63 responses so far ↓

• 1 Scott E. // Jul 4, 2009 at 4:52 pm

  “Secondly, I too was told that most commuter cyclists would find the proposed crossing too circuitous to be attractive. This doesn’t mean that the idea shouldn’t be implemented. But not everyone would want to use it. Many cyclists and pedestrians would continue to use the existing bridge.”

  This is exactly right. Bike commuters are not going a block or two out of their way (in both directions!) every morning and every night when they can cross at Burrard. Depending on where exactly the bridge was, and where different people’s commutes took them, this could add four, six, or more blocks to someone’s daily ride. Who wants a longer commute?

  So let’s at least be honest about what this debate’s about. We’re not seriously talking about transportation infrastructure here. That infrastructure already exists. It’s called the Burrard St. bridge.

  What we’re talking about here is tourism and entertainment infrastructure. That’s why we’re talking about London as a successful model of what we might like in False Creek. I’d add the pedestrian bridge over the Main connecting Sachsenhausen to Frankfurt’s Alt Stadt to that list. These are great attractions! But they have nothing to do with transportation planning, so let’s not pretend they do.

• 2 Richard // Jul 4, 2009 at 6:51 pm

  A new bridge over False Creek for pedestrians and cyclists would be wonderful. While it would likely attract thousands of people per day, it will likely impossible to site the new bridge so that it would be a convenient alternative to Burrard Bridge for a significant number of the people who walk and cycle over the Burrard Bridge today.

  For example, the streets up from Beach and Pacific are much steeper west of Burrard, making them much less attractive cycling routes. A new bridge would take years to plan, fund and construct. With eight significant injuries to cyclists in eight months, we need solutions now, not ten years from now.

  Cities around the world such as London, Lyon and Copenhagen are providing safe facilities on existing bridges for cyclists and pedestrians and building new bicycle and pedestrian bridges. For example, after a cyclist was killed on Blackfriars Bridge in London, they reallocated lanes of traffic to improve cycling safety. Now the bridge has a wide bike lane, a bus lane and an automobile lane in each direction as well as really wide sidewalks. A short distance down the river they also built the new Millennium Bridge for pedestrians.

• 3 jesse // Jul 4, 2009 at 9:10 pm

  I propose a coalition be formed to accept donations to the tune of $60MM or whatever to erect such a bridge.

  Someone managed to get a few $100K for saving a dead stump from providing great fertilizer. The bridge has legs, though, so should be a tad more successful in raising funds.

  I would also request any bridge built be the most cost-effective design possible. After past financial mistakes, artistic impression counts for zip. I’d be willing to spring for a coat of pink paint but that’s it.

• 4 td // Jul 4, 2009 at 9:11 pm

  Yes, a new bridge would be lovely, especially if it conveniently connected the seawalls. Nav Canada would have to lower their minimum clearance requirements for that to make sense. A new bridge would give Granville Island new life as a neighbourhood shopping area for the folks living on the downtown side of the creek who don’t want to pay up for each ferry trip, and thus might keep the growing Disneyfication of Granville Island at bay.

  As Richard said, it wouldn’t replace the need for many cyclists to use Burrard Bridge.

  The whole bike lane trial is an idiotic waste of money. Give cyclists a bike lane on each side by converting two vehicle lanes, restore the sidewalks for pedestrian use only, reduce maximum speed on the bridge and work on getting vehicles, pedestrians and cyclists smoothly off the bridge.

  People will adjust, it’s not a big deal.

• 5 shepsil // Jul 4, 2009 at 11:02 pm

  This article at http://www.cbc.ca/canada/british-columbia/story/2009/07/03/bc-pedestrian-bike-bridge-false-creek.html with some “photo-shoped” photos says $45 million for a 15 metre wide (49.5 feet) bridge. Almost $1 million/foot! Some US Bike Standards assume 5 feet is needed/bike. So we need a 10 lane bike bridge in one location?

  I don’t know what London’s Millenium Bridge cost/ foot, but in Eugene, Oregon they built a 1500 foot long bridge for $6.5 million.

  If we could build one bridge at half the width (24.75 feet ) for $15 million, this bridge might get built in the near future. We might even build a second one if the first is a success.

  This very extravagant looking proposed bridge looks rather impractical and overly expensive. It never ceases to amaze how easily gov’ts spend our money and how expensive proposed public projects are. Maybe we should put a toll on this new bridge too?

• 6 gmgw // Jul 5, 2009 at 12:48 am

  You gotta love how the Henriquez illoes at the CBC site show a crazed one-handed bike rider wildly swerving around a hapless pedestrian. Probably not too far from the actuality, should this pipedream ever be built. There would *have* to be physical separation of riders and peds or no walker would ever dare use the thing– it would simply be too dangerous, with territorial types like Darcy bombing down that long slope, amped on adrenalin.

  Something no one else has mentioned is the physical footprint the structure would have on both Vanier and Sunset Beach parks, two exceptionally popular waterfront parks in a city that treasures its available waterfront and the vistas it offers. Even though it appears that the proposal calls for each end of the bridge to be sited in a preexisting parking lot, the sight lines from the parks would be severely damaged, and the physical encroachment of the structure on the parks would be intimidating for park users.

  I’m assuming Frances is merely making a bad joke when she suggests that it would be necessary to anchor each end of the bridge with an “attraction”, which would eat up even more park land. Should this proposal ever get beyond the fantasy stage, I think the save-the-parks, preserve-greenspace crowd would be up in arms, and rightly so.

  Unfortunately, for me, measured against these concerns is the urgent need to preserve the design integrity of the Burrard Bridge, by far the most aesthetically pleasing bridge in Vancouver (with the arguable exception of Lions Gate). Every time the likes of Suzanne Anton calls for widening the Burrard’s sidewalks — which would severely damage the bridge’s aesthetics– I start to bristle. So I guess I have to count myself “undecided” on this one, at least so far.

