HomeDiagramsDatabaseMapsForumSkyscraper Posters
     

Go Back   SkyscraperPage Forum > Regional Sections > Canada > Alberta & British Columbia > Vancouver > Transportation & Infrastructure

Reply

 
Thread Tools Display Modes
     
     
  #41  
Old Posted Sep 12, 2013, 4:43 PM
WarrenC12 WarrenC12 is online now
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2007
Location: East OV!
Posts: 6,494
Quote:
Originally Posted by go_leafs_go02 View Post
Change seems to be in the air! I loved the portion of the video on Oak Street, where he measured vehicles with camera to determine the speed limit should be 80 km/h on there rather than 50 km/h.
Uh... whoa there. Until the first kid or old person is run down.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #42  
Old Posted Sep 12, 2013, 4:58 PM
theKB theKB is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Posts: 677
Quote:
Originally Posted by WarrenC12 View Post
Uh... whoa there. Until the first kid or old person is run down.
I agree, I am a big advocate for upping speed limits but within the city it's highly doubtful and potentially dangerous to consider upping limits. Oak, Granville and Knight could potentially be 60 but nothing higher than that IMO.

Now if we want to talk highways that is a different story.

I also think that this is where this movement loses traction in that people think raising speed limits and they immediately assume that people want speed limits raised everywhere when in fact it is focused on rural roads and highways that this change needs to happen. The immediate roadside impound needs to go too.
__________________
-independent retailer
---
Sales @ Mercedes-Benz
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #43  
Old Posted Sep 12, 2013, 5:10 PM
WarrenC12 WarrenC12 is online now
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2007
Location: East OV!
Posts: 6,494
Quote:
Originally Posted by theKB View Post
I agree, I am a big advocate for upping speed limits but within the city it's highly doubtful and potentially dangerous to consider upping limits. Oak, Granville and Knight could potentially be 60 but nothing higher than that IMO.

Now if we want to talk highways that is a different story.

I also think that this is where this movement loses traction in that people think raising speed limits and they immediately assume that people want speed limits raised everywhere when in fact it is focused on rural roads and highways that this change needs to happen. The immediate roadside impound needs to go too.
Agreed. Specifically the article I read mentioned possibly reducing limits in cities. I don't think that's reasonable, but 50 km/h is a good limit for any road, including Oak, Knight, etc that have uncontrolled roads intersecting with them.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #44  
Old Posted Sep 12, 2013, 5:44 PM
makr3trkr makr3trkr is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2012
Posts: 547
The measurement of vehicles he took was not on Oak, it was on SW Marine, one of the safest roads statistically in the city:



Not a single car measured was doing the speed limit, and the 85th percentile was 79 km/hr:



Raising the limit there to 70 or 80 would not make everyone suddenly drive any faster or go on a murderous rampage, that has been borne out by studies. All the low limit is doing is criminalizing responsible drivers.

And, sure, the limit doesn't need to be raised on Oak Street, but the whole point of that video was that it isn't actually going to change driver behaviour - people drive according to streetscape conditions.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #45  
Old Posted Sep 12, 2013, 5:53 PM
go_leafs_go02 go_leafs_go02 is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: London, ON
Posts: 2,354
Quote:
Originally Posted by WarrenC12 View Post
Uh... whoa there. Until the first kid or old person is run down.
Ah, sorry, I meant Marine Drive rather than Oak Street.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #46  
Old Posted Sep 12, 2013, 7:40 PM
deasine deasine is offline
Vancouver Moderator
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Posts: 5,676
Well with the development of the River District and the increasing number of intersections of Marine that will result from the development, it would probably not be wise to raise the limit to 80kph.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #47  
Old Posted Sep 12, 2013, 8:03 PM
makr3trkr makr3trkr is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2012
Posts: 547
Raising the speed limit does not increase accidents or speeding, and lowering the limit will not make people safer or drive slower than what is prudent. Science:

"Report No. FHWA-RD-92-084
U.S. Department of Transportation
Federal Highway Administration

