Hi Ian,

“Is there data to reflect that? Can you point me to it?”

Since you accept city data, here you go:

http://vancouver.ca/projects/burrard/statistics.htm

“Findings from a University of British Columbia cycling safety study indicate that accident rates for cyclists on the Burrard Bridge have decreased. In a twenty week period during the summer of 2008, four cyclists were injured on the bridge severely enough to attend Emergency at Saint Paul’s or Vancouver General Hospital. Two of these incidents involved collisions between cyclists and pedestrians with cyclists falling into the roadway. In the same twenty week period in 2009, since the re-configuration of the bridge, the number of cycling trips was up over 20% , but only one cyclist attended Emergency.”

@ Richard:
The assorted dangers faced by cyclists who use the Granville bridge roadway is undoubtedly the reason why so many of them– I would venture to say the majority– use the bridge’s sidewalks. This may be against the law, but given that that law is never enforced on the bridge (at least not to my knowledge), it’s small wonder that only the most experienced or perhaps the most foolhardy opt for the roadway. Given the narrowness of the bridge’s sidewalks, this inevitably creates an additional hazard for pedestrians, especially on the long southern slope of the bridge. I have lost count of the number of times I have been walking, even right against the bridge railing, when suddenly, with no audible warning, a cyclist will pass within a foot of me at a fearsome speed, taking advantage of the long down-slope to coast. Such an encounter is never less than startling and is occasionally terrifying for the unprepared or uncentered pedestrian. There used to be a regular poster in this forum, a hyper-aggressive (by his own admission) cyclist who would brag about deliberately brushing pedestrians back to their proper side of the wide sidewalks on the Burrard bridge (this was before the cycle lane was installed) by passing perilously close to them. The fact that this practice potentially placed the lives of both cyclist and pedestrian in jeopardy appeared to be lost on him. I suspect that some of the more aggressive cyclists on the Granville bridge occasionally engage in the same practice. I do know that when a speeding cyclist passes me from behind without warning, close enough to brush against the sleeve of my jacket, he/she is too damn close.

There is simply no room for such hijinks on the much narrower sidewalks of the Granville bridge, nor is there room for separate bicycle and pedestrian lanes. If the creation of bike lanes on the bridge roadway would mean that cyclist and walker no longer would travel in such close and dangerous proximity, I’m all in favour of it. I would point out, though, that when buses– (and there are innumerably more buses and large trucks crossing the Granville bridge than on the Burrard)– are re-routed down Seymour rather than Granville, as has been happening since the Olympics on Friday and Saturday nights because of the street closures in the so-called entertainment district, those buses– the trolleys, at least– are required to move to the curb lane before they have even reached the mid-span. How this practice would permit the creation of a dedicated bike lane on the bridge is difficult to envision. And this is just one of the more obvious challenges that would have to be met.

One thing is certain– something must be done, and done soon. Walking across the Granville bridge ought not to be a life-endangering experience.
gmgw

“If you are aware of the source of the data which the City relied upon in stating the conclusions you cite, please point me to it.”

http://www.cher.ubc.ca/cyclingincities/

[Caution: Humour] Forget bike helmets. Try the new Swedish-designed airbag for your head.

@Spartikus #58:

LOL. Nice find.

@gmgw:

My experience is the same in regard to cyclists on the sidewalk of the granville bridge: it’s very common and pretty scary at times. Especially on the offramps where the sidewalk is just ridiculously narrow.

To be fair to cyclists I agree that biking along the roadside of the bridge looks pretty horrifying and I’m sure dodging around pedestrians on the sidewalk isn’t much fun either. The idea of a bike-pedestrian collision with there being literally nothing between you and the traffic whipping by at 70-80kph is not a pleasant one for any involved.

@ gmgw

From an Administrative Report from Oct 1st 2002 to Council:

>> G1 Mid-Level Crossing – Options 1 &2

>> Council asked staff to further explore Option G1 and bring back a feasibility assessment. This option has been further developed with staff and the consultant and is shown as Options 1 & 2 in the attached study.

>> It was found that the cyclists and pedestrian ramp connections proposed by the G1 Option at each end are difficult to achieve due to cost, alignment and urban design issues. The Granville Bridge lower truss over Granville Island and north of False Creek is not as robust as the main span truss over the creek and therefore is not suitable to support a suspended walkway, as per the G1 proposal. Consequently, a cyclist/pedestrian ramp over Granville Island would require column supports throughout the Island. This would result in the loss of parking, greatly reduce future development potential and have shadowing impacts on the island. Canadian Housing and Mortgage Corporation have indicated that they would not support this component of Option G1, though they are in general support of the other concepts discussed here. Similar issues make the extend ramps north of the creek also less desirable.