  There have been a number of proposals over the years to create a new bike crossing across False Creek by suspending some kind of bike path from the underside of either the Burrard or Granville bridges. Beside the obvious engineering challenges, the main reason this idea keeps getting shot down is its security drawbacks– it’s felt that such an out-of-sight route would potentially be too dangerous, for women in particular, to use after dark. Still, maybe it’s about time to drag this proposal out again, just to add to the stew.

  Comparing the Henriquez/Robertson proposal to London’s Millenium Bridge are specious at best. The Millenium (which, BTW, gets spectacularly destroyed in the new Harry Potter movie) is a wide, flat, relatively low-profile, straight-as-an-arrow bridge across the majestic river that flows through heart of one of the world’s great cities with, as Frances points out, one of London’s most famed attractions at each end (and a burgeoning cultural district at the south end). Sorry, but even a serpentine suspension bridge, no matter how flashy, that merely connects an aging civic museum/planetarium and an aging indoor swimming pool just doesn’t qualify to be in the same league. Makes for impressive media bumpf, though. Sorta. Kinda. Maybe. I guess.
  gmgw

• 7 michael geller // Jul 5, 2009 at 7:32 am

  Gregory’s design reminded me of the work of Santiago Calatrava. In case you are not familiar with this international bridge designer, I’ve posted some images at http://www.gellersworldtravel.blogspot.com. You can find more of his work at http://www.calatrava.com. It’s worth a visit.

• 8 Chris Keam // Jul 5, 2009 at 7:54 am

  “it would simply be too dangerous, with territorial types like Darcy bombing down that long slope, amped on adrenalin.”

  It would simply be too dangerous, with inattentive pedestrians wandering into the path of bikes and creating the potential for injury to both parties.

  Fixed it for you!

  Seriously however, I think the time to debate the merits of an expensive new bridge might be after the protected lane trial, when we’ve determined whether or not lane reallocation can serve all users at a much lower cost.

• 9 Chris Keam // Jul 5, 2009 at 8:05 am

  “I for one look forward to the results of the July 13 trial. I’ll bet Peter Ladner will also be watching. Frankly, I hope it will work, but I don’t know enough about traffic engineering to say whether it will or not. We’ll see.”

  IMO, there are two things that aren’t mentioned often enough with regard to the protected lanes on the Burrard Bridge and the likelihood of success with the experiment.

  1) How often do you hear the Burrard Bridge even mentioned on local traffic reports. Almost never. Tells me it’s (congestion) not an ongoing problem.

  2) How many people do you know that willingly and knowingly say, “Hey, let’s go sit in a traffic jam!”

  Drivers will adjust their routes accordingly, suffer little in the process, and this whole tempest in a teapot will end up as egg on the faces of those who opposed the trial (to mangle some metaphors).

• 10 Joe Just Joe // Jul 5, 2009 at 9:06 am

  Don’t take the renderings to seriously, they were just something drawn up quickly. Gregory has a much better proposal that he’ll keep under wrap until such time as it’s needed. The current piece is only meant for discussion and to stir interest. If a tender comes out of this then Henriquez real proposal will be shown, and it’s truly amazing.

  I think some people are onto the right idea of what would be best though, I too would rather see 2 low budget function over form bridges instead of one iconic one. Vancouver has iconic nature, why should we even attempt to compete, instead we should focus on making the city work as well as possible all the while being able to enjoy what no one could ever build.

• 11 Tessa // Jul 5, 2009 at 9:55 am

  I just don’t understand why sailboats are given such priority that any new pedestrian/bike bridge has to be so high off the water. There is already space under Burrard Bridge for a second deck that was added by the original forward-thinking designers of the bridge that could be used for a number of things, like a pedestrian bridge, or even in the future of a light rail line that could connect to the arbutus corridor. Why not just use that? Are sailboats really more important than good transportation infrastructure?

• 12 Price Tags // Jul 5, 2009 at 10:36 am

  I’ve been pushing the idea of a passerelle (the French word for a ped/bike bridge) for some time. Here’s a link to my blog that illustrates many such structures around the world – http://pricetags.wordpress.com/2009/01/05/passerelles-of-the-year/

  At the end, there’s a link to posts that discuss the Burrard Bridge.

  The option to build a link under the bridge deck, in the space orginally intended for streetcars, is in my mind a serious and affordable option if we take it seriously. And that means the federal government (with jurisdiction responsibility under the Navigable Waters Act) and the sail community would have to be willing partners.

  Gord Price

• 13 Wayne // Jul 5, 2009 at 10:51 am

  Anyone who really thinks this bridge will be built is dreaming in technicolour. Vancouver council claims it doesn’t have the funds to do a proper job of modernising the Burrard Bridge so they turn to Plan B, a $50 to $100 million dollar bridge that is almost useless as commuter infrastructure. This is a joke, right?

• 14 Chris Keam // Jul 5, 2009 at 11:00 am

  ” There is already space under Burrard Bridge for a second deck that was added by the original forward-thinking designers of the bridge that could be used for a number of things,”

  Like assault, rape, and robbery!

  Putting people under the bridge and out of sight represents a real risk for many anyone who might want to cross the bridge in the nighttime.

• 15 shepsil // Jul 5, 2009 at 1:23 pm

  Something that has always struck me about good design is making something functional so that it gets used. Kind of like the “Field of Dreams” philosophy, build it and they will come.

  Being on the wet coast stops many of us from riding our bikes all the time. If you go downtown or any commercial area, most stores these days have awnings to keep us dry. When I was young, I could never understand why, back east, there were all these covered bridges. But when you think about it, it means less exposure to the elements for both the users and the bridge and this would result in less maintenance costs for the bridge too. Bottom line though is about getting people to use the structure and ride or walk and not use their car on a bridge.

  So yes, lets have a covered pedestrian/bike bridge or bridges and for the sun worshippers leave a portion uncovered.

