HomeDiagramsDatabaseMapsForum
     

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

Reply

 
Thread Tools Display Modes
     
     
  #1961  
Old Posted Jun 8, 2011, 8:45 PM
aberdeen5698 aberdeen5698 is online now
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2010
Posts: 3,282
Quote:
Originally Posted by racc View Post
Getting seriously injured or killed is hardly impunity.
It's impunity from the law if he's not charged when he did something illegal. And the problem is that if he gets away without a charge, it will encourage others who think they're too smart to get hit and won't be ticketed anyway. IMHO charging sends an important message that he's the one in the wrong even though many (possibly most) would see him as the victim.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #1962  
Old Posted Jun 8, 2011, 10:25 PM
Porfiry Porfiry is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2010
Posts: 768
Quote:
Originally Posted by racc View Post
Right now, there are very few good ways to get to the Hornby lane especially from the West End. The Dunsmuir separated lane doesn't even go west of Hornby.
There's definitely a bit of a missing east-west link in the mid-peninsula. The Comox-Helmcken greenway is long-promised by successive councils, but has yet to be delivered.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #1963  
Old Posted Jun 8, 2011, 10:34 PM
tybuilding tybuilding is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Posts: 893
Cycling Lanes on Bridges and Overpasses

Sometimes I just do not understand what is going on with some of the street designs.
Here is a comparison between 24th Avenue crossing Highway 99 and a bridge in Munich, Germany that I found.

24th Ave

http://maps.google.ca/maps?hl=en&ie=...97.28,,0,23.79

There have been complaints from people in the local newspaper that people still cycle on the sidewalk despite the new cycling lanes. It is no wonder though.
Problem:
-The bike lanes are built in the typical style in Surrey with 1.5m wide lanes, curb and in this case a no post barrier.
- The bike lanes fill with debris as there is no where for debris to go
- Lanes are too narrow, barrier on right provides no relief if a vehicle is too close to the cyclist, cyclist is blocked in.
Solution:
-There is a centre median which seems is wasted space. Narrow median and place no post to provide separation
- Place cyclists beside pedestrians/have combined space typical of bridges around lower mainland, paint lines to separate the space
(Barriers on the outside prevent vehicles from crashing off the road into properties and onto the highway below.)

Bridge in Munich:
http://maps.google.ca/maps?f=q&sourc...,146.97,,1,6.3
- Cycle lanes are raised creating the separation.

Sometimes I think traffic engineers/planners need some additional training about cycling infrastructure, in this case I believe they did a poor design.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #1964  
Old Posted Jun 8, 2011, 10:58 PM
s211 s211 is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Oct 2008
Location: The People's Glorious Republic of ... Sigh...
Posts: 5,492
Quote:
Originally Posted by racc View Post
Oh and by the way, this forum is really not for anti-cycling posts like yours.
But for nonstop consistent anti-car rants, it's game on?
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #1965  
Old Posted Jun 8, 2011, 11:29 PM
officedweller officedweller is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: Vancouver
Posts: 27,156
Quote:
Originally Posted by racc View Post
Jaywalking is a derogatory term invented by the automobile lobby. They then lobbied to make it illegal to allow traffic to go at unsafe speeds in cities. Before that, pedestrians could wander on streets and cross wherever they wanted to and automobiles were limited to very slow speeds.
But back in those days, people were held responsible for their actions - they accepted the risk associated with their actions (such as crossing the street when unsafe to do so) - today, anyone injured while doing something plainly stupid can seek damages and win.

If you're allowing people to do "stupid" things like jaywalking, etc. - then the City shouldn't have taken a "parental" view in removing the bus shelters from the 700 block of Granville for the Stanley Cup playoffs - but of course we all know that if some bozo climbs up it and breaks his neck falling off - the City will be hit with a lawsuit - and who pays for that?

The pedestrians aimlessly walking across the street - that's the primary reason that many drivers avoid Hastings St. near Main St.(and take a parallel route like instead) - its too risky.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #1966  
Old Posted Jun 9, 2011, 5:41 AM
whatnext whatnext is online now
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: Vancouver
Posts: 9,433
Quote:
Originally Posted by aberdeen5698 View Post
It's impunity from the law if he's not charged when he did something illegal. And the problem is that if he gets away without a charge, it will encourage others who think they're too smart to get hit and won't be ticketed anyway. IMHO charging sends an important message that he's the one in the wrong even though many (possibly most) would see him as the victim.
I used to work for a railway, and if you were hit by a train while walking on the tracks the railway police would charge you with trespass. Assuming you lived.

