Metro Vancouver Bike/Pedestrian Discussion

[theKB]

Nevermind... meggs is using snaky language as per usual... only shelving part of it. Affleck asked meggs to clarify and it comes out

Tim Stevenson's words to Adrian Carr really shows the arrogance of Vision as well. "always trying to get her name in the paper"

[Klazu]

Originally Posted by theKB

Sounds like union separated lane will be shelved pending further consultation.

Boo, more separated bike lanes, please.

[theKB]

Originally Posted by Klazu

Boo, more separated bike lanes, please.

LOL fortunately Affleck cleared up Meggs and the Vision deceptive language showing Vision's typical railroad MO.

Also listening to Reimer speak of Copenhagen is laughable. They seem to ONLY ever look at the bike infrastructure and completely forget about everything else that they have. Major highway infrastructure into downtown, extensive train systems and the simple fact that copenhagen is flat, very compact and in terms of bike infrastructure have extensive road infrastructure to complement it.

[officedweller]

I thought they had the bike crossing on the diagonal so it didn't line up with the driveway exit from Wall Centre.

[whatnext]

Originally Posted by Klazu

Boo, more separated bike lanes, please.

Will they be as well-used as the one in your photos?

[aberdeen5698]

Originally Posted by whatnext

Will they be as well-used as the one in your photos?

No cars in that photo, either. Maybe we should make it a pedestrian mall...?

Oops, no pedestrians, either! Guess we should just close the street altogether, then.

[WBC]

Originally Posted by aberdeen5698

No cars in that photo, either. Maybe we should make it a pedestrian mall...?

Oops, no pedestrians, either! Guess we should just close the street altogether, then.

Nobody seems to be using the hospital either ;-) Shut it down...

Than again who wants to hang around the hospital to begin with...Poor food, expensive parking, really a downer...

[Klazu]

@whatnext: I have seen cyclists on the new bikeway, I promise.

I drive a car, I ride a bike and I walk to places, and I think all forms of transportation should be given though in the city planning. Bikeways in Vancouver are not that vast as many make it sound like and we could especially do with more separated lanes. In my home country separated bikelanes are a norm both in cities and in suburbs.

[officedweller]

Originally Posted by aberdeen5698

No cars in that photo, either. Maybe we should make it a pedestrian mall...?

To be honest, in the case of minor streets, it would just be a lot easier if the road was closed to traffic, instead of all of the crazy hard to interpret signs and curbs and markings everywhere.
... and why can't they paint the green to be continuous? It would really help to orient DRIVERS as to where the bike lane RoW is located (and where they can't go).

[WBC]

Originally Posted by Klazu

@whatnext: I have seen cyclists on the new bikeway, I promise.

I drive a car, I ride a bike and I walk to places, and I think all forms of transportation should be given though in the city planning. Bikeways in Vancouver are not that vast as many make it sound like and we could especially do with more separated lanes. In my home country separated bikelanes are a norm both in cities and in suburbs.

Agreed. I think that future individual transportation will be much more multi-modal with the majority of the population choosing biking, cars, walking or transit depending on a type of trip taken. There will be some who would do solely one or the other, but I think that majority will go with the flexibility that different transportation types provide.

[mezzanine]

Originally Posted by officedweller

To be honest, in the case of minor streets, it would just be a lot easier if the road was closed to traffic, instead of all of the crazy hard to interpret signs and curbs and markings everywhere.
... and why can't they paint the green to be continuous? It would really help to orient DRIVERS as to where the bike lane RoW is located (and where they can't go).

I suspect b/c the green paint will add to ongoing maintenace costs when it wears away and gets repainted. From what i notice, the green highlight areas where there is little traffic separation, like bike boxes and driveways.

The actual physical lane separators (jersey barriers, islands with hazard signs, flower boxes, etc) should be caution enough for drivers.

I suspect closing a street entirely to cars would be +++ politically challenging. how would a house get a delivery or a repair truck?