  Gordon from “Price Tags” above, posted a coffee table book load of great looking walking/cycling bridges here http://pricetags.wordpress.com/2009/01/05/passerelles-of-the-year/

• 16 Inside the building // Jul 5, 2009 at 4:20 pm

  Did I, or did I not just read a debate in the comments section about the Burrard street bridge that didn’t degrade into a screaming match about cars vs bikes?

  looks like the topic of a dedicated bridge brings out reasoning instead of rhetoric. nice for a change.

• 17 jimmy olson // Jul 5, 2009 at 4:28 pm

  I am very much in favour of the proposed bridge. But not sure the planned location is the best one. I thinks it makes more sense to have it on the Granville Island side of the Burrard Bridge. In fact they could probably cantilever the new bridge off of the Burrard Bridge. I think this can be done without compromising the “heritage” look of the bridge. The present sidewalks can remain for pedestrians and the new cantilevered lanes for cyclists. ( and make use of cameras to monitor the lanes)

  Perhaps another option is to add some additional lanes under the structure for cars and use the two lanes on top as is proposed for the trial phase.

  But something will have to done. the population od the city is growing and will continue to grow. The downtown core cannot accept more automobile traffic. Something will have to be done and at a cost. It’s a question of what and a what price.

  (PS I see that the Director of Vancouver Tourism really favours the new proposed bridge.)

• 18 Darcy McGee // Jul 5, 2009 at 5:31 pm

  Mr. gmgw, you have insulted me again, and with no basis. I take ownership of the bike lane in the Burrard Bridge Sidewalk because pedestrians ignore it and disrespect it. I believe this is in part cause by it’s narrowness, but that is not an excuse.

  Nor have I *ever* (as I have pointed out to you before) been involved in a pedestrian collision. This is despite pedestrians stepping out in front of me suddenly (on the road, from cars, on paths.) I have also never been involved in a vehicle collision, despite numerous doors being opened in front of me.

  I regularly use “shared use” paths and enjoy them.

  So you can apologize, and you can stop twisting my words to suit your agenda.

  As for the bridge: good on Gregor for proposing it, but realistically this is a cop-out. Propose the bridge, attach it and a specific referendum question to a huge dollar value. When voters vote it down you blame them, all the while taking credit for the idea.

  It should be part of the broader capital plan, and not the specific topic of a referendum question. If it’s important to the city, make it happen.

• 19 Inside the building // Jul 5, 2009 at 6:07 pm

  Don’t think Gregor ever suggested having a specific referendum on the bridge….I think he’s referring to it getting approval from the capital plan (which is a referendum itself)

• 20 Darcy McGee // Jul 5, 2009 at 8:22 pm

  The first I heard Gregor speak seemed to suggest that it would be a separate, distinct ballot question within the Capital Plan questions, hence voters would be voting specifically on this bridge.

  That may be my interpretation of his words, and it’s accuracy is dubious as a result We’ll see how this progresses.

  I’d actually like to see the province pony up for this substantially, using some of the carbon tax money that’s been collected. It should be perfect: the bridge drops practically right into the premier’s riding…imagine the opening party!

  For those who are interested, by the way, Momentum Magazine is throwing an opening “party/picnic” and attending Vancouver Museum’s outdoor screening of the EXCELLENT movie Les Triplettes de Bellville on July 13th to celebrate the opening of the Burrard Bridge bike lanes. Party starts with a group ride from David Lam Park in Yaletown at 18:00hrs.

• 21 Neale Adams // Jul 5, 2009 at 9:47 pm

  Francis,
  I agree that a pedestrian and cycling bridge can be beautiful and useful. For that reason it might be worth building.
  But it seems to me the main reason for allowing cyclists on the Burrard bridge is to promote cycling as a primary mode of transportation. We want (or, I think we should want) to replace the automobile with vehicles that will 1) cut the amount of carbon going into the atmosphere, 2) use less energy, and 3) improve urban livability.
  It seems to me that for the transport up to 10 km of relatively healthy persons, the bicycle is ideal, and small electric motors on bicycles or tricycles can take care of many others. We really don’t need new bridges; we need to reallocate the lanes we have now.

  To build a bridge such as the one proposed, which as others have pointed out will often be bypassed by serious commuters, is to send the message that, yes, the automobile belongs on the road and should use all the lanes built for it, and we should do our best to find ways that take care of those pesky cyclists so they don’t hold up traffic.

  But as the Critical Mass slogan goes: “We aren’t holding up traffic. We are traffic!”

  I’m not for banning automobiles; I’m for their appropriate use. It seems to me that for relatively short trips (which a large proportion of our traffic is), save the need to transport heavy goods, the automobile is not appropriate.

  Or am I being hopelessly ideal, and the idea that we must always transport ourselves in two or three ton machines (usually with 3 or 4 empty seats) something that the gods will? Must the hegemony of the internal combustion machine continue forever?

• 22 Darcy McGee // Jul 6, 2009 at 8:05 am

  > we need to reallocate the lanes we have
  > now.

  People advocate for this quite a bit, and frankly it has the *enormous* advantage of costing absolutely nothing. It would be a brave brave move on Council’s part to do so with any of the existing False Creek bridges which are all multi-lane major routes. It’s much easier to reallocate a short, two lane bridge that doesn’t move much traffic.

  Maybe Gregor should pitch the options in his proposed referendum question: citizens of Vancouver you can either a) lose two lanes on the Burrard Bridge permanently (but at no cost), or b) build a new bridge, at some cost.

  It would be interesting to see which people would choose when forced between those two as opposed to having “do nothing” as the other option. There should not BE a “do nothing” option.

• 23 Kera McArthur // Jul 6, 2009 at 12:02 pm

  Great to see movement on the car-free crossing. — at last. Our organization first started discussing the car-free crossing in May 2008 as part of Jane’s Walk (http://thinkcity.ca/current/janeswalk/featuredwalks/keramcarthur).

