Rail-based Transit Discussion

[Nouvellecosse]

Originally Posted by OldDartmouthMark

The wording is a little confusing as the author is using 'crash rate' and 'number of crashes' in the same context. 'Crash rate' would tend to indicate number of crashes per total number of cyclists on the road which is different than absolute total number of crashes.
...

While my earlier response was a little glib sounding, I agree that it would be very interesting to understand the data more fully. After all, it would be a very different situation if it was only the "rate" of accidents that went down as in, after a 100% increase in the number of cyclists there was only a 90% increase in the number of car/cycle crashes, compared to with a 100% increase in cyclist there was a 10% drop in the overall number of car/cycle crashes. I guess one would have to take time and look more deeply into the stats.

[MalcolmTucker]

Back in university my transportation economics prof stated that at around 80 kph an average lane would have maximized throughput.

[Colin May]

Why have the police and other organisations/individuals been so reluctant to describe the events leading to the recent death of the lady cyclist ? I believe one media outlet alleged the lady tried to cross the street at a crosswalk but I treat that as a rumour.
As far as the police are concerned the csse is closed. Nova Scotia should join the 20th century and bring back inquests.

[Ziobrop]

Originally Posted by Drybrain

It might be either/or, though, if it's cost prohibitive to do both. And again, there's reams of data indicating that road widening is useless in the long run to relieve congestion.

yes induced demand. however you would still widen the roads for dedicated transit lanes..

[Keith P.]

Not seeing any cyclists out there in their bike lanes or otherwise today due to weather. Can a mode that is only marginally used even in the nicest of weather really be taken seriously?

[Hali87]

Yes.

[Drybrain]

Originally Posted by Keith P.

Not seeing any cyclists out there in their bike lanes or otherwise today due to weather. Can a mode that is only marginally used even in the nicest of weather really be taken seriously?

I commuted to work today by bus instead of bicycle because of the weather. But, that's the first time in several months weather has altered my commute plans.

[swimmer_spe]

Originally Posted by Keith P.

Not seeing any cyclists out there in their bike lanes or otherwise today due to weather. Can a mode that is only marginally used even in the nicest of weather really be taken seriously?

When I lived in Halifax for 3 years, I biked from the North End to the Dockyard everyday. There wasn't enough parking.

Commuting cyclists do not do it only on nice days.

[Nouvellecosse]

I bike rode all through the aftermath of white Juan! That was annoying because the streets were so narrow it took me twice as long since I couldn't pass any of the cars queued in traffic like I usually would. I bike rode from just past J.L. Ilsely to the old Bell Rd NSCC campus.

[beyeas]

One need only look at the number of people riding bikes through-out the Nordic countries to realize that we are not reinventing the bike-wheel here, when it comes to whether biking in inclement weather is feasible. While we dither about whether separating bikes and cars is a good idea, other cities, including many in northern climes, are moving ahead with investments in this area including things like operating the fat-tire bike rental-exchange systems throughout their downtown cores.

It sometimes seems like this is a topic where it is as if this is some crazy idea that no one has ever tried before ("Bike lanes? We don't need no stinking bike lanes! When I was kid my parents made me drive uphill in both directions while steering through traffic blindfolded. If it was good enough for me it is good enough for kids today dammit!").

[Keith P.]

Originally Posted by Nouvellecosse

I bike rode all through the aftermath of white Juan! That was annoying because the streets were so narrow it took me twice as long since I couldn't pass any of the cars queued in traffic like I usually would. I bike rode from just past J.L. Ilsely to the old Bell Rd NSCC campus.

That was undoubtedly extremely hazardous. You are lucky you weren't seriously injured. Foolhardy.

[OldDartmouthMark]

Originally Posted by Nouvellecosse

In your example, the rate would be relevant to you as an individual because if the number of incompetent car drivers remains the same and then number of times one hits a cyclist remains the same, it is far less likely that it will be you that he hits rather than someone else in that crowd of 1000 compared to if it's you by yourself. But of course, if for some reason it's always going to be you who gets hit, then the presence of those 999 others may not be comforting to you, but your presence would certainly be comforting to them.

Yeah, like I'm not going out until that-guy-who-always-gets-hit comes out...

[OldDartmouthMark]

Originally Posted by someone123

The idea of optimizing for car speed is interesting. There are a lot of counterintuitive aspects to traffic, and one is that increasing car speeds does not increase the throughput of vehicles much. This is because the real bottleneck is human reflexes. Cars need to be spaced out by a couple of seconds to allow the drivers to avoid accidents. This implies that the cars have to be spaced out more at higher speeds. The throughput on a fast highway or slow surface street will both max out at a vehicle every couple of seconds. Modifying city streets to allow cars to drive really fast is not as useful as it seems.

Yes, I believe it works like the slinky effect - if you slow one car down the effect of all the cars behind it, maintaining braking distance will eventually cause a stoppage in traffic. I believe the optimal speed is one where traffic can remain constant with no slow-downs. It's really part of the reason why well-designed roundabouts can work so well as they can flow with minimal stoppages.

