Metro Vancouver Bike/Pedestrian Discussion

[mezzanine]

Originally Posted by usog

Here bikes are car replacements where elsewhere in the world they're walking replacements.

I would think bikes fit the niche between walking and driving myself as opposed to trying to argue 6 of one, half-dozen of the other.

That being said, I understand what you mean, and IMO it reflects culture, access and use of the predominant use of travel in that area. Growing up in the vancouver area, we would think nothing of driving for 2-3 minutes to go to the store to pick up a few things or to do small errands. and this was in vancouver, let alone how the urban environment was at the time in places like south-of-fraser. IMO it was the culture to drive and all sorts of things were planned around that (eg. I remember the 'old' champlain mall and brentwood mall.) having fuel at < $0.99 per litre also helped.

where walking was predominant, car infrastructure slow to develop or where there was established ped-scaled development, i can see how biking 'would build on top of walking', eg, old town centres in europe, post-war europe and japan, china prior to it liberalizing its economy.

IMO I see this cultural idea of 'bike-car' in the US and canada where driving is predominant and the 'walking-to-biking' idea in japan and small-town europe where walking is predominant. large cities like amsterdam and vienna have the 'extended bike commute' cultural idea considering the infrastructure I have seen there (separated bike lanes).

[racc]

Originally Posted by usog

Not flame-bait, honest question (except for the flippant remark aimed at the hyper-cyclists but c'mon) =\ I spend time overseas in Asia and I'm talking about, for example, the huge bike pens they have in Japan for people who ride to train stations and then transfer for their commute. Or just Asia in general where people can ride bikes for short errands like buying groceries or something. In Japan people even seem hard-wired to by instinct move to the side whenever they hear a bike bell (See: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O_MphtzCOEc ) And honestly I just ride on the sidewalk anyways for my bike-trips to the grocery store here(without a helmet to boot!, I know).

OK. However, sidewalk riding is a problem in some places in Japan. The government is planning on creating bike lanes and separated bike lanes to address the issue.

http://www.cyclelicio.us/2011/japan-sidewalk-cycling/

Tens of thousands of commuters took up bicycle commuting in Tokyo in the aftermatch of the Great Tohoku Earthquake last March 2011. Apparently, they’ve stuck with it, because the huge crowds of bikes on city sidewalks have created a public safety problem as walkers and cyclists try to share the same narrow space.
As of October 25, a directive was sent to all prefectural offices of the National Police Agency to strictly enforce traffic rules for cyclists, especially when it comes to riding on the sidewalk. Bicycles are to be regarded as vehicles, with the rights and duties of vehicles on the road. Children and the elderly are exempted from the requirements. Certain wide sidewalks with round blue jitensha oyobi hokosha senyo doro hyoshiki signs indicate shared use is allowed.

They are trying to build bike lanes but are facing the same challenges as here.
http://ajw.asahi.com/article/behind_...J201112130077n

[DKaz]

Where's that website for bicycles in bike lanes?

Photo by me.

[Porfiry]

http://vancouver.mybikelane.com/

[racc]

Should also call 311 and email Bicycle Hotline <cycling@vancouver.ca>

[fredinno]

They should have better bike lane safety on busy roads. (eg. kingsway)

[Porfiry]

Heads up, the Park Board just released a draft report of the Stanley Park Cycling Plan:
http://vancouver.ca/parks/info/plann...plan/index.htm

Lots of recommendations, so it's worth a read. Some notable ideas:
- open up some new routes to create some shorter loops on the eastern side of the park
- upgrade Rawlings trail to help people get to Third Beach without cycling the wrong way on the Seawall
- divert the bike path around the water park entirely by using the bridge (great idea)
- fully separate bikes and pedestrians on the path from English Bay to Second Beach (this is long overdue)

[SpongeG]

Originally Posted by DKaz

Where's that website for bicycles in bike lanes?

Photo by me.

haha - i was standing outside the dunsmuir entrance last night and there was a very expensive car using the bike lane right behind them was a police car - they flashed the lights but they didn;t get out to stop the car they turned onto granville and the car just went off

they have should ticketed him at least

[YVR Bruce]

It appears not to be a good idea to hold up bus traffic in the UK.
From today's Guardian.....

http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/video/2...t-attack-video

Some would use this to support segregated traffic. Others stiffer sentences.

I believe that is not enought; spending is needed to ensure reasonable auto facilities are also provided. For instance, the Dunsmuir Viaduct is now often badly snarled, and calls for more creative work to allow bikes and car throughput. How 'bout a suspended bike lane off the north side of the deck, with more work on Dunsmuir or Pender to keep it all moving?

[tybuilding]

17 month sentence is fairly long, could be longer though. Horrible act of violence from a so called "professional driver". There should be separate bike lanes, the left lane was empty at the time of the incident. Lets face the facts that separate bike lanes, traffic lanes, sidewalks are best. Just read over this website blog from the Netherlands.

http://hembrow.blogspot.com/

As for Dunsmuir Viaduct I think it is fine like it is. Cantilevering bike lanes more than the width of the inadequate width like the ones on the Alex Fraser seems difficult. Is it even possible to have 3m + width? It is worth investigating though. Rogers Arena sidewalk areas would get in the way I would think.

[racc]

This is an important bicycle link for Surrey and the region. Please help out!

!!!HELP - SOS!!!

Regarding: URGENT & IMPORTANT: Public Hearing on March 12, 2012 in Surrey City Hall

Hello,

Cyclists have long been waiting for the connection of two segments of a major bicycle path the "Green Timbers Tynehead Powerline trail. This trail then turns north towards the City center at 138th Street.

The missing Section is near the hospital between 94A Avenue and 99 Avenue/Fraser Highway. This section really needs to be completed since there is a great amount of car traffic near the hospital. Furthermore, once complete, this will connect King George Skytrain, The city Center with Walnut Grove Langley. Eventually this path could connect with the BC Park Way trail and become the MAJOR BICYCLE HIGHWAY from Vancouver to Langley.

THE ISSUE IS that there is a proposal to use the land need for this path, under the powerline for hospital parking. This will increase the number of cars on the smaller street 138th and leave cyclists confused who do not the route well. Although, this proposal is temporary, often temporary permits are quickly renewed each year. Once Parking on this land has been there it will be harder to take the land back from the automobile to provide for cyclists! (There is also a sensitive stream near by that feeds into salmon habitat.)

There is a process to ask the city to ask a land developer to build infrastructure that is needed in order to get approval.

Please consider this issue and consider trying to walk or to bicycle from the North Powerline Path at 100 Avenue ( Between 140th Street & 138th ish) to the southern path at 94A Avenue and 138th Street.

Please forward this e-mail to Cyclists who live, work or own land in Surrey. At the public hearing the Mayor will ask speakers to state where they live. (If they don't live in Surrey, they could also explain that they work in Surrey if they have employment in Surrey.)

(PS; It would be great to have some catchy names for Surrey bike Paths with frequent signage. Imagine if Broadway had only three signs along the entire length with it's name in print.)

People can also write in their own words there comments or concerns to the Concil by emailing clerkswebmail@surrey.ca no later than Monday, March 12, 2012 at 3:00 PM. With the Information included in the e-mail: Public Hearing March 12, 2012 - Permit NO: 7912-0014-00

It would be great to see some cyclists attending the public hearing. Try to arrive between 6:30 and 6:15 because the meeting starts immediately at 7:00 with no delay.

[aberdeen5698]

The traffic diverter at 45th Avenue and Elliot/Clarendon is coming out, probably by the summer. So is the one at Rupert and 45th. Measurements showed that while traffic on 45th went down, a significant amount of the difference simply diverted to adjacent streets - including going past Waverly Elementary School on 46th Ave.

I attended a public meeting tonight and it was pretty obvious that most of the local residents wanted to see the diverter gone. But I was a bit surprised at the number of people who'd prefer it to remain - these seem to be mostly residents on 45th Ave that are currently enjoying the reduction in traffic past their front doors.

I'm kind of neutral on the subject. It's a pain for me as a motorist, but I'm quite happy with the reduced traffic while biking along 45th. If they remove the diverter, I hope they put in some other traffic calming measures to at least keep speeds down. Although the posted speed limit has been 30km/h for a while now most people still seem to be going better than 50km/h, which is pretty dodgy for a bike route on such a narrow street with parking on both sides, no lane markings and substantial traffic volumes.

Originally Posted by aberdeen5698

FYI, here's a shot of the newly installed traffic diverter at 45th and Clarendon / Elliot. It's purpose is to prevent through traffic on 45th so that it's restricted to local use, thus making it more viable as a bike route.

I've mixed opinions about this as when driving I used to make left turns onto 45th to access my house. Now I have to reroute via Nanaimo. It's nice when I'm cycling, though...

"Right Turn Only" signs went in on 45th a few weeks before this diverter was installed. The "Right Turn Only" signs have also been installed at 45th & Rupert, but as of last weekend the diverter wasn't there yet.

My photo, taken a few days ago:

[jlousa]

Glad to see them go, the area never approved of them and the residents were upset about having them forced upon them. It's a shame a traffic circle couldn't be placed there instead, but I imagine with the bus route it's a non-starter. Will it revert back to a 4way? or will only 45th keep the stop signs?

[aberdeen5698]

Originally Posted by jlousa

Will it revert back to a 4way? or will only 45th keep the stop signs?

I can't imagine them eliminating the stop signs for traffic on Clarendon/Elliot Street. They tried that when they installed the diverters - obvious in theory since with the diverters in place there's no possibility of cross traffic. But a lot of pedestrians cross the street there and with the speed of traffic and restricted visibility due to the curve of the street it was very dicey. So they put the stop signs back in again, even with the diverters still in place.

There were some people in the meeting who argued for a traffic light or a four-way flashing light, since a lot of people still blow through the stop signs. I'm a little skeptical that will happen, though. I expect it will go back to the same 4-way stop as before, although the folks from the city were talking about adding curb bulges and perhaps a grassy median (on 45th) to help calm traffic.

[WarrenC12]

Originally Posted by aberdeen5698

There were some people in the meeting who argued for a traffic light or a four-way flashing light, since a lot of people still blow through the stop signs. I'm a little skeptical that will happen, though. I expect it will go back to the same 4-way stop as before, although the folks from the city were talking about adding curb bulges and perhaps a grassy median (on 45th) to help calm traffic.

Maybe if local residents get a special assessment on their taxes to cover the light they'll have second thoughts about it.

Traffic circles all the way. So much cheaper to install and maintain, and much nicer aesthetically.

[cabotp]

Originally Posted by jlousa

Glad to see them go, the area never approved of them and the residents were upset about having them forced upon them. It's a shame a traffic circle couldn't be placed there instead, but I imagine with the bus route it's a non-starter. Will it revert back to a 4way? or will only 45th keep the stop signs?

Actually I think a single lane round-a-bout would be perfect at that intersection. The city would have to buy up a bit of land on each of the 4 corners.

They might also want to install more traffic circles along 45th Ave from Victoria to Boundary. If you put enough in then traffic could still get through but at a reduced speed.\

EDIT - It is pretty obvious that is the traffic was reduced at that intersection that it must have gone somewhere else. Traffic just doesn't suddenly disappear into thin air.

[aberdeen5698]

Originally Posted by cabotp

Actually I think a single lane round-a-bout would be perfect at that intersection.

Clarendon/Elliot is a bus route so I don't think that would be feasible with the kinds of roundabouts the city's been installing as traffic calming measures. It would have to be a substantially larger one, and I suspect that would be beyond the budget they have to work with.

But I think the idea of roundabouts is a good way to slow traffic without restricting the kinds of movements it can make, and additional roundabouts along 45th would help do that. 45th and Wales and/or Vivian strike me as a good candidates because it they should slow down the traffic that normally speeds down the hill there.

[racc]

Originally Posted by jlousa

Glad to see them go, the area never approved of them and the residents were upset about having them forced upon them. It's a shame a traffic circle couldn't be placed there instead, but I imagine with the bus route it's a non-starter. Will it revert back to a 4way? or will only 45th keep the stop signs?

I have never had any problems with traffic circles. However, they have prove to be quite dangerous for cyclists in the cyclist injury study by UBC. A traffic circle here would be less than ideal with all the aggressive commuter traffic.

[s211]

Originally Posted by racc

I have never had any problems with traffic circles. However, they have prove to be quite dangerous for cyclists in the cyclist injury study by UBC. A traffic circle here would be less than ideal with all the aggressive commuter traffic.

I'm sure it's comparable to all the aggressive bicycle (and vespa!) commuters I have to fight with on the Cambie Bridge sidewalk.

[racc]

Originally Posted by s211

I'm sure it's comparable to all the aggressive bicycle (and vespa!) commuters I have to fight with on the Cambie Bridge sidewalk.

Not comparable at all. Aggressive driving is a proven serious health problem that is a threat to all people in cars, on bikes and on foot. Around 1.2 million people die per year world wide in motor vehicle collisions. Aggressive cyclists, while annoying, are not that serious a threat when compared to aggressive drivers. It is the laws of physics.

The problem with the Cambie Sidewalks is that it is too narrow for the high volumes of bike and ped traffic. It needs to be widened or lanes of traffic on the bridge need to be reallocated for separated bike lanes. Since the Canada Line opened, there is no need for for 3 lanes of traffic on the bridge.