  Our survey of 2,500-plus citizens last summer regarding a False Creek crossing alternative showed almost 80% of those surveyed (see http://www.dreamvancouver.ca/survey/transportation) wanted an alternative to the Burrard St. Bridge including a new pedestrian/bike only bridge.

  Moreover, COPE and Vision strongly agreed with this option in our Dream Vancouver survey of the three parties last fall leading into the election — the NPA were opposed then as they are now.

  Council needs to consult the citizens now that the debate has finally broken at city hall — where does the bridge go, should it be a tolled, is it only to be a pedestrian crossing, etc. — all the option should be put on the table.

  To join the debate at Think City’s web site go to http://thinkcity.ca/node/159.

• 24 Frothingham // Jul 6, 2009 at 12:59 pm

  A real pleasure to read Mr Neale Adams’ and Mr Darcy McGee last two posts! Maybe they should be hired by Vision Vancouver as alternative transport consultants. Well said lads!

• 25 Go // Jul 6, 2009 at 1:04 pm

  I prefer a bike only addition to the underside of the Burrard bridge. It would be cheaper, I would think, and cause the least disruption to surrounding land.

  I’m bored so I slapped together a rough design.

  http://img4.imageshack.us/img4/6499/burrrard1.jpg

  Oh my! How many architecture awards can I win with that one?

• 26 Go // Jul 6, 2009 at 1:06 pm

  The middle section is meant to move up and down to let ships pass underneath…

• 27 Richard // Jul 6, 2009 at 1:06 pm

  World class cities like London don’t hold referendums on such issues. They do both. After a cyclist was killed on Blackfriars Bridge , they reallocated lanes of traffic to improve cycling safety. Now the bridge has a wide bike lane, a bus lane and an automobile lane in each direction as well as really wide sidewalks. A short distance down the river they also built the new Millennium Bridge for pedestrians.

  It is time Vancouver show some bold leadership rather than endlessly debate issues like this.

  The trial will settle the debate once and for all. I expect after a few days, the trial will prove to be a success.

• 28 michael geller // Jul 7, 2009 at 7:17 am

  “the NPA were opposed then as they are now”

  Kera McArthur, are you sure this is correct? You may recall that at the Think City debate I opposed the $63 M expenditure for the Burrard Street widening, and suggested that a separate pedestrian/bike bridge might be a better solution. However, I was subsequently advised that the cost would likely be in the order of $100M and the proposal would not likely appeal to commuters, as noted elsewhere in this blog.

  I am not aware that NPA opposes a separate crossing. What Clr Anton has said is that the cost is likely to be double the Mayor’s estimate, and the Engineering Department privately agrees with her.

• 29 Kera McArthur // Jul 7, 2009 at 8:04 am

  Hi Michael,

  It is very good news that the NPA supports the idea of a car-free crossing now, if not the one proposed by a single architect in a private meeting with the mayor.

  Think City believes the design and location of any new crossing needs the input of many citizens. Plus, we expect the new city council to live up to its election commitment of holding “public consultation for major public initiatives.”

  Thanks for setting the record straight.

  As for the NPA’s opposition to a new car-free crossing last fall, the party was opposed to such an idea in our Dream Vancouver survey.

  Kera

• 30 shepsil // Jul 7, 2009 at 9:16 am

  “Go” Love your idea for a moving middle section. Whether it is feasible may be another story though. Still though, it illustrates how ridiculous it is to hold a whole city hostage to a bridge height that would only be required by a select few who own sailboats that big.

  I wonder what is the current height of the two bridges and is there a new officially acceptable height?

• 31 Chris Keam // Jul 7, 2009 at 9:55 am

  I really think we are looking too hard for solutions that aren’t necessary. Doesn’t anyone remember the supposed looming auto-apocalypse that was supposed to accompany the recent fixes to the Patullo Bridge was quickly adjusted to by one and all and had about as much impact as a dud firecracker on transportation in the region?

• 32 Joe Just Joe // Jul 7, 2009 at 10:26 am

  Would that be the same incident that was only a couple of weeks not 6 months, and was aided by Translink putting extra trains and buses into emergency service during that period to help leviate the problem, and even then the traffic was measurably worse then normal?
  We know this closure won’t result in doomsday but to suggest it won’t have negative effects in naive.
  I’ve been studying the bridge and it looks like an easy and relatively cheap solution consists of simply double decking the sidewalks on both sides. No need for extending them outwards at a huge cost. There is more then enough height clearance even at the piers. You could have the bikes above unidirectional on each side while the peds can continue walking on either side on the original sidewalks.

• 33 Chris Keam // Jul 7, 2009 at 11:19 am

  An entire bridge shut down with no warning, and yet the Metro transportation world did not implode. As to the length, the longer the trial goes, the more likely everyone affected will find workable alternatives.

  The negative effects are being overstated for the sake of selling newspapers to the reactionary element that can’t imagine a future without auto-dependence.

• 34 Michael Geller // Jul 7, 2009 at 5:37 pm

  So for those of you who didn’t listen to Daniel Fontaine and Jim Green on the Bill Good Show this morning, Jim doesn’t think we need a pedestrian/cycling bridge….he thinks we need a suspended gondola!

  What can I say?

• 35 Kera McArthur // Jul 7, 2009 at 6:49 pm

  If Jim’s idea is supported through a comprehensive public engagement process, Think City will back it!

• 36 michael geller // Jul 8, 2009 at 7:05 am

  The Vancouver Sun’s Harvey Enchin has a thought-provoking and provocative piece in today’s paper http://www.vancouversun.com/bridge+many+expensive/1769881/story.html

• 37 Chris Keam // Jul 8, 2009 at 8:06 am

  If by provocative and thought-provoking you mean it provokes me to want to send a ltr pointing out the factual errors and failure to understand the issues behind encouraging more cycling, then yes I agree. Otherwise, it’s just an inaccurate representation of the present and future and reads to me like just another ham-fisted attempt to curry favour with reactionaries. Pretty much business as usual IMO.

