On July 4th, 2004, the people of Redding, CA, celebrated the opening of a footbridge – a spectacular piece of engineering art that would become an internationally known icon for their small town.
Designed by Santiago Calatrava (who has gone on to become one of the world’s ‘starchitects’), the Sun Dial Bridge is 700 feet long and cost $23 million.
By comparison, the distance between the seawalls on the North and South Shores of False Creek at the Burrard Bridge is about 950 feet. And I’m guessing that for something under $62 million, the estimated cost of widening Burrard Bridge for cyclists and pedestrians, we might get something equally iconic.
It’s time the city seriously looked at that option.
We need a passerelle across False Creek – a low-level structure that so many cities are choosing for their narrow water crossings, as I discussed here. And I’m not the only one.
Real-estate consultant and City Program instructor Herb Auerbach feels the same:
During the open house seeking public opinion on the renovation of the Burrard Bridge to better accommodate pedestrians and bicycles I recommended that a better alternative was to consider a dedicated light weight pedestrian/bicycle bridge. This recommendation was pooh poohed by the consultants at the open house as technically not feasible and too expensive. In light of the new estimates for renovating the Bridge perhaps this should be reconsidered.
I was delighted to hear an interview with a Carol McArthur (?) the other morning on CBC re the idea for a pedestrian cycle bridge across Burrard Inlet in lieu of trying to modify the bridge for $62 million. I couldn’t agree more, that that is the best, most effective, efficient and people (tourist) friendly solution.
It would also enhance the link from English Bay promenade and the Aquatic Centre to the Maritime Museum, Vancouver Museum and Festival sites (Children’s, Bard on the Beach), Kits Pool, Conservatory and Archives without negatively effecting, in fact reducing the impacts on the Kits Point neighborhoods. It also precludes “tampering” with the Burrard Bridge which has heritage characteristics.
In a world of changing climate, rising energy costs, increasing obesity and limited budgets, how odd that decision makers aren’t spending ‘the first dollar’ on solutions that we know will address all of these challenges simultaneously.
UPDATE: Several commentators have noted the inability to build a low-level bridge because of False Creek boat traffic. Correction: sailboat traffic. Barges and motor-boats would still be able to slip underneath most passerelles. The problem is with the masts of sailboats and the occasional very large boat.
Okay – that’s the trade-off. Unless a draw-bridge was included – too expensive to man, says the city – then sailboat traffic would have to be phased out of False Creek or limited to those with masts that could be lowered.
So that’s the choice: provide ustainable transportation for literally thousands of people a day, save the heritage features of the Burrard Bridge, provide better connections for Kitsilano and the West End, create an iconic structure, and do it all for less cost. Or serve sailboats as the highest priority.
It’s time there was at least a discussion about that trade-off.
I too like the idea of a dedicated bike/pedestrian crossing, the problem is that water way is heavily used by barges, yachts, sailboats etc, it would either require a moving bridge which will be constantly moving up and down, or it will require a huge arch which defeats thes purpose.
From the False Creek Pedestrian and Cyclist Crossings Study – Final Report:
“As a low level crossing underneath the Burrard Bridge would be a “live” bridge that would open and close for marine traffic, the effective capacity of the crossing would be reduced whenever the bridge opens. A preliminary marine survey conducted on a sunny day in the summer of 2001 indicated that as many as 15 to 25 boats per hour would necessitate opening of the bridge.
Additional analysis of the bridge opening and closing procedures indicated that it would take approximately 6 to 8 minutes to open and close the bridge for marine traffic. This delay combined with the potentially high number and randomness of marine traffic entering and exiting False Creek may deter users from this route as compared to the other options short listed in the study. Another concern with a draw bridge option is that it requires operating costs (staffing and maintenance) estimated to be a minimum of $350,000 per year.”
http://vancouver.ca/ctyclerk/cclerk/020314/csb4.htm
I wonder how much it would cost to contract False Creek Ferries and/or Aquabus to provide free crossings by boat.
I wonder what the cost would be for a high level pedestrian bridge?
BTW – I think that people enjoy the Aquabus ride across the Creek (akin to the trip on the Seabus – even if it is slower than a direct connection).
As for the bike route – it depends on your target audience. Having to detour signifcantly to access a low level bridge would be more inconvenient for commuter cyclists. It’s like cycling southbound on the Cambie Bridge – it’s easier to stay on the roadway shoulder (narrow as it may be) than divert to the east side wide sidewalk. And you do see lots of cyclists on the southbound roadway (and drivers know enough to slow down and give them room, esp. since there are two other lanes) – likely for that very reason.
Some cyclists also take the roadway northbound the Cambie Street Bridge, as it’s not so safe to go faster than about 20 km/h when mixing with pedestrians.
That’s very strange logic. Just because a factor is taken into account and imposes restrictions doesn’t mean it’s the highest priority. A high level bridge or exhorbitantly expensive renovations to the Burrard Street Bridge would serve while accommodating sailboats – does that mean that the limiting factor – high cost – allows us to complain that saving taxpayers’ money “is the highest priority”?
Isn’t cost always the highest priority?
You can’t always get what you want (i.e. a low level bridge barring sailboats).
I recall that the False Creek Crossing study recommended a high level bridge integrated wit the Granville Street Bridge structure.
I favour improving cycling and pedestrian facilities, and the idea of a separate bridge has great appeal, but I think the impact on sailboats is not so much a priority change as a de facto ban. Taking a quick look on google earth, it seems there is mooring for about 700 boats in false creek, a substantial portion of which are sail boats. Looking around the region, it seems this makes up around half the moorage in the lower mainland. Taking the mast down on a sailboat is non-trivial, so by putting a low bridge there you are essentially disallowing the mooring of the majority of sail boats in false creek. I’d be much happier with going back to the idea of removing traffic lanes from the bridge and giving them over to pedestrians and cyclists. Perhaps I’m biased because I quite enjoy sailing, and know several people who would have to try to find a new place for their boats if this happened, not to mention the fact that I don’t drive, but I really don’t think it is a fair trade off.