Granville island plans unveiled

[SpongeG]

Granville Island redevelopment vision includes bridge elevator, pedestrian span over Alder Bay


A key recommended strategy of Granville Island 2040: Bridging Past & Future plan, which was released Tuesday by CMHC-Granville Island, is to explore the feasibility of an elevator from the Granville Street Bridge to the heart of Granville Island HANDOUT

Granville Street Bridge into the heart of Granville Island is one of the ideas contained in the Granville Island 2040: Bridging Past & Future report.

The plan, released Tuesday by CMHC-Granville Island, is the result of a 18-month project to explore ideas on improving accessibility, creating a market district, developing a more vibrant arts and innovation sector, and enhancing the public spaces on Granville Island.

“The elevator would become a destination in itself, attracting new visitors to Granville Island. As well, by lowering the ‘effective distance’ to the Island for approximately 250,000 local downtown Vancouver residents, the elevator greatly increases their likelihood of using Granville Island for food and convenience shopping as well as restaurants, theatres, and other amenities,” the report says.

The CMHC-Granville Island report says the elevator proposal — which would also include a staircase — aligns with the City of Vancouver’s Transportation 2040 proposal of an elevated cycle and pedestrian greenway in the central two lanes of the eight-lane Granville Street Bridge.

...


Concept art of proposed pedestrian/cycle bridge across Alder Bay. HANDOUT



Granville Island 2040: Bridging Past & Future calls for the creation of a market district by providing more market uses in adjacent buildings and sites. HANDOUT


Proposed Granville Island Arts and Innovation Hub concept.


http://vancouversun.com/news/local-n...over-alder-bay

[SpongeG]

CTV story has more renders and a video

http://bc.ctvnews.ca/bridge-elevator...plan-1.3426300

[csbvan]

I like the plan, and I think it's about time. Granville Island is a great asset but it needs a refresh. It is too touristy now for the current lack of pedestrian space.

[Alex Mackinnon]

I noted it on PriceTags, and I'll note it here. The centre island bus / bike path connection makes no sense.

1) The busses would have to unload on the wrong side unless there is a crossover which would be huge and expensive. Bus doors are always on the passenger side unless you custom order busses.

2) Putting the elevators and stairs in the middle of the bridge would also be a poor choice. This would reduce the cross section of the bridge, add in a whole bunch of complicated expansion joints, greatly hinder construction, require complex engineering, and likely reduce the number of lanes to 2 each-way.

3) The pedestrian connection would require 1-2 crosswalk crossings for every single user, as opposed to none for some movements if it was on a single side.

4) Views from the bridge would always be through several lanes of traffic. Picking a side would provide better views, and potentially allow cantilevering a wider section onto the bridge like that which occurred on Second Narrows.



Here is the PDF of the Report.

[officedweller]

The elevator core would be a massive bottleneck on the bikeway.
That's exactly the reason TransLink relocated the elevator at Broadway Station's centre platform.

[WarrenC12]

Agreed on the center pedestrian/bike/elevator thing. Pick a side(!). For views, probably the west side is better.

[Anorak]

Originally Posted by Alex Mackinnon

I noted it on PriceTags, and I'll note it here. The centre island bus / bike path connection makes no sense.

1) The busses would have to unload on the wrong side unless there is a crossover which would be huge and expensive. Bus doors are always on the passenger side unless you custom order busses.

2) Putting the elevators and stairs in the middle of the bridge would also be a poor choice. This would reduce the cross section of the bridge, add in a whole bunch of complicated expansion joints, greatly hinder construction, require complex engineering, and likely reduce the number of lanes to 2 each-way.

3) The pedestrian connection would require 1-2 crosswalk crossings for every single user, as opposed to none for some movements if it was on a single side.

4) Views from the bridge would always be through several lanes of traffic. Picking a side would provide better views, and potentially allow cantilevering a wider section onto the bridge like that which occurred on Second Narrows.



Here is the PDF of the Report.

I can see where you're coming from, but I think some of your concerns are a little bit overblown.

1) In the render you can see a little island where pedestrians can get off and walk to the pedestrian walkway/elevator; no custom busses necessary.

2) Its possible that it could be complicated to put the bridge in, but I'm assuming they've thought of that, and you can't really make those claims until an engineering study has been done. Also I don't know why you think the pedestrian walkway would reduce traffic to two lanes each way, it states in the article it would be the middle two lanes used for the pedestrian walkway. I don't think it would need four lanes for a lane of bikes each way and some bushes (and even if it did for some reason wouldn't it use the same if it was on one side?).

3) I don't think this is a big deal, there are lots of cross walks for bridges like the Burrard Street bridge and it's not a huge issue.

4) I agree that views could be better on one side, but especially if the middle part is elevated I think you could still get good views, just not directly below. Additionally, if it was one side you would only be able to see that side, whereas in the middle you could have views in both directions. Cantilevering is a good idea, but I'm not sure about how that would work if it was just one side.

