Burrard Bridge Bike Lanes? Only Maybe...

Posted by
Filed in City
October 21, 2005

The future of the Burrard Bridge is uncertain. A while ago, city council voted to designate two of the six car lanes to bicycles. Like many people, this originally struck me as a bit strange. Burrard is already one of the better bike bridges in town. But then I realized that this isn't about necessity, it's about living up to our ideals and making Vancouver a better city. Like way better.

Even though the bike-pedestrian sidewalk isn't exactly crammed for space, neither is the roadway. Even in rush hour Burrard's got space aplenty. Second Narrows deals (not so well, I admit) with much more car traffic on just THREE lanes. Ok fine, car traffic won't be improved, but historically, people actually have stopped driving, and started biking (or walking, pogo-sticking, etc) the opened terrain.

More pedestrian and bike lanes make a city more pleasant, more liveable, and definitely more environmental. We don't want to be LA. Also keep in mind that this sort of project has already been successfully pulled off in cities around the world.

Also, in 1991 the Toronto Bloor Viaduct went from 6 lanes to 5, plus bike lanes. This bridge was configured just like Burrard Bridge with similar traffic volumes. The cycling count went from 1000 to 3000 in just one year! (Sorry if you thought we were boldly going where no city has gone before).

Also, think about Granville. What nutcase originally thought it would be a good idea to close the most central part of downtown off to cars? But this doesn't make Vancouver worse for car drivers, it makes Vancouver better for everyone.

Bike culture is booming in this city, and nobody's whining about needing more cars around. Anyhow, even though the decision was officially made to create the Burrard Bridge bike lanes, the city council is getting cold feet at the idea and scared of a few car-rage drivers who could certainly materialize. If you support the bike lanes, please let your good friend Larry and company know about it.

Reader Reviews and Comments

Submit a Review or Comment

I love riding my bike around this great city of ours but I REALLY don't agree with this decision. The bridge is already sketchy to drive across in a car; the lanes are skinny and I always feel as if that bif truck on the right is going to take off my side view mirror. Plus, like you said, the bridge doesn't NEED a bike lane, the sidewalk does just fine as it is. Is there somewhere I can vote against this?

Posted by: B at October 21, 2005 7:25 PM | Quote Comment

I'm quite glad that we are getting bikelanes. I walk across that bridge everyday on my way to work, and tend to be paranoid about accidently bumping a bicyclist into the traffic. Not to mention it will be nice not be breathing so much fumes into my lungs.

Posted by: Conan at October 22, 2005 8:54 AM | Quote Comment

Here is the email I just sent, feel free to copy and paste it:

------------------

Hello Mr. Campbell,

As a citizen of Vancouver I want to let you know that I'm concerned about the recent uncertainty regarding the plans to make two new bike lanes on the Burrard bridge. Everyone I talk to is thrilled about these plans, and would be very let down if these plans fell through. It would be a shame to not build those bike lanes.

Although I have a car, I choose to commute by bike from South Cambie to Yaletown every weekday to my job at Business Objects. The fact that there are is a nice, wide biking route across the Cambie St bridge heavily influenced my choice to live in the location I chose. It allowed me to leverage a short commute.

I think there are many environmentally concious citizens like myself who think in the same way: the safer it is to bike downtown, the more people will bike. People are always looking to make the best commute for themselves, and bike-friendly streets allow people to choose biking more easily. I am certain that bike usage will spike upwards once the Burrard bike lanes are built, just like it did on the Bloor Viaduct cycling lanes constructed in Toronto in 1991, where the cycling count went from 1000 to 3000 in one year.

When I cross the Burrard bridge by bike or foot, it's intense. There's no room for cyclists to pass each other without dangerously darting into the pedestrian lane. And the way large trucks whip past you about 2 feet away is most nerve-wracking. The way the thin walkways are divided with a stripe and is one-way is far too restrictive and manacing. Only dedicated cyclists can brave it, which I think is wrong for such a crucial commuter route. It certainly doesn't help to promote healthier lifestyles in Vancouver as it stands. Every citizen on foot or bike should feel safe!

If two car lanes are too much to spare, at least add a half-lane for cyclists on either side, and decrease the car lanes from 6 to 5, alternating direction of the center lane to suit rush hour trends, like the Lion's Gate bridge does. This way there is no noticable loss to motorists, as they would still get 3 lanes during rush hour.

I trust you'll do the right thing and keep the plan on track. Vancouver has a reputation as a progressive and environmentally friendly city, and this reputation would be greatly damaged by reneging on such an obviously environmentally beneficial development. I'm asking for your help to keep my pride strong for the city I live in, and all those who think like me.

As soon as I heard about the plans to make two new bike lanes on the Burrard Street bridge, I was thrilled. It's a brilliant idea, and would be foolish to backpedal on, no pun intended.

Posted by: Dustin at October 22, 2005 11:15 AM | Quote Comment

Thanks for the article Wil. Although its good environmentally, socially, culturally et al., there really isn't a choice. The end of cheap oil is upon us, we are just in too much denial collectively to realise it. We all think gas prices will go down, but they won't. There will come a time when we will not have the luxury to make the choice between car and bicycle.

Posted by: sean orr at October 22, 2005 10:56 PM | Quote Comment

B... I don't agree with you at all.
This issue is about long-term change towards sustainability - it is not a patch solution like so many others suggested by politicians and big-business (ie the widening of the Port Mann Bridge.) Long-term thinking is not easy and not popular, but it's the only thing that will pull us out of the downwards spiral we are in.

Anyways, I've had my share of very close calls while cycling over this bridge and something needs to be done. I shouldn't have to be limited to a measly 15km an hour on my bike while cars can zoom across it at 70 or 80km/h. Cyclists should be rewarded wherever possible and not discriminated against...

A final note - they could increase the width of the car lanes by one foot (to solve the problem with lane width that you've mentioned) while still having enough room in the third lane for bicycles.

Posted by: 10-4 at October 23, 2005 10:36 PM | Quote Comment

Money. Chk this out:
If the trial is feasible the tax payer will save approximately $20 million dollars that would have otherwise have been spent constructing new sidewalks on the exterior of the bridge.

Why not give it a try?
wiL (statusq)

Posted by: wil at October 24, 2005 6:05 PM | Quote Comment

gentlemen rationalizes flowcharting knaves stirred revisits

Posted by: Anonymous at June 27, 2006 9:06 AM | Quote Comment

earthquake:depot!rivaled frayed Needham ... Thanks!!!

Posted by: Anonymous at June 29, 2006 8:52 AM | Quote Comment

Hokan spins informed illnesses secretly concave?garbled aeration

Posted by: Anonymous at June 29, 2006 3:18 PM | Quote Comment

hurl cultured.gossips inspirer antidote sinful Viet convergent

Posted by: Anonymous at June 29, 2006 11:55 PM | Quote Comment

misses,subsidizes sculptors?viscounts?million - Tons of interesdting stuff!!!

Posted by: Anonymous at June 30, 2006 9:07 AM | Quote Comment