>> As shown as Options 1 and 2 in the attached study, the modified proposal for G1 is to use stairs and an elevator to get users from grade to either a mid level crossing supported by the main span truss or up to the existing sidewalk. A 3 metre wide shared walkway could be supported by the truss to allow users to walk or ride approximately 90 feet above False Creek. G1 included a 6 metre walkway and it has been determined that this could not be supported on one side of the bridge without local and global upgrades to the structure and is not practical, while 3 metre is achievable with no upgrades required globally or locally.

>> Options 1 and 2 are attractive because they give users an unparalleled experience by allowing them to cross at a very high level (approximately 90 feet), see the inner workings of the bridge and remain separate from the vehicles on the upper deck. Users would have the option of using the staircase to climb the 75 feet and cross, or use the elevators, which would stop at the mid-crossing level. This scenario also has the ability to take users between gradeand the bridge deck so all users have the option to be where they feel most comfortable.

>> The drawback to this option would be gauging the potential usage. While some users may enjoy the experience and this may become a very popular “Urban Grouse Grind”, others may feel too exposed due to the height. Potential users may also perceive that because it is out of sight of the traffic it may be less safe if one were accosted or injured. Staff feel that these issues need to be discussed further with potential user groups and stakeholders prior to proceeding.

>> While this option provides access to walkers, disabled users and recreational cyclists, it would be less attractive to commuter cyclists due to the need to use elevators or stairs.

>> Deck Level Improvements for Commuter Cyclists

>> Through all of the major interventions we reviewed on Granville Bridge related to the mid-level suspended G1 option staff and the consultant were not able to find a strong upgrade for commuter cyclists. Therefore, staff are proceeding with developing deck level options, as endorsed by Council March 26, 2002.

>> ariations being considered include bike lanes or wider shared sidewalks similar to the east sidewalk on Cambie Bridge.

>> CONCLUSION

>> The False Creek Crossing Study has concluded that pedestrian and cyclist improvements are necessary on Granville Bridge and this most recent study has narrowed down those options and shown that they are feasible and could serve the City well.

>> Therefore, staff recommend pursuing funding opportunities and further input from stakeholders before a final design is recommended to Council.

http://vancouver.ca/ctyclerk/cclerk/021001/a8.htm
============

I’m running short of time and cannot pursue what became of the request for funding.

Over to you.

@ Julia 43.

You are taking an expenditure that will consume less than 1/300th of Vancouver’s annual budget and conflating it into a major debate on the business vs. residential tax split.

Your comments tell me that you do not own a residence in Vancouver, and therefore do not pay residential taxes which have seen annual increases for several years now based on a foundation of hyper property values.

But you obviously do own a business, or are involved in the business community organizations, and are therefore biased in that direction. This view has had an influence on at least two Councils so far and as the direct result the tax split is shifting in your direction.

Obviously that is not enough for you, and I suggest the topic of bike lanes is not an appropriately expanded forum for a discussion on municipal taxes.

Ian:

“So, as matters stand then (to switch gears and complete my response to Pacpost), there is no data available which indicates that the separated bike lanes have resulted in increased safety for anyone. ”

Have you contacted the Cycling in Cities people or ICBC, or health/medical authorities to determine if that is actually the case, or whether getting that data is possible? I recall a poster (DonB?) who shared some additional information regarding cycling injuries in the area a while back.

Whoops, took too long to post. 😉

@pacpost #69,

I’m not expressing satisfaction or dissatisfaction with the availability of the data. I’m merely stating a fact, ie. there’s no data publically available (AFAIK) which indicates that the separated bike lanes on Burrard Bridge have resulted in improved safety. That’s all I’m saying.

If you chose to believe that the bike lanes have increased safety, you are, of course, free to do so. All I’m saying is that there’s no data to support that conclusion.

@ IanS.

(snort)

As Mozart famously composed: “Leck mich am arsch!”

@Mark Allerton #75,

I’m talking about data I can look at and assess for myself. The usage data posted by the City for Burrard Bridge is a good example. Or the ICBC data for accident rates.

