Bike lane on potentially doomed Dunsmuir Viaduct worth spending $300,000, Meggs says

    1 of 1 2 of 1

      The city councillor who suggested the Georgia and Dunsmuir viaducts should be torn down does not believe spending $300,000 to add a two-way bike path to the latter bridge is a waste of money.

      “The decision hasn’t been made,” Vision councillor Geoff Meggs told the Straight, referring to the potential removal of the viaducts. “We’re studying whether it could be torn down....In the meantime, we’re years from having that report. Later in the spring, we’ll ask for the RFP [request for proposals]. Hopefully this year we’ll get something back. Still the decision would be some years away.”

      Meanwhile, Meggs said, you can “simply do some rearranging there and create a better route into the downtown core from one of our most heavily used crosstown bike routes, which is the Adanac route”.

      At its city services and budgets meeting on Thursday (February 4), council will vote on whether to proceed with the two-way separated bike lane into the downtown core.

      The bike lane would fill what Meggs calls the “lost lane”, which he said was removed from the viaduct several years ago and not replaced.

      Council will also vote on the adoption, in principle, of a plan to connect separated bike paths on the Burrard Bridge and Dunsmuir Viaduct with the city centre.

      Meggs said it is by no means certain the viaducts are going to be torn down.

      “No, we’re trying to determine the feasibility of it,” Meggs said. “That report hasn’t even been commissioned yet, although council’s agreed to commission it. It was a post-Olympics proposition.”

      The Vancouver Area Cycling Coalition issued a press release on February 2 in support of the plan.

      Earlier, city bicycle advisory committee chair Kari Hewitt had also written to council to back the proposals.

      Comments

      2 Comments

      RodSmelser

      Feb 3, 2010 at 1:58pm

      OKay. That's revealing.

      Let me just repeat the question from an earlier story.

      Why would the City consider spending $300,000 on upgrades to a structure it is planning to demolish?

      A thoroughly minimalist interpretation of what Jeff Meggs says is that any possible demolition is years and years into the future, and may never happen at all. So the expenditure on a bike lane will not be wasted after all.

      As before, I think a far more likely interpretation is that the City does not now and never has had any real intention whatever of destroying the viaducts. Rather, the promise to hire some group (more expenditure on this phase!) to study this idea is a just a political poker bluff intended to put pressure on Victoria and perhaps Ottawa as well to provide financial support for building the Malkin Connector.

      Making that bluff sound credible, making it seem genuinely frightening to professional staff in the MOTH and DOT, is the job of the anti-freeway, anti-car crusaders who pose as transportation and transit experts and who can be counted upon to lustily cheer this idea as one more victory in their never-ending crusade.

      Rod Smelser

      Chop

      Feb 3, 2010 at 5:05pm

      Just take the damn thing down. Big 60's eyesore, earthquake unsafe, and eating a lot of good land. That land should be used for people not cars. It was 60's 70's thinking, over.