1 lane lost on Burrard St. Bridge for bikes

[q0192837465]

God, I take that bridge almost everyday cuz I have to get to UBC after work. The traffic is bad already. I take Pacific blvd & turn onto Burrard bridge. With one lane gone, I might not even make it to class on time. Thank you stupid hippies.

[+Kardboard+]

I wish time was a choice for me.

Do you have to go deep into Downtown for work? I could see how you would save time by biking around all those clogged cars. Hmm...from the article:

It's a $1.5 million dollar solution that isn't supported by either side, and had cycling advocates in the crowd heckling councillors. Drivers are also upset about expected traffic delays due to one less southbound lane. But for legal reasons, the city had to make a move to protect the lives of cyclists heading across the bridge.

So no one likes this solution? $1.5 mil spent on it, not huge within the context of the City's budget, but still significant. They don't say how long the trial is meant to last, do they?

[q0192837465]

Originally Posted by +Kardboard+

OK, Captain Intelligent!

I wish time was a choice for me.

Time is not a choice for me too. I take the bus, i'll definitely be late. I bike, i might as well go home cuz i'll get to UBC when classes end. The only option I have is to drive (and HOPE traffic is good so I can be on-time).

[maxx]

everybody dedicate an xtra hour in your life to jam that bridge up and sit in the traffic, so their test phase fails and we could get our lane back.

[taylor192]

Originally Posted by +Kardboard+

Do you have to go deep into Downtown for work? I could see how you would save time by biking around all those clogged cars. Hmm...from the article:
So no one likes this solution? $1.5 mil spent on it, not huge within the context of the City's budget, but still significant. They don't say how long the trial is meant to last, do they?

Don't get me wrong, I think the solution is dumb too. I just hate people whining about traffic. If you hate traffic, move, shorten your commute.

I bike perfectly fine on the current paths without incident. Any "tourists" walking I make sure to slow down for.

This is really what the cyclists are complaining about, having to slow down for pedestrains. Big deal, I also have to slow down for them on the Granville, Cambie, and Oak and Knight st bridges, there's just more on the Burrard bridge. The only difference is those other bridges have a barrier between traffic and the path.

I don't understand why a metal railing cannot be added to separate path/road. It'd be 2" wide, either mounted on the path taking away 2" from pedestrians/cyclists, or mounted on the curb taking away 2" from traffic. The curb is high enough for traffic not to jump up onto the path, the railing would only have to prevent pedestrains/cyclists from falling into traffic.

[slammer111]

Hopefully this will shut up all those idiots in Critical Mass.

To be honest, what needs to be improved is the flow directly to and from the bridge. That would solve half the traffic problems, even if we drivers lose a lane.

[hung_low]

Originally Posted by taylor192

I travel that bridge often, if it were setup like Lionsgate with a lane that alternates direction, all would be fine.

you obviously do not understand how traffic flows.

the reason why the lion's gate bridge works is because there are strips on both the north and south side of the bridge to absorb the congession (the stanley park causeway and the exits on the north). what's on either ends of the burrard street bridge? the bridge will become a complete parking lot when both ends of the bridge are red lights.

so to respond to your comment, NO IT WON'T BE FINE

[goo3]

Originally Posted by taylor192

Don't get me wrong, I think the solution is dumb too. I just hate people whining about traffic. If you hate traffic, move, shorten your commute.

I bike perfectly fine on the current paths without incident. Any "tourists" walking I make sure to slow down for.

This is really what the cyclists are complaining about, having to slow down for pedestrains. Big deal, I also have to slow down for them on the Granville, Cambie, and Oak and Knight st bridges, there's just more on the Burrard bridge. The only difference is those other bridges have a barrier between traffic and the path.

I don't understand why a metal railing cannot be added to separate path/road. It'd be 2" wide, either mounted on the path taking away 2" from pedestrians/cyclists, or mounted on the curb taking away 2" from traffic. The curb is high enough for traffic not to jump up onto the path, the railing would only have to prevent pedestrains/cyclists from falling into traffic.

No man, they're just tree huggers who have a thing against cars. This is more about sticking it to drivers than it is about their safety. It's like arguing on the internet with a moron who has his mind made up. If you give those guys a solution that works better, they'll just make up another excuse until they argue you down to get what they want.

[achiam]

There should be a protest where people with trucks park in the bike lane, or at least park semi trailer rigs

[taylor192]

Originally Posted by hung_low

you obviously do not understand how traffic flows.

the reason why the lion's gate bridge works is because there are strips on both the north and south side of the bridge to absorb the congession (the stanley park causeway and the exits on the north). what's on either ends of the burrard street bridge? the bridge will become a complete parking lot when both ends of the bridge are red lights.

so to respond to your comment, NO IT WON'T BE FINE

The southbound entrance to Lionsgate from is poorly designed and causes backups, there's signs on the #1 to tell you about it.

The south end of Burrard works great, its the north end that does not work, and there's not much a solution for it since the traffic congestion that ends up on Burrard is from other streets being backed up, and if you haven't noticed, all those buildings makes it a little hard to add more lanes downtown.

[taylor192]

Originally Posted by goo3

No man, they're just tree huggers who have a thing against cars. This is more about sticking it to drivers than it is about their safety. It's like arguing on the internet with a moron who has his mind made up. If you give those guys a solution that works better, they'll just make up another excuse until they argue you down to get what they want.

Have you seen the pics of people who have been pushed out into traffic?

I think you're very much wrong, since there's no complaints about Lionsgate, Granville, Cambie, Oak, and Knight bridges all which have shared bike/pedestrian paths.

[carisear]

exactly HOW BUSY is burrard st. bridge anyways for cyclists? i've been driving over that bridge 2-4 times per day, everyday for the past 10 years. i never see any problems. there are 10 to 1 cars for every pedestrian, and 10 to 1 pedestrians to every cyclist that i see. (in summertime). in wintertime i hardly see anyone on the sidewalks.

also, as a taxpayer, 63 million to make a new sidewalk seems excessive, but worth it considering they are spending 1.5mil on a freaking STUDY. one that they conducted 10 years ago.

ALSO, i thought all bridges fell under the jurisdiction of the province?

[goo3]

Originally Posted by taylor192

Have you seen the pics of people who have been pushed out into traffic?

I think you're very much wrong, since there's no complaints about Lionsgate, Granville, Cambie, Oak, and Knight bridges all which have shared bike/pedestrian paths.

I'm saying those other cyclists want to close down the lane out of spite rather than find a rational solution, sort of like the whole Critical Mass thing.

Unless I misread ur last post where I think you said safety wasn't a huge deal.. a barrier would do the job. That makes sense to me.