Agenda Index City of Vancouver

ADMINISTRATIVE REPORT

TO:

Vancouver City Council

FROM:

General Manager of Engineering Services and Director of Current Planning

SUBJECT:

Granville Bridge Pedestrian & Cyclist Improvements - Capital Plan Consideration

 

RECOMMENDATIONS

A. THAT Council direct staff to seek further public and stakeholder input into this preliminary design and report on their findings and that $50,000 be allocated from the existing Pedestrian and Other Structures account 30000136, to fund open houses, presentation materials and further design work.

B. THAT Council direct staff to pursue cost sharing for this concept with other levels of government, Granville Island and private businesses.

COMMENTS

The General Manager of Engineering Services and Director of Current Planning support Recommendations A and B.

COUNCIL POLICY

On March 26, 2002 Council supported an overall long term strategy for making improvements to pedestrian and cycling environments across False Creek, and Council directed staff to do the necessary work to advance Option Granville (G1) to the 2003-2005 Capital Plan process for consideration.

In June, 2002 Council approved in principle the creation of a pool of funding totaling $20 million in addition to the financial limit recommended for the Capital Plan to be available to projects that receive senior government cost sharing, and THAT the Director of Finance report back in September on the implementation of this "pool" as part of the financing strategy for the 2003-2005 Capital Plan.

PURPOSE

The report provides Council with the necessary information to inject the Granville Bridge Option G1 into the Capital Plan process if so desired, as per Council's March 26, 2002 direction, but recommends that staff do further public consultation and design work and report back to Council at a later date.

BACKGROUND

False Creek Pedestrian and Cyclist Crossing Study
In March of 2002, Council adopted the recommendations of the False Creek Pedestrian and Cyclist Study - Final Report. Staff's report to Council endorsed a long-term strategy to improve pedestrian and cyclist facilities and connections across the three existing bridges of False Creek, including improvements to the Cambie Bridge, Granville Bridge, and Burrard Bridge corridors. Burrard Bridge was recommended as the corridor for priority improvements and is the subject of another study that is being carried out presently. Staff advise that the conclusions of this study will be presented to Council in January 2004. Staff also recommended that major improvements be undertaken in the Granville corridor (after Burrard Bridge). These improvements included a mid-level walkway/cyclist path suspended beneath the bridge (G1 option) and deck level improvements for pedestrians, disabled users and cyclists.

Council Direction
Council asked that staff expand upon the review of the Granville Bridge G1 option in order to give Council pertinent information to advance the G1 to the 2003-2005 Capital Plan process for consideration. Staff proceeded with a study to determine if the option was feasible from a structural, geometric and urban design perspective, and to prepare better cost estimates.
The initial G1 option, as developed by Delcan for the False Creek Pedestrian and Cyclist Crossing Study, proposed a two way pedestrian and cyclist walkway on the west side of Granville Bridge. This option contemplated a 6 m wide structure hung below deck level, and ramped to the ground on each side of False Creek at a 5% grade. For direct access to the Seawall and Granville Island, stairs and elevators to grade were also deemed as necessary.The initial capital cost of construction for the G1 option was estimated at 11.1 million. A subsequent structural review showed that another $2 million in structural upgrades would be required, making this option closer to $13 million.

Stakeholder input from False Creek Pedestrian and Cyclist Crossing Study
Stakeholders consulted in the False Creek Pedestrian and Cyclist Crossing Study saw merit in the G1 concept.

Heritage advocates of the Burrard Bridge noted that the G1 options represented a good alternative to making major modifications to the Burrard Bridge, re-directing pedestrian and cyclist trip demand from Burrard Bridge to the Granville Bridge by making it more cyclist and pedestrian friendly.

Cyclists supported deck level improvements on Granville Bridge, but cautioned that it would be difficult to make a commuter cyclist connection work underneath the bridge deck from Granville Island and the north seawall area of False Creek because of connection points and grades.

Those with disabilities noted the need for a crossing with elevators to facilitate movement across the creek, particularly in the absence of effective disabled access with the existing ferry system.

Other members of the public noted that it was an interesting idea that warranted further exploration, although some deemed it less critical than solving existing capacity issues on Burrard Street Bridge.

Staff selected Buckland Taylor Engineers and Hotson Bakker Architects to carry out a review of the G1 option in June 2002. The Consultant's mandate was to explore the feasibility of improving pedestrian and cyclist access from the seawall on the north to Granville Island on the south via the Granville Bridge, in terms of urban design principles, geometric design and structural loading considerations. They were also asked to prepare Class "C" cost estimates.