The results of the study indicated that lowering posted speed limits by as much as 20 mi/h (32 km/h), or raising speed limits by as much as 15 mi/h (24 km/h) had little effect on motorist' speed. The majority of motorist did not drive 5 mi/h (8 km/h) above the posted speed limits when speed limits were raised, nor did they reduce their speed by 5 or 10 mi/h (8 or 16 km/h) when speed limits are lowered. Data collected at the study sites indicated that the majority of speed limits are posed below the average speed of traffic. Lowering speed limits below the 50th percentile does not reduce accidents, but does significantly increase driver violations of the speed limit. Conversely, raising the posted speed limits did not increase speeds or accidents."

notable: "This report may be of interest to traffic engineers and policy makers responsible for making decisions involving the setting of speed limits on short segments on surface streets.. The report results DO NOT involve changing speed limits on limited access highways."

http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/publications...7084/97084.pdf
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #48  
Old Posted Sep 12, 2013, 9:34 PM
Alex Mackinnon's Avatar
Alex Mackinnon Alex Mackinnon is offline
Can I has a tunnel?
 
Join Date: May 2008
Location: Strathcona
Posts: 1,459
Quote:
Originally Posted by deasine View Post
Well with the development of the River District and the increasing number of intersections of Marine that will result from the development, it would probably not be wise to raise the limit to 80kph.
60km/h or 70km/h would be reasonable though. The development won't really be addressing Marine Way all that much.
__________________
"It's ok, I'm an engineer!" -Famous last words
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #49  
Old Posted Sep 12, 2013, 9:41 PM
aberdeen5698 aberdeen5698 is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2010
Posts: 2,790
Quote:
Originally Posted by Alex Mackinnon View Post
60km/h or 70km/h would be reasonable though. The development won't really be addressing Marine Way all that much.
Are you kidding? It's going to take some time to get there, but when that property is developed as planned there's going to be a heckuva lot more traffic entering and leaving Marine Drive between Kerr and Boundary road.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #50  
Old Posted Sep 12, 2013, 10:46 PM
Alex Mackinnon's Avatar
Alex Mackinnon Alex Mackinnon is offline
Can I has a tunnel?
 
Join Date: May 2008
Location: Strathcona
Posts: 1,459
From controlled intersections...

60km/h is perfectly appropriate for most arterials.
__________________
"It's ok, I'm an engineer!" -Famous last words
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #51  
Old Posted Sep 13, 2013, 2:55 AM
deasine deasine is offline
Vancouver Moderator
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Posts: 5,676
Quote:
Originally Posted by Alex Mackinnon View Post
60km/h or 70km/h would be reasonable though. The development won't really be addressing Marine Way all that much.
Quote:
Originally Posted by aberdeen5698 View Post
Are you kidding? It's going to take some time to get there, but when that property is developed as planned there's going to be a heckuva lot more traffic entering and leaving Marine Drive between Kerr and Boundary road.
There will be three additional intersections at least ever 150~200m with a neighbouring park/field. I don't disagree with 60kph on Marine.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #52  
Old Posted Sep 13, 2013, 3:35 AM
giallo's Avatar
giallo giallo is offline
be nice to the crackheads
 
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: Shanghai/Vancouver
Posts: 8,203
I just came to post that video here.

Very well made and well researched.
__________________
www.andrewrochfort.com
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #53  
Old Posted Sep 13, 2013, 4:08 AM
aberdeen5698 aberdeen5698 is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2010
Posts: 2,790
Quote:
Originally Posted by GeeCee View Post
Saw this video making the rounds..
Thanks for posting that. I think it's so cool that a single person can do something like this and have such a broad impact. I'm one of those guys in the right lane that you're always passing because I almost always drive within about 5km of the speed limit (yes, even on Marine Drive). But I think this video makes a very persuasive argument.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #54  
Old Posted Sep 13, 2013, 4:15 AM
Mister F Mister F is online now
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Posts: 2,143
Reading this from Ontario, I'm totally jealous. Here we're stuck with speed limits of 80 on country roads and 100 on freeways. And sure enough, those limits are completely ignored by 90% of drivers. It's nice to see somewhere in the country where the conversation doesn't end with "speed kills".
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #55  
Old Posted Sep 13, 2013, 5:35 AM
GeeCee's Avatar
GeeCee GeeCee is online now
zoom zoom
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: Port Coquitlam, BC
Posts: 2,414
Quote:
Originally Posted by aberdeen5698 View Post
Thanks for posting that. I think it's so cool that a single person can do something like this and have such a broad impact. I'm one of those guys in the right lane that you're always passing because I almost always drive within about 5km of the speed limit (yes, even on Marine Drive). But I think this video makes a very persuasive argument.
At least you're in the right lane. It's the people that try to play traffic cop and sit in the left lane at exactly the speed limit that really aggravate me.

Reply With Quote
     
     
  #56  
Old Posted Sep 13, 2013, 8:44 PM
twoNeurons twoNeurons is offline
loafing in lotusland
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Lotusland
Posts: 5,663
Quote:
Originally Posted by aberdeen5698 View Post
Are you kidding? It's going to take some time to get there, but when that property is developed as planned there's going to be a heckuva lot more traffic entering and leaving Marine Drive between Kerr and Boundary road.
They're entering at intersections... just like Lougheed Hwy and all the controlled intersections that intersect it. Most people, in town, don't even look for posted speed limits. I didn't actually even KNOW the limit on Lougheed Hwy until that video. I just focused on driving safely and keep my eyes on the road and the cars around me, not the speedometer and traffic signs.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #57  
Old Posted Sep 14, 2013, 12:34 AM
cornholio cornholio is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Posts: 3,633
I really hope this does not fizzle out.
Number 1 heading east should be 110 to 104th street and 130+ past that.
Coquihala should be 130+.
Sea2Sky should be 110 with improved wildlife fencing (something like this should not be able to happen on a important highway: bear)

Basically any highway that has wildlife fencing and is not in the middle of the city with closely spaced interchanges and constant merging and traffic should have a limit of 130+.

Then there are many streets that are too low, specifically:
Barnet, should be 100
Marine heading west should be 80 up to almost Kerr street, then 60 the rest of the way.
Granville, Cambie, Oak should be 60 south of 49th or so...

*One thing that bugs me is the speed traps in these locations:
1) Marine in Burnaby where it drops to 50kmph which is in no way justified Marine
2) Boundary near Marine, again 50kmph is way too low and they always have a speed trap here and sometimes at the top, there is no reason for it. It should be around 70 and the intersection at the bottom should be improved so trucks can stay in the right lane when turning left on to Marine. Boundary

p.s. I drive at a comfortable speed, that means above the speed limit and probably around or just above the 85th percentile and I drive at least 30,000km per year and have had one speeding ticket in my life, knock on wood. Mostly though because I am very aware of my surroundings. Oh and that one speeding ticket was on Marry Hill bypass under the pedestrian overpass at 11pm at night, I was going 110 and it is a 80 zone, again way way way too low of a speed limit.

By the way saw that video yesterday, just a incredibly awesome job that person did. I say it is a great service to society.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #58  
Old Posted Sep 14, 2013, 2:29 AM
makr3trkr makr3trkr is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2012
Posts: 547
The Vancouver stretch of Highway 1 (Grandview to McGill) could *easily* be 90 km/hr.

When you consider how much safer cars are now compared to 20 years ago, and all of the improvements to the highway (widening, larger shoulders, merge length, sightlines), it's clear politics rather than engineers are driving the speed limits.

I don't buy the argument that the tunnel necessitates a lower limit, it's straight as an arrow and relatively short and will have dedicated add/drop lanes (compare that to the 91/91a interchange which is a hairpin curve with weaving entering and exiting traffic and still manages to operate at 90 km/hr).

I have a sneaking suspicion the limit is staying at 80 because of concerns about noise, rather than safety.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #59  
Old Posted Sep 14, 2013, 6:59 PM
tybuilding tybuilding is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Posts: 884
Taking only the Solomon curve and 85th percentile into consideration does not account for cyclists or pedestrians. To raise speed limits we need to provide better separation for cyclists from vehicles and better crossing facilities for pedestrians. The faster vehicles go the less likely they will stop for pedestrians. We should be designing most city streets for speed limits of 40 and by designing I don't just mean lowering the speed limits. This is why there are so many requests for traffic calming these days.

http://sfb.nathanpachal.com/2013/09/...-township.html

"As of today, there are 76 locations in the Township of Langley were people has requested traffic calming."

The streets shouldn't be designed to get the most traffic from point A to B but to connect all users to where they want to go.

That being said I think there are places where the speed limit could be higher, Marine Drive would be one for that stretch mentioned. Some highways could be higher as well. Highway 1 south of Yale would be a good candidate.

