[St. John's] Transport development (Highways, Airport, and Public Transit)

[PoscStudent]

I don't see the need of two directions of traffic on Water and Duckworth.

[mrjanejacobs]

Originally Posted by Copes

This is more along my line of thought as well. Let the tram "loop" around our commercial district. The lane of traffic to be removed will correspond with the direction of traffic that is removed. Tram has its own lane, and bikes have their own lanes. Plus, wider sidewalks which could maybe lead to some trees and urban art scattered around our downtown.

This is of course assuming that the sky is the limit and money is no obstacle. Which we all know is the case.

EDIT: Although I just realized that only one looping tram makes it incredibly convenient if you are traveling one direct, and incredibly inconvenient if you are traveling in the other.

Well it wouldn't really be a loop if at the two termini there are parking garages.

Our commercial district isn't really that big... haha I don't know if a loop on both streets really does much other than increase construction costs and the duration of construction. If we have to dig up two roads, instead of one, it will cost much more and will take much longer (which will add to the cost). Keeping it to one road consolidates costs.

I really don't think this project is that elaborate or expensive... If we are installing tram lines, then the road will need to be excavated a couple feet anyway. So in the meantime, we can install bike lanes, widen the sidewalks and put down cobblestones. It's the most important street in St.John's and the length is less than a km (give or take). It would relieve downtown parking, support public transit, promote cycling, promote pedestrian activity, enhance commercial exposure on Harbour Drive, be a tourist draw and would facilitate snow-ploughing in the winter.

[Architype]

You could have a single track tram which just loops around using Harbour Drive and Duckworth/New Gower Streets, leaving Central Water Street as it is. People wouldn't have to walk far.

[mrjanejacobs]

Originally Posted by Architype

You could have a single track tram which just loops around using Harbour Drive and Duckworth/New Gower Streets, leaving Central Water Street as it is. People wouldn't have to walk far.

What would that change though? To me, it just sounds like a more expensive way of doing the same thing but with fewer benefits.

[mrjanejacobs]

Originally Posted by PoscStudent

I don't see the need of two directions of traffic on Water and Duckworth.

It's a speed-calming technique. If there were two lanes in the same direction, people would drive faster.

So yes, it would be more efficient, but not necessarily in a good way.

[jeddy1989]

wow you really don't like collaboration do you? hahahaha

[mrjanejacobs]

Originally Posted by jeddy1989

wow you really don't like collaboration do you? hahahaha

LOL - I apologize. I just see really clear problems in the counter-proposals.

I realize I can be stubborn. But PLEASE, I invite others to identify the problems in my proposal with BETTER alternatives (with a holistic approach).

Collaboration is fantastic, haha, and I would love to replace my proposal with something better. But I first need to be convinced that an alternative intervention would be better and more beneficial (socially, financially and perceptually to the public).

To be fair, I have thought a lot about this proposal, haha, so I have considered a lot of the possibilities and already discounted some of those that have been mentioned.

EX. Looping on duckworth and water - an idea that sounds great, as suggested by Signal and Copes. But realistically, it would just end up costing a lot more.

I INVITE counter-arguments! (I'm really not trying to be expressly difficult!)

[mrjanejacobs]

I also realize that I can seem like I'm shutting down someone's suggestion. It's not my intention, haha. I am just a direct person (which is usually paired with sympathetic body language when in person) but I struggle to translate myself via text.

The ideas have been good, I have just mulled it over enough to see their faults.

[PoscStudent]

Originally Posted by mrjanejacobs

It's a speed-calming technique. If there were two lanes in the same direction, people would drive faster.

So yes, it would be more efficient, but not necessarily in a good way.

I never said there needs to be two lanes of traffic in the same way, nor do I think the area for driving needs to be enlarged.

[mrjanejacobs]

Originally Posted by PoscStudent

I never said there needs to be two lanes of traffic in the same way, nor do I think the area for driving needs to be enlarged.

Oh shit - sorry - I totally misinterpreted your post.

EDIT: Wait, I still don't know what you meant in your first post. haha :|

[SignalHillHiker]

Originally Posted by mrjanejacobs

Oh shit - sorry - I totally misinterpreted your post.

EDIT: Wait, I still don't know what you meant in your first post. haha :|

This post made me LOL. My brain works the same way a lot of the time.

[Copes]

I think he means no need for two lanes for cars, regardless of direction. As in, a single lane for cars, traveling in one direction. All other space for trams / pedestrians / bikes.

Same with another street (either Duckworth or Harbour) going in the opposite direction. A one way street, with one lane of traffic, the rest being for trams / pedestrians / bikes.

That's sort of along the lines of what I was thinking too. It may be more expensive in reality, but if we're just discussion perfect world ideas, I think that would be best. Having only one lane for cars could potentially free up enough space to have two tram lines going in opposite directions.

Does this make sense / work? Aside from cost are there issues here?

[mrjanejacobs]

Well the only problem I see is it perhaps being overkill, haha (as in, more than is realistically needed).

Honestly, I don't think it's that unrealistic, or "perfect world"/fantasy-land. It's a pretty modest undertaking to redevelop water street. It's an investment that will have a lot of benefits.

