This editorial has been widely circulated – but since it marks such a significant shift, it’s worth copying here. In the past, The Sun editorials on cycling, rather like those of the Wall Street 
Journal (see right), often seem to have been written by cranky old men of both genders and all ages (“Get off my lawn and don’t take away my parking”), based on the assumption that cyclists are an annoying minority disproportionately catered to by the radical greenies at City Hall. I suspect The Sun has assumed that their “sanctimonious moral superiority” would be corrected by an electorate fed up with their arrogant ways.
You can appreciate their disappointment.
So, pragmatically, The Sun is shifting. In this editorial, it has discovered ‘walkability’ – “a crucial indicator of (city) livability.” It recognizes both the success of changes to the Burrard Bridge – “a better than 30-per-cent increase in cycling traffic while still handling 55,000 cars a day” – and that “the traffic chaos predicted by doom-and-gloom opponents never happened.” Perhaps this signals the end of the Carmageddon Cycle.
Other media, too, have noticed the absence of critics to generate the needed hysteria (sorry, ‘balance’) to give an anti-bike-lane story legs. Within 48 hours of the announcement of the bridge changes, the story was effectively over. The only discussion, now, is about the details and timing. Even the NPA councillor George Affleck’s attempt to frame it as another failure of process was rejected by The Sun:
There have been the usual complaints from the usual suspects that two public hearings between now and June 16 are inadequate. But this doesn’t seem to be an over-complicated decision, and it doesn’t require endless over-thinking to make the correct choice.
(And speaking of the NPA, even its attempt to be supportive of cycling by promoting more bike parking seems soured by its own supporters.)
This editorial is another win, in addition to the three it recognizes. Hopefully a new editorial dawn.
.
VANCOUVER SUN, JUNE 5, 2015
Burrard Bridge upgrade should be win-win-win for drivers, cyclists and pedestrians
.
The sometimes acrimonious discussion between drivers and cyclists over how to share Metro Vancouver’s road space is frequently tinged with an air of sanctimonious moral superiority and claims of pragmatic convenience from both sides.
Often overlooked in the tiresome rancour is the inconvenient fact there are, at any given moment more pedestrians walking in the city’s core areas than there are people driving or biking. Pedestrian traffic is different from vehicular traffic in pattern, use and purpose but it nevertheless shares our urban infrastructure in a significant way.
City designers increasingly recognize the walkability of cities is a crucial indicator of their livability. Vancouver already has the distinction of now ranking first among Canadian cities and fourth in North America on the walkable index. Anything that secures and improves that standing is good for the city’s residents and inviting to the visitors who drive Metro’s $3.6-billion-a-year tourism industry.
So before cyclists crow and drivers wax apoplectic about the proposal for a $30-million makeover of the Burrard Bridge — that’s 10 times what it cost to build the bridge in 1933 — that will repurpose one of its three northbound lanes for cyclists to reclaim protected space for walkers, let’s all take a deep breath and remember that in the battle for commuting space, it’s often the pedestrians who are left out of the equation.
In this case, there is much common sense in the idea that walkers have a right to reclaim the sidewalk on the east side of the bridge, originally closed to permit a separate bike lane at the expense of one of three southbound vehicles lanes. If the price of that is additional closure of one of three northbound traffic lanes to accommodate cyclists, well, cars will still command four lanes.
Thus far, the mixed-use approach to the Burrard Bridge has been a reasonably successful work in progress. It has stimulated a better than 30-per-cent increase in cycling traffic — from 148,000 to 195,000 monthly trips — while still handling 55,000 cars a day. The traffic chaos predicted by doom-and-gloom opponents never happened.
There have been the usual complaints from the usual suspects that two public hearings between now and June 16 are inadequate. But this doesn’t seem to be an over-complicated decision, and it doesn’t require endless over-thinking to make the correct choice. Meanwhile, almost everyone agrees the 83-year-old bridge needs renovating.
