyclists out of sixteen seems a bit more acceptable, no?

I'm not saying there won't be growing pains. Progress always does.

I'm kicking myself for not sending off a letter right away to show how wrong his logic was. Believe it or not, that view is not uncommon. Once, in Westworld magazine (the official magazine for subscibers of BCAA) a letter was published saying basically the same thing. I wrote into the magazine editor and chastised him for printing a letter that was incorrect in consideration of the Automobile Association stand should not be speading of misinformation about the proper use of the roads. The reply I got back was they'll try to print my letter but there is limited space available. They never did print it.

That's advocacy. Speaking up for what's right and rightly due for cyclists. I missed my chance here, but there was a good chance they wouldn't have printed it anyway. They have a method of what they're going to print of the submissions and it's rarely what the public want, but what serves the papers interest is their priority.

This situation seems very similar to the proposal to complete the Burke-Gilman trail here in Seattle. For those who don't know, the BG is an east-west (mostly) trail that runs through Seattle, and as you head east, it connects to other outer areas. Anyway, there's a break is (or was) a break in the trail about a mile long in an industrial area in NW Seattle called Ballard. About a year ago, a proposal was made to complete the trail and eliminate the 'break'. Ballard business interests fought it, arguing it would increase their insurance liability by encouraging more bike traffic. This area is already heavily used by cyclists, so completeing the link, if anything, would make things safer.

Fortunately, the business interests efforts failed, and the trail is being completed (or was recently completed, I haven't been there recently). Canadians have always seemed like good, reasonable people to me ;) , so I'm sure logic will prevail and you'll get your bike lanes.

It's not a matter of us getting our bike lanes. We already have many and even have some on this bridge.

The point is the bridge will have to give up a part of the car lanes to the cyclists. A heavy use downtown bridge reducing lanes for cars and giving those lanes to cyclists.

A clear stick to the motorists, and carrot to the cyclists.

By giving such a large space to cycists and reducing the space for cars, city council places transportation priority of cyclists over motorists.

A good thing in a city center that is getting more and more crowded by automobiles.

--- In the course of your letter writing, remind those merchants who are the purveyors of food and drink that the physical activity of bicycling makes cyclists thirsty and HUNGRY. They will get increa$ed patronage from ravenous cyclists.

Alan,

Good to hear that your BG trail is being completed. Short breaks in otherwise good bike routes are annoying. Doubly so when plans to complete them are fought for groundless and paranoid reasons.

A slight change in topic for you...Our esteemed leaders are proposing the twinning of a major freeway and large bridge to allow more pod people to drive into downtown Vanc and other surrounding communities. One of the frequent arguments in favour of this from armchair experts I talk to is that our road network is soooo poor and underbuilt when compared to models of efficiency such as Seattle. I have understood that despite the myriad of freeways and overpasses, Seattle has terrible traffic snarl. In fact I was reading something today that quoted a national traffic study by some Texas transportation types that found Seattle to be the second worst in the US for cities of its size. So, as a resident, tell me is the rush hour in Seattle a dream or a nightmare??

Thanks,

STH(Steve)

There's much opposition to the project, not just groups but municipalities too (including Vanncouver city) and, didn't the Libs just say the proposed twinning wouldn't happen untill after the Olympics? Wouldn't that effectively put the brakes on the project for at least 6 years? I don't think the BC Govt' has secured federal financing and even then, there will be a different group (if not a different party, maybe a different leader and cabinet) running the province in 2011 and who knows what their priorities will be?

I havent really heard any timeline for the project. Given we are still in the bickering stage, 2010++ doesnt sound too far off. Whould have thought that Gordo would want this for another Olympic gold medal project. Yes a lot of municipalities are against it but I am not sure that will be enough. Vaughn Palmers column in the Sun the other day was quoting Gordo when he was mayor and was taking the line about no freeway expansion into Vanc. My but times change.

It still doesn't have federal funding yet. I can't imagine it going through without the feds money. After the Olympics, maybe the feds will cut back on handouts to BC. BC is getting a lot of fed money for 2010.

We can only hope, because I remember a couple of years ago, Gordo made a speech saying, automobiles can help solve some of Canada's environmental problems, to an audience of car dealers in Vancouver.


"The Canadian Automobile Dealers' Association is working right now with Natural Resources Canada to try and build a partnership where we understand that automobiles can help us deal with a number of the environmental issues that we face," Campbell told about 150 attendees at the association's annual convention. "Let's turn a lot of the contradictions and the polarity on its head."

Jstream, apparently those new lanes are part of a large push by the city (with Federal Funds) to add bike lanes to the city. They've also just put ones in on Ogden, one by the Summerfest grounds, supposedly Milwaukee Ave is supposed to get them(!).

I can't imagine anyone being upset about the ones on Oakland considering that the street really wasn't wide enough for four cars, and therefor the bike lane just takes up undriveable space.