• 38 MB // Jul 8, 2009 at 8:13 am

  $2.50+ per litre gasoline will weaken the foundations that Enchin builds his argument on (build for cars). It will challenge everything about urban movement (which in its current form takes huge amounts of energy), except perhaps making love on a beach. The goalposts used in our little version of the urban planning game will move.

  $2.50+ per litre gas will likely free some road and bridge lanes from cars and make them available for other modes.

  $2.50+ per litre gas is only a few years away. Some pundits, like Jeff Rubin, say it could happen by 2012. That’s debatable. But what is entirely feasible is that it be a lot higher than $2.50 when the next decade is over.

  One wonders what rabbits generalists like Enchin will pull out of the transportation planning hat then.

• 39 Darcy McGee // Jul 8, 2009 at 9:54 am

  I had to double check because it just seemed so obvious an oversight, but that Harvey Enchin piece doesn’t mention the words “public transit” once.

  Any consideration of Vancouver’s transportation future needs to consider pedestrians, cyclists and public transit. Roller bladers are another smaller constituency, and electric bikes are on the rise (and COULD justify treatment as a separate class of vehicle versus conventional human powered bicycles: some are powerful.) Motorcycles have been ignored as serious transportation here, but recent moves to provide Motorcycle only parking are probably sufficient to deal with that.

  IF the city were to choose to convert two of the existing lanes in the Burrard Bridge to cycling lanes it would be more reasonable to presume that they could be “cycling + bus” lanes.

  To do so most effectively, I’d prefer to see the right turn off of Burrard onto Pacific eliminated. Cars can cut into HOV lanes early under the premise of “I’m turning right” and when they do they often assume an empty lane resulting in many close calls between legitimate lane occupants and encroaching vehicles. Eliminate that right turn, force drivers to proceed to Davie (or father) to get to Yaletown and other points “downtown east.”

• 40 spartikus // Jul 8, 2009 at 10:35 am

  $2.50+ per litre gas will likely free some road and bridge lanes from cars and make them available for other modes.

  Perhaps the horse and buggy will make a comeback? Don’t worry, Hummer drivers will get first dibs on Clydesdales.

• 41 SV // Jul 8, 2009 at 10:40 am

  good point about electric bikes Darcy. I waffle back and forth on these. On one hand it’s good to see people getting around the city with(I hope) less impact. On the other I’m not so sure a lot of people riding them know what they are doing(which I guess could be said for lots of drivers/cyclists as well), where they should be in traffic, and my biggest pp, how quiet they can be as they whizz along.

• 42 Darcy McGee // Jul 8, 2009 at 11:57 am

  SV: yeah, my concern is the likelihood of others getting injured by those things. “Bikes not on sidewalks” rules are often defined by wheel size which theoretically allows kids to use sidewalks but also allows electric bikes (which often have smaller wheels in the 10 – 12 inch range) to “legally” ride the sidewalk.

  Also on my (conventional) bicycle, I am in total control of the machine. If I go too fast, swerve wildly etc., it’s because I /cause/ it directly. I am directly responsible for any of its failings 100% of the time.

  On an electric bike, a simple twist of the throttle could have a machine moving rapidly enough to cause serious damage.

  (Mechanical problems could, obviously, cause problems in either case.)

  Like you, I am generally happy to see them being used, but I also feel like they exist in an ill-defined netherland right now.

  I haven’t ridden one: my perspective comes from the outside of that world, not the inside.

• 43 Chris Keam // Jul 8, 2009 at 12:21 pm

  For the record on ebikes, most of the manufactured ones use a pedal-assist technology rather than a throttle, so they don’t really ‘get away’ from you very easily. Further, the assist kicks out over 25 kph. The electric scooters with vestigial pedals are another animal entirely, and Darcy is correct about the wheel size loophole.

  Here’s a review I wrote for Momentum Magazine regarding Giant’s 2009 ebike – the Twist Freedom for some more background info.

  http://tinyurl.com/nsvqh4

• 44 Michael Geller // Jul 8, 2009 at 1:16 pm

  Darcy, I’m glad you raised the topic of electric bikes, because I believe electric bikes and electric scooters and gas scooters have been overlooked too long as part of our city’s transportation options. In so many other world cities, scooters are THE form of transit…take Hanoi or Taipai or even European cities.

  I can’t help but think that as gasoline increases in price, and the car culture attitudes change, more people will start to use electric bikes, scooters, etc.

  BTW, will roller bladers now use the bike lanes, or pedestrian lanes over the Burrard Street bridge?

  And if you feel we have exhausted this topic, (pardon the pun) you might want to start a discussion on ELECTRIC CARS! Interesting proposal going to Council tomorrow requiring plug in facilities in new parkades. You can find more details and Neil Young’s electric 1959 Lincoln Continental convertible on my blog at http://www.gellersworldtravel.blogspot.com

• 45 Chris Keam // Jul 8, 2009 at 1:56 pm

  My understanding is that inline skaters are to use the protected lanes rather than the sidewalk.

• 46 gmgw // Jul 8, 2009 at 11:59 pm

  Darcy said:
  “…. I’d prefer to see the right turn off of Burrard onto Pacific eliminated. Cars can cut into HOV lanes early under the premise of “I’m turning right” and when they do they often assume an empty lane resulting in many close calls between legitimate lane occupants and encroaching vehicles. Eliminate that right turn, force drivers to proceed to Davie (or father) to get to Yaletown and other points “downtown east.””

  If your intention is to create semi-permanent gridlock from Davie & Burrard right down to Davie & Pacific, that would be a good way to do it, all right. And it fits right in with the longstanding Vancouver City tradition of dealing with a problem by moving it somewhere else and than claiming you’ve solved it.

