The comments to the post below on congestion almost immediately returned to the issue of the Burrard Bridge.
Having just cycled it last night, I was reminded again how uncomfortable an experience those sidewalks are. ( And railings along the curb, as proposed by the NPA in the civic election, would only exacerbate the discomfort: cyclists would tend to shift away from the railing toward the centre of the sidewalk, crowding the pedestrians and runners.)
The new Vision/COPE council is politically committed to the experiment of removing a lane, reapportioning the space for cyclists, and using a reversible lane to accommodate rush-hour traffic. They have to proceed with this proposal, given their mandate – but here’s some advice:
Assign only those staff who want to make this project work. Nothing less will do than full commitment. If the Engineering Department is not wholly on board, get consultants who are.
The mistake I made as councillor when trying out a lane closure for a week was not taking the time to do all the preliminary work, particularly involvement of those who would be negatively affected, not giving enough advance notice, not providing clear alternative routes. Given the polarization and politics that have dominated discussion in the subsequent decade, people management will be more important that traffic management. And that’s why you will need a supportive staff.
Let’s put it another way: If the Vision/COPE Council blows this experiment, they’ll give the NPA a quick boost back into power.
My actual preference, by the way, is for a low-level passerelle (as should be clear to those who read this blog). I understand some of the problems, particularly the dilemma of boat traffic and the jurisdiction of an intractable federal government. But I’d certainly expect a thought-through explanation of why a passerelle would not work as a better alternative to the Burrard Bridge lane strategy, especially if it’s as affordable in the end.
Ultimately, we all have a stake in making this work. There’s a huge pent-up demand for safe cycling routes onto the downtown peninsula, and the Burrard Bridge remains as the single greatest impediment. If we really believe that Vancouver can be a more sustainable city, one of the best places to cycle on the continent, and that a great mix of transportation options is in everyone’s interest, then this experiment must lead to a resolution.
It just has to be implemented – it won’t be a huge construction project (unless the City allows it to snowball by adding reversing lanes, etc.). I say three lanes into town and 2 lanes out of town since the morning rush is more concentrated than the evening rush (but the City may think 3 southbound may better feed into the wye at Burrard and Cornwall).
Once drivers realize there is more delay on Burrard, travel patterns will shift and Graville will take some of the traffic.
The City just needs to get on with it.
Cambie has been down to 2 lanes for some time now and people realize that the City continues to function – trafic will redistribute. The problem with the previous “trial” was that it wasn’t permanent (in either installation or duration) and wouldn’t cause a chage in behaviour.
There is simply no need for three lines of traffic in either direction. The volume of gp traffic across the bridge is determined by the signalised intersections at each end. Neither delivers a volume that justifies three lanes. The volume of cyclists now justifies a lane – and opening up safe space for cyclists will induce more bike traffic. And that is what the DVBIA and NPA are scared of.
This should be a crunch issue. Is this city going to take real steps to reduce SOV traffic in downtown? The parking companies are doing their bit and have got me back on the bus. Is the new council going to show some character or will it make damaging concessions to car culture?
A “passerelle” is a holdout of old-fashioned thinking that believes more and more stuff will help solve our problems. We need to reduce road space as car use declines, otherwise we continue to encourage outmoded, polluting, high energy, sprawl-inducing forms of transportation. The infrastructure is already there. It just needs to be used wisely.
As we reach “peak everything” on this finite planet, we need to find ways to use what we have and reduce our dependence on creating more stuff. There are better places to spend limited resources than maintaining car culture by building another expensive path that allows motorists to continue their domination.