HomeDiagramsDatabaseMapsForum About
     

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


Reply

 
Thread Tools Display Modes
     
     
  #1  
Old Posted Jun 20, 2013, 7:35 PM
RichardM2010 RichardM2010 is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2010
Posts: 12
Street Narrowing in Coquitlam: What the...?

I can't help it; I have to rant about the street narrowing going on around Coquitlam.

What is the point of that policy? It was bad enough when they did it along Poirier (north of Foster) and some other streets. Now they are doing it along King Albert Avenue around Blue Mountain Park.

They are pulling the sidewalk into the street--basically taking away one lane each way. And at the cross-walk the sidewalk is being pulled right into the right lane to completely block another lane.

Do the policy-makers in Coquitlam not realize it is getting busier around here? There are high-rises going up around the neighborhood, and the population is going up. They should be designing streets to let more traffic through, not less.

If they want to turn every corner of this city into a "calmed" area, where every little group gets to stake a claim to a particular part of the city, why even bother allowing high-rises and other development into the city?

Why not just turn all streets into pedestrian malls? Then, in a couple years when people's patience with all the gridlock reaches its breaking point, the politicians of the time can scratch their heads and whine about how infrastructure is insufficient.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #2  
Old Posted Jun 20, 2013, 7:41 PM
osirisboy's Avatar
osirisboy osirisboy is online now
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Vancouver BC
Posts: 6,041
It's another policy to annoy drivers in the hopes they get pissed off give up and get forced into taking public transportation lol

Oh and it's to enhance the pedestrian experience and its green and sustainable and its thinking of the community blah blah (I'm just throwing the buzz words out) haha.

I think it's a waist of money.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #3  
Old Posted Jun 20, 2013, 7:44 PM
quobobo quobobo is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Vancouver
Posts: 1,053
Good. Maybe Coquitlam will start being a pleasant place to live once it's halfway walkable and dense.

It's not a coincidence that the nicer parts of Vancouver don't have huge roads everywhere.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #4  
Old Posted Jun 20, 2013, 7:52 PM
DKaz DKaz is online now
Registered User
 
Join Date: Nov 2008
Location: Kelowna BC & Edmonton AB
Posts: 4,259
Look at all the lanes they have down at Lougheed/Pinetree/Johnson and traffic around there is terrible. Meanwhile the upper part of Coquitlam is actually nice to drive through.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #5  
Old Posted Jun 20, 2013, 8:08 PM
spm2013 spm2013 is offline
More Towers
 
Join Date: Jan 2013
Posts: 2,312
Just be glad they didn't make it a bike only street.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #6  
Old Posted Jun 20, 2013, 8:20 PM
Pinion Pinion is offline
See ya down under, mates
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 5,167
Quote:
Originally Posted by quobobo View Post
Good. Maybe Coquitlam will start being a pleasant place to live once it's halfway walkable and dense.

It's not a coincidence that the nicer parts of Vancouver don't have huge roads everywhere.
The nicer parts of Vancouver (traffic-wise) are generally on the northwestern side where thousands of commuters aren't trying to pass through to get to/from work. It has nothing to do with size of streets. Vancouver's a terrible example of having traffic-free areas anyway.

My area/street would be horrible if it wasn't for most pass-through traffic being able to take the highway a few km north.

Last edited by Pinion; Jun 20, 2013 at 8:43 PM.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #7  
Old Posted Jun 21, 2013, 6:34 AM
aberdeen5698's Avatar
aberdeen5698 aberdeen5698 is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2010
Posts: 4,423
I don't know about the other streets, but I'm familiar with Poirier. It is not and never was a four-lane street. The curve bulges don't really affect traffic except for the rare case where you would have been able to pass to the right of a car that was waiting to turn left. But the traffic volumes on that street are so low as to really make that a non-issue.

The purpose of curve bulges is to allow pedestrians to have a protected space (a raised sidewalk) that is further into the street so they can (a) get a better view of whether traffic is coming without having to crane around parked cars and trucks, and (b) give them a shorