Pattullo Bridge Discussion: Upgrades/Replacement | U/C

[aberdeen5698]

Originally Posted by jhausner

I don't really subscribe to the "must be slow for bikes" argument. That's silly because pedestrians are more vulnerable than bikes so should speed limits be reduced to 30 kph?

At least a driver knows that if he tries to go up onto the sidewalk at 60 he's going to ruin his tires and probably his wheels too. That's not true of simply veering into a non-separated bike lane, which is why cars are constantly doing it.

I don't have any problem with a 60km/h speed limit, as long as there's a good physical barrier separating the vehicle and bike lanes. But on city streets where those lanes are just painted on (or even worse, "sharrows") the limits need to be lower.

I applaud Vancouver for lowering the speed limit to 30km/h on the non-arterial bike routes. Cars that want to go faster have plenty of other options.

[Metro-One]

The bike lanes will be separate from traffic akin to the Golden Ears Bridge from what I have heard, so i think a 60kmh speed limit for vehicles will not be a problem.

Also, as to why the general road alignment is hammered out first makes perfect sense to me, because roads take up much more space then bike lanes, they require much more gradual curves for corners, etc...

Bike ramps are much more flexible in where they can be built and positioned.

[GMasterAres]

Originally Posted by aberdeen5698

At least a driver knows that if he tries to go up onto the sidewalk at 60 he's going to ruin his tires and probably his wheels too. That's not true of simply veering into a non-separated bike lane, which is why cars are constantly doing it.

I don't have any problem with a 60km/h speed limit, as long as there's a good physical barrier separating the vehicle and bike lanes. But on city streets where those lanes are just painted on (or even worse, "sharrows") the limits need to be lower.

I applaud Vancouver for lowering the speed limit to 30km/h on the non-arterial bike routes. Cars that want to go faster have plenty of other options.

In Vancouver, non-arterial bike routes are barely 2 lane wide with rows of parked cars. It's a different story there. It's not just because of bike's that they are slower. In Surrey it's a different story. KGB is _THE_ major arterial road in Surrey. It should never be under 60kph regardless. We're not talking Heather street here off of Cambie.

As for people swerving, happens to cars too. I get cut off driving my car just as much as bike's do. People driving are idiots. It's that simple. Fast or slow speeds won't make any difference. Someone who swerves into bike lanes on a regular basis will not follow a 30 kph speed limit. It's that simple.

That's the unfortunately reality with a lot of these "rules to punish people" is they ultimately end up just punishing law abiding citizens. Remember, people who break laws... um... break laws... :p Putting in another law won't stop that.

So ultimately the only realistic solution I can see is physical seperation of bike lanes. I think they should be integrated with sidewalks. It's that simple. Much like has been done in Vancouver.

[twoNeurons]

Originally Posted by jhausner

In Vancouver, non-arterial bike routes are barely 2 lane wide with rows of parked cars. It's a different story there.

That's a great example of how the form dictates the traffic speed. People tend to go as fast as is acceptably safe on roads, regardless of speed limits. Speed limits artificially set considerably lower than the design speed of a road tend to cause more accidents.

An exception to this rule is when considerable risk of pedestrian injury exists. School zones, playground areas, high pedestrian zones... where the speed limit is lowered because, the average speed of all humans in the area and is taken into account.

I think they should be integrated with sidewalks. It's that simple. Much like has been done in Vancouver.

100% agree. Of course, I also think that there are many cases where bike lanes should be sidewalk extensions, as opposed to a line of paint on the road or a bike highway, (like the dedicated lanes we have downtown)

An added advantage is that while bike highways invite criticism from car drivers, sidewalk extensions are less commonly opposed.

Helsinki:

Source

[racc]

In general, higher speeds are generally a waste of time factoring in higher chances and the greater severity of collisions at higher speeds. Collisions lead to long, unpredictable delays. Those involved in collisions spend a lot of time dealing with and paying for the consequences including injuries, ICBC, getting cars fixed or buying a new one. Transport Canada and the AAA estimate the cost of collisions to society is around 3 times that of congestion. As well, around 20% of congestion is caused by collisions.

The Vision Zero initiative, whose goal is zero traffic fatalities, bases speed recommendations around what the human body can reasonably take without resulting in serious injury or death. This acknowledges that people will make mistakes and break the rules. When this happens, the result should not be serious injury or death. Lower speeds help accomplish this.

- 30km/h on streets where there are pedestrians around or crossing the streets. This includes at signals as drivers and peds ignore signals at times
- 50km/h on road where there is not a median or barrier in the middle and head on collisions can occur
- 70km/h on separated highways with median barriers and no pedestrians.