DISCUSSION

Staff and the Buckland Taylor/Hotson Bakker team worked through a number of differentof options and came up with two distinct configurations that the consultant and staff team believe are technically feasible, meet basic urban design principals and are within the scope of the preliminary budget. (see attached study, limited distribution)

While further public consultation is recommended before these or any other option is recommended for detailed design and construction, these options demonstrate that pedestrian and cyclist improvements on this bridge are feasible, functional and potentially aesthetically attractive.

G1 Mid-Level Crossing - Options 1 &2

Council asked staff to further explore Option G1 and bring back a feasibility assessment. This option has been further developed with staff and the consultant and is shown as Options 1 & 2 in the attached study.

It was found that the cyclists and pedestrian ramp connections proposed by the G1 Option at each end are difficult to achieve due to cost, alignment and urban design issues. The Granville Bridge lower truss over Granville Island and north of False Creek is not as robust as the main span truss over the creek and therefore is not suitable to support a suspended walkway, as per the G1 proposal. Consequently, a cyclist/pedestrian ramp over Granville Island would require column supports throughout the Island. This would result in the loss of parking, greatly reduce future development potential and have shadowing impacts on the island. Canadian Housing and Mortgage Corporation have indicated that they would not support this component of Option G1, though they are in general support of the other concepts discussed here. Similar issues make the extend ramps north of the creek also less desirable.

As shown as Options 1 and 2 in the attached study, the modified proposal for G1 is to use stairs and an elevator to get users from grade to either a mid level crossing supported by the main span truss or up to the existing sidewalk. A 3 metre wide shared walkway could be supported by the truss to allow users to walk or ride approximately 90 feet above False Creek. G1 included a 6 metre walkway and it has been determined that this could not be supported on one side of the bridge without local and global upgrades to the structure and is not practical, while 3 metre is achievable with no upgrades required globally or locally.

Options 1 and 2 are attractive because they give users an unparalleled experience by allowing them to cross at a very high level (approximately 90 feet), see the inner workings of the bridge and remain separate from the vehicles on the upper deck. Users would have the option of using the staircase to climb the 75 feet and cross, or use the elevators, which would stop at the mid-crossing level. This scenario also has the ability to take users between gradeand the bridge deck so all users have the option to be where they feel most comfortable.

The drawback to this option would be gauging the potential usage. While some users may enjoy the experience and this may become a very popular "Urban Grouse Grind", others may feel too exposed due to the height. Potential users may also perceive that because it is out of sight of the traffic it may be less safe if one were accosted or injured. Staff feel that these issues need to be discussed further with potential user groups and stakeholders prior to proceeding.

While this option provides access to walkers, disabled users and recreational cyclists, it would be less attractive to commuter cyclists due to the need to use elevators or stairs.

Elevators Only - Option 3

During review of the option G1, staff and the consultant realised there was merit to looking into an elevator/deck level improvement option with no mid-level crossing.

As shown in attached study as Option 3 elevators and stairs provide access from the upper deck to the seawall on the north side to Granville Island on the south side.

This option provides similar convenience and desire lines as Options 1 and 2, but with reduced height exposure and no fear of isolation there is less uncertainty related to the potential users.

Although this option puts users next to traffic, it would be combined with improvements to the deck level to provide an enhanced experience for pedestrians and cyclists. This is discussed in more detail below.

Deck Level Improvements for Pedestrians

Based on previous direction from Council, further study will include a review of the sidewalk conditions and connections throughout the bridge to improve connectivity for all pedestrian and more specifically disabled users.

This could involve widened sidewalks by either building outward or removing a driving lane. This would allow improved pedestrian comfort, room for benches and room for proper drop curbs at the ramp crossings for disabled users. It could have a feel similar to the Cambie Bridge east sidewalk.

Deck Level Improvements for Commuter Cyclists

Through all of the major interventions we reviewed on Granville Bridge related to the mid-level suspended G1 option staff and the consultant were not able to find a strong upgrade for commuter cyclists. Therefore, staff are proceeding with developing deck level options, as endorsed by Council March 26, 2002.

Variations being considered include bike lanes or wider shared sidewalks similar to the east sidewalk on Cambie Bridge.