With regards to busses, if it was on one side of the road there would only be bus access from one direction, or pedestrians would have to cross many lanes of traffic to get to the elevator, which wouldn't really work on a busy fast moving bridge. Also, adding that much weight to one side of the bridge could cause some structural imbalances that would could be more costly and complicated than having to move some beams to fit the elevator (and if you wanted to put the elevator inside the bridge on one side it would still need structural adjustments).

[whatnext]

Originally Posted by Alex Mackinnon

I noted it on PriceTags, and I'll note it here. The centre island bus / bike path connection makes no sense.

1) The busses would have to unload on the wrong side unless there is a crossover which would be huge and expensive. Bus doors are always on the passenger side unless you custom order busses.

2) Putting the elevators and stairs in the middle of the bridge would also be a poor choice. This would reduce the cross section of the bridge, add in a whole bunch of complicated expansion joints, greatly hinder construction, require complex engineering, and likely reduce the number of lanes to 2 each-way.

3) The pedestrian connection would require 1-2 crosswalk crossings for every single user, as opposed to none for some movements if it was on a single side.

4) Views from the bridge would always be through several lanes of traffic. Picking a side would provide better views, and potentially allow cantilevering a wider section onto the bridge like that which occurred on Second Narrows.


Here is the PDF of the Report.

I agree. The pedestrian experience has already been marred on the Burrard Bridge thanks to the intrusive suicide fence. Now they want pedestrians on Granville to be stuck in the middle of traffic to see the fantastic view?

As to the elevator, sure it will be convenient but it smacks of overkill. How busy will it be November-March?

[officedweller]

From 2012:

Originally Posted by officedweller

RFP for feasibility study to examine widening of Granville and Cambie Bridges for pedestrians and bikes.
Cambie: Closing one southbound lane and widening west side sidewalk at south end
Granville: That middle island concept....


See the pdf attachment at the following link - Appendix A - for bigger, legible versions of the diagrams...

http://former.vancouver.ca/fs/bid/bi...PS20120758.htm

http://bids.vancouver.ca/bidopp/RFP/...758-SF-RFP.pdf

GRANVILLE BRIDGE
One lane each way would be closed. The ped/bikeway would be raised above traffic level.
Note notation at Granville Loops: Planned future intersection when Granville Loops removed.
Note notation at south end: Centre channel for 2-way bike traffic. Considering vehicle volumes - strip all curbside parking.


http://bids.vancouver.ca/bidopp/RFP/...758-SF-RFP.pdf

I don't see an elevator fitting in the width shown without taking away another vehicle lane:


http://bids.vancouver.ca/bidopp/RFP/...758-SF-RFP.pdf

[Aroundtheworld]

Originally Posted by officedweller

The elevator core would be a massive bottleneck on the bikeway.
That's exactly the reason TransLink relocated the elevator at Broadway Station's centre platform.

You could cantilever the bikeway over where the buses will be stopping.

[SpongeG]

The CTV article mentions a streetcar as well along the Olympic line.

[Marshal]

Relating only to the bridge concept: it is stupid. The rational behind it is stupid. It is simply not the best way to design the features and uses proposed.

Everything they propose to do on the bridge can be accomplished on either side instead of the middle. Who wants to walk down the middle of six lanes of busy traffic? What do you get out of that, instead of the same elements along the west side (for example)? On the side, the motorized traffic impact would be lessened; the access at the approaches would be simplified; the views would be better; looking down on the activity of Granville Island would be possible; raised platforms would be unnecessary (and how ugly would these be from the side); it would be cheaper; and an elevator/stair would be a better feature standing apart/alongside the bridge.

[mcminsen]

One more consideration to throw in the mix is suicide bars. If the sidewalks remained on the outside of the bridge the city might want to put the bars on, like the Burrard Bridge. I presume they wouldn't be needed on the centre path design. So maybe it would be a choice of a view with bars from the side of the bridge or a view without bars (but across lanes of traffic) from the centre. Maybe they could raise the centre path high enough with some solid side walls (not too high) to minimize the sight and sound of the traffic.

[retro_orange]

Originally Posted by mcminsen

One more consideration to throw in the mix is suicide bars. If the sidewalks remained on the outside of the bridge the city might want to put the bars on, like the Burrard Bridge. I presume they wouldn't be needed on the centre path design. So maybe it would be a choice of a view with bars from the side of the bridge or a view without bars (but across lanes of traffic) from the centre. Maybe they could raise the centre path high enough with some solid side walls (not too high) to minimize the sight and sound of the traffic.

Good points. I still find the proposal rather puzzling as this appears like the sort of thing that could easily go way over budget and looks costly as it is. I think they would be better off building 2 separate structures that attach to the sides of the bridge with a pedestrian bridge to walk over the traffic from one viewing platform to the other.

As soon as you start punching big holes in a 60 year old structure that's in use while it's happening, you are asking for trouble. I think they should just stick to a treed median and upgrade the sidewalks so they aren't so terrifying in that it's currently easy to fall off them into traffic.