Lower speeds can be ensured through a variety of measures including photo radar, automatic speed controls installed in vehicles and traffic calming such as raised crosswalks and speed bumps. In Mexico City, for example, they have huge speed bumps on their main streets. Vehicles have to slow to around 10km/h to clear them. They certainly are effective and I imagine they have saved many lives.

We would all do much better and likely save time if everyone just slowed down and drove less aggressively.

[Whalleyboy]

I for one know the dangers of having lanes just painted on the road. When i was little i got hit in a bike lane along 102 ave in central. From what i was told the driver wasnt paying attention and swerved and hit me in the bike lane. If the lane was separated the driver what have felt something before hitting me. But this is only my guess The driver end up doing a hit an run. But I'd be willing to bet if the lane was separated I never would have been hit in the first place.

[twoNeurons]

Originally Posted by racc

Lower speeds can be ensured through a variety of measures including photo radar, automatic speed controls installed in vehicles and traffic calming such as raised crosswalks and speed bumps. In Mexico City, for example, they have huge speed bumps on their main streets. Vehicles have to slow to around 10km/h to clear them. They certainly are effective and I imagine they have saved many lives.

It would be better to design the road to be slower. There are ways to calm traffic that don't involve speed bumps and penalties. Those 10km/h speed bumps sound horrible... except in a very localized environment.

[cornholio]

Originally Posted by racc

In general, higher speeds are generally a waste of time factoring in higher chances and the greater severity of collisions at higher speeds. Collisions lead to long, unpredictable delays. Those involved in collisions spend a lot of time dealing with and paying for the consequences including injuries, ICBC, getting cars fixed or buying a new one. Transport Canada and the AAA estimate the cost of collisions to society is around 3 times that of congestion. As well, around 20% of congestion is caused by collisions.

The Vision Zero initiative, whose goal is zero traffic fatalities, bases speed recommendations around what the human body can reasonably take without resulting in serious injury or death. This acknowledges that people will make mistakes and break the rules. When this happens, the result should not be serious injury or death. Lower speeds help accomplish this.

- 30km/h on streets where there are pedestrians around or crossing the streets. This includes at signals as drivers and peds ignore signals at times
- 50km/h on road where there is not a median or barrier in the middle and head on collisions can occur
- 70km/h on separated highways with median barriers and no pedestrians.

Lower speeds can be ensured through a variety of measures including photo radar, automatic speed controls installed in vehicles and traffic calming such as raised crosswalks and speed bumps. In Mexico City, for example, they have huge speed bumps on their main streets. Vehicles have to slow to around 10km/h to clear them. They certainly are effective and I imagine they have saved many lives.

We would all do much better and likely save time if everyone just slowed down and drove less aggressively.

Have you ever been to Mexico? Those speed bumps kill people, I have been all over Mexico, you want to emulate how they design their roads?
My picture of a view along a highway, there was a random speed bump here(no pic of it), looks like it worked.http://flic.kr/p/bkM265 Or here outside my home in Sao Paulo where they also like speed bumps, road with speed bumps, really works great. http://www.flickr.com/photos/72515938@N08/6787441110/http://www.flickr.com/photos/72515938@N08/6787414228/All my pics, the last place you want to emulate road designing from is these places.

[racc]

Originally Posted by cornholio

Have you ever been to Mexico? Those speed bumps kill people, I have been all over Mexico, you want to emulate how they design their roads?
My picture of a view along a highway, there was a random speed bump here(no pic of it), looks like it worked. Or here outside my home in Sao Paulo where they also like speed bumps, road with speed bumps, really works great. http://www.flickr.com/photos/72515938@N08/6787441110/http://www.flickr.com/photos/72515938@N08/6787414228/All my pics, the last place you want to emulate road designing from is these places.

Huh? It is a picture of a car hitting a building. What does that have to do with the price of tea in China. Anyway, a huge lack of logic in your arguments. Just because some roads and speed bumps are designed badly doesn't mean they all are. Nor does it mean the road would be safer without them.

[racc]

Originally Posted by twoNeurons

It would be better to design the road to be slower. There are ways to calm traffic that don't involve speed bumps and penalties. Those 10km/h speed bumps sound horrible... except in a very localized environment.

They are a bit extreme but they sure work. Raised crosswalks are probably a better idea. They even have some out at UBC.

[cornholio]

Originally Posted by racc

Huh? It is a picture of a car hitting a building. What does that have to do with the price of tea in China. Anyway, a huge lack of logic in your arguments. Just because some roads and speed bumps are designed badly doesn't mean they all are. Nor does it mean the road would be safer without them.