Ferry Companies Comments

Staff have presented these options to False Creek Ferries and Aquabus Ferries. Both companies feel many of the users will be the same as those that currently uses the ferries. Both tourists and commuters may choose this option even though it is less convenient then the ferries because it is free. Therefore, they suggest a turnstile or toll would make this project more reasonable, otherwise they feel the City is essentially funding a benefit to a very select target group that is already served by the ferries.

False Creek Yacht Club

The False Creek Yacht Club (FCYC) currently lease the provincial land lot on the north side of False Creek under Granville Bridge and have not yet been consulted. The proposed concept could potentially work well with the public right of way that is being required as a condition of a CD-1 Text Amendment to Beach Neighbourhood 1B. This condition states that the FCYC must provide a public right of way through the area currently leased by the FCYC from the Province. The new walkway would allow the public to enjoy a pedestrian walkway closer to the water than the existing seawall walkway/bikeway.

However, FCYC and Engineering Services have expressed concerns about the loss of parking for the FCYC, which is currently under standard. Should the Granville Bridge mid-level crossing be advanced for Capital Plan consideration and further public consultation undertaken, staff would work with the FCYC to assess their current parking situation and identify opportunities to accommodate additional parking off-site

City Advisory Committee Comments

All of the comments below are preliminary in nature and further consultation would be required prior to finalizing any design here.

Special Advisory Committee on Disability Issues

Special Advisory Committee on Disability Issues have had a preliminary review of theoptions described herein. They expressed some concern with the mid-level Options 1 and 2 not attracting enough people as they tend to feel more comfortable in an isolated area if others are present. They also felt this could be an interesting addition to the bridge, as long as it was well used. Improved access to the upper deck via elevators and a wider sidewalk on the upper deck as per Option 3 was strongly supported as being useful and needed.

Bicycle Advisory Committee (BAC)

The BAC agreed with staff that Options 1 and 2 do not have strong benefits for commuter cyclists, but Option 3 would improve both recreational and commuter use of the bridge and provide much better connections for all users in the area.

Urban Design Panel (UDP)

The UDP felt that Option 3 was the most practical overall but that Options 1 and 2 could be a great benefit to the bridge and the City. Either option 1 or 2 could be an attractive intervention to a very utilitarian structure and could become a very popular City icon.

Public Safety Comments

The City's CPTED consultant has reviewed the options and noted that while the mid-level walkway shown in Options 1 and 2 is not inherently dangerous, there would be a perception of fear due its isolated location. The advantage to this design is that use of this walkway would be by choice as all users have the option to use the upper deck if they were uncomfortable at the mid-level.

If the upper deck could be made more attractive to all users this would be preferred over the mid-level crossing as there would be no perceived fear due to the isolation and also would be less likely to attract jumpers.

Details around the ramp's end points and elevators would be critical to minimize hiding spaces or poor site lines and the clear glass elevators proposed in all the options appear acceptable in concept.

FUNDING

Cost Estimates Including Contingency, GST and Overhead.

Item

Options 1&2

Option 3

Consulting

$1.2

$1.0

Stairs

$1.5

$1.5

Walkway

$5.2

$0.0

Elevators and Towers

$1.9

$1.9

Lighting

$0.8

$0.4

Fencing/Railings

$0.4

$0.2

Widen Sidewalk Outward

$0.0

$3.0

Totals

$11.0M

$8.0M

The $11.0 million required for Options 1 or 2 or the $8.0 million for Option 3 could be added to the plebiscite for the 2003 - 2005 Capital Plan, but this is not recommended by staff.

In the June 2002 Capital Plan report Council approved in principle the creation of a pool of funding totaling $20 million in addition to the financial limit recommended for the Capital Plan to be available to projects that receive senior government cost sharing. Staff noted "Granville Street Bridge Pedestrian and Cyclist Improvements", as one of a number of projects identified for such funding. Staff continue to support this approach. The Director of Finance will address the matter further in the report back on Capital Funding.

Further work required for public and stakeholder input into this preliminary design as described in Recommendation A at a cost of $50,000 can be allocated from the existing Granville Bridge Safety Improvements account 30000136, to fund open houses, presentation materials and further design work.

CONCLUSION

The False Creek Crossing Study has concluded that pedestrian and cyclist improvements are necessary on Granville Bridge and this most recent study has narrowed down those options and shown that they are feasible and could serve the City well.

Therefore, staff recommend pursuing funding opportunities and further input from stakeholders before a final design is recommended to Council.

* * * * *

ag021001.htm

Comments or questions? You can send us email.
[City Homepage] [Get In Touch]

(c) 1998 City of Vancouver