Dedicated lane for bikes on the Burrard Bridge (trial)
For those of us who commute by bus/Skytrain, this debate is slightly a little bit more than a moot point. I adore walking, and I have absolutely no problem with a dedicated biking lane on the Burrard Bridge. Will the lane encourage motorists to switch modes of transportation? What is really the change in behavior that the dedicated lane is attempting to encourage? More cyclists commuting from Kitsilano to Downtown Vancouver because now they will feel less threatened by the cars? More people taking the bus in order to avoid congestion during rush hour? I am REALLY interested in hearing from my readers as to what they perceive is the intended goal of the Burrard Bridge dedicated bike lane (trial begins July 13th, 2009). Lots of my fellow bloggers have written about it (including Stephen Rees, trusted friend of mine and an authority in transportation policy), but as a researcher who investigates environmental policy and who hasn’t had the opportunity to study transportation policy as much, I am definitely most curious as to what societal perceptions of this trial are (for an overview of the City of Vancouver’s view on the bike lane, click on this link). As usual, have at it on the comments section.
Related posts:
[...] is a relatively green city. We recycle. We drink out of reusable mugs. We’re also considering a dedicated bike lane on the Burrard Bridge. This would take away one of the traffic lanes used for cars and other [...]
Raul, you expressed some dismay on Twitter that there were not more responses on this post. I think the reason for this may be that we as citizens in Vancouver have been so schooled by the media to see this as a clash of transportation modes, pitting cars against bikes and pedestrians, or an ideological battle, as that of sustainability advocates versus status-quo consumption advocates (for lack of a better, more descriptive phrase) that everyone is flocking to Twitter, for its emotional gratification. The way this has been framed, there’s no sense of rapid iteration or collaboration to make our shared resource, the bridge, work safer and better for EVERYBODY – there’s only a sense that out of 16 lanes going into downtown, one has been taken away from a group that feels entitled to it – despite the fact that construction often robs them of at least that many lanes on a regular basis anyway.
Hi Raul – my understanding is that the primary goal, and almost the only goal from the City’s point of view, is to increase the safety of the bridge, and reduce liability.
The regular arrangement (cyclists and pedestrians sharing both sidewalks) is very dangerous, has sent a number of cyclists to the hospital in just the last few months, and has already cost the city a lot of money in settlement of a very bad accident that happened a few years back. It is an enormous liability to the city. It was striking that no parent in their good mind cycled over it with their kids (in tow or on their own bikes). The risk of being thrown in traffic is just too big, even for the safest and most skilled of cyclists.
I have seen a number of kids cycling over the bridge already since the trial started. It also does feel immensely safer, both from a pedestrian’s and from a cyclist’s point of view.
The lane trial is just a trial. After the Olympics the City has to undertake massive renovation of the bridge to bring it up to safety standards (and we’re not even talking about cyclists and pedestrians here). Interesting conversations will have to happen then as well.
@ Karen – Agreed, there should be NO clash of transportation models. It should be seen as happily co-existing, and finding ways for more sustainable transportation.
@ Brigitte – I think I concur with your view. It seems to me too that it’s a trial and that’s why there’s very little conversation.
Thanks for commenting!