If the politicians can summon up the political will, the bicycle wheels can follow. Building a better version of the north of the existing Wardance Bridge on the Capilano River will encourage more North Shore people to commute to downtown Vancouver on their bikes, reduce the Lions Gate grid lock, and boost economic activity in the community. It’s the kind of infrastructure investment that can be a solution to a seemingly intractable problem, says Peter Scholefield, the vice-chair of HUB-North Shore Committee.
HUB is a community organisation that encourages biking and is calling upon the West Vancouver council to revive a now defunct plan to install a new bridge on the north side of the existing Wardance Bridge, which connects West Vancouver to North Vancouver but is increasingly being used by people to bike to downtown Vancouver. Scholefield said HUB realizes that it would take some time and effort to obtain the necessary permits and funding to build a new crossing, but a new bridge north of the existing bridge would the safest option for cyclists and pedestrians.
“Cyclists crossing a on a separate bridge would not come in contact or have to deal with any automobile traffic so all traffic hazards in the list would be solved, Scholefield said. The current bridge is owned and operated by Park Royal and has several safety concerns. For example, most westbound cyclists who cross the bridge must proceed through the busy four-way stop intersection at Taylor Way to get back to the Spirit Trail. After coming off from the bridge, some cyclists cross the roadway to get onto the Spirit Trail before reaching the four-way stop intersection which can be dangerous in heavy traffic. The traffic lanes on the bridge are less than four metre wide, narrow than the recommended guidelines.
A new bridge north of the existing bridge would help solve some of these issues, says Scholefield. In fact, such a bridge was planned in 2009 but never built. In April of 2009 Park Royal offered to contribute $500,000 towards building a new bridge and widening the sidewalk on the south side of the existing bridge.
The plan was scuttled due to conflicting jurisdictions and the permits were never obtained. Park Royal then agreed to build an extension off the south side of the bridge for a 3.2 m wide multi-use pathway to connect the Spirit Trail on either side of the river. The plan stalled because the estimates to do so were higher than Park Royal was willing to pay and West Vancouver couldn’t offer any money because taxpayers’ money would be seen as improving a bridge owned by Park Royal. Scholefield is calling upon West Vancouver councillors to once again muster the political will and work through the bureaucratic maze to build a new bridge on the north. At least one councillor has a personal stake in this. Coun.
Craig Cameron’s daughter had a narrow escape when she fell off her bike on the bridge. It there was a car coming from the other side, it could have been tragic. “I realised how unbelievably precarious that bridge is and this situation can’t continue. I will be seeking to have a motion by the end of September and put a dedicated bike lane. Building a new bridge entails working with the first nations, with the ocean and fishers and entails a lot of money on top of that. But in the meantime, I’m not going to sit by. You could easily have a fatality there,” he said.
Scholefield said HUB recently met West Vancouver’s transportation director, Raymond Fung, who has promised a new safety measures. Those include narrow green-painted lanes in the middle of the traffic lanes where cyclists could ride in single file with motorists and a separate green-painted crossing for eastbound cyclists adjacent to the existing crosswalk near the entrance to the RV Park. A new bridge to the north would be the permanent solution, Scholefield insists. “A new crossing would not be a privately owned structure, so could facilitate obtaining funding from a variety of sources.
For example, the contributions from Park Royal and the District could be supplemented by infrastructure funding from the federal and provincial governments and from TransLink. A new crossing could have a bold iconic design which would attract cyclists from outside the District, leading to an increase in business and tourism in Ambleside, Dundarave and Park Royal. West Vancouver spokesperson Jeff McDonald said the staff are exploring options at the moment and a report to the council will likely come forward at some point.
Peter Scholefield should be more concerned with car traffic trying to access downtown, instead of bikes. You can count the number of bikes going downtown on the fingers if one hand. Let’s face it, the North Shore is quite hilly, one cannot deny that, as well a huge population living here who are seniors, or over forties who are NOT interested in biking downtown. Better and more roads are needed
here, absolutely, but for cars, not for bikes.
A few people think we should be like Amsterdam where a large population do
ride their bikes, but have you ever been to Amsterdam? the entire city AND
Suburbs are as flat as a pancake, it’s a pleasure to ride your bike there, also,
they don’t have the population that Vancouver has. In all this eagerness to appease
Cyclists, please, let us not forget our common sense.
Hi Barbara,
56 year old here who rides his bike from Caulfeild in West Vancouver into the downtown every day. I’ve been doing so for 10 years. The hills are a highlight, and I actually seek them out for more of a workout. Cycling perhaps isn’t for everyone, but I am behind anything that encourages more people to take it up and get out of their cars. Age need not be a factor. The emergence of e-bikes perhaps makes it even less-so.
Building roads for cars just encourages more driving. It is a well documented effect. It is time we began to challenge the assumption that we must pander to these wasteful, environmentally damaging, anti-social and unhealthy cars.
It’s not reasonable to expect people to give up their cars. We need them to transport items that cannot fit on a bike, we need them because we have children who we are not foolish enough to have on a bike in dangerous traffic conditions, and we need them to get to locations that are too far and too inaccessible for bikes.
Just because some people like riding their bikes and just because some people accept fraudulent global warming science doesn’t mean we should all be forced to give up one of the greatest inventions that makes so much of what we see and use possible.
It’s not about expecting people to give up their cars, it’s about providing another option so people can reduce their car use if practical, which benefits those who must drive.
Regarding global warming fraud, I suppose your sources have more credibility than the vast majority of scientists today.
Bikes are a hazard not just to the cyclist but also to pedestrians and those who drive.
Why must we continually be forced to navigate unsafe traffic conditions because of cyclists and bike lanes? Is it because a very few – often rather militant – cyclists, and the globalist “go green” hypocrite politicians want to force the vast majority to conform to their unreasonable demands?
Biking to work in wet, cold, rainy conditions on roads that are designed for cars may appeal to a few. But why should we all have to pay the price?
I sympathize with the West Vancouver council member who is concerned about his daughter’s safety (and he is right to be concerned, as its very dangerous to ride a bike amongst traffic, or in close prolixity, even in the best of conditions).
The real solution would be to either take the bus, get a ride with someone else, rent a car or buy a car. Those may not be desirable options to his daughter, but they are far better than an accident, which seems too strong a possibility to wait for changes to a bridge, changes which may never – and perhaps should never – come.
The major difference between Vancouver on the one hand and London and Amsterdam on the other is that (1) Vancouver isn’t flat like the other two (2) both the latter have multiple routes that DON’T go through the downtown core which Vancouver doesn’t (try going from West Vancouver to Richmond or Delta not through downtown Vancouver!) and (3) London and Amsterdam both have world class public transit systems.
I live at the top of Mountain Highway roughly 330 metres above sea level. Absolutely I’d consider cycling if I lived in Pemberton Heights but that’s NOT the nature of Vancouver. Plus official bike routes are often politically motivated by cycling enthusiasts – not necesarily average riders. Mayor Walton told me of the time he twice rode his bike from his home near Capilano & Montroyal to Lynn Valley Mall.
The official route was straight up Montroyal to Lonsdale, across Dempsey / Braemar and down the hill to the Mall. His second trip (route chosen by him) was down to Edgemont Village, across Queens and 29th to the Tempe connector, around Tempe to the other side of 29th Street and down to the Mall.
Anybody who knows the geography knows which was by far the more effective route yet that wasn’t any official bike route.
Fact is traffic planning would be much easier if we were in Richmond or Delta but that’s NOT the geography of our community.