Complete Street Policy

[EastVanMark]

Originally Posted by GenWhy?

The cycling track along Cambie connects (directly) King Edward Station to Oakridge, Langara and 49th Ave cycle track, Marine Drive Station, and further south across Fraser into Richmond while maintaining 2 car travel lanes in both directions. Cycling routes are connected North-South over False Creek via Cambie Bridge.

The closest complete North-South route is Ontario, which is already a major route north of King Edward, but does not connect to major destinations and connectors, nor has a south connection over the Fraser River. The distance between Ontario and Cambie is 1 kilometre, same as Oak.

For the Complete Streets program along Commercial Drive I'm surprised I haven't heard more arguments for Victoria Drive to be used instead. The arterials in Hastings-Sunrise (Nanaimo St) were over designed and over built since their inception in the Hastings Townsite survey over a century ago.

Overbuilt? Says who? Where is this data to show its "overbuilt". Puh-lease.


And BTW nobody was talking about Cambie street but since you brought it up, there's ample room for a bike lanes in the luxuriously wide sidewalks of that bridge. Absolutely no need to take a lane of traffic away. As has already been said, its purely political move that is no basis in logic of any kind.

[ronthecivil]

Why don't they just close the Lion's gate bridge? Problem solved!

It's in the way anyways.

[Feathered Friend]

Nanaimo Street to get Painted Bike Lanes, Left Turn Bays and Safer Crosswalks, but at What Cost?
Nanaimo Street Upgrades – McGill Street to East 4th Avenue
This is one event where I didn’t do the best job of capturing the spirit of the room as, in all honesty, I was likely in some degree of shock for most of it. That’s going to take some time to explain, so if you don’t really care, then you should skip the next four paragraphs...

Many seemed to support the changes, though some motorists were skeptical. I feel that the addition of several left turn bays is a good trade for removing a travel lane in each direction. Frankly, it’s frustrating to get stuck behind someone trying to make a last minute left turn. Conversely, some pedestrians eagerly embraced the new crossing signals, the larger corner bulges, and the reorientation of some crosswalks, which will help make several crossing points more clear.

There are improvements for cyclists as well, like the new painted bike lanes on Nanaimo between McGill and 4th Avenue. There will also be barrier separated lanes at the Hastings, Pender and Franklin intersections. Most relevant, is that a large median will provide a safe space for those trying to cross Nanaimo at Franklin, something that may have protected that elderly couple earlier in the night.

https://cityduo.wordpress.com/2018/1...-at-what-cost/

[GenWhy?]

Not a fan or supporter of painted bike lanes between parked cars and traffic on an arterial road. Only big comment I had that night.

[Migrant_Coconut]

Originally Posted by GenWhy?

Not a fan or supporter of painted bike lanes between parked cars and traffic on an arterial road. Only big comment I had that night.

That's strange - downtown's bike lanes are right next to the sidewalk, so it's not like City engineers don't know any better.

[deasine]

I think bike lanes on arterials is important as the development along arterials make it destinations in itself. My problem with this proposal is putting in bike lanes that don't necessarily adhere to best practice and enhanced safety, especially as it seems that there is more than sufficient space to put bike lanes along passenger-side of vehicles.

If we are putting in infrastructure, at least do it right the first time.

[Feathered Friend]

While we think making Nanaimo St safer & more reliable for all methods of travel is hardly "dramatic", this group is entitled to their opinion. Still, it feels wrong to convey one's message with a document that resembles one from the City of Vancouver

https://twitter.com/City_Duo/status/1068285547959840769

[Metro-One]

Making every street a mid capacity shared artery is a mistake, especially in a city that has no expressway for heavy / through traffic.

It is the roadway equivalent of trying to use an at grade LRT to fill the shoes of a bus and an RRT system.

Vancouver’s one size fits all approach to roads is frustrating, but given the deeply entrenched anti-highway culture of the city, I obviously don’t expect anything to change.

The nearest larger city near me (Takamatsu, with a population of 500 000) has a couple 6 lane width major arteries at grade, yet they have never felt dangerous to me (then again, they have pedestrian overpasses and sidewalks shared between cyclists and pedestrians). Also, the key point, parallel to these major routes are pedestrian only streets / arcades. So one can go window shopping and clubbing without any worry of traffic (even cyclists must dismount in areas).

Then, for the real heavy / cross regional traffic there is a 4 lane elevated expressway (tollway).

Now, call me crazy, but this layering of roads (pedestrian only, shared pedestrian and bike, major car / bus roads, separated tollway) works really really well compared to trying to squeeze all that into the same road.

[fredinno]

Originally Posted by Metro-One

Making every street a mid capacity shared artery is a mistake, especially in a city that has no expressway for heavy / through traffic.

It is the roadway equivalent of trying to use an at grade LRT to fill the shoes of a bus and an RRT system.

Vancouver’s one size fits all approach to roads is frustrating, but given the deeply entrenched anti-highway culture of the city, I obviously don’t expect anything to change.

The nearest larger city near me (Takamatsu, with a population of 500 000) has a couple 6 lane width major arteries at grade, yet they have never felt dangerous to me (then again, they have pedestrian overpasses and sidewalks shared between cyclists and pedestrians). Also, the key point, parallel to these major routes are pedestrian only streets / arcades. So one can go window shopping and clubbing without any worry of traffic (even cyclists must dismount in areas).

Then, for the real heavy / cross regional traffic there is a 4 lane elevated expressway (tollway).

Now, call me crazy, but this layering of roads (pedestrian only, shared pedestrian and bike, major car / bus roads, separated tollway) works really really well compared to trying to squeeze all that into the same road.

It's a trend that's endemic in urban planning right now. I too would feel safer, as a cycler on a side road.

