Vancouver Bike Bridge?

A couple of weeks before Heritage Vancouver put the Burrard Street Bridge on the top of its most endangered list, Pricetags made an interesting suggestion - rather than expand the bridge's sidewalks with an ugly deck, why not build a separate bicycle and pedestrian bridge over False Creek?

Pricetags went on to note that the proposed sidewalk expansion is set to cost $20 million anyway, while other bridges such as the Sundial Bridge in Redding, CA came in at $24 million when it was built a few years back.

Another prominent pedestrian footbridge, the Millenium Bridge over the Thames in London, cost about $43 million when it was completed in 2000. (Click photo for a larger version).

As it turns out, back in 2001-2002, the City commissioned a study to consider several new False Creek crossing alternatives, including 3 new-built bridges. (Link to potential crossing sites here; evaluation form here).

Unfortunately, the proposed pedestrian-bicycle bridges scored poorly on several important criteria, among them being usage, neighbourhood integration, appearance and cost.

Maybe it's worth reconsidering the idea now - especially if we're looking to spend $20 million to deface the Burrard Street Bridge, why not cough up a little extra to build something more iconic?

Not only would such a bridge encourage more pedestrian and bicycle traffic in the downtown core, it would make a powerful, symbolic statement about Vancouver's leadership in sustainable development - perhaps even moreso than the SEFC project.

So how about it? And where should we put it...?

Comments

[Warren]

Excellent idea! I was recently in London, and the Millennium bridge is fantastic. The only problem of course is what points so start and end. I imagine we would be looking west of Burrard St.

[Fantastic Frank]

If the costs are really that high for a mere bridge renovation, then I would say definitely build the pedestrian/bike-only bridge. It will address the issue of cyclist and pedestrian safety, while preserving the heritage value of the Burrard Street bridge. Sounds like another smart proposal from Price Tags.

[Ron]

One option that the City considered in its Burrrad Bridge study was an underslung bike path under the Burrard Bridge deck (the bike path was under the bridge because the area would be too secluded/dangerous for pedestrians). Apart from problems with navigational clearance under the bridge, it posed a problem that the City staff at the public open house didn't seem to think was a concern - but I think is significant. City staff had the bike paths crossing the pedestrian paths at each end of the bridge - essentially an intersection between the pedestrian path and bike path - in order for the bikes to get form the outside path back to the roadway. If volumes of pedestrians and bikes are to increase over the bridge (after all, that's what the expansion in capacity is for) then having the two paths cross is insane!

I think that having the bike lanes adjacent to the car lanes is the most functional approach - but the City's problem is that it has mandated an international standard for the bike lanes - which I think is 3m wide (i.e. a car lane width each way). So instead of using the existing roadway by allocating a half car lane width to bikes on each side(to provide a bike lane consistent with other on street bike lanes) and redistributing the remaining space into 5 car lanes, the City proposed the backlash-inducing removal of 2 car lanes and the reduction to 4 car lanes.) That lead to the support of the option to expand the sidewalks outwards.

I tend to think that that study was designed to support the expansion of the sidewalks and the retention of 6 car lanes on the bridge.

The economical and heritage-preserving compromise option of 5 car lanes and 2 narrow bike lanes was not even an option in the study because of the terms of reference for the study.

[cb]

a separate pedestrian/ cyclist bridge is a brilliant idea! how can it be proposed to the city? as a cyclist, i'm often frustrated at the difficulty and danger of getting out of the downtown (where I live) to run errands on the south side. a separate bridge would increase safety and I agree would set a fantastic example for what vancouver claims to be environmentally.

[Bill MacEwen]

Another bridge would be nice, no doubt. But I find it hard to believe that the cost of supporting a new structure would be equal to renovating the existing one. The Burrard bridge is really quite cool, and it's location is pretty handy for pedestrians & cyclists already. Bike lanes underneath/beside seem like a good concept.