[Migrant_Coconut]

Would the elevator make more sense if it were off to one side of the bridge and connected to the median via overpass?

[Alex Mackinnon]

Originally Posted by Anorak

I can see where you're coming from, but I think some of your concerns are a little bit overblown.

1) In the render you can see a little island where pedestrians can get off and walk to the pedestrian walkway/elevator; no custom busses necessary.

I wasn't saying you need custom buses, I was saying it's inelegant. The added island is more width though, probably 2m to accomodate wheelchairs and ramps. That's a limiting factor. For the middle instead of just having a the new path width, you've now got:

island /bus stop/ped path/elevator+stairs/ped path/bus stop/island

If I were to guess, then I'd say thats about 20m wide total for both directions. (2m wide islands, 3.5m bus stop, 2m sidewalk/path, 2.5m elevator) I'd guess the bridge deck is rated for car traffic for about 32m of it's width. That leaves 4x 3m lanes, which are kind of substandard...

Unless you stagger that or do something fancy, it's a 4 lane bridge.


2) Its possible that it could be complicated to put the bridge in, but I'm assuming they've thought of that, and you can't really make those claims until an engineering study has been done.

I'm a little surprised theres nobody from COWI (read Buckland and Taylor) on something where a big capital item may be a bridge. I don't see anyone listed in the credits that would be obviously bridge specialized. There do appear to be two or three transport planning specialized engineers though.

4) I agree that views could be better on one side, but especially if the middle part is elevated I think you could still get good views, just not directly below. Additionally, if it was one side you would only be able to see that side, whereas in the middle you could have views in both directions. Cantilevering is a good idea, but I'm not sure about how that would work if it was just one side.

In my mind, you would probably do both sides, then tie sides together with a ped path at the elevator/stairs.

The single sided cantilever would also probably work, as it worked on Second Narrows for most of a year, but that could have just been as temporary work with a lower Factor of Safety. I think twin cantilevers would be preferable anyways though, and that kind of stuff doesn't have to be very heavy due to the limited loading requirements for sidewalks.

Then again, I'm all about going under the water rather than over it and I'm not a civil.

See above.

[Marshal]

Again, only in reference to the bridge, and I apologize if this info is sitting in someone's post right beneath my nose, but: does anyone know where this stupid idea came from in the first place? Who proposed reducing the traffic lanes, and who the hell proposed to put pedestrians down the middle of what is essentially a six lane highway; who thought it would be a pleasant initiative?

It boggles my mind how many times these idiotic ideas come up and get traction!

[mcminsen]

Originally Posted by Marshal

Again, only in reference to the bridge, and I apologize if this info is sitting in someone's post right beneath my nose, but: does anyone know where this stupid idea came from in the first place? Who proposed reducing the traffic lanes, and who the hell proposed to put pedestrians down the middle of what is essentially a six lane highway; who thought it would be a pleasant initiative?

It boggles my mind how many times these idiotic ideas come up and get traction!

Discussion about the path down the centre of the Granville Bridge dates back several years on the Vancouver House thread. When I first saw it then I immediately thought no, I do not want to walk down the centre of the bridge with traffic on both sides.

I would encourage anyone who can to take a walk on the bridge to get a sense of what it's like. Every time I walk on the Howe Street ramp to get pics of the Vancouver House site I continue up to the centre of the bridge to get pics. It's great to be able to look down from the side of the bridge to the water and the boats. You wouldn't have that part of the view at all from the centre of the bridge.

[officedweller]

Originally Posted by Aroundtheworld

You could cantilever the bikeway over where the buses will be stopping.

Yeah, I was thinking that they'd have to do that, esp. with people waiting for the elevator, etc.

Originally Posted by Migrant_Coconut

Would the elevator make more sense if it were off to one side of the bridge and connected to the median via overpass?

Probably not, because to access the median from the overpass, you'd need stairs that take up width and/or an accessible ramp (or another elevator).

Originally Posted by Marshal

Again, only in reference to the bridge, and I apologize if this info is sitting in someone's post right beneath my nose, but: does anyone know where this stupid idea came from in the first place? Who proposed reducing the traffic lanes, and who the hell proposed to put pedestrians down the middle of what is essentially a six lane highway; who thought it would be a pleasant initiative?

It boggles my mind how many times these idiotic ideas come up and get traction!

General Description of Requirement

This Short Form - Request for Proposal (“SF-RFP”) identifies a business opportunity for the successful Proponent to provide a feasibility study for pedestrian and cycling enhancements on Granville and Cambie bridges.

This feasibility study is a result of emerging directions from the City’s transportation plan update (Transportation 2040) and will examine the potential costs and feasibility of modifications to the two bridges to improve the pedestrian and cycling environment.

[teriyaki]

We think we can replicate Brooklyn Bridges success in this rainy city? Guaranteed that elevator goes completely unused for 8 months of the year with homeless people taking shelter there every night since it'd be hard to police on what is effectively a thoroughfare into downtown...