Though I disagree with racc's history of jaywalking, I do have to agree that there is a shocking lack of safe places for pedestrians to cross especially on the North-South arterials. If you try to make it across Granville, Oak, Cambie, Main, Knight etc at an uncontrolled intersection outside of a commercial strip, you're taking your life into your hands.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #1967  
Old Posted Jun 9, 2011, 6:20 AM
aberdeen5698 aberdeen5698 is online now
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2010
Posts: 3,282
Quote:
Originally Posted by whatnext View Post
Though I disagree with racc's history of jaywalking, I do have to agree that there is a shocking lack of safe places for pedestrians to cross especially on the North-South arterials.
According to the BC Motor Vehicle Act, every intersection constitutes a "crosswalk", whether marked or not. Pedestrians have the right of way and may cross the street as long as they do not "walk or run into the path of a vehicle that is so close it is impracticable for the driver to yield the right of way." Section 119 defines "crosswalk", and section 179 defines the right of way for pedestrians in them.

While I agree that it's foolhardy to blithely assume that vehicles will stop for you in an unmarked crosswalk (or even in a marked crosswalk that's not controlled by traffic lights), you are in fact permitted to cross and it's reasonably safe as long as you're careful not to proceed until you've made sure that each lane of traffic is actually stopping for you.

IMHO a person is a lot safer everywhere if he pays attention and exercises prudence than if he simply relies on the safety features of road design, traffic control and the good will of motorists.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #1968  
Old Posted Jun 9, 2011, 6:35 AM
whatnext whatnext is online now
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: Vancouver
Posts: 9,433
Quote:
Originally Posted by aberdeen5698 View Post
According to the BC Motor Vehicle Act, every intersection constitutes a "crosswalk", whether marked or not. Pedestrians have the right of way and may cross the street as long as they do not "walk or run into the path of a vehicle that is so close it is impracticable for the driver to yield the right of way." Section 119 defines "crosswalk", and section 179 defines the right of way for pedestrians in them.
I realize that, but the reality is it doesn't always work out that way. There are too many variables: vehicles that might be speeding; pedestrians wearing dark clothing that a driver in the curb lane might see but not the next driver over; drivers assuming the car beside them is stopped to turn, pedestrians that misjudge how long a truck takes to stop...the list is long. There need to be more pedestrian-controlled lights. Especially in a climate with as many dark wet days as Vancouver's.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #1969  
Old Posted Jun 9, 2011, 8:59 AM
cornholio cornholio is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Posts: 3,755
Quote:
Originally Posted by racc View Post
Do your research next time instead of just inventing trivial excuses. It is not that hard with the Internet. The City of Copenhagen 6,136.6 people/km2 is only slightly more dense than Vancouver 5,335 people/km2. This was back in 2006 so I expect the difference to even be less now. The population of the city at 541,000 and metro area at 1.9 million are not significantly different from Vancouver either.

What difference do old narrow streets make? There is even less room for bike lanes and still they have made it work. You are arguing against yourself.

Regarding hills, electric bikes make easy work of hills.

Not many people cycled in Copenhagen 40 years ago. Cars had free reign of the city. Then, when the Oil Crisis hit, they decided they need to change so they focused on building complete networks of separated bike lanes so people of all ages and abilities could cycle safe and comfortably. We need to do the same here.

Oh and by the way, this forum is really not for anti-cycling posts like yours.
Without getting in to a argument I just say that I have spent time in Copenhagen and I know someone well who lives in Copenhagen right now. Looking at numbers doesnt tell you a hell lot, Copenhagen is very differnet from Vancouver and much denser. All I said was that to try to compare Vancouver to it or try to make Vancouver like it is pretty useless. I just hate when people try to give examples of places they have never been to and dont understand, all cities tend to be very different from culture, to economy to geography to history, etc.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #1970  
Old Posted Jun 9, 2011, 3:05 PM
racc racc is offline
BANNED
 
Join Date: Oct 2008
Posts: 1,241
Quote:
Originally Posted by aberdeen5698 View Post
You see, I'm not sure I share this opinion. 10th Avenue is a fair example of this - I actually prefer crossing the city along 10th because it's (for the most part) quiet and pleasant, even though it doesn't have a separated or painted lane or even the awful "sharrows". If there were a separated lane on Broadway, I'm not sure I'd use it except for the "last block" to reach a destination because Broadway is noisier, smellier, and generally more aggravating to ride along. In fact, I suspect that even with a separated bike lane the chances of being hit while traversing lanes and cross streets would make it less safe.