  BTW, what about the many, many drivers who head *west* from the Burrard Bridge, to the Denman Street area and beyond to the North Shore? Will they be rounded up in Yaletown and taken out in convoys? Or will they simply be sent all the way down Burrard to Alberni or Georgia, where the left-turn lanes will be backed up for three blocks almost every afternoon?

  Looks like the latter is going to happen in any case, with the imminent banning of right turns down Hornby from Pacific. Allen Garr has an interesting take on this in Wednesday’s Courier:

  http://www2.canada.com/vancouvercourier/news/opinion/story.html?id=23a2716f-ca2d-4e87-9755-34a65bde2736

  Chaos looms.
  gmgw

• 47 Darcy McGee // Jul 9, 2009 at 7:31 am

  > If your intention is to create
  > semi-permanent gridlock from Davie &
  > Burrard right down to Davie & Pacific

  There already is semi-permanent gridlock from David & Burrard to Davie & Pacific.

• 48 Westender // Jul 9, 2009 at 8:00 am

  Thank you gmgw. As a resident of the West End, I need to be able to get from the north end of the Burrard Bridge to the centre of the West End. Restricting more turns and sending vehicles through adjacent neighbourhoods is not the solution.

• 49 Darcy McGee // Jul 9, 2009 at 8:56 am

  It wouldn’t send them through “adjacent neighbourhoods.” It would have them continue along Davie Street. Adjacent neighbourhoods already have any number of one ways, traffic circles and other measures to make traffic inconvenient (though crappy drivers often ignore them.)

  I’m just pointing out that IF the decision is to reallocate a northbound bridge lane permanently, the issue of safety at the north end of the bridge needs to be considered.

  Since I say “screw the cars” I’d eliminate the turn (though I have been known to use it on the exceedingly rare occasions I’ve driven to the Aquatic Centre.)

  It could just be redesigned of course. There’s more than one way to skin a cat. I always find it amusing that drivers resist ANY change so vigorously. The world evolves, mes amis. You should as well.

  You could also do something on Granville. The fastest way to get on Pacific westbound is to take the off ramp from the Granville St. bridge northbound anyway.

  A little chaos might be good for this city anyway.

• 50 gmgw // Jul 9, 2009 at 11:20 am

  Trafficwise, Davie isn’t worse than any other street in Downtown South– most of the time. However, during the recent closure of the south end of Granville for rec0nstruction there was horrendous gridlock everywhere nearby as drivers coming from all directions tried to find new routes to and from the Granville and Burrard Bridges. Granville is now open again, but during a major event downtown– a Canucks or Lions game or a major concert– inbound (northbound) traffic backs up right across the Granville Bridge. Severely restricting traffic flow at the north end of the Burrard bridge, even and perhaps especially during the bike lane trial, will bring about a similar situation.

  As for getting onto Pacific westbound from the Granville bridge, that may not be an option much longer; Engineering, idiotically, wants to remove both the on- and off-ramps leading onto and off the bridge from/to Pacific. There are proposals to replace them with twin 40-storey condo towers. While neither ramp is really suitable for today’s traffic volumes (the off-ramp is dangerously tight for heavy traffic), their elimination, coupled with the fact that lower Granville is now only one lane each way, *and* the fact that the volume of bridge traffic northbound on Seymour from the Seymour off-ramp seems to be steadily increasing– all these factors will precipitate an ongoing traffic nightmare in the entire Downtown South area. And while Darcy might say that that will be the karmic cost of people refusing to give up their cars, the situation will prove equally unpleasant for bike riders, pedestrians, and area residents and merchants as well.
  gmgw

• 51 Westender // Jul 9, 2009 at 12:33 pm

  I am happy to use Davie Street. How would you suggest I get to it? By driving through Yaletown (an “adjacent neighbourhood”)? At many hours of the day I cannot legally turn left from Burrard to Davie. At the times when it IS legal, such a left turn is dangerous and time-consuming. The chaos theory pretty much sums up the (ir)rational approach we are taking to the management of our multi-faceted transportation needs.

• 52 Joe Just Joe // Jul 9, 2009 at 12:47 pm

  Not that it overly affects the bridge debate but it is of interest to most of the readers here.
  Translink will be keeping the buses off of Granville St even after construction is complete. The buses will remain on Howe and Seymour until Fall of 2010.
  Personally I beleive if things go well they won’t return to Granville at all.

• 53 gmgw // Jul 10, 2009 at 8:30 am

  JJJoe said:
  “Translink will be keeping the buses off of Granville St even after construction is complete. The buses will remain on Howe and Seymour until Fall of 2010.
  Personally I beleive if things go well they won’t return to Granville at all.”

  The shift of buses to Howe and Seymour has worked surprisingly well, though those streets have been congested lately during and since the Granville construction (this is also due in part to the fact that there are several major construction projects underway on Seymour at the moment, which frequently block traffic lanes).

  But this begs the question: Will this mean we could get the Granville Mall back? Done right this time, with no bus/car lane? This could be the best opportunity we’re likely to have for a true downtown pedestrian mall, a la the European model(s), that Frances has suggested elsewhere. And it might bring some quality ambience back to an important downtown street that’s long been devoid of it.

  I know I’m dreaming in Technicolour here, but it’s worth a look.
  gmgw

• 54 MB // Jul 10, 2009 at 2:54 pm

  The advent of Pacific Centre effectively killed retail on Granville north of Robson by sucking all the humans underground. Small shops and cafes were just starting to reappear, noteably north of Dunsmuir, just before they ripped up Granville for the subway.

  Some critics said that banning cars killed Granville retail when they built the mall, but I’ve never bought that argument because the mall occupies only a tiny portion of surrounding street grid, and gave pedestrians a modicum of respite.

  I hope they do bring back the buses to Granville. It was exceedingly convenient to access so many routes in one location, and I’ve always found the mall a little quieter with no boom cars. Let’s hope the Canada Line foot traffic helps to resurrect retail on the mall.