They could put Bike paths on Garden Rd, but they would have to sacrifice street-side parking, which might cause more problems politically than removing an extra lane.

TBH, Nanaimo isn't the most used street, one extra lane isn't a deal-breaker.

Once the area starts actually developing, we can talk about moving the bike lane- hopefully..

[Feathered Friend]

https://vancouver.ca/files/cov/richa...n-displays.pdf


https://vancouver.ca/files/cov/richa...ign-boards.pdf


https://vancouver.ca/files/cov/richa...ign-boards.pdf


https://vancouver.ca/files/cov/richa...ign-boards.pdf

Opponents Fear Richards Street Bike Lane Upgrades Will Make Downtown Safer and More Desirable

Richards Street Upgrades
As this open house started at 4 o’clock, and Hannah doesn’t usually get off work before 5pm, I decided to go by myself so we could both to to an event on Nanaimo street later that evening. Even before I arrived I learned something new, as I was unaware this area of the Central Branch of VPL was called the “Promenade Trade Fair,” offering 1,300 sqft of space at $2,725 a day to rent ($2,100 for non-profits).

Given the number of people that walk through this area, it seemed like a good location to gather public opinion. That said, I have no clue how city staff managed to tell who were participating versus those just walking through. Still, I recognized more than a few people from a previous event, once again, gathered around a city staff member.

Their conversation certainly helped jog my memory, as these were the same individuals that were most opposed to the 601 Beach Crescent rezoning. It was odd that their concerns focused on whether Downtown Vancouver could handle more density, at an event intended for discussion about how to make its streets more manageable.

Some of these individuals acknowledged that the changes would make the area more safe, which is why they opposed them. The group’s feelings were best summed up by one individual, who remarked that these improvements would make the streets safer, which would mean more people would want to live here, making the city more crowded and worse overall.

https://cityduo.wordpress.com/2018/1...ore-desirable/

[cabotp]

Based on that logic then we should allow 24/7 gang land shootings. Let people walk around with bullets flying. That should scare everyone and make then not want to live here.

But I do have to admit that the individual is correct in their assessement. In that the safer a city becomes the more people want to live here. Which tends to make it less safe and less desirable. That is basically the crux of all city planning. Of course that doesn't mean we should never strive to make our city more safer and liveable.

[GlassCity]

Originally Posted by cabotp

Based on that logic then we should allow 24/7 gang land shootings. Let people walk around with bullets flying. That should scare everyone and make then not want to live here.

But I do have to admit that the individual is correct in their assessement. In that the safer a city becomes the more people want to live here. Which tends to make it less safe and less desirable. That is basically the crux of all city planning. Of course that doesn't mean we should never strive to make our city more safer and liveable.

I am not at all sure this is true.

[Aroundtheworld]

Originally Posted by GlassCity

I am not at all sure this is true.

Yeah, it definitely isn't. Safe neighbourhoods are those that have many people living in them which provides many eyes on the street.

[WarrenC12]

So I take it the city was too scared to remove street parking? I can't stand using lanes on busy streets to park. And especially with Richards going down to 1 lane now.

[officedweller]

They still need parking for residential visitors in the area (ie condo vistor spaces are usually insufficient), and it's not that busy a street in the off hours.

Missed opportunity to build a parkade under the Smithe & Richards park?

[EastVanMark]

Richards down to one lane?

It used to be 4.

Another beauty of an idea by the city. Making downton that much more of a place to avoid.

[WarrenC12]

Originally Posted by EastVanMark

Richards down to one lane?

It used to be 4.

When, in the 60s?

[Feathered Friend]

This infrastructure improvement in Vancouver's Cambie Corridor might be small, but those who travel along West King Edward will likely appreciate the difference it will make in their lives & sense of safety, whether they bike, drive, transit or walk.
https://vancouver.ca/home-property-d...rovements.aspx

https://twitter.com/City_Duo/status/...909820427?s=20

[trofirhen]

Originally Posted by WarrenC12

So I take it the city was too scared to remove street parking? I can't stand using lanes on busy streets to park. And especially with Richards going down to 1 lane now.

Originally Posted by officedweller

They still need parking for residential visitors in the area (ie condo vistor spaces are usually insufficient), and it's not that busy a street in the off hours.

Missed opportunity to build a parkade under the Smithe & Richards park?

Originally Posted by EastVanMark

Richards down to one lane?

It used to be 4.

Another beauty of an idea by the city. Making downton that much more of a place to avoid.

In its quest to be the greenest city, Vancouver still isn't acknowledging the presence and importance of vehicular traffic. Cars are going to be around for a while to come.
Limiting them with bikes lanes may be all fine and pedestrian oriented, tree oriented, and a pursuitworthy goal in theory, but there has to be room for cars, in street lane space, and parking.
The proposed ideas are fine, but without additional infrastructure somewhere to drive cars (underpasses, or as you like it) and parking (somewhere), this is overkill.

[VancouverOfTheFuture]

Originally Posted by trofirhen

In its quest to be the greenest city, Vancouver still isn't acknowledging the presence and importance of vehicular traffic. Cars are going to be around for a while to come.
Limiting them with bikes lanes may be all fine and pedestrian oriented, tree oriented, and a pursuitworthy goal in theory, but there has to be room for cars, in street lane space, and parking.
The proposed ideas are fine, but without additional infrastructure somewhere to drive cars (underpasses, or as you like it) and parking (somewhere), this is overkill.

they fail to look at the amount of GHGs that an idling car gives out. example, look at all the extra idling the buses are doing from the TransLink report. now that cant be at all better for the environment.

but it is better to just do tokenism and "green washing" since it appears something is being done at least.