I have been looking for some blog that was concerned with building safety but could not find one so hopefully this one will get come exposure.

Vancouver is in a very high seismic zone.

All buildings have to be build to very high construction standards.

A few years ago there was a company roaring around town selling and installation a miracle called shotcrete, which is air applied concrete.

It was used in many foundations of tall buildings and condos, and for a time was being installed by unlicienced installers.

There is / was a famous Japanese architect, Hidetsugu Aneha who though no building fell down went to jail for allowing substandard construction practices to build buildings.

It will be to late after the quake hits, and we are overdue for one, to realise the construction was not correct.

Please do some checking into this or ask city hall it when they allow an occupancy permit was this contractor working on the foundation and in some buildings footings, walls and columns.

I’ve always wanted the train tracks running from the Fraser River to the Burrard Bridge to be converted to a commuter cycle path, then a bike-only overpass running beneath the bridge (if it’s at all possible).

I’m aware of the legal limbo of the CN rail land, but I’d bet some clever people could broker a deal that is beneficial to all parties.

Get on with it! Do a 6 month trial taking over one lane in each direction for cyclists.

I’m really not sure what all the fuss is about. There’s obviously a need for wider sidewalks.

If pedestrians are the highest priority then turn the two outer lanes into cycle lanes and widened sidewalks. If cars are the highest priority then turn one car lane into two cycle lanes and put a reversing auto lane in the middle.

What’s really needed here is a way to get across false creek from the seawalk level as well.

LB, thanks for posting the link.

The reason I asked about numbers is because of course there is a cost attached to this, apparently about $4m worth.

Ona newer post by Frances, we have a budget where home owners are facing an increase, and on this site we regularly discuss the city’s homelessness issue, and no argues that it’s out of out of control.

Personally I’d sooner see the money be shifted to help the homeless, versus spending $4M on people that have both homes and jobs.

At 800 to 900 pedestrians and cyclists per peak hour, even if you were to have an increase of 25%, that’s only 200 people. So we’re going to spend $4M to get 200 more people to use a bridge?

On top of that, these numbers are probably spring and summer. I went across this morning in rush hour and saw 3 bikes, and it was hardly sprinkling, let alone a full-on rain.

I realize that will get all the cyclists pissed at me however the bridge does work fine as it is. There haven’t been any fatalities or accidents for some time as far as I know, and although many may feel it isn’t safe, neither do 80,000 car loads of people going over the Pattulo bridge every day, where there are accidents and fatalities.

LP,

The money is already earmarked. I don’t think the city can simply reallocate the money without going to the voters.

“The 1994-1996 and 2003-2005 Capital Plan plebiscites approved borrowing authority for
pedestrian and cyclist improvements to the Burrard Bridge. An existing balance of $11.7
million is available for this work. The 2003-2005 Capital Plan plebiscite also approved $2.4 million for repair or replacement of the existing railings.”

http://vancouver.ca/ctyclerk/cclerk/documents/tt5bridge.pdf

They should just go ahead and convert two car lanes into bike lanes. Just do it. Traffic will adjust. We need no trial. We know what will happen: most of the time no impact, rush hour gets more congested, people will adjust. Just do it.

LP said:

“There haven’t been any fatalities or accidents for some time as far as I know”
and
“I would disagree with your first post to Peter G, that less lanes means less traffic. There is no proof anywhere to back that up”

With all due respect LP these statements are totally false and really without foundation. Why present your “thoughts” and ask others to prove them wrong?

Burrard and Pacific is the second most dangerous intersection in the City, according to ICBC. I’ll repeat that – second most dangerous intersection in the City according to ICBC.

There are more injuries at the Burrard and Pacific intersection than there are injuries in fires City-wide attended by Vancouver Fire and Rescue Services. This is based on data for the most recent year available.

We spend about $70 million a year on Vancouver Fire and Rescue Services and have fewer injuries (fire fighters and civilians inclusive) than this one single intersection.

Over the past 5 years on average there have been more than 2 accidents and one injury EVERY WEEK at this intersection. Add in the Bridge itself and the south intersection and you can virtually double that.

There have been 1080 collisions of all types at Burrard and Pacific in a 10 year period (ICBC).

There have been 105 cyclist and pedestrian casualties for the Bridge and its intersections in the past 10 years (ICBC) – that’s almost one per month.

As for less lanes meaning less traffic, this is simple physics. It is also well documented in the transportation planning literature.

As for the status quo, the NPA were wiped out in the last election for proposing such a reckless solution. Reckless from a safety standpoint, and reckless from a global environmental emergency perspective. Actually what they were proposing was worse than the status quo, and would have cost $30 million.

Kudos to the new Council for moving ahead so quickly with the trial!

I think that while VV wants to make this city even greener, they’re not thinking from a financial standpoint. Like it or not, but the downtown core is practically the lifeblood of this province. Maybe if public transit was better (ie: more buses that run on time and more frequently, and at a reasonable price), then less people would need to drive downtown. I’ve seen other cities with better transit decrease the amount of congestion in their city centres (ie: Boston, London, Taipei, all over Japan etc). I don’t understand how other cities could charge $1-2 and still be incredibly profitable and yet we get charged $2.75 and our services aren’t half as frequent or reliable or clean as other cities. Oh and it’s always nice to know that Coast Mountain posted a sizable profit – it just warms my heart.

We need to keep those car lanes. There aren’t enough cyclists or pedestrians to justify a huge change. And if they want to do something about it, maybe consider making one of the centre lanes an alternating one depending on traffic (like at the Massey Tunnel and Lions Gate Bridge). Why does it have to be an all or nothing plan?

As for cyclist accidents, (as a cyclist and a motorist) I think that if cyclists learned to obey the law and stop flip-flopping on what they consider themselves to be, there would be less accidents and less road rage. It’s unreasonable and absolutely appalling how cyclists sometimes choose to ride their bikes as if they’re cars, and other times expect to be given right of way as if they were pedestrians. Oh and it’s awfully nice to see cyclists on the sidewalks when streets are congested. Also, I’ve eavesdropped on so many conversations where cyclists have complained about how dangerous the streets have been for them during our freak snowstorm month. Last I checked, snow/ice is dangerous enough for motorists, much less cyclists. There would be less accidents of cyclists took as much time paying attention to cars and road signs and laws as I (and many other friends) do trying to avoid dangerous cyclists and crazy jaywalkers.

LP,

After having addressed the factual inaccuracies in your initial posts you’ve introduced another red herring – the death of a homeless person – as a reason for not moving forward on Burrard.

I decline your invitation to engage in further dialogue on this site. It would not be a constructive use of valuable time or respectful of this space Frances has created. I also have no idea who you are other than LP.

Don

Two thoughts-one impediment to better transit-more/more frequent buses, accurate scheduling, etc.-is traffic congestion. It seems like there might have to be a transitional time when current traffic patterns have to change resulting in frustration to some commuters.

Second as a cyclist and a driver I get very tired of bad cyclists being held up as examples of us all. Cyclists who run stop signs/lights, ride on sidewalks, don’t signal, etc., bother me too as they make riding my bike more dangerous than it should be, both directly-when they almost collide with me-and indirectly-when drivers don’t act predictably when I follow the rules of the road. However I have to say that the number of crap cyclists I encounter everyday is dwarfed by the number of crap drivers-running stop signs, turning without signaling, turning right in front of cyclists, ignoring traffic calming provisions, etc. It simply doesn’t compare. So let’s try to debate the issue of bike lanes without getting stuck in side arguments.