I mean, let's just reference the article posted recently about parking spaces costing $17,000 per pop. I mean, that's a lot of money (granted, the article was misleading, as well as the quoted figure of $17000). Nevertheless, let's look at our parking crises. This will be a long term, sustainable way of responding to it. Not to mention, the positive effects and benefits of a project like this would see return in other sectors. I think it's a realistic and worthwhile investment.

[SignalHillHiker]

Or...

We just destroy everything outside of Empire Avenue and rebuild dense enough that everyone is within walking distance.

[Copes]

Originally Posted by mrjanejacobs

Well the only problem I see is it perhaps being overkill, haha (as in, more than is realistically needed).

Honestly, I don't think it's that unrealistic, or "perfect world"/fantasy-land. It's a pretty modest undertaking to redevelop water street. It's an investment that will have a lot of benefits.

I mean, let's just reference the article posted recently about parking spaces costing $17,000 per pop. I mean, that's a lot of money (granted, the article was misleading, as well as the quoted figure of $17000). Nevertheless, let's look at our parking crises. This will be a long term, sustainable way of responding to it. Not to mention, the positive effects and benefits of a project like this would see return in other sectors. I think it's a realistic and worthwhile investment.

Oh I agree with you, and I'd love to see it. I just wonder how much money the city could realistically spend on such a project before citizens get cranky and say "just build a parking garage b'y".

I'm struggling with understanding how one tram works, maybe it's a lack of knowledge when it comes to public transit (certain;y isn't something I've thought about as much as other aspects of urban planning). Say the tram goes in a clockwise loop around Water and Duckworth, and has ten stops, and takes ten minutes to zoom around. Doesn't that mean that someone has it incredibly convenient when traveling from stop 1 to stop 3, but then incredibly inconvenient traveling from stop 3 back to stop 1? I realize ten minutes isn't that big of a deal, but when trying to sell the idea to someone when convincing them to give up their car, isn't it easier if there are two trams traveling in reverse directions? Or am I missing something about how trams work?

Could be why I think we need a loop instead of one tram in a straight line as well. I might just not understand.

[mrjanejacobs]

Originally Posted by Copes

Oh I agree with you, and I'd love to see it. I just wonder how much money the city could realistically spend on such a project before citizens get cranky and say "just build a parking garage b'y".

I'm struggling with understanding how one tram works, maybe it's a lack of knowledge when it comes to public transit (certain;y isn't something I've thought about as much as other aspects of urban planning). Say the tram goes in a clockwise loop around Water and Duckworth, and has ten stops, and takes ten minutes to zoom around. Doesn't that mean that someone has it incredibly convenient when traveling from stop 1 to stop 3, but then incredibly inconvenient traveling from stop 3 back to stop 1? I realize ten minutes isn't that big of a deal, but when trying to sell the idea to someone when convincing them to give up their car, isn't it easier if there are two trams traveling in reverse directions? Or am I missing something about how trams work?

Could be why I think we need a loop instead of one tram in a straight line as well. I might just not understand.

Uhhhhh Honestly, I am not sure what you're talking about. There appears to have been some miscommunication. I think you understand trams, but not my proposal. haha

There would be two tram lines, with trams going in both directions.

In the Water Street plan, it would have them going east on the right lane and west on the left lane.

Alternatively, in your proposal, they would move east on Water and west on Duckworth (or vice versa).

This would require say 2-5 trams, depending on the hour, to retain an approximate 4-10 minute headway.

My initial drawing depicts a tram-route/line which, by default, would involve trams moving in both directions.

And on your note about government - there isn't much I can say to that. It's up to the politicians to do what is best and to not listen to uninspired and uncreative citizens who don't always understand transit and urban planning, haha.

[mrjanejacobs]

Copes, I'll repost this if it makes it clearer:



But the tram-line concept could be extrapolated to Duckworth if needed

[Copes]

Am I right when I read your plan that the purple lane (for cars) is a single lane for cars, making Water Streeet one-way?

[PoscStudent]

Originally Posted by mrjanejacobs

It's a speed-calming technique. If there were two lanes in the same direction, people would drive faster.

So yes, it would be more efficient, but not necessarily in a good way.

I think there should be one lane of traffic on Ducworth and Water, in the opposite directions obviously. I don't hink the lanes should be any wider because it will just increase speeds. Having one way streets I believe will make it the streets mor pedestrian friendly. We could have designated bike lanes, that are actually wide enough. As well I like the idea of diagonal parking on one side, as opposed to parallel parking. Although it'd be a bit expensive to do all at one time the sidewalks could eventually be widened out.

[mrjanejacobs]

Originally Posted by PoscStudent

I think there should be one lane of traffic on Ducworth and Water, in the opposite directions obviously. I don't hink the lanes should be any wider because it will just increase speeds. Having one way streets I believe will make it the streets mor pedestrian friendly. We could have designated bike lanes, that are actually wide enough. As well I like the idea of diagonal parking on one side, as opposed to parallel parking. Although it'd be a bit expensive to do all at one time the sidewalks could eventually be widened out.

But in terms of consolidating costs, it would cost a lot more to not do them at one time. You can save bucket loads if you consolidate projects. Calgary is a great example, they consolidated costs while building the C-train and their LRT system - they synched all construction with construction of retrofitting roads, building new roads and replacing sewer lines. Effectively, they had one of the leanest public transit systems, in terms of cost effectiveness, in the world.