HomeDiagramsDatabaseMapsForum
     

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

Reply

 
Thread Tools Display Modes
     
     
  #1841  
Old Posted Apr 6, 2011, 1:33 AM
quobobo quobobo is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Vancouver
Posts: 1,053
Quote:
Originally Posted by DKaz View Post
If there is a bike lane and cyclists are opting to use the road instead, might as well take the lanes out.
I rode the Burrard Bridge nearly every day last summer and I didn't see anyone riding in the road.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #1842  
Old Posted Apr 6, 2011, 1:35 AM
jlousa's Avatar
jlousa jlousa is offline
Ferris Wheel Hater
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Posts: 8,040
Vancouver's Econonic Development Commision has just issues an RFP to conduct a "Vancouver Separated Bike Lane Economic Impact Study". I'm curious to see the outcomes of this report once it's public which should be in late June of this year. The COV is a partner in the study so if the outcome is less the optimal I feel the report will be somewhat muted and there is already mention of a future follow up study so it doesn't appear this study will bring any large changes. The following quote seems a little worrying.

"Project launch-meeting with Partnership to clarify and confirm expectations."

The details of what the study should be measuring are included in the RFP, so why the need to confirm expectations? Hopefully it's just a less then ideal choice of wording, but after the wording in the Viaducts study rfp it appears troubling.


http://www.bcbid.gov.bc.ca/open.dll/...&filetype=Blob
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #1843  
Old Posted Apr 6, 2011, 5:49 AM
dreambrother808 dreambrother808 is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Vancouver
Posts: 2,319
Quote:
Originally Posted by quobobo View Post
I rode the Burrard Bridge nearly every day last summer and I didn't see anyone riding in the road.
But someone saw 6 people riding on the road and therefore we should remove the bike lanes! /s

Reply With Quote
     
     
  #1844  
Old Posted Apr 6, 2011, 4:22 PM
IanS IanS is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Posts: 362
Quote:
Originally Posted by jlousa View Post
Vancouver's Econonic Development Commision has just issues an RFP to conduct a "Vancouver Separated Bike Lane Economic Impact Study". I'm curious to see the outcomes of this report once it's public which should be in late June of this year. The COV is a partner in the study so if the outcome is less the optimal I feel the report will be somewhat muted and there is already mention of a future follow up study so it doesn't appear this study will bring any large changes. The following quote seems a little worrying.

"Project launch-meeting with Partnership to clarify and confirm expectations."

The details of what the study should be measuring are included in the RFP, so why the need to confirm expectations? Hopefully it's just a less then ideal choice of wording, but after the wording in the Viaducts study rfp it appears troubling.
I'm happy that there's going to be some sort of assessment along those lines, though I share your concern regarding the involvement of the CoV, given the political investment made in the bike lanes.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #1845  
Old Posted Apr 8, 2011, 9:05 PM
tybuilding tybuilding is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Posts: 892
Highest cycling commuting rates is in the Yukon??

http://pricetags.wordpress.com/2011/...at-bike-north/

Reply With Quote
     
     
  #1846  
Old Posted Apr 9, 2011, 9:08 AM
cabotp cabotp is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Vancouver, BC
Posts: 2,111
Quote:
Originally Posted by tybuilding View Post
Highest cycling commuting rates is in the Yukon??

http://pricetags.wordpress.com/2011/...at-bike-north/

I figure it has something to do with average wage not being that great up north. Hence a lot of people can't afford to own a vehicle. Although the cold surely would put a damper on it.

The higher average in BC is probably due to the weather compared to the rest of the provinces. Oregon probably get a good boost from improved biking infrastructure that has been built in Portland compared to the rest of the US nation.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #1847  
Old Posted Apr 9, 2011, 10:47 AM
cornholio cornholio is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Posts: 3,753
Quote:
Originally Posted by cabotp View Post
I figure it has something to do with average wage not being that great up north. Hence a lot of people can't afford to own a vehicle. Although the cold surely would put a damper on it.

The higher average in BC is probably due to the weather compared to the rest of the provinces. Oregon probably get a good boost from improved biking infrastructure that has been built in Portland compared to the rest of the US nation.
Sorry but your pretty wrong.

A) The North west Territories and Yukon have the highest median family salaries in Canada at over 90,000 per year.

B) They are the most urbanized areas in Canada, almost everyone lives in a city or town, and there are only a few of them. That is the more likely reason why bike use is higher.

C) BC is the most urbanized province in Canada, yet again that is why bike use is higher.

D) I believe Oregon is one of the most urbanized states in America.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #1848  
Old Posted Apr 11, 2011, 5:45 AM
tybuilding tybuilding is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Posts: 892
Tunnel for pedestrians and cyclist only, one does exist and 20,000 use it everyday.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L2_A-...layer_embedded
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #1849  
Old Posted Apr 11, 2011, 6:11 AM
cabotp cabotp is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Vancouver, BC
Posts: 2,111
Quote:
Originally Posted by cornholio View Post
Sorry but your pretty wrong.

A) The North west Territories and Yukon have the highest median family salaries in Canada at over 90,000 per year.