Because there was a speed bump on this road, which was a heavily used arterial road. The cars would go flying like normal and hit it and lose control, there was a serious accident because of it almost every day. I never bothered to take a picture of it but next time I am there I will if you want, I just took a picture of this particular accident because it was a bus and it managed to find its way through the house(same as my home). If you had to experience daily what these speed bumps do then you would understand, sticking a speed bump on a major road that you need to slow to 10kmph to clear when the speed limit is 50+kmph is asking for trouble and causes major accidents.

[Metro-One]

I am actually in the middle of an MVC GIS study in metro Vancouver, and plenty of literature and data shows that outsdie of school and park zones speed bumps are known to increase injury on, and around where they are implimented.

[cornholio]

Originally Posted by Metro-One

I am actually in the middle of an MVC GIS study in metro Vancouver, and plenty of literature and data shows that outsdie of school and park zones speed bumps are known to increase injury on, and around where they are implimented.

I would love for you to show the results here when you are done because based on my experience that is absolutely true, would be nice to see some numbers though. Sticking a speed bump on a narrow, lightly used, residential road where there are plenty of obstructions and obvious dangers is one thing because people expect the unexpected like speed bumps and generarly dont speed anyways. BUT sticking a speed bump on a normal arterial road where 90% of the people go 50+kmph and dont expect a speed bump is another thing, and when you see it at the last second at that speed your either slamming on your breaks, skidding or hitting it and losing control(all of which is exactly what the speed bumps should be trying to prevent)

[go_leafs_go02]

Originally Posted by racc

In general, higher speeds are generally a waste of time factoring in higher chances and the greater severity of collisions at higher speeds. Collisions lead to long, unpredictable delays. Those involved in collisions spend a lot of time dealing with and paying for the consequences including injuries, ICBC, getting cars fixed or buying a new one. Transport Canada and the AAA estimate the cost of collisions to society is around 3 times that of congestion. As well, around 20% of congestion is caused by collisions.

The Vision Zero initiative, whose goal is zero traffic fatalities, bases speed recommendations around what the human body can reasonably take without resulting in serious injury or death. This acknowledges that people will make mistakes and break the rules. When this happens, the result should not be serious injury or death. Lower speeds help accomplish this.

- 30km/h on streets where there are pedestrians around or crossing the streets. This includes at signals as drivers and peds ignore signals at times
- 50km/h on road where there is not a median or barrier in the middle and head on collisions can occur
- 70km/h on separated highways with median barriers and no pedestrians.

Lower speeds can be ensured through a variety of measures including photo radar, automatic speed controls installed in vehicles and traffic calming such as raised crosswalks and speed bumps. In Mexico City, for example, they have huge speed bumps on their main streets. Vehicles have to slow to around 10km/h to clear them. They certainly are effective and I imagine they have saved many lives.

We would all do much better and likely save time if everyone just slowed down and drove less aggressively.

I'd more or less recommend pedestrians and cyclists actually open the laws of the road and respect traffic where it has the right-of-way. Speed humps are appropriate in school zones, and around parks, or in residential roads (local classification) where significant speeding above 50 km/h (no, not 30 or 40) is occurring.

People drive what they feel comfortable doing. That's why Oak Street whizzes by at 70-80 km/h, which coincidentally is about 20-30 km/h above the speed limit.

By your outlining, Pattullo Bridge should be 70 km/h, which I would easily say is appropriate. Sidewalks and cycling lanes (which better be off street) should be completely grade separated.

I'm looking at the plan that King George/McBride is planned to be free-flow from 6th Avenue right down to 128 Street in Surrey. That is a few km in length, and definitely warrants being designed and implemented as an expressway type of roadway. There's no intersections - why should cars have to go 50 km/h when cyclists and pedestrians should be separated from traffic through ramps and grade separation. (ala Golden Ears Bridge)

It also doesn't help that most Lower Mainland people are in some ways, taught to think that the speed limit plus 10-15-20 km/h over is what is appropriate to drive - based on the existing road conditions.

[go_leafs_go02]

Originally Posted by cornholio

I would love for you to show the results here when you are done because based on my experience that is absolutely true, would be nice to see some numbers though. Sticking a speed bump on a narrow, lightly used, residential road where there are plenty of obstructions and obvious dangers is one thing because people expect the unexpected like speed bumps and generarly dont speed anyways. BUT sticking a speed bump on a normal arterial road where 90% of the people go 50+kmph and dont expect a speed bump is another thing, and when you see it at the last second at that speed your either slamming on your breaks, skidding or hitting it and losing control(all of which is exactly what the speed bumps should be trying to prevent)

Surrey has a rather interesting traffic calming policy - that prohibits any traffic calming on collector roads or arterial roads - with the exception of elementary school zones on collector roads.

http://www.surrey.ca/city-government/779.aspx

Seems quite appropriate to me. Sticking a speed bump on an arterial roadway is just going to affect the level of service and bring up congestion more.

