The sometimes acrimonious discussion between drivers and cyclists over how to share Metro Vancouver’s road space is frequently tinged with an air of sanctimonious moral superiority and claims of pragmatic convenience from both sides.

Often overlooked in the tiresome rancour is the inconvenient fact there are, at any given moment more pedestrians walking in the city’s core areas than there are people driving or biking. Pedestrian traffic is different from vehicular traffic in pattern, use and purpose but it nevertheless shares our urban infrastructure in a significant way.

City designers increasingly recognize the walkability of cities is a crucial indicator of their livability. Vancouver already has the distinction of now ranking first among Canadian cities and fourth in North America on the walkable index. Anything that secures and improves that standing is good for the city’s residents and inviting to the visitors who drive Metro’s $3.6-billion-a-year tourism industry.

So before cyclists crow and drivers wax apoplectic about the proposal for a $30-million makeover of the Burrard Bridge — that’s 10 times what it cost to build the bridge in 1933 — that will repurpose one of its three northbound lanes for cyclists to reclaim protected space for walkers, let’s all take a deep breath and remember that in the battle for commuting space, it’s often the pedestrians who are left out of the equation.

In this case, there is much common sense in the idea that walkers have a right to reclaim the sidewalk on the east side of the bridge, originally closed to permit a separate bike lane at the expense of one of three southbound vehicles lanes. If the price of that is additional closure of one of three northbound traffic lanes to accommodate cyclists, well, cars will still command four lanes.

Thus far, the mixed-use approach to the Burrard Bridge has been a reasonably successful work in progress. It has stimulated a better than 30-per-cent increase in cycling traffic — from 148,000 to 195,000 monthly trips — while still handling 55,000 cars a day. The traffic chaos predicted by doom-and-gloom opponents never happened.

There have been the usual complaints from the usual suspects that two public hearings between now and June 16 are inadequate. But this doesn’t seem to be an over-complicated decision, and it doesn’t require endless over-thinking to make the correct choice. Meanwhile, almost everyone agrees the 83-year-old bridge needs renovating.

A major sweetener for drivers in the proposal must be the plan to upgrade the heavily congested intersection at Burrard and Pacific with improvements to turn lanes and bridge abutments intended to reduce bottlenecking on the bridge by speeding traffic flow. Design improvements will enable less congestion at the bridge’s approach.

What we will have will be better traffic flow, new pedestrian walkways on both sides of the bridge, new traffic signals to segregate and direct pedestrians, cyclists and drivers more safely and efficiently, new concrete railings, improved electrical and underground services, and further enhancement of the walkability index that is vital to the city’s well-being.

All in all, it sounds like a win-win-and-win plan to us.