Highway drivers should have the same rule apply for passing cyclists as they would passing emergency vehicles, move over, slow to 70km/hr. Here is a good ad campaign: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Cl_IzodNazY

For in town we need to keep on emphasizing separated bike facilities. Higher speed roads with bike facilities will need to be separated more.

Last edited by tybuilding; Sep 14, 2013 at 7:24 PM.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #60  
Old Posted Sep 14, 2013, 8:31 PM
cornholio cornholio is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Posts: 3,633
Quote:
Originally Posted by tybuilding View Post
Taking only the Solomon curve and 85th percentile into consideration does not account for cyclists or pedestrians. To raise speed limits we need to provide better separation for cyclists from vehicles and better crossing facilities for pedestrians. The faster vehicles go the less likely they will stop for pedestrians. We should be designing most city streets for speed limits of 40 and by designing I don't just mean lowering the speed limits. This is why there are so many requests for traffic calming these days.

http://sfb.nathanpachal.com/2013/09/...-township.html

"As of today, there are 76 locations in the Township of Langley were people has requested traffic calming."

The streets shouldn't be designed to get the most traffic from point A to B but to connect all users to where they want to go.

That being said I think there are places where the speed limit could be higher, Marine Drive would be one for that stretch mentioned. Some highways could be higher as well. Highway 1 south of Yale would be a good candidate.

Highway drivers should have the same rule apply for passing cyclists as they would passing emergency vehicles, move over, slow to 70km/hr. Here is a good ad campaign: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Cl_IzodNazY

For in town we need to keep on emphasizing separated bike facilities. Higher speed roads with bike facilities will need to be separated more.
I strongly disagree with every point you made.

>Taking only the Solomon curve and 85th percentile into consideration does not account for cyclists or pedestrians.
It does take this in to account, the whole point of it is that people go at a safe speed, if there are pedestrians and bikes people will go slower and the 85th percentile will be lower.

>To raise speed limits we need to provide better separation for cyclists from vehicles and better crossing facilities for pedestrians.
Most roads and especially highways have good separation. Also once again this has nothing to do with the 85th percentile and the speed people naturally drive at.

>The faster vehicles go the less likely they will stop for pedestrians.
One could argue that the slower a vehicle goes, the less attention the driver pays to the road and the more attention they pay to their speedometer and looking out for speed traps. One could say that this driver is significantly more dangerous and distracted then a driver going at the speed they determine is safe for the conditions.

>We should be designing most city streets for speed limits of 40 and by designing I don't just mean lowering the speed limits.
40? I honestly don't even know what to say to this. Most city streets at 40 is way too low AND goes against all logic. The speeds on many arterial roads should be raised to 60-70, not lowered, and for other left at 50 (like say Commercial drive north of Broadway, etc.). Also something to remember is that traffic calming is making a road less safe in order to lower speeds and reduce traffic. It works only when used sparingly as part of a larger road system.

>"As of today, there are 76 locations in the Township of Langley were people has requested traffic calming."
I think we all know this means nothing. I can go tomorrow and request 100 locations for traffic calming.

>The streets shouldn't be designed to get the most traffic from point A to B but to connect all users to where they want to go.
Streets are designed to get the most users from point A to point B, that includes traffic. Right now most users drive, and the speed limits are set too low thus decreasing road safety and increasing travel times and congestion.

>Highway drivers should have the same rule apply for passing cyclists as they would passing emergency vehicles, move over, slow to 70km/hr. Here is a good ad campaign:
Once again I am lost for words. This is a horrible proposition. I fail to understand the reason for this? Why? Are people being hit left right and center? No.

>For in town we need to keep on emphasizing separated bike facilities. Higher speed roads with bike facilities will need to be separated more
I am all for separated bike infrastructure, when implemented properly. A speed limit of 100 and bikes is fine. If you get to 130 then bikes should not use that roadway unless there are wide shoulders or separation, if this is not in place then bikes should NOT be allowed on that road way / highway.
Reply With Quote
     
     
This discussion thread continues

Use the page links to the lower-right to go to the next page for additional posts
 
 
Reply

Go Back   SkyscraperPage Forum > Regional Sections > Canada > Alberta & British Columbia > Vancouver > Transportation & Infrastructure
Forum Jump


Thread Tools
Display Modes

Forum Jump


All times are GMT. The time now is 3:36 PM.

     

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.