My biggest fear about building a separated lane along Broadway would be that so many cyclists are like me that the lane would be underutilized, and that would put other separated lanes at risk. It would be interesting to see an unbiased poll among a statistically significant number cyclists to see if I'm in the minority or not.
Take a look at Broadway for a while. In many sections, even without separated bike lanes, there are lots of cyclists on the road and on the sidewalks. Separated bike lanes will increase the number of people cycling along Broadway dramatically.

Anyway, it is not like 10th is perfect. Several sections have too much car traffic making it not that great a bicycle route. There is often line ups of cars blocking the bike route at intersections, Oak, for example. Same on Off Broadway by Canadian Tire.

A separated bike lane along Broadway would be better than cycling along these sections of 10th or Off Broadway. Look at the difference that the separated bike lanes made along Hornby and Dunsmuir. Before they were really not that pleasant even with painted bike lanes. Now, I would rather cycle on them. They are even better than bikeways as I never have cars stuck behind me trying to get by.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #1971  
Old Posted Jun 9, 2011, 3:26 PM
twoNeurons twoNeurons is offline
loafing in lotusland
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Lotusland
Posts: 5,804
Quote:
Originally Posted by tybuilding View Post
Sometimes I just do not understand what is going on with some of the street designs.
Here is a comparison between 24th Avenue crossing Highway 99 and a bridge in Munich, Germany that I found.

24th Ave

http://maps.google.ca/maps?hl=en&ie=...97.28,,0,23.79

There have been complaints from people in the local newspaper that people still cycle on the sidewalk despite the new cycling lanes. It is no wonder though.
Problem:
-The bike lanes are built in the typical style in Surrey with 1.5m wide lanes, curb and in this case a no post barrier.
- The bike lanes fill with debris as there is no where for debris to go
- Lanes are too narrow, barrier on right provides no relief if a vehicle is too close to the cyclist, cyclist is blocked in.
Solution:
-There is a centre median which seems is wasted space. Narrow median and place no post to provide separation
- Place cyclists beside pedestrians/have combined space typical of bridges around lower mainland, paint lines to separate the space
(Barriers on the outside prevent vehicles from crashing off the road into properties and onto the highway below.)

Bridge in Munich:
http://maps.google.ca/maps?f=q&sourc...,146.97,,1,6.3
- Cycle lanes are raised creating the separation.

Sometimes I think traffic engineers/planners need some additional training about cycling infrastructure, in this case I believe they did a poor design.
I agree. I like this design, in Osaka, Japan. I've ridden across this bridge several times and it's really busy.

http://maps.google.com/maps?f=q&sour...319.68,,0,1.62

Further down the road, the sidewalks are used (and are really wide):
http://maps.google.com/maps?f=q&sour...23.55,,0,-3.59

In the city-suburb of Sakai (Like Surrey, it's on the end of the oldest busiest subway line). They have painted lanes for bikes, which are fairly new and as such still ignored by many (unless there are lots of pedestrians).

http://maps.google.com/maps?f=q&sour...142.35,,0,-8.1
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #1972  
Old Posted Jun 9, 2011, 4:56 PM
tybuilding tybuilding is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Posts: 893
Quote:
Originally Posted by aberdeen5698 View Post
According to the BC Motor Vehicle Act, every intersection constitutes a "crosswalk", whether marked or not. Pedestrians have the right of way and may cross the street as long as they do not "walk or run into the path of a vehicle that is so close it is impracticable for the driver to yield the right of way." Section 119 defines "crosswalk", and section 179 defines the right of way for pedestrians in them.
It is amazing how many people do not know about this one though. I have said that each intersection acts as a legal crosswalk. Most people that I have told this to did not know that. That being said it is very difficult to get traffic on a busy 4 lane road to stop.