In my experience, numbers provided by politicians and, often, newspapers are frequently misleading and inaccurate. The various statements made by politicians relating to the separated bike lanes are no different. Remember the reported increase from 500 cycle trips / day to 1500 cycle trips / day on Dunsmuir that turned out to be not quite right?

And if don’t believe me because you don’t like what I’m saying, ask Spartikus about how his investigation of the actual ICBC data shed a very different light on the Province story about accident rates on the bridge.

As for trying to ferret out data from sources, I have no interest in doing so. I’m prepared to assess the separated bike lane trial on the basis of the facts, but I see no need to try to knock loose the data myself.

If someone is making a positive assertion, such as “the bike lane has increased safety on the bridge”, they have the burden of pointing to some data which support their assertion. In this case, there is none. That’s all I’m saying.

As I indicated to Pacpost, he (and anyone else, for that matter) is free to believe what he wants to believe. For all I know, the separated bike lane has increased safety overall on the bridge. I don’t know that it has or hasn’t. To date, AFAIK, there is no data available on which to draw a conclusion, so I’m reserving my opinion.

@IanS: I note that despite writing 273 words repeating things you’ve said previously, you’ve managed to completely avoid saying anything about what would constitute good data *in this case*.

So what would constitute good data in this case, over and above the information you have already been presented with?

Give up IanS…..I know you’re a sane man, without a set opinion on the lanes, and are just asking some questions, however…..

Unless you’re:

a) 110% supportive of the bike lanes and do nothing but praise them, you’re going to get attacked

b) the onus is on you to come up with any and all data, regardless if you’re just making a suggestion or asking a question. The thought that you would dare question the accuracy of reports, that may lead someone to in anyway think the bike lanes aren’t wonderful, is sacrilegious.

c) You must dedicate all your free time to finding data, analyzing data, and investigating any and all comments or suggestions that are not 110% in support of the bike lanes. It doesn’t matter if you have a life, or are merely asking a question…you have dared to question the bike lanes, and therefore you better have any and all data available to justify your question.

d) In the event that you do all of the above, and the data provided proves in anyway to shed negative light on the lanes, you will either be ignored, or the relevance of the data will be questioned.

Give up now IanS…you can’t win…you’ll continue to fall down this rabbit hole until you begin to question your own sanity.

Sincerely,

“A member of Bike lane questioning anonymous”
P.S. No need to go on the attack Chris, Mark, Pacpost….just dropping in quickly to save a poor, rational man from any further pain.

@pacpost #81,

You write:

“You are not actually interested in data. Neither are you actually interested in learning. You simply wish to make the cheapest of debating points. ”

Well, we shall have to agree to disagree on this point, I’m afraid. I’m sorry you feel this way, but, in my experience, by the time one party resorts to posts such as yours, the discussion is pretty much over.

And as for:

“Hence my crude rebuke.”

I kind of enjoyed your rebuke… cultured and crude at the same time.

With respect to the Hornby Bike lane, and all of the others that the current Mayor has installed in rapid order, I would like to know two things, 1) Who is counting the number of cyclists that are using each of these lanes over the course of the entire 12 months and 2) when are we going to see the related licencing and accountability of the cyclist, as shown in other countries that have these initiatives. In Britain for example, NOBODY rides a bicycle without a licence, (not even a child)!

Hi again, I just read a few more posts regarding the safety of riding bikes on Burrard Bridge and what the lanes do..

It may go unnoticed but to me the real problem with riding across Burrard Bridge before the new bike lanes were installed came down to the height of the sidewalks which sit a solid foot – if not more, above the car lanes. Before the bike lanes were installed, it was quite scary when you passing a pedestrian (and if they swerved) and worse if they walking and talking with someone. If the cyclist had to swerve off the sidewalk there was no way most cyclists could squarely land on their wheels – and even if they did, could some of the traffice see this happening in time and swerve or stop in time? For me, and I’m somewhat athletic and an experienced cyclist (correct, I’m not a mtn biker), I would not land properly and I would definately fall. With the speed of traffic on the bridge I doubt the driver could easily avoid hitting me or, another car if he/she actually did have time to swerve.
If you wonder about bells, sometimes when you give a warning ring, a pedestrian will actually take up more room as they turn out to turnaround and see you, OR, immediately heads onto the otherside witihout looking and end up directly in your path. So, depending on the width of path/sidewalk, you have to quickly decide to navigate around a wandering pedestrian, or not ring at all.
Blocking up the sidewalk with a barrier also unfortunately does not leave enought room for both pedestrians and cyclists: see bell reactions above. thx!