A major sweetener for drivers in the proposal must be the plan to upgrade the heavily congested intersection at Burrard and Pacific with improvements to turn lanes and bridge abutments intended to reduce bottlenecking on the bridge by speeding traffic flow. Design improvements will enable less congestion at the bridge’s approach.
What we will have will be better traffic flow, new pedestrian walkways on both sides of the bridge, new traffic signals to segregate and direct pedestrians, cyclists and drivers more safely and efficiently, new concrete railings, improved electrical and underground services, and further enhancement of the walkability index that is vital to the city’s well-being.
All in all, it sounds like a win-win-and-win plan to us.
What is surprising for me is that this is not really a “win win” for pedestrians-it allows pedestrians to walk on a dedicated pedestrian sidewalk on both sides of the bridge, the status they enjoyed before the bike lane implementation. Certainly walkers can learn a lot from cycle and car advocates on how to rally and lobby. Odd how the walking folks were originally disenfranchised from their right to simply walk on both sides of the bridge on one of the more iconic bridge walks in Vancouver. Accessibility for all, not just the folks with bikes and cars.
Kudos to the Editor of the Vancouver Sun for speaking up.
True but remember it wasn’t cycling that removed walking from the east sidewalk, it was driving that at the time couldn’t give up two lanes to cycling.
A lot was learned from doing these trials. Just how resilient the mode of driving is, (as it has most of the road space.) how a lot of people were just waiting for the right conditions to cycle more, how politics can mess with people’s lives, etc.
…and the bike lane caused the massive increase in air pollution and CO2 emissions and pushed the planet closer to the brink of disaster. 17% of pollution comes from vehicles in city congestion.
Closing a lane to traffic and converting that space for the elite 1% that ride a bike, many of them recreationally, may well be a feel-good gimmick but it can only lead to decades of more pollution from slowed vehicular traffic.
The same result comes from removing parking spaces in a city. It is calculated that around 30% of vehicular traffic movements in city centres are looking for parking.
This is not a win for everyone. The bike lobby believe that choking off the access for vehicles will change people’s habits. The expensive side effects are the added pollution and the stress, which lead to anger and increased health care expenditures.
I know what you mean. I was caught in traffic behind an old bicycle the other day, and man, did that thing put out some nasty fumes!
Ahem.
You have stated facts that support my thinking .Obviously the solution to reducing car pollution is to encourage the reduction of polluting cars in the city. That would solve the parking issue as well.
Eric, your stats and “logic” are questionable at best. Surely the solution to too much car traffic is to encourage people to commute by different methods – ones that cause much less pollution? If people find it stressful to drive (I do) they should try transit, walking or cycling. What is your solution? More roads, more parking – encourage people to drive solo? No thanks – its been proven to be ineffective anyway.
There’s not much traffic in Vancouver. If the self-imposed bottlenecks were opened up the pollution would be lessened. Easier parking reduces vehicles zipping around looking for a spot. Cutting off right-turn intersections for the occasional bike causes more inconvenience and pollution. It’s what Vancouver wants to do. Discourage driving by inconveniencing drivers. The concurrent pollution is collateral damage the citizens, particularly the pedestrians, are subjected to, to further social policy.
It will be many decades before a comprehensive subway system, to the North Shore for example, is in place. That is the only real solution to discourage drivers. Remember too, not all those drivers are commuting, many are trades people.
Pedestrians will be able to walk with a nice large buffer between them and traffic without bikes trying to squeeze around them, something that definitely wasn’t the case before any of the bike lane implementations. I don’t know if you recall the way things were but walking along a bridge with traffic screaming by you at 80 km/h while a cyclist tried to pass you on the ‘shared path’ wasn’t exactly the most pleasant thing in the world.
The rehabilitated bridge will be a much more pleasant pedestrian environment than it ever was before. It’s not as simple as ‘walking on both sides of the bridge’.
Why not take the bridge down ? Granville is only 2 blocks further east, and wide enough fro cars and peds & bikes ?
Who has looked at a lower ped/bike bridge like in London or Calgary ?