[officedweller]

In terms of the green, when you glance around (like when making a turr) and you arent driving over the green box, the orientation of the box isn't necessarily clear and just adds to visual clutter.

i.e. on the pic above with the green from the hotel driveway, when driving south on Burrard and making a right hand turn onto Comox, if there are pedestrians standing on the corner, you may not notice or be able to see the "bike" markings in the bike lane. You'd see the bike crossing across Burrard, but it may not be immedaitely obvious that it's part of a continuous path up Comox, rather than just a marked crossing - so you may initially start to turn into the bike path (oops).

To show the view from a driver's perspective, the view shown in Klazu's pics would have to be from a couple of feet lower, from which markings would not be as clearly legible.

[mezzanine]

The driver in your example above would also see this SB on burrard turning right. The bike path continuation on comox should be clear to them.



Regular drivers to the area would quickly get used to the new arrangement. That block is quite busy with non-local drivers however as it's the drop-off point for St Paul's - IMO the change to comox to one way would be more of an issue for driver access/confusion.

[officedweller]

To those unfamiliar, it may not be obvious that it's part of a continuous path, rather than just a one-off bike crossing (like a crosswalk). The lampost in the pic of the island on Comox doesn't have a "Keep Left" arrow, either.

Originally Posted by officedweller

You'd see the bike crossing across Burrard, but it may not be immedaitely obvious that it's part of a continuous path up Comox, rather than just a marked crossing - so you may initially start to turn into the bike path (oops).

[jozero]

Originally Posted by theKB

LOL fortunately Affleck cleared up Meggs and the Vision deceptive language showing Vision's typical railroad MO.

Also listening to Reimer speak of Copenhagen is laughable. They seem to ONLY ever look at the bike infrastructure and completely forget about everything else that they have. Major highway infrastructure into downtown, extensive train systems and the simple fact that copenhagen is flat, very compact and in terms of bike infrastructure have extensive road infrastructure to complement it.

They also have very harsh winters with quite a lot of snow. Still, people bike. Only thing that has been consistently shown around the world is people use the travel modes that are presented to them. If all you build is roads focused on cars, you get mostly vehicle traffic. If you build nice pedestrian walk ways, an interconnected transit system, and bike paths, then people start walking, using transit and biking.

[aberdeen5698]

Originally Posted by jozero

They also have very harsh winters with quite a lot of snow. Still, people bike.

For example: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_mXOqv38euQ

[theKB]

Originally Posted by jozero

They also have very harsh winters with quite a lot of snow. Still, people bike. Only thing that has been consistently shown around the world is people use the travel modes that are presented to them. If all you build is roads focused on cars, you get mostly vehicle traffic. If you build nice pedestrian walk ways, an interconnected transit system, and bike paths, then people start walking, using transit and biking.

harsh winters? not so much, honestly maybe only marginally worse than here.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZtX8qiC_rXE

If you look at this video which outlines all the initiatives I think they are doing a fantastic job with the implementation in copenhagen. I have seen it first hand and seen a few videos/docs/articles about it. I am 100% for great bike infrastructure but the way Vancouver City Council chose to do things is to completely disrupt on ground transport (busses/trucks/cars) instead of integrating the system harmoniously. I think most will see that the way hornby and dunsmuir was implemented was quite disastrous for the flow of traffic. They have also made a very polarizing political issue surrounding something that should just be just good policy by hurting business, the movement of goods etc, not listening to stakeholders and really only doing what they think is good. An example of ramming things through is with Union. It affects one block, and on that block the business (and now residents) don't want things to be implemented in that fashion (they aren't opposed to bike infrastructure there).

I honestly believe that MOST people who are in opposition to the bike lanes are simply opposed to their implementation and not the actual act of putting in bike infrastructure themselves and seemingly everything is a "trial" that always is in fact permanent with no revisions. Downtown Vancouver BIA asked the city to revisit the dunsmuir and hornby turning restrictions so that streets could get some traffic back but they have no interest in any sort of compromise especially when it's coming from someone other than a vision supporter. Even the city's unwillingness to improve traffic flow is omnipresent. An advanced turn at Robson an hornby and robson and burrard would work wonders for the flow of traffic (especially when they close robson) but does the city do that? I even remember one of the vision goons telling me it wasn't a priority to ensure/aid the flow of traffic, does that make any sense?