• 55 Darcy McGee // Jul 11, 2009 at 12:26 pm

  > At many hours of the day I cannot legally turn left from Burrard to Davie. At
  > the times when it IS legal, such a left turn is dangerous and time-consuming

  So change that corner to an advance green. Problem solved.

  This of course will lead to some “other” problem that needs resolution and that’s the point: such a change (converting bridge lanes to cycling lanes permanently) is part of an overall strategy, and is not done in isolation. It’s doable, and it’s cheap.

  I still want a separate bridge, but this is a faster solution.

  As for Mr. gmgw’s assertion that I “…might say that that will be the karmic cost of people refusing to give up their cars” I would say YES and downtown should be designed so that Public Transit is the PREFERRED method of travel. I’ve taken vehicles through downtown in the recent past (recent being winter, on my way up to Cypress Bowl) but I can count the number of times I’ve taken a vehicle TOO downtown in the last 5 years on one hand…and I wouldn’t need all the fingers.

  As for the rest of Mr. gmgw’s statement:
  “the situation will prove equally unpleasant for bike riders, pedestrians, and area residents and merchants as well.”

  I’d say not it won’t, if the system is designed around pedestrians, bike riders and area residents (as much of the West End is already, albeit somewhat superficially.)

• 56 gmgw // Jul 12, 2009 at 2:08 am

  Mr. Darcy (not surprisingly) opined:

  “As for Mr. gmgw’s assertion that I “…might say that that will be the karmic cost of people refusing to give up their cars” I would say YES and downtown should be designed so that Public Transit is the PREFERRED method of travel.”

  Um, Darcy, hate to break it to you, but you don’t persuade people to make public transit their preferred method of travel by forcing them to take it by “designing downtown”. That just leaves you with crowded, unpleasant buses full of disgruntled, unhappy riders who curse the fact they’re forced to take public transit and long to make enough money to afford monthly parking downtown. (Which is what we have already.)

  What you do, instead, is design public transit itself– the conveyances, the routes, the scheduling– so that transit becomes the preferred method. Taking the bus/Skytrain/Seabus/Canada Line/whatever should not be the worst part of your day, as it is for way more people than you can evidently imagine, Darcy.

  Got any suggestions on how to fix that? To make people relieved to not have to sit in the tunnel lineup for half an hour every morning and instead prefer to take the bus? If you haven’t, you can scream from now till doomsday about evil car drivers and so on, but you’ll still have contributed nothing to better the lives of the far greater number of daily commuters in Metro who take transit rather than ride bikes. Not to mention everyone else. I really don’t think you have any idea how much your sanctimonious tough-guy approach to this whole issue rankles.
  gmgw

• 57 Chris Keam // Jul 12, 2009 at 10:00 am

  “Got any suggestions on how to fix that? ”

  We need to try the L.A. Bus Riders Union ‘no seat, no fare’ rule. It’s utter madness that the people who are part of the solution should be punished for their contribution to reducing congestion.

  There should be absolutely no vehicle allowance for Translink board members… in fact they should have to present some proof of using transit on a regular basis to be allowed to keep their position.

  We should continue to promote active transportation and increase our commitment to it, so that more people get off the bus and ride a bike, freeing up space for those who can’t choose self-propulsion to travel in some modicum of comfort.

  Provincial transportation ministers should be compelled to read “Energy and Equity” by Ivan Illich before taking their position, and should be be able to provide proof that they are regularly taking steps to educate themselves regarding the somewhat counter-intuitive nuances of transportation demand management.

  Those are just a few easy to implement ways to keep the ball rolling in the right direction.

• 58 Darcy McGee // Jul 12, 2009 at 4:44 pm

  Mr. gmgw:

  Trust me. You’ve never “broken” anything to me. Your comments are consistently exactly what I expect, nothing more.

  I suppose the fact that I didn’t explicitly state it left room for your interpretation: obviously planning the transit system is a KEY part of planning downtown. It requires cooperation across many city and provincial departments: most noble goals require cooperation and vision.

  Chris has made some good suggestions. The rising cost of operating an automobile also plays a role here, including higher cost parking (there there is any remaining free parking in the downtown area never fails to astonish me.)

  I’m not sure I agree 100% with the “No Seat, No Fare” idea, but as an act of protest I admire it. I shudder to imagine the cost of a transit system that must provide a seat for every person (in addition to their luggage, as people seem to feel that’s a right.)

  I, for one, would support a downtown entry tax of the sort that London implemented to fight congestion. I don’t think we’re QUITE at London levels of congestion yet, but why not be proactive? Residents with a VALID proof of residency and vehicle ownership could purchase an annual version of the pass at a discount.

  I’d also support a “fare free” zone on Downtown buses, though I don’t suspect that the cost of the bus fare is a significant factor in the choice to drive given how marginal it is relative to the cost of driving. Seattle does this, and when I’ve been there it’s been popular with visitors. (I usually walk, preferring the staunch uphill posture that city’s downtown promotes.)

  West Coast Express service needs to VASTLY improve as well. It’s a pale imitation of the highly successful GO system in Toronto, which is itself a pale imitation of more successful commuter rail systems. Seattle’s commuter rail system is popular with downtown works there.

• 59 gmgw // Jul 13, 2009 at 3:02 am

  I don’t think anyone rides the bus because they like the experience. I myself only take transit when I’m either in a hurry or am headed for a destination that I can’t reach on foot in 30-45 minutes. This is subject to conditions, of course– I have walked more than once from 30th and Dunbar, upper 10th Avenue, Broadway & Victoria, and even, once, Oak and Southwest Marine (wouldn’t care to repeat that one) to False Creek South– when I’ve had the time, the weather was decent, and I was feeling up to it.

