Vancouver History: Burrard Bridge

Posted by JZ
Filed in City
June 16, 2008

As I stated in my post about Lion's Gate Bridge , bridges are simply a way of life to us in Vancouver. Either getting in or out of the city, you usually have to cross over at least one - and that's if you're lucky. Burrard bridge poses a few unique and interesting challenges that will greatly shape it's future in the city of Vancouver, and certainly affect our usage, but for now... the history!

Built in 1932 in the (in)famous Art Deco style, the six-lane $3 million Burrard Bridge connects Vancouver's downtown with the Kitsilano neighbourhoods. Gracing the decorative section of the bridge are busts of best buddies Sir Harry Burrard-Neale and Captain George Vancouver along with giant lamps put up by engineer John Grant as a tribute to Canadian World War 1 prisoners of war who would huddle around the open fires in their prison camps.

Originally connecting Burrard street with Cedar street, Burrard was eventually extended through the base of downtown destroying Cedar street (poor poor Cedar street). Also of impressive note, is that upon it's opening ceremony (where there was much rejoicing), a RCAF Seaplane flew under the bridge. Perhaps a pilot can explain if that is difficult or not, because it seems like it would be.

Yet, the most striking issues with Burrard bridge are simply the ways in which we use it and the controversies surrounding. Rising population and increased motor, foot, and bicycle traffic have made the bridge potentially treacherous for all who dare to cross it. I recommend heading over to it's Wikipedia page for a list of all the different plans and proposals over the years deciding whether we want to expand or take away lanes or do something else blah blah blah. Right now, the most recent design is to widen the sidewalk area of the bridge, at a slight cost of $61 million dollars.

I'll let you fight it out in the comments section, bikers vs drivers vs walkers who will win? You decide.

(Photo by Christina T in the BR Flickr pool)

Reader Reviews and Comments

Submit a Review or Comment

I prefer to look at the $61 million for sidewalk widening as $61 million for accommodating cars, since it's a huge cost and effort whose sole purpose is to keep all six lanes of the bridge for cars. I'm a cyclist, though.

Posted by: sgt.turmeric at June 17, 2008 11:26 AM | Quote Comment

I think a simple solution would be to simply put up a fence on the sidewalk so that cyclists can't fall into traffic. It certainly wouldn't cost $61 million...

Posted by: jz at June 17, 2008 2:43 PM | Quote Comment

It's absolutely unbelievable to me that the cycling community seems to think that there's a problem with the way the bridge is now. I cross that bridge on my bike twice a day, and there's no problems whatsoever so long as people aren't walking 3 abreast (and if they are, let them know they're retards). We need $0 to fix the bridge as it works just fine as it is. Quit being pussies people.

Posted by: Jerry at June 18, 2008 1:17 PM | Quote Comment

If I was running for Mayor of Vancouver my slogan would be "Quit being pussies people". Thanks Jerry!

Posted by: jz at June 18, 2008 2:03 PM | Quote Comment

If you follow the wikipedia link you can actually read the city's report. It's pretty interesting.

They did a trial run of converting car lanes into bike lanes several years ago and it was pretty much a nightmare. Bridge transit time (by car) went from 5 min to 20. Political suicide to bring that forward.

Fence on the sidewalk was ruled out because it reduces the available width of the walkway which is already too narrow.

To Jerry, just because you have been fortunate enough not to have an accident that doesn't mean the bridge is safe. One tiny wobble and you're going to get creamed by cars going way too fast to stop. Many people avoid the bridge because they feel unsafe on it.

Posted by: Paul at June 18, 2008 2:24 PM | Quote Comment

What about making it so that all bikers must dismount and walk their bikes across the bridge?

If safety is the key issue, then that seems like a relevant solution (although impractical and unpopular for bikers...)

Posted by: jz at June 18, 2008 2:34 PM | Quote Comment

Yeah, I'm definitely not dismounting to walk all the way across the bridge. Most cyclists would just disregard the rule and ride over anyway, which would cause even more safety problems than we have now.

That said, I agree that I don't find the bridge to be much of a problem. It's the Granville St. bridge that I have trouble riding over: cyclists are supposed to ride in traffic because the sidewalks aren't wide enough, but I'm not doing that in rush hour.

Posted by: Nicole at June 18, 2008 3:57 PM | Quote Comment

If I didn't live in a glass house, I'd be tempted to lean on my mayoral slogan. I have enough trouble riding around with Kits traffic let alone Granville @ rush hour!

Posted by: jz at June 18, 2008 4:00 PM | Quote Comment

This wouldn't be a problem if people would just stop riding their bikes altogether. I heard driving your car is healthier anyway.

Posted by: T at June 18, 2008 7:04 PM | Quote Comment

I think Jerry hit the nail on the head. How come all everybody does is complain in Vancouver? I think they're just complaining until they think of something to say. I commute across that bridge everyday on a damn BMX bike and I don't have a problem except for when a couple of slow fixie idiots won't move out of the way on their way back to Main Street for more coffee.

This is by far the safest cycling city in North America, so Vancouverites, get the sand out of your vaginas and move along. Everything will be just fine.

Posted by: TJ at June 18, 2008 8:35 PM | Quote Comment

And why exactly is the art deco style "infamous"?

Posted by: Nicholas at June 27, 2008 10:07 AM | Quote Comment

I guess it's just a matter of taste, isn't it?

Posted by: jz at June 27, 2008 10:10 AM | Quote Comment