[cornholio]

Originally Posted by officedweller

In terms of the green, when you glance around (like when making a turr) and you arent driving over the green box, the orientation of the box isn't necessarily clear and just adds to visual clutter.

i.e. on the pic above with the green from the hotel driveway, when driving south on Burrard and making a right hand turn onto Comox, if there are pedestrians standing on the corner, you may not notice or be able to see the "bike" markings in the bike lane. You'd see the bike crossing across Burrard, but it may not be immedaitely obvious that it's part of a continuous path up Comox, rather than just a marked crossing - so you may initially start to turn into the bike path (oops).

To show the view from a driver's perspective, the view shown in Klazu's pics would have to be from a couple of feet lower, from which markings would not be as clearly legible.

Just don't wear a neon green shirt when biking (I actually do have one floating around somewhere)

Originally Posted by jozero

They also have very harsh winters with quite a lot of snow. Still, people bike. Only thing that has been consistently shown around the world is people use the travel modes that are presented to them. If all you build is roads focused on cars, you get mostly vehicle traffic. If you build nice pedestrian walk ways, an interconnected transit system, and bike paths, then people start walking, using transit and biking.

A quote I really like: (*assuming you are advocating balance then this quote is not really meant for you, but I just wanted use it in this thread*)
“Of all tyrannies, a tyranny sincerely exercised for the good of its victims may be the most oppressive. It would be better to live under robber barons than under omnipotent moral busybodies. The robber baron's cruelty may sometimes sleep, his cupidity may at some point be satiated; but those who torment us for our own good will torment us without end for they do so with the approval of their own conscience.”
~ C.S. Lewis

Originally Posted by theKB

harsh winters? not so much, honestly maybe only marginally worse than here.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZtX8qiC_rXE

If you look at this video which outlines all the initiatives I think they are doing a fantastic job with the implementation in copenhagen. I have seen it first hand and seen a few videos/docs/articles about it. I am 100% for great bike infrastructure but the way Vancouver City Council chose to do things is to completely disrupt on ground transport (busses/trucks/cars) instead of integrating the system harmoniously. I think most will see that the way hornby and dunsmuir was implemented was quite disastrous for the flow of traffic. They have also made a very polarizing political issue surrounding something that should just be just good policy by hurting business, the movement of goods etc, not listening to stakeholders and really only doing what they think is good. An example of ramming things through is with Union. It affects one block, and on that block the business (and now residents) don't want things to be implemented in that fashion (they aren't opposed to bike infrastructure there).

I honestly believe that MOST people who are in opposition to the bike lanes are simply opposed to their implementation and not the actual act of putting in bike infrastructure themselves and seemingly everything is a "trial" that always is in fact permanent with no revisions. Downtown Vancouver BIA asked the city to revisit the dunsmuir and hornby turning restrictions so that streets could get some traffic back but they have no interest in any sort of compromise especially when it's coming from someone other than a vision supporter. Even the city's unwillingness to improve traffic flow is omnipresent. An advanced turn at Robson an hornby and robson and burrard would work wonders for the flow of traffic (especially when they close robson) but does the city do that? I even remember one of the vision goons telling me it wasn't a priority to ensure/aid the flow of traffic, does that make any sense?

Well said and I agree with you 100%. I am pro all infrastructure and a balance but that is not what is happening and that is the only problem. I also agree that all of this is polarizing the issue, even I find myself getting sucked into the "either your with us or against us" game.

[jlousa]

I would fall into that camp as well, I am for the increased implementation of bike infrastructure but would like to see it done in an inclusive way in which we aren't pitting pedestrians vs bikes vs cars. Lately we are turning ourselves other against each other instead of working together. It might take longer, it might cost more but in the end it would be more acceptable.

[aberdeen5698]

Originally Posted by theKB

I think most will see that the way hornby and dunsmuir was implemented was quite disastrous for the flow of traffic.

How would you have improved the implementation? It's not like there are a lot of streets to choose from - those particular streets were chosen because they don't have bus routes that would be disrupted or cause more impacts on traffic.