Metro Vancouver Bike/Pedestrian Discussion

[Tfreder]

That fence is such an eyesore. Like others have said, they should really reconsider building it. Since no other bridges in Vancouver have these type of barriers, wouldn't any suicide attempters just pick another bridge? The lions gate bridge does have a better view...

[LeftCoaster]

And IRIC it is getting fences too.

[officedweller]

Originally Posted by AverageJoe

The Expo bike lane terminates at Carrall.

The two-way bike lane is probably to link up to the Carrall Greenway - I think there's a pre-existing one-way bike lane along Expo Blvd westwards from Carrall and an eastbound one-way bike lane on Pacific. Carrall must be the link between the two.

[Prometheus]

Originally Posted by LeftCoaster

And IRIC it is getting fences too.

Lions Gate Bridge? No!

There will definitely be opposition to that, if that's the case. It will tarnish Vancouver's most iconic structure and obstruct some of the city's most spectacular views, for no good reason.

[jlousa]

I wouldn't say for no good reason, but I agree the could at least make it less visually intrusive.

[Prometheus]

Originally Posted by jlousa

I wouldn't say for no good reason, but I agree the could at least make it less visually intrusive.

It won't reduce the number of suicides in the city; it will only force people to use a different method of suicide, a method which may be even more costly to society than jumps from the bridge (e.g. instead of jumping off the bridge, a suicidal person may now elect to jump in front of oncoming traffic or a moving train, etc.).

So name one good reason for tarnishing Vancouver's most iconic structure and obstructing the spectacular, world-famous views we have enjoyed from it for more than 75 years.

If this fence is placed on Lions Gate Bridge, a beautiful and historic (and essential) part of the Vancouver experience will be ruined.

[wrenegade]

Hopefully the possibility of suicide fences on the Lions Gage elicits a massive public outcry. It would really tarnish the image of one of Vancouver's best landmarks and have probably have a measurable effect on tourism.

[twoNeurons]

A fascinating talk on bicycling.

Note, this is NOT to start a flame war on helmets! I just found it interesting (and quite funny)

• Video Link

It also touches on our bubble-wrap society that promotes a culture of fear, which = $$$

[WarrenC12]

Good talk, makes tons of sense. I firmly believe that BC needs to repeal the helmet law (at least for those over 18).

That being said, I'll still wear mine when I commute by bike.

[officedweller]

The sidewalk along Smithe in front of the Vision Critical Building (7-11) has been ripped up for the connector bike lane (connecting from Cambie Bridge east sidewalk to Beatty bike lane)

[twoNeurons]

Originally Posted by WarrenC12

Good talk, makes tons of sense. I firmly believe that BC needs to repeal the helmet law (at least for those over 18).

That being said, I'll still wear mine when I commute by bike.

That's a pretty strong statement. You're a retired police officer, right?

I still wear mine when I commute on the road, for sure, but if I'm nipping down the central valley greenway to superstore, I don't understand the law.

What I liked most about the video and unfortunately it wasn't really expanded enough on is the "culture of fear" comment. He was using that to support the helmet idea, but I think we've been firmly gripped in this culture for over a decade.

The other day when I was walking to the park with my 3-year old on her balance bike and chose not to put a helmet on her. At the park, she rolled down a gentle grassy hill and at the bottom lost control and crashed. She cried until I started cheering on a successful downhill trip and crash landed. Then she stopped, asked me to blow the pain away from her hands, and got back on the bike.

It's tangentially related to bike helmets, but it does make me think more deeply on the issue.

[mr.x]

Really not looking forward to the new intersection at Burrard & Cornwall - the intersection at the southern end of Burrard Bridge. Essentially, Vision is making the south end just as congested as the bridge's northern end in Downtown.

They're flailing around with the whole "improvements for everyone", "the intersection hasn't been changed since the 1930s", and "simply the intersection" lines to defend the project which is of course part of the ridiculous Point Grey-Cornwall bike lane.

BEFORE

http://vancouver.ca/streets-transpor...struction.aspx

AFTER

http://vancouver.ca/streets-transpor...struction.aspx


It's just ridiculous. Reducing the capacity of what has been a perfectly good and efficient intersection for traffic and replacing it with the same intersection design we've seen elsewhere across the city.