As for Jaywalking sometimes it is necessary especially in the suburbs to get to bus stops. In Surrey the blocks are so far apart that to get to the bus stops you have to cross in the middle. http://maps.google.ca/maps?hl=en&ie=...06899&t=h&z=17
We even have greenways crossing mid block and have special pedestrian/cyclist reliefs http://maps.google.ca/maps?hl=en&ie=...00862&t=h&z=20
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #1973  
Old Posted Jun 9, 2011, 5:36 PM
cornholio cornholio is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Posts: 3,755
Quote:
Originally Posted by tybuilding View Post
It is amazing how many people do not know about this one though. I have said that each intersection acts as a legal crosswalk. Most people that I have told this to did not know that. That being said it is very difficult to get traffic on a busy 4 lane road to stop.

As for Jaywalking sometimes it is necessary especially in the suburbs to get to bus stops. In Surrey the blocks are so far apart that to get to the bus stops you have to cross in the middle. http://maps.google.ca/maps?hl=en&ie=...06899&t=h&z=17
We even have greenways crossing mid block and have special pedestrian/cyclist reliefs http://maps.google.ca/maps?hl=en&ie=...00862&t=h&z=20
Yes but a pedestrian is still required to follow the lights at the intersection. And more importantly a vehicle is not required to stop at a cross walk until the pedestrian enters your direction of travel, that means you dont stop until a person steps of the curb or if crossing from your left is crossing the center line not when their just standing there. Obviously common sense and courtesy is key though.

It should also be pointed out that municipalities have their own bi-laws and people should be aware of these.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #1974  
Old Posted Jun 9, 2011, 9:35 PM
geoff's two cents geoff's two cents is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Posts: 504
Here's another example from Surrey. Not only are there two bus stops here with no pedestrian crossing for 500m in either direction, and right beside a city greenway. By the time you walk that 500m to cross legally (which, Surrey-style, has no sidewalks), you're at another bus stop.

http://maps.google.ca/maps?hl=en&ie=...,0.007821&z=18
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #1975  
Old Posted Jun 9, 2011, 11:17 PM
tybuilding tybuilding is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Posts: 893
Quote:
Originally Posted by geoff's two cents View Post
Here's another example from Surrey. Not only are there two bus stops here with no pedestrian crossing for 500m in either direction, and right beside a city greenway. By the time you walk that 500m to cross legally (which, Surrey-style, has no sidewalks), you're at another bus stop.

http://maps.google.ca/maps?hl=en&ie=...,0.007821&z=18
I believe you can legally cross at the T intersection legally in this example. It doesn't have to be a cross intersection in order to function as a legal crosswalk otherwise you could never cross the street unless you traveled at least 2 blocks in either direction to get to that collector or arterial road that is spaced every 4 to 8 blocks as there are not too many crossing local streets in Surrey.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #1976  
Old Posted Jun 9, 2011, 11:40 PM
invisibleairwaves's Avatar
invisibleairwaves invisibleairwaves is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Posts: 546
That section of 64th Avenue was recently rebuilt, and I believe there is now a crosswalk there. There's definitely sidewalks, too. That said, there's no shortage of other examples of poor design for pedestrians in this city.
__________________
Reticulating Splines
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #1977  
Old Posted Jun 10, 2011, 12:30 AM
tybuilding tybuilding is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Posts: 893
Chicago planning on installing 25 miles of protected cycle lanes per year!

Rahm Emanuel: What’s Good for Cyclists Is Good for Chicago

http://www.streetsblog.org/2011/06/0...d-for-chicago/

Given the rapid innovations on city streets over the last four years, New York cyclists and pedestrians don’t yet have much cause to be envious of their counterparts in Chicago. Still, it’s hard not to feel a little green watching Mayor Rahm Emanuel express such unqualified support for an ambitious bike lane plan while elucidating the benefits of cycling as transportation. Less than three weeks after being sworn in, Emanuel joined his transportation commissioner, Gabe Klein, for the groundbreaking of the city’s first protected bike lane. What’s good for cyclists, says Emanuel in this news clip, is good for the city.