B) They are the most urbanized areas in Canada, almost everyone lives in a city or town, and there are only a few of them. That is the more likely reason why bike use is higher.

C) BC is the most urbanized province in Canada, yet again that is why bike use is higher.

D) I believe Oregon is one of the most urbanized states in America.
I admit I'm wrong on the average wage up in the Territories.

But to say BC is the most urbanized province in Canada I can not agree on. Unless the definition of what I consider urbanized is different from what you consider urbanized. I'd consider Ontario more Urbanized than BC. And no I'm not from there.

If do feel the climate has an impact though that helps BC.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #1850  
Old Posted Apr 11, 2011, 6:16 AM
aberdeen5698 aberdeen5698 is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2010
Posts: 3,259
Quote:
Originally Posted by cabotp View Post
But to say BC is the most urbanized province in Canada I can not agree on.
According to Stats Can figures based on the 2006 census it looks like BC and Ontario are tied for first place and the territories "up north" are fairly far behind.

Reply With Quote
     
     
  #1851  
Old Posted Apr 11, 2011, 6:19 AM
cabotp cabotp is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Vancouver, BC
Posts: 2,111
Quote:
Originally Posted by aberdeen5698 View Post
According to Stats Can figures based on the 2006 census it looks like BC and Ontario are tied for first place and the territories "up north" are fairly far behind.

OK that makes sense. I was thinking of urbanized in a different way.

And did you just happen to have that graph sitting ready to be posted because wow you were fast.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #1852  
Old Posted Apr 11, 2011, 4:56 PM
aberdeen5698 aberdeen5698 is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2010
Posts: 3,259
Quote:
Originally Posted by cabotp View Post
And did you just happen to have that graph sitting ready to be posted because wow you were fast.
Google is your friend - all you need to do is to search for "urban population percentage by province".
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #1853  
Old Posted Apr 11, 2011, 5:51 PM
tybuilding tybuilding is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Posts: 892
Bike Infrastructure in Whitehorse

http://maps.google.ca/maps?f=q&sourc...,16.8,,0,24.82

http://maps.google.ca/maps?f=q&sourc...,0.008272&z=17

Bike Map
http://ww3.whitehorse.ca/Features/By...y/bikeMap.html

20000 people live in Whitehorse, 30000 live in all of Yukon.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #1854  
Old Posted Apr 12, 2011, 7:49 AM
tybuilding tybuilding is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Posts: 892
Surrey Greenway & Local Street Bike Boulivards in 2011

In keeping with my earlier master plan which I have been updating I have a plan of routes that can be easily implemented today without acquiring new properties (some negotiations for crossings of some private driveways required). The routes should be able to be cycled fairly easily but I recommend printing out the maps in fairly good detail if you want to try it as there are a lot of turns required to navigate the suburban subdivisions. To build the map I consulted the Surrey bike map and the Translink cycling map.

The Green routes are Surrey greenways or park cycling trails. The cyan routes are local street routes. The blue routes are existing translink map or city of Surrey local street routes.

Some of the greenways are under construction this year or next year but the streets they are on typically have bike lanes as well.

http://maps.google.ca/maps/ms?f=d&so...&z=11&lci=bike

Quote:
Originally Posted by tybuilding View Post
I built a plan for bike boulevards on local streets in Surrey. The Greenways Master Plan was made by the City of Surrey. I added to the plan by adding local streets that would compliment the greenways. They will be easier to get in place before the greenways as most routes would be on existing streets and connecting pedestrian paths.

http://maps.google.ca/maps/ms?client...,0.659866&z=10

The greenways are shown in Green and the Bike Boulevards in Blue

http://www.surrey.ca/city-services/7773.aspx - Surrey Cycling Page

http://www.surrey.ca/files/Greenways_Map.pdf - Surrey Greenways Master Plan
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #1855  
Old Posted Apr 12, 2011, 6:52 PM
city-dweller's Avatar
city-dweller city-dweller is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Vancouver
Posts: 357
Going to take a while to look at them all. Overall I see a lot of good choices.

I think the Annacis HWY to 99 section of the MUD bay route could be done better. You are running along Colebrook Road and then across 99 and back along the hwy. I would put an bike/ped overpass from the road that connects Ladner Trunk Road to Colebrook. On the south side of the 99 HWY you could have west (Mud Bay) or east (connection to Crescent Beach and on to Whiterock) routes.

The west route ties into your existing Mud Bay Route.
The east route could go along the farm access lanes and two small bridges.

(If I finish my work early today I will mock-it up for you)
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #1856  
Old Posted Apr 12, 2011, 6:53 PM
jhausner jhausner is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: Surrey
Posts: 2,739
As long as they don't remove car infrastructure for bike infrastructure I have no issue with bike lane. That's the issue in Vancouver is you are putting both groups at odds with each other far too often and making it seem like "If you need to drive a car you are an evil human being hell-bent on the destruction of the Earth" and that's what tends to piss me off.