[cornholio]

To take it back on topic I would like to see upstream Option A for both sides built. I think Option A especially for New Westminster is going to be the preferred route because it accomplishes what they have been trying to do for a long time, and that is reduce through traffic on Columbia street. It connects Columbia street(?east) to Royal Oak directly while Columbia street more appropriately connects up to McBride.

[Canadian Mind]

Originally Posted by racc

In general, higher speeds are generally a waste of time factoring in higher chances and the greater severity of collisions at higher speeds. Collisions lead to long, unpredictable delays. Those involved in collisions spend a lot of time dealing with and paying for the consequences including injuries, ICBC, getting cars fixed or buying a new one. Transport Canada and the AAA estimate the cost of collisions to society is around 3 times that of congestion. As well, around 20% of congestion is caused by collisions.

The Vision Zero initiative, whose goal is zero traffic fatalities, bases speed recommendations around what the human body can reasonably take without resulting in serious injury or death. This acknowledges that people will make mistakes and break the rules. When this happens, the result should not be serious injury or death. Lower speeds help accomplish this.

- 30km/h on streets where there are pedestrians around or crossing the streets. This includes at signals as drivers and peds ignore signals at times
- 50km/h on road where there is not a median or barrier in the middle and head on collisions can occur
- 70km/h on separated highways with median barriers and no pedestrians.

Lower speeds can be ensured through a variety of measures including photo radar, automatic speed controls installed in vehicles and traffic calming such as raised crosswalks and speed bumps. In Mexico City, for example, they have huge speed bumps on their main streets. Vehicles have to slow to around 10km/h to clear them. They certainly are effective and I imagine they have saved many lives.

We would all do much better and likely save time if everyone just slowed down and drove less aggressively.

You may call me jaded, but keep the speed limits where they are at, and let Darwinism work as originally intended.

While 70kph may be considered what will prevent death on a dedicated divided freeway, numerous studies have indicated that at higher speeds the incidence of traffic accidents decrease. While the ratio of fatalities in accidents at higher speeds does increase, this is offset by the declining ratio of traffic accidents at higher speeds, leading to a net decrease in overall fatalities as speeds increase.

Basically, a car accident at 120kph will likely be far more catastrophic than one at 90kph. But the number of accidents at 120kph drastically decreases, enough that the overall number of catastrophic accidents is lower than at 90kph.

I'd sooner face a 1/30 000 chance of an accident with a 1/90 000 chance of dying at 120kph (1 in 3 accidents is a fatality), than a 1/15 000 chance of an accident with a 1/75 000 chance of dying at 90kph (1 in 5 accidents is a fatality).

[racc]

Originally Posted by Canadian Mind

You may call me jaded, but keep the speed limits where they are at, and let Darwinism work as originally intended.

While 70kph may be considered what will prevent death on a dedicated divided freeway, numerous studies have indicated that at higher speeds the incidence of traffic accidents decrease. While the ratio of fatalities in accidents at higher speeds does increase, this is offset by the declining ratio of traffic accidents at higher speeds, leading to a net decrease in overall fatalities as speeds increase.

Basically, a car accident at 120kph will likely be far more catastrophic than one at 90kph. But the number of accidents at 120kph drastically decreases, enough that the overall number of catastrophic accidents is lower than at 90kph.

I'd sooner face a 1/30 000 chance of an accident with a 1/90 000 chance of dying at 120kph (1 in 3 accidents is a fatality), than a 1/15 000 chance of an accident with a 1/75 000 chance of dying at 90kph (1 in 5 accidents is a fatality).

I'd really like to see those studies. It makes absolutely no sense at all. Even stopping distances are longer at higher speeds. The studies may actually be just comparing different types of roads. The ones that are designed for higher speeds may be safer than the lower speed ones.

Anyway, I'm more concerned about roads with intersections and pedestrians around. There is really no debate that 30km/h is much safer than faster speeds. With traffic lights, the higher speeds don't even result in much of a time savings even if there are no collisions.

[racc]

Oops, I am off topic. Sorry. I'll get back on topic but not too quickly. I'll stick to 30km/h

[Metro-One]

OK, can you guys tell me why traffic calming and the mix use road debate is relevant here? Translink pretty much said that the Pattullo Bridge project is going to be built similar to the GEB where vehicle traffic and pedestrians and bikes will be physically separated from one and other.

This fact, given the stretches free flow, likely divided nature does call for a 60 or 70 km speed, not 50.