More than that, Emanuel has thrown down the gauntlet to other big-city leaders. By declaring his intent to make Chicago the most bike-friendly city in the nation, and walking the walk from the outset, he has effectively placed the onus on his peers to keep up. For an idea of how high Emanuel has set the bar, he’s talking 25 miles of protected bike lanes per year — more than New York City has installed to date.

While New York, Boston, Philadelphia, D.C., San Francisco and Los Angeles have all made strides recently, none that we can think of have been accompanied by this level of high-visibility commitment from their respective mayors. Emanuel campaigned on transportation reforms and is enacting livable streets policy right away, without apology. As if making a city’s streets safer and more accessible is the most obvious thing in the world.

Go Rahm go.

http://streetsblog.net/2011/06/08/lo...comes-chicago/

Mayor Rahm Emanuel is wasting no time making good on his campaign promise to make Chicago a world-class cycling city. Just 24 days after his swearing-in ceremony, Chicago has its first bike box.

The new mayor and his department of transportation head, Gabe Klein, formerly of DC, held a press conference Tuesday at the site of the Windy City’s first separated bike lane: Kinzie Street. There they announced plans to build 100 miles of separated lanes during Emanuel’s first term.

Emanuel had originally promised to install two separated bike lanes by the end of his first 100 days in office, but he appears to be on pace to meet that goal and then some.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #1978  
Old Posted Jun 10, 2011, 2:12 AM
racc racc is offline
BANNED
 
Join Date: Oct 2008
Posts: 1,241
Quote:
Originally Posted by tybuilding View Post
Rahm Emanuel: What’s Good for Cyclists Is Good for Chicago

http://www.streetsblog.org/2011/06/0...d-for-chicago/

Given the rapid innovations on city streets over the last four years, New York cyclists and pedestrians don’t yet have much cause to be envious of their counterparts in Chicago. Still, it’s hard not to feel a little green watching Mayor Rahm Emanuel express such unqualified support for an ambitious bike lane plan while elucidating the benefits of cycling as transportation. Less than three weeks after being sworn in, Emanuel joined his transportation commissioner, Gabe Klein, for the groundbreaking of the city’s first protected bike lane. What’s good for cyclists, says Emanuel in this news clip, is good for the city.

More than that, Emanuel has thrown down the gauntlet to other big-city leaders. By declaring his intent to make Chicago the most bike-friendly city in the nation, and walking the walk from the outset, he has effectively placed the onus on his peers to keep up. For an idea of how high Emanuel has set the bar, he’s talking 25 miles of protected bike lanes per year — more than New York City has installed to date.

While New York, Boston, Philadelphia, D.C., San Francisco and Los Angeles have all made strides recently, none that we can think of have been accompanied by this level of high-visibility commitment from their respective mayors. Emanuel campaigned on transportation reforms and is enacting livable streets policy right away, without apology. As if making a city’s streets safer and more accessible is the most obvious thing in the world.

Go Rahm go.

http://streetsblog.net/2011/06/08/lo...comes-chicago/

Mayor Rahm Emanuel is wasting no time making good on his campaign promise to make Chicago a world-class cycling city. Just 24 days after his swearing-in ceremony, Chicago has its first bike box.

The new mayor and his department of transportation head, Gabe Klein, formerly of DC, held a press conference Tuesday at the site of the Windy City’s first separated bike lane: Kinzie Street. There they announced plans to build 100 miles of separated lanes during Emanuel’s first term.

Emanuel had originally promised to install two separated bike lanes by the end of his first 100 days in office, but he appears to be on pace to meet that goal and then some.
That is over 40km a year! Even faster than Seville and Sydney, the current champs. Puts Vancouver to shame.

GO Rahm, GO!!!!
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #1979  
Old Posted Jun 10, 2011, 12:54 PM
WarrenC12 WarrenC12 is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2007
Location: East OV!
Posts: 7,362
On the topic of New York cycling, this is pretty amusing:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bzE-IMaegzQ&feature=

Can't get the youtube video embedded for some reason.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #1980  
Old Posted Jun 10, 2011, 2:23 PM
city-dweller's Avatar
city-dweller city-dweller is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Vancouver
Posts: 357
I just was going to post this. I love this guy!

Its like the cops ticketing people without helmets in Vancouver. Yes in this case its the law but not exactly a great use of police resources.
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 7:38 PM.

     

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