Complete Street Policy

[trofirhen]

Originally Posted by moosejaw

how about doing a tunnel all the way from stanley park to pender that way you can have all the bike lanes and bus lanes you want and also take away those unsightly overhead arrows

Yes! Tunnels are great for alleviating jams and routing traffic. Many
other cities use them, but Vancouver seems to have a phobia of them, which is a real shame, because the city has so much potential to be truly great.

Originally Posted by s211

I'm coming to the conclusion that Vancouverites in general are like drug addicts when it comes their truly destructive ways to fark up its transportation system. Their blind-Vision ideas are like drugs: insanely bad for you, mess you up for life and are just plain bad for you.
Even so, keep shooting up Vancouver, since we live in the era of "don't say no". Not our place to judge, right?

In a way, yes, I think you have it. Vancouver seems to love doing things "its own way" even if they are counter-productive, and seems to proud to adopt big-city scale projects.

Originally Posted by VancouverOfTheFuture

now here is a "Complete Street."

• most traffic underground
• some surface parking and local streets on surface level
• add in separated bike-lanes on surface level
• add in HOV-lanes on surface level
• add in wider sidewalks on surface level

^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^
I rather like that, and I agree very much with your list of criteria. However, I think you'll get no more than a tepid response, because such a project is so big and "un-Vancouver."
Also, and perhaps most importantly, it would no doubt require a total redo or refit of the Lions Gate Bridge - and here, that is considered sacrosanct and "untouchable."
BTW, from what Year is that diagram?

[CanSpice]

Originally Posted by trofirhen

Yes! Tunnels are great for alleviating jams and routing traffic. Many
other cities use them, but Vancouver seems to have a phobia of them, which is a real shame, because the city has so much potential to be truly great.

The city has a phobia of spending an exorbitant amount of money. Tunnels are really expensive.

[trofirhen]

Originally Posted by CanSpice

The city has a phobia of spending an exorbitant amount of money. Tunnels are really expensive.

Of course.
Someone else told me exactly the same thing.
I should have known better. I knew tunnels were expensive, but not HOW expensive. Too bad.

[s211]

Originally Posted by Changing City

Your statement doesn't seem to match the evidence. Here an example from 10 years ago. The City initiated adding left turn bays on Knight at 49th Avenue. ICBC contributed, but only $250,000 to a total cost of $4,215,000. Translink and the Federal Government both contributed more, and the City of Vancouver paid the most.

My comment hearkens back to either the late 80s or early 90s.

The fact that ICBC contributed any portion of the intersection you note above just goes to show that the City won't get engaged unless some serious greasing is done.

[CanSpice]

Originally Posted by trofirhen

Of course.
Someone else told me exactly the same thing.
I should have known better. I knew tunnels were expensive, but not HOW expensive. Too bad.

For a tunnel between the intersection of Georgia and Pender, and somewhere in Stanley Park, that's a distance of say a kilometer. Using the estimate on this page that's roughly $4b for a 4km cut-and-cover tunnel, figure something like a billion dollars per kilometer, so this would be roughly a billion dollars. But! Do you think the city would want to do cut-and-cover down Georgia, which effectively completely blocks the Lions Gate Bridge and removes an entire access to the North Shore, or do you think they'd do a bored tunnel? Bored tunnels cost more than cut-and-cover.

Also keep in mind that the estimate for the Stormont tunnel is through residential areas and not through dense downtown areas, with underground utilities and whatnot, oh and don't forget that it's also at sea level and the geography around Lost Lagoon isn't exactly solid either, so tunnelling through there would be even more expensive.

So I don't know how much. Two billion? Four billion? It's a multi-billion dollar project in any case. If we had unlimited money then sure, by all mean let's put in a tunnel. But we don't, and a one-kilometer tunnel that would cost the same as, say, the George Massey Tunnel replacement bridge that'd have probably less impact on traffic and could get 90% of the way there with much cheaper surface road improvements? Does it still sound like a good idea?

[Changing City]

Originally Posted by s211

My comment hearkens back to either the late 80s or early 90s.

The fact that ICBC contributed any portion of the intersection you note above just goes to show that the City won't get engaged unless some serious greasing is done.

Again, facts seem to suggest your memory is flawed. Here's 1996, $3.2m for Knight and 41st. The City paid for the whole project. And here's a 1997 example; Arbutus and 12th Avenue. The total cost for that one left turn bay was $1.4m (in 1997 dollars). The City Council of the day (not Vision in those days, obviously) approved the project, and the report notes "The Insurance Corporation will be requested to undertake an independent analysis of this intersection to determine whether they will contribute to capital funding."

So the City has built left turn bays where they think it's warranted, and they're usually justified by improved road safety, not traffic flow, ICBC sometimes contribute (as fewer accidents saves them money).

This is entirely different from the narrative you were suggesting.

[WarrenC12]

Originally Posted by trofirhen

Of course.
Someone else told me exactly the same thing.
I should have known better. I knew tunnels were expensive, but not HOW expensive. Too bad.

Isn't anybody familiar with how this turned out, financially?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Big_Dig

[CanSpice]

Originally Posted by WarrenC12

Isn't anybody familiar with how this turned out, financially?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Big_Dig

A better comparison would be the Alaskan Way Viaduct replacement tunnel under Seattle, which has an estimated cost of US$4.25b (and is reported to have at least $220m worth of cost overruns already).

[Alex Mackinnon]

Originally Posted by CanSpice

For a tunnel between the intersection of Georgia and Pender, and somewhere in Stanley Park, that's a distance of say a kilometer. Using the estimate on this page that's roughly $4b for a 4km cut-and-cover tunnel, figure something like a billion dollars per kilometer, so this would be roughly a billion dollars. But! Do you think the city would want to do cut-and-cover down Georgia, which effectively completely blocks the Lions Gate Bridge and removes an entire access to the North Shore, or do you think they'd do a bored tunnel? Bored tunnels cost more than cut-and-cover.

Also keep in mind that the estimate for the Stormont tunnel is through residential areas and not through dense downtown areas, with underground utilities and whatnot, oh and don't forget that it's also at sea level and the geography around Lost Lagoon isn't exactly solid either, so tunnelling through there would be even more expensive.

So I don't know how much. Two billion? Four billion? It's a multi-billion dollar project in any case. If we had unlimited money then sure, by all mean let's put in a tunnel. But we don't, and a one-kilometer tunnel that would cost the same as, say, the George Massey Tunnel replacement bridge that'd have probably less impact on traffic and could get 90% of the way there with much cheaper surface road improvements? Does it still sound like a good idea?

The concept of a Stanley Park Tunnel was extensively studied in the 90s, and was deemed feasible with both boring, and immersed tube type designs. If it's underwater, you generally don't call it cut and cover.

[SFUVancouver]

Originally Posted by Changing City

Again, facts seem to suggest your memory is flawed. Here's 1996, $3.2m for Knight and 41st. The City paid for the whole project. And here's a 1997 example; Arbutus and 12th Avenue. The total cost for that one left turn bay was $1.4m (in 1997 dollars). The City Council of the day (not Vision in those days, obviously) approved the project, and the report notes "The Insurance Corporation will be requested to undertake an independent analysis of this intersection to determine whether they will contribute to capital funding."

So the City has built left turn bays where they think it's warranted, and they're usually justified by improved road safety, not traffic flow, ICBC sometimes contribute (as fewer accidents saves them money).

This is entirely different from the narrative you were suggesting.

During the great downtown bike lane debates last decade, I recall the cost of a single Knight Street left-turn bays being cited as the roughly comparable cost for vehicle infrastructure as the entire Dunsmuir bike lane pilot, including all physical infrastructure, signals and signage, planning, installation, maintenance, and a year of detailed monitoring of usage, traffic counts and impact, and adjacent real estate vacancy monitoring.

[Kisai]

Originally Posted by VancouverOfTheFuture

now here is a "Complete Street."

• most traffic underground
• some surface parking and local streets on surface level
• add in separated bike-lanes on surface level
• add in HOV-lanes on surface level
• add in wider sidewalks on surface level

"Complete Street" is another Urban Design code phrase for doing as little as possible to separate pedestrians from car traffic. This ignores the realities of distracted drivers and pedestrians.

Which means things like having bike lanes and pedestrian sidewalks crammed down the same right of ways that fast-moving cars take. A clear example of this madness is at the Metropolis at Metrotown area, where both the city or Burnaby closed the overhead walkway and has no plans to move/build a new one with the renovated station, thus had to build a fence along the entire street to reduce the amount of Jaywalking, but also changed the community plan to eventually destroy the mall and build... yet more streets for cars through the mall.

It seems like since 2015 everything counter-productive that the city councils could think of, has been proposed or rammed through.

[CanSpice]

Originally Posted by Kisai

"Complete Street" is another Urban Design code phrase for doing as little as possible to separate pedestrians from car traffic. This ignores the realities of distracted drivers and pedestrians.

Which means things like having bike lanes and pedestrian sidewalks crammed down the same right of ways that fast-moving cars take. A clear example of this madness is at the Metropolis at Metrotown area, where both the city or Burnaby closed the overhead walkway and has no plans to move/build a new one with the renovated station, thus had to build a fence along the entire street to reduce the amount of Jaywalking, but also changed the community plan to eventually destroy the mall and build... yet more streets for cars through the mall.

It seems like since 2015 everything counter-productive that the city councils could think of, has been proposed or rammed through.

Your statement is complete and utter bollocks. Complete and utter bollocks. Go and read the open house presentation boards and pay particular attention to the one titled "Safety". It's the most important thing to the city so it's right near the beginning.

Pay attention to the one titled "Cycling" where the graphic labelled "imagining the future" shows a cycling path that's separated from both pedestrians and the road.

Your whole premise that a "complete street" forces all modes of transportation to share the same space is completely and utterly wrong. I mean seriously, you couldn't get more wrong.

