Burrard Bridge

Oral deputation from the Vancouver Area Cycling Coalition

June 28, 2005

Mayor and Council

Re: Transportation and Traffic Meeting
Burrard Bridge Sidewalk Capacity Improvements for Pedestrian and Cyclists

The VACC would like to strongly recommend to Council that Council make a decision on permanent safety improvements on the Burrard Bridge for active transportation users (pedestrians, joggers, cyclists, in-line skaters, skateboarders, and wheelchair users).

Safety and passage concerns on the Burrard Bridge have been studied and discussed for almost 20 years and many residents who cycle had great hopes that this dangerous situation would finally be resolved by the current Council. Support for spending capital funds has been given by Vancouver residents in the Capital Plan plebiscites and residents have attended open houses on design options and given their feedback.

Nothing is now left but for Council to make a decision and to have work commence.

Expectation that all residents would arrive at a consensus on one design is too much to hope for. The same applies to cyclists. Some cyclists cite safety as their main concern, and care little what is done, as long as something is. Others (cyclists and vehicle drivers alike) approach the issue from a broader environmental perspective, expressing a desire to reduce greenhouse gases produced by cars entering downtown. These people might prefer an 'on the road' solution (i.e. reducing motor vehicle capacity on the bridge).

What is certain, and where there is clear consensus, is that cyclists want adecision now, not sometime in the future.

The VACC would like to urge Council to bring the Burrard Bridge issue to a resolution now. Make a decision and improve the safety of cycling / pedestrian crossings over this bridge. If it means expanding the sidewalk, so be it. If it means removing two lanes of vehicle traffic, so be it. Please just make the decision now.

Further, there is a strong desire to see construction start this year. We hope you will consider fast tracking the design process in order to ensure this happens.

The VACC would prioritize the various options as follows:

1. Two-lane reduction
2. Sidewalk expansion

A sidewalk expansion with pinch-points at the columns is not desirable. Cycling, in-line skating, and pedestrian volumes will certainly exceed the pinch-point capacity during busy periods, especially in the future. The one-lane reduction with a bike lane on each side of the road is not feasible, as it doesn't allow enough room for active transportation modes. An under-the-deck option is not desirable.

Cycling capacity on the Burrard Bridge has reached maximum capacity. Some cyclists avoid the bridge for fear of an encounter with an inattentive pedestrian or a swinging carrying bag.

Van Map statistics show that the cycling count has been static since 1995 at about 2,300 cyclists per day. The 1996 Bike Lane trial showed that there is an elasticity of 700 cyclists per day if bike lane capacity is increased. The 2001 transit strike showed a significant increase in bridge usage by cyclists and pedestrians during peak hours.

Clearly, the demand is there. The capacity is not.

Cyclists have been patient long enough. There is no reason for further delay. Please make a decision and have construction started in 2005.

Thank you for listening to the VACC's deputation.

Appendix A: Burrard Bridge, Two-Lane Reassignment Option

While the full sidewalk extension option would provide significant improvements for cyclists and pedestrian, reallocating two lanes would have the following additional advantages:

1. Lower capital requirement. Money saved on this project can be reallocated to upgrade cycling and pedestrian facilities on the other bridges or on cycling facilities within the city.
2. Less inconvenience during construction.
   • Less construction time will be required
   • Dramatically reduced inconvenience to all bridge users during the implementation of this option
   • Construction of the sidewalk option may remove one or two traffic lanes from service for a considerable time period
3. Best choice for cyclists, in line skaters, wheelchair users, as well as pedestrians.
   • Widest lane space for each type of user.
   • Provides buffer between pedestrians and car traffic.
   • Allows for physical separation between car traffic, cyclists, and pedestrians.
4. Aesthetically pleasing solution and won't conflict with heritage advocates
5. Reduce noise
6. Helps reduce confusion with regard to cyclists' use of sidewalks - which is not allowed elsewhere.
   • Providing a space for cyclists which is obviously not a sidewalk may also lead to decreased illegal use of sidewalks in other parts of the city.
   • In the City of Vancouver's 2001-2002 Pedestrian Study, pedestrians indicated they where not always satisfied with cyclist behaviour. As cycling on sidewalks can be dangerous for both cyclists and pedestrians, it should be discouraged whenever possible.
7. A vehicle for promotion to increase tourism - advertised as a pleasant and safe cycling trip for visitors.
8. Currently lots of extra capacity on bridge
9. Many car trips to downtown are unnecessary.
10. Other possibilities: bridge closed on Sundays for farmers and craft market etc. like the Charles Bridge in Prague.
11. A courageous and visionary solution.

Contrarian's Arguments:

1. Two-Lane reassignment from motorized use will cause car traffic back up.
   Unproven: maximum use of Transportation Demand Management measures have been applied. (Reference - Jane Jacobs arguments, p 72-79 "Dark Age Ahead").
2. Transit buses will be slowed down.
   Solution: Implement one lane each way for transit and HOVs.
3. The fact that there will be objections does not mean that it shouldn't happen. Remember the howls of outrage re smoking ban in restaurants and public places; fears that restaurants and bars would go bankrupt - none of this happened.