Talk about being a one trick pony, although I suppose it goes far beyond than just intersection designs when it comes to Vancouver. Only in Vancouver are the same design principles applied EVERYWHERE even though it clearly shouldn't be. I haven't been to a city that has such a disdain for efficiency, pragmatism and logic.

I can't wait to cast my vote for the other guy come next year.

[s211]

Originally Posted by mr.x

Talk about being a one trick pony, although I suppose it goes far beyond than just intersection designs when it comes to Vancouver. Only in Vancouver are the same design principles applied EVERYWHERE even though it clearly shouldn't be. I haven't been to a city that has such a disdain for efficiency, pragmatism and logic.

I can't wait to cast my vote for the other guy come next year.

Indeed. How a group can call itself Vision and have its eye so completely off the ball is beyond crazy.

[easy as pie]

i don't know, that looks like a massive improvement to me. the proposed is much simpler and more parsimonious, along with having a smaller footprint; i can't see how you could possibly think the 'before' interchange is superior.

[aberdeen5698]

Originally Posted by mr.x

Really not looking forward to the new intersection at Burrard & Cornwall - the intersection at the southern end of Burrard Bridge. Essentially, Vision is making the south end just as congested as the bridge's northern end in Downtown.

Yeah, but this new intersection design isn't going to be any more of a bottleneck than the dozen or so of intersections to the north and south of it. It just means you'll have to wait an average of about 30 seconds or so for a green light. Is that really so bad?

[WarrenC12]

Originally Posted by easy as pie

i don't know, that looks like a massive improvement to me. the proposed is much simpler and more parsimonious, along with having a smaller footprint; i can't see how you could possibly think the 'before' interchange is superior.

Agree 100%. That top picture is a circus. And the reality of going through it isn't much better.

[whatnext]

Originally Posted by mr.x

Really not looking forward to the new intersection at Burrard & Cornwall - the intersection at the southern end of Burrard Bridge. Essentially, Vision is making the south end just as congested as the bridge's northern end in Downtown.

They're flailing around with the whole "improvements for everyone", "the intersection hasn't been changed since the 1930s", and "simply the intersection" lines to defend the project which is of course part of the ridiculous Point Grey-Cornwall bike lane.

It's just ridiculous. Reducing the capacity of what has been a perfectly good and efficient intersection for traffic and replacing it with the same intersection design we've seen elsewhere across the city.

Talk about being a one trick pony, although I suppose it goes far beyond than just intersection designs when it comes to Vancouver. Only in Vancouver are the same design principles applied EVERYWHERE even though it clearly shouldn't be. I haven't been to a city that has such a disdain for efficiency, pragmatism and logic.

I can't wait to cast my vote for the other guy come next year.

And all this for a transportation mode with a whopping 1% Metro-wide and a not much better 6% in the CoV. You'd probably reduce emissions more by buying every Vancouverite a Prius.

[mr.x]

Originally Posted by easy as pie

i don't know, that looks like a massive improvement to me. the proposed is much simpler and more parsimonious, along with having a smaller footprint; i can't see how you could possibly think the 'before' interchange is superior.

Parsimonious? There was nothing wrong with the intersection before.

A smaller footprint, perhaps because there's a significantly smaller capacity to annoy drivers which is Vision's mission? And that every vehicle now has to go through the new intersection instead of the current set-up?

If there's an accident in the new intersection, all directions at the intersection are affected. Again, there's a reason why the north end intersection of the Burrard Bridge is usually much more congested than the south end that's currently being changed.

"Simpler" doesn't mean better. Transportation infrastructure serves to function efficiently and can't always be absolutely aesthetically pleasing, which also includes the whole nonsense surrounding demolishing the viaducts.

There's no reason to "fix" something if it's not broken. Of course, Vision is hell bent with its bike lanes and social engineering regardless of common sense and logic.

[Porfiry]

Originally Posted by mr.x

Parsimonious? There was nothing wrong with the intersection before.

Well that's clearly not true. The bike infrastructure was crudely tacked on and the pedestrian design was just bizarre. At the very least something needed to be done to clean that up.

As for road design issues, there's a road discussion thread for that.
As for politics, there's a politics thread for that.

[aberdeen5698]

Originally Posted by mr.x

There's no reason to "fix" something if it's not broken.

Have you ever tried to get from one side of Burrard to the other as a pedestrian in the current configuration? You have to cross four different streams of traffic with four separate signals. Seems pretty broken to me.