As far as commuter rail, the timing seems good and the plan seems realistic (the arguments about viability are really flawed arguments about economic returns; they are not compelling reasons to cancel the project). My only worry is that maybe there is some better alternative transit plan like light rail that was never really considered because everybody has been so fixated on the rail cut. On the other hand, if the city takes a step back maybe momentum will be lost and nothing will happen for years. The transportation planning process needs to be fixed so that this doesn't happen in the future. There should be a transportation authority that is always evaluating all of the plausible options from a regional rather than parochial perspective.

I think this is the time to strike commuter rail as there is some momentum and public support. Of course, it should be part of a larger, long-term plan including other forms of transit designed to work as 1 big efficient unit, but we have to start somewhere.

I feel if it's not done now we might lose our chance.

[OldDartmouthMark]

Originally Posted by Nouvellecosse

While my earlier response was a little glib sounding, I agree that it would be very interesting to understand the data more fully. After all, it would be a very different situation if it was only the "rate" of accidents that went down as in, after a 100% increase in the number of cyclists there was only a 90% increase in the number of car/cycle crashes, compared to with a 100% increase in cyclist there was a 10% drop in the overall number of car/cycle crashes. I guess one would have to take time and look more deeply into the stats.

Yeah, I was only trying to say that if stats aren't used properly they don't really prove the point the author was trying to make.

I do honestly feel that if the number of cyclists increases, that awareness will increase, hopefully resulting in less total accidents. There will, of course, be a saturation point I feel, but we are not even remotely close to that now.

[OldDartmouthMark]

Originally Posted by Colin May

Why have the police and other organisations/individuals been so reluctant to describe the events leading to the recent death of the lady cyclist ? I believe one media outlet alleged the lady tried to cross the street at a crosswalk but I treat that as a rumour.
As far as the police are concerned the csse is closed. Nova Scotia should join the 20th century and bring back inquests.

A frustration of mine is that there are never any investigation results released for any accident.

I feel that if there were some project to provide causal information of accidents and it were presented to the public in an educational manner, that people might better understand how their everyday actions could lead to tragedy in an instant. Nobody heads out on/in their bike/car/truck thinking that they may die or kill somebody that day, but it happens regularly, in an instant, and there are always factors that lead up to the accident that could have prevented it.

The media reports accidents on a regular basis, but only the sensational bits. The result is that the public is aware that accidents happen but not necessarily why and thus continues to commit the same errors day after day resulting in similar, preventable accidents over and over.

Perhaps if there were some information sharing they might understand how accidents happen, and it might prompt them think a little more when they are riding/driving.

[OldDartmouthMark]

Originally Posted by Keith P.

Not seeing any cyclists out there in their bike lanes or otherwise today due to weather. Can a mode that is only marginally used even in the nicest of weather really be taken seriously?

Maybe the cyclists have more sense? There sure are a lot of cars in the ditch today, if you check your news reports/internet feeds.

Using today's severe weather of high winds and heavy rain is a red herring. It in no way is an indication on how cycle lanes would normally be used.

You know this, yet you continue to overstate when discussing bicycle issues. IMHO, it takes away your credibility when you are discussing these issues, as you appear to let your personal feelings taint your posts a little too much.

But hey, we're only human, I'm not immune to such lapses in judgment either.

[Dmajackson]

Originally Posted by Drybrain

I commuted to work today by bus instead of bicycle because of the weather. But, that's the first time in several months weather has altered my commute plans.

Same here. I've biked almost everyday this year since the snow melted including through many rainstorms and today was the first day in quite a few months that I chose to bus (and was late because of how much longer it takes). For me (and I imagine a lot of cyclists) it's not so much the rain but rather the wind that gets me to take a lazy day. It's hard enough to get the 1 metre of space on a nice day let alone when the wind is pushing you sideways!

[Keith P.]

Originally Posted by OldDartmouthMark

Maybe the cyclists have more sense? There sure are a lot of cars in the ditch today, if you check your news reports/internet feeds.

Using today's severe weather of high winds and heavy rain is a red herring. It in no way is an indication on how cycle lanes would normally be used.

You know this, yet you continue to overstate when discussing bicycle issues. IMHO, it takes away your credibility when you are discussing these issues, as you appear to let your personal feelings taint your posts a little too much.

But hey, we're only human, I'm not immune to such lapses in judgment either.

What I know is that cars and buses and trains run virtually any time regardless of nasty weather. Let us focus our resources on those useful and understandably popular modes instead of wasting time, energy and money on bike lanes for zealots.

[Hali87]

Originally Posted by Keith P.

What I know is that cars and buses and trains run virtually any time regardless of nasty weather. Let us focus our resources on those useful and understandably popular modes instead of wasting time, energy and money on bike lanes for zealots anyone who wants to use them, which is actually a lot of people, most of whom are not particularly radical.

Thanks for your support of the transit system - "useful and understandably popular" is not a phrase I was expecting.

I would say the status quo though is that a bicycle is equally useful and generally more reliable than our transit system. Not for everyone, but for many.

[Nouvellecosse]

And certainly (at the very least) equally useful relative to the amount of money it takes to provide the infrastructure and energy requirements. One mode doesn't have to be equally as useful or useful under as many situations as another when one mode is only a fraction of the cost.