The bridge was built in the industrial age, with tall ships below. Today we have a few sailing boats where the bridge can open every 20 minutes to let the odd sail boat through. The bridge needs to be at grade or not more than 4 m above the water.
or a subway on the lower (now taken out) deck ?
Where is the vision here ?
Gregor Robertson’s accomplishment in Vancouver in a decade: more bike lanes. Woohoo.
I have to say, you really have mastered the art of making unpopular suggestions.
A bridge of that design, if suggested today would be torn apart by politicians, the media, bike/ped enthusiasts and environmentalists .. and you suggest criticizing an old, far too tall bridge and replacing it with a low bridge, like the extremely popular London ped bridge used by millions annually is unpopular ?
Why is that ?
Thomas has some of the weirdest comments/suggestions ever
Thomas, lets build a roller-coaster from Kits to downtown so people can get into work each day.
Not needed, thanks, the wobbly buses are enough for my sensitive stomach !
Seriously guys, 3 massive bridges into Vancouver from the south with 14 car-lanes total and only one under-sized subway is “vision” ?
Yes it is a massive overcapacity and that overcapacity will increase in the future. The bottlenecks are at the intersections so If you closed a bridge you would be asking other intersections to be taking an increasing load which would lead to lineups. The best scenario would be to have each bridge to lose a lane in both directions and replace with bike lanes and better pedestrian paths.
City plans include cycling infrastructure on the Cambie bridge (restoring pedestrian space), and a green way (shared bike/ped) on the Granville bridge. There is some vision for Thomas. If you are counting three bridges, Thomas, then it is 6 + 8 + 5 = 19 vehicle lanes, hopefully soon to be 18 with the Burrard changes proposed. Also, the subway is expandable with more frequent and longer trains, no need for another tunnel yet. All you would have to do is vote for investing in transit……oh wait, you campaigned against that.
I am all for more transit, especially RAPID transit, like subways (for example under Burrard as one under Cambie is insufficient), not more wobbly buses that are as slow as cars, or usually slower.
I have also argued, like many, that there is sufficient taxes paid in MetroVan .. about $5B+ .. to fund this if only the civil servants made a little less, especially their oversized pensions and benefits .. or through outsourcing .. $500M/year easy !
The access from either side of False Creek to the other is very weak today for peds/bikes. We need at least one, better two lower bridges to walk or cycle across, not a 50 m climb from the 1930’s auto- and industrial lumbermill era !
10 sailboats a day get priority over 10,000 cyclists/walkers ? Why ?
@Thomas Beyers, —Ignored the Indent for readability.
“We need at least one, better two lower bridges to walk or cycle across, not a 50 m climb”
I have often wondered how much it could cost to have to some sort of pedestrian/cycle bridge closing this gap from lets say 7th or 8th near Ash or Yukon to the Cambie bridge then connecting to a separated bike lane. This could be a similar idea as the current Burrard bridge renovations. Not increasing the bottle neck of intersections and then having a separated bike lane where overcapacity exists for cars. It would also be more suitable for AAA since it would be flatter.
Any thoughts? Any estimates for the cost?
The Copenhagen Super bikeway costs about 500K a kilometer. I think its possible in Vancouver.
@Thomas: “10 sailboats a day get priority over 10,000 cyclists/walkers ? Why ?”
Commercial vessels including tugs and barges; charter vessels, primarily tourism related; private vessels both sail and power; police and fire boats; you think these total 10 vessels per day? And that none of them matter? You should stand on the bridge sometime and watch the marine traffic.
There used to be a low level rail crossing alongside the Burrard Bridge, with a swing span. I remember waiting for it to turn (in the 1970s), and I was in a sailboat that was under 20′ long. You are seriously suggesting 4 m clearance? If the climb is that hard, I suggest you take the seawall.
When the Cambie bridge gets a separated bicycle lane, it will have very little climb. The Granville bridge will have more of a climb for the greenway, but it joins on the south shore higher up the slope in any case, so the main climb is on the north side.