A. The Heritage Commission wants the BC Transportation Financing Authority (BCTFA) to pursue a different solution to the widening of the Prospect Point overpass which would entail creating additional portals through the wing walls to accommodate the bicycle and pedestrian pathways. City Council, on May 16, 2000 responded to this request as follows:
"1. THAT Vancouver City Council support in principle the retention of the Prospect Point Bridge.
2. THAT the City enter into discussions with the Board of Parks and Recreation and with the Province to explore options for retaining the Prospect Point Bridge.
3. THAT the additional cost of approximately $1.5 - 1.9 million to retain the Prospect Point Bridge be borne by the Province.
4. THAT, in the event the Prospect Point Bridge cannot be saved, Council would like the visual impacts of the existing bridge maintained in the design and construction of a new bridge."
The salient points are listed below:
1. The overpass is not a listed nor a designated heritage structure.
2. The overpass is owned and maintained by the Provincial Government, not the Park Board or the City.
3. The Heritage Commission proposal would more significantly alter the appearance of the existing overpass than the current BCTFA design, which would retain the solid wing walls and widen the current single arch.
4. The relocated sidewalks/bikeways would require significant cut backs in the existing slopes on either side of the overpass for a distance of approximately 60 meters in each direction. The current slopes cannot be steepened without the addition of major wing walls, which would create a "freeway" look in Stanley Park. Hence this current design alternative would see the cutting down of 30 major trees.
5. The Heritage Commission alternative would cost at least $2 million more than the currently approved solution. It is unresolved which government would pick up the cost of this premium. For the above reasons neither Park Board nor Engineering Department staff support the Heritage Commission alternative, details of which are included in Appendix 2.
B. The design for the Chilco pedestrian underpass is being driven by Park Board programmatic requirements which entail the following:
1. Reduction of the approach grades to the underpass to achieve a maximum slope of 4% and a desired slope of 3%. This is to create a safe passage for unskilled rollerbladers who are seriously challenged by downhill slopes. The recently built English Bay bikeway/rollerblade route has a 3% slope and is considered generally acceptable.
2. Increase in the vertical clearance in
the underpass from the current 2.3 meters to 3 meters. This will
permit the passage of service vans and the Police Mounted Squad.
It will also significantly improve the
aesthetics of the underpass for its users by creating a brighter
environment with more open site lines through the structure. This
added sense of safety was a significant concern to those who attended
the project open houses. The design concept which will be presented
at the July 10, 2000 meeting meets the above criteria while also
addressing bicycle routing concerns, service needs for the chlorination
station, preservation of the Lost Lagoon Nature House, accommodation
of Greater Vancouver Regional District pump station, redesign
of the Devonian Park plaza and subtly creating a gateway image
for the Park and the City.
C. The new permanent, year-round bus loop, replacing Chilco, will be located in the parking lot immediately behind the Pavilion. This offers the advantages of a shorter walk for transit users to the major Park attractions and cleanly separates the bus traffic from private vehicle parking movements. Plans will be presented at the July 10, 2000 meeting.
D. Inherent in the above design solutions is the assumption of the reinstatement of trolley buses on Georgia Street and the extension of their routes into Stanley Park to the new bus loop. This will entail adding trolley poles and wires through the Park entrance and up Pipeline Road through the Rose Garden. This has created a conflict between aesthetic and environmental rationales. Electric buses are quiet and non-polluting. This is of particular importance when one considers a bus loop in the park where vehicles collect and sit with their engines running. On the other hand, electric trolley buses require poles and wires infrastructure which have a visual impact on landscapes like the Rose Garden. The public, as reflected in comments at the two open houses, ranked the trolley wires as their highest concerns. The visual impact of the poles and wires in the Rose Garden is also a concern with the Horticultural staff.
In spite of the above, this report supports the trolley wire installation for the following reasons:
1. As stated, trolleys are more environmentally acceptable.
2. The region has just made a major financial commitment to stay with trolleys by deciding to replace the existing fleet with new trolley buses.
3. Natural gas buses are not seen as a reasonable alternative by TransLink as indicated in the attached portion of a letter from their planning section (Appendix 3) Natural Gas vs Trolleybus.
4. If new technology does appear and trollies are no longer required, the poles and wires can be removed.
5. Electrification in itself will require no tree removal, although some limbing-up and pruning to existing trees will be required.
This page last updated 5 JL 2000