  I think the suggestions of Darcy and Chris are useful, up to a point, though some of them drift into the sort of vagueness that often afflicts idealistic urban visionaries. I like Chris’s idea of requiring Translink Board members to use transit on a regular basis; I’ve been making the same argument for years, though I tend to feel that it’s the transit planners that should be forced to ride the bus. I lived in Kitsilano, near 4th and Balsam, for a few years in the 70s, and found it annoying that the 4th Avenue bus ran on a 20-minute schedule even during peak times, which meant often-crowded buses. The switching of the Dunbar bus to 4th Avenue did little to improve things. In the mid-90s I worked in Yaletown for a while and once a week or so would attempt to catch a 4th or Dunbar bus at Granville & Helmcken to do some shopping on 4th. I quickly discovered that at 5 PM it was almost impossible to even get on board a 4th or a Dunbar that far south on Granville– the buses were full to bursting and as often as not the drivers would just sail by without stopping. This said to me that transit planners still had no idea of how to properly service Kitsilano. 15 years later still, the situation is much the same. Anyone who’s ridden a bus up 4th Ave in rush hour will remember breathing a deep sigh of relief when the bus finally reached Vine, when the bulk of the crowd will have finally debarked.

  Of the people who have to jam onto those buses like the proverbial sardines every working day, you can bet that the vast majority would *love* to be able to commute by car instead (I think that most people willing and able to ride a bike instead of a bus in this town have already made that conversion, a long time ago). As would anyone (especially single women) who has had to ride the Fraser, Main, or Hastings buses– the “Vomit Comets”, as we used to call them– on a Friday or Saturday evening from around 9 PM on. Or who has had to ride the (soon-to-be-gone, alas) 351 Crescent Beach standing up all the way to White Rock, rolling along Highway 99 at 60+ MPH, keeping a death grip on the overhead bar (ever had the experience of feeling a fully-loaded commuter bus fishtail on a snowy freeway? Not fun). Or who has caught an eastbound Skytrain after a Canucks game or stadium concert. Or who has spent 45 minutes waiting in a deserted and threatening downtown at 2 AM, praying for a bus, any bus, to come along. Or who has ridden that same 351 on Christmas Day, burdened with presents for the family.

  Anyone who has had any of these experiences– and I’ve had most of them, and much more, at one time or another in 40 years of riding buses in this here town– knows that Vancouver, simply put, is inadequately serviced by transit. To get people out of their safe little hermetic experiences in their cars, ways must be found to ensure people won’t have the experiences I’ve described, at least not often. No one in their right mind would make that kind of trade without some powerful incentives; not until oil hits $300/bbl. Increased scheduling, safe and comfortable riding experiences, better late-night service, faster service, more comprehensive routing– these are some of the basic changes that have to be made. Free-fare zones and the promotion of “active transportation” are all very well, but if you want to put bums in seats, you’re going to have to resort to basic, practical, convincing means to convince the owners of those bums that they’re better off leaving that-gas-sucking dinosaur at home. And one final note: The more you try to effect these changes by threatening people with dire consequences, the more you’re just going to piss them off. You get more positive and long-lasting results with persuasion than you ever do with threats.
  gmgw

• 60 Chris Keam // Jul 13, 2009 at 1:35 pm

  (I think that most people willing and able to ride a bike instead of a bus in this town have already made that conversion, a long time ago)

  Actually, Translink’s research indicates there is a huge untapped pool of potential cyclists wanting to get out of their cars or off the bus… but safety concerns leave them cold to the idea of riding in traffic.

• 61 Chris Keam // Jul 13, 2009 at 1:39 pm

  “I’m not sure I agree 100% with the “No Seat, No Fare” idea, but as an act of protest I admire it.”

  I can’t think of too many other things you can buy where you have to pay the same price for substandard service. There’s no standing room on an airplane, or a passenger train, or a taxi. You can’t stand in the aisle at a movie theatre, rock concert or stage play… and nobody tries to sell you a half a box of cereal for the same price as a full one.

• 62 Darcy McGee // Jul 14, 2009 at 8:45 am

  Sure, but one could extend that argument to suggest that any reduction in service in any capacity would merit similar action. By extension, I expect the bus to run at rush hour scheduled intervals all day long.

  Vancouver actually prices transit properly, in that sense, by charging more during “rush hour.” Because rush hour creates dramatically higher demand, economics suggests that we should be charging a premium.

  If the entire system were planned around providing that level of service all day every day, we’d be needlessly allowing costs to rise: the buses would be empty much of the time.

  Since money isn’t endless, and all things have a cost it’s rational to plan the system for average demand and build it to accommodate bursts.

  Seating capacity works the same way. I’ve never had trouble getting a seat out of rush hour on any bus I’ve taken. Sometimes when I take a 99 B-line downtown in the a.m. (rare, but it happens) I can’t get a seat, but in those cases I’m at the end of the route relatively speaking. Arguably I could wait only a few minutes for a less densely packed bus (a Granville 10) or take an alternative route (Arbutus 16) which is a bit slower, but /always/ has a seat on it.

  So what are planners supposed to do? Allocate a seat for me on each of those three buses, just in case I decided to take them?

  As I said, I support the protest as an act of protest and I understand the point, but the reality means that budget needs to be a factor in these types of decisions.

  I’d certainly argue that transit budgets should be VASTLY improved, including funds from the Carbon Tax but if I were going to pick an area of focus I’d start by trying to provide services that would get valley residents out of their cars rather than trying to get a seat for everybody.

  Of course the Liberals aren’t really doing either…but neither would the NDP I bet.

• 63 Chris Keam // Jul 14, 2009 at 9:16 am

  “Sure, but one could extend that argument to suggest that any reduction in service in any capacity would merit similar action.”

  I don’t agree. The schedules are posted and ostensibly the bus comes when it is supposed to. If there are empty seats then you are getting your money’s worth and then some. That’s different from paying for an expected level of service (a seat) and not receiving it.

Leave a Comment