[ilikeredheads]

That picture reads "possible cycling path on Georgia (north) using streetcar ROW". That concept has several obvious limitations. First, it's using space for a future streetcar, so it won't be permanent. If they decide to build it, then they'll have to spend extra money to relocate it. Secondly, that's only on the north side of the street. Do you know why? because that's only side that has the room for it. East of Georgia and Pender that extra wide sidewalk is gone, so now you have a bike path that leads to nowhere. Furthermore, the picture doesn't address how intersections will be dealt with. (right turn restrictions? dedicated signal for bikes?)

"Complete street" is just a fancy marketing term, just like "eco-density" (remember those days? lol). It is fruitless and silly to satisfy all modes of transport on 1 single street. The city doesn't put safety as their number 1 priority. If they did, they wouldn't brute force the bike lanes in downtown, or add a bunch of traffic lights throughout the city so now we have a light at every block along major corridors in certain neighbourhoods.

This is like trying to turn Broadway into "complete street". Would you have bike lanes on Broadway??

[officedweller]

Originally Posted by ilikeredheads

This is like trying to turn Broadway into "complete street". Would you have bike lanes on Broadway??

To that question ... they have installed bike lanes on another arterial - Cambie, and I thought I heard that the City wants to install bike lanes on Kingsway, too.

[milomilo]

Originally Posted by CanSpice

Your statement is complete and utter bollocks. Complete and utter bollocks. Go and read the open house presentation boards and pay particular attention to the one titled "Safety". It's the most important thing to the city so it's right near the beginning.

Pay attention to the one titled "Cycling" where the graphic labelled "imagining the future" shows a cycling path that's separated from both pedestrians and the road.

Your whole premise that a "complete street" forces all modes of transportation to share the same space is completely and utterly wrong. I mean seriously, you couldn't get more wrong.

Don't be so dramatic, he's correct. Another BS term is 'mixed use urban boulevard'. It's lazily trying to cram all uses onto one street and ignoring that what works for one mode ruins the use of another mode. If you want a street to be pedestrian friendly, take away the cars and buses completely. If you want it to be a good corridor for buses or rail, then it is mandatory to restrict the pedestrian experience. Etc.

[aberdeen5698]

Originally Posted by milomilo

Don't be so dramatic, he's correct. Another BS term is 'mixed use urban boulevard'. It's lazily trying to cram all uses onto one street and ignoring that what works for one mode ruins the use of another mode.

Negative, misleading spin. Dare I say, "fake news"?

It's about ensuring that all modes have safe access to the transportation corridor. Pedestrians and cyclists have been too long ignored in transportation design, "complete streets" are a way to bring back balance to the streetscape.

[milomilo]

Originally Posted by aberdeen5698

Negative, misleading spin. Dare I say, "fake news"?

It's about ensuring that all modes have safe access to the transportation corridor. Pedestrians and cyclists have been too long ignored in transportation design, "complete streets" are a way to bring back balance to the streetscape.

Repeating the same thing again doesn't make it true. Cars, buses, cyclists and pedestrians have different needs, though some are more compatible than others. If you want to make an excellent street for pedestrians then you must eliminate or strongly reduce cars and transit, making it poor for those modes - a 'complete street' is impossible.

[Kisai]

Originally Posted by milomilo

Repeating the same thing again doesn't make it true. Cars, buses, cyclists and pedestrians have different needs, though some are more compatible than others. If you want to make an excellent street for pedestrians then you must eliminate or strongly reduce cars and transit, making it poor for those modes - a 'complete street' is impossible.

There are multiple things wrong with "complete street" marketing

The idea that you can put pedestrians and bikes on the same piece of pavement, means more pedestrians get injured, or more bikes have accidents. When you add a streetcar, LRT, or a bus to the same path, now you have potential for pedestrians and bike riders to be knocked over by the transit, or fall in front of the transit with little time to get out of the way. Then there is allowing for cars, taxis, and delivery vehicles. All crammed down roads and streets.

The term "complete street" tends to be pushed by those who have little regard for safety. It's an excuse to push something, eg bike lanes, into a space at the expense of another mode of moving people, and if we were really paying attention, the ultimate goal is to remove as much car space as possible. So no, it's not a "complete street", it's just a forced mode shift.

[aberdeen5698]

Originally Posted by Kisai

The idea that you can put pedestrians and bikes on the same piece of pavement, means more pedestrians get injured, or more bikes have accidents.

I'm just not following this attitude. It's not like the proposal is for a huge swath of unmarked pavement that everyone tries to negotiate as best they can. In fact if you look at the "Complete Streets for Canada" web site their home page shows an image of the recently completed Burrard Street Bridge as an example of what they're talking about:



Here we see completely separated and protected access for pedestrians, bikes and cars. Does anyone really think that this is going to lead to more accidents than the original configuration of the bridge?

[CanSpice]

Originally Posted by Kisai

The idea that you can put pedestrians and bikes on the same piece of pavement

You keep saying this but this is not what a "complete street" is. It's a street that is made safe, convenient, and comfortable for all modes of travel. Putting everything on the same piece of pavement, as you keep saying, is not a complete street because doing so does not make it safe or comfortable. The City of Vancouver wants to separate the modes of transportation to enable this, not put them all on the same piece of pavement.