In Surrey they aren't putting cyclists against motor vehicles or busses. Maybe we just have the space to do it or maybe our Mayor, Council, and city staff do a better job of selling and implementing the idea. Several other cities also do a far better job that Vancouver in the department of not pissing car drivers, businesses, and everyone other than cyclists off.

Vancouver just irks me the way they handle this topic. Well in all honesty Vancouver Mayor and Council irk me about how they handle _every_ topic.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #1857  
Old Posted Apr 12, 2011, 7:33 PM
cabotp cabotp is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Vancouver, BC
Posts: 2,111
Quote:
Originally Posted by jhausner View Post
As long as they don't remove car infrastructure for bike infrastructure I have no issue with bike lane. That's the issue in Vancouver is you are putting both groups at odds with each other far too often and making it seem like "If you need to drive a car you are an evil human being hell-bent on the destruction of the Earth" and that's what tends to piss me off.

In Surrey they aren't putting cyclists against motor vehicles or busses. Maybe we just have the space to do it or maybe our Mayor, Council, and city staff do a better job of selling and implementing the idea. Several other cities also do a far better job that Vancouver in the department of not pissing car drivers, businesses, and everyone other than cyclists off.

Vancouver just irks me the way they handle this topic. Well in all honesty Vancouver Mayor and Council irk me about how they handle _every_ topic.
In defense of Vancouver in regards to removing car infrastructure for bike infracture. Vancouver is already built out. So it is hard to add something without removing or impacting something else. Especially in a place like downtown. Its different in a suburb that can widen the road and add on bike lanes. That isn't something you can do in downtown Vancouver.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #1858  
Old Posted Apr 12, 2011, 8:21 PM
officedweller officedweller is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: Vancouver
Posts: 27,023
Yeah, that's true for downtown.
The lanes I find odd are the new ones on Cambie or others proposed for busy arterials like Kingsway, when there's a parallel route.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #1859  
Old Posted Apr 12, 2011, 8:58 PM
tybuilding tybuilding is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Posts: 892
Quote:
Originally Posted by jhausner View Post
As long as they don't remove car infrastructure for bike infrastructure I have no issue with bike lane. That's the issue in Vancouver is you are putting both groups at odds with each other far too often and making it seem like "If you need to drive a car you are an evil human being hell-bent on the destruction of the Earth" and that's what tends to piss me off.

In Surrey they aren't putting cyclists against motor vehicles or busses. Maybe we just have the space to do it or maybe our Mayor, Council, and city staff do a better job of selling and implementing the idea. Several other cities also do a far better job that Vancouver in the department of not pissing car drivers, businesses, and everyone other than cyclists off.

Vancouver just irks me the way they handle this topic. Well in all honesty Vancouver Mayor and Council irk me about how they handle _every_ topic.
Yes but quite often the routes in Surrey are 1.3 m lanes (1.8m is standard) on roads with trucks with speeds of 60 km/hr with vehicle lanes that are too narrow. Take King George south of 64th Ave to Hwy 10.
Speed 70 km/hr
Left Lane width: 3.3m
Right Lane width: 2.9m
Bike Lane width (including curb & gutter): 1.3m

If beside a tractor trailer, typically 2.6m wide driving in the centre of its lane, with the cyclist in the centre of it's lane with handlebars 0.6m wide leaves a space of 0.7m between the cyclist and the passing truck with a speed difference of 50km/hr. If the cyclist moves fully over almost riding in the gutter they would have maximum 1m.
(the truck can not move over as another vehicle could be in the lane beside)

Now what is being sacrificed here? Well the cycle lanes are too narrow, space is being eaten up with the nice 3.6m wide centre median which Surrey gets money from ICBC to put in so vehicles do not hit eachother head on. Sacrificing vehicle space NO, sacrificing the usefulness of the bike lane and its safety, YES.

Thankfully new projects are supposed to put in place 1.8m lanes if they are possible. Lets hope so.

Yes Surrey is not removing car infrastructure but they are not giving good cycling infrastructures as a result!
(recent projects include the brand new 96 ave, and the existing 64th Ave repainting). Otherwise we should be sacrificing the turn lanes and the medians to build the proper widths or buy property.

Thats why it is so important to build these bike boulevards off the main streets and put in the greenways.

Last edited by tybuilding; Apr 12, 2011 at 9:12 PM.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #1860  
Old Posted Apr 12, 2011, 10:38 PM
aberdeen5698 aberdeen5698 is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2010
Posts: 3,259
Quote:
Originally Posted by cabotp View Post
In defense of Vancouver in regards to removing car infrastructure for bike infracture. Vancouver is already built out. So it is hard to add something without removing or impacting something else. Especially in a place like downtown. Its different in a suburb that can widen the road and add on bike lanes. That isn't something you can do in downtown Vancouver.
Not only that, but in the past decade or more the number of cars driving into Vancouver has actually decreased by about 15% (see: http://vancouver.ca/commsvcs/plannin...work/index.htm), while at the same time pedestrian and cycling trips have been increasing. So a good argument can be made for taking some of the road space and reallocating it for other modes.
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 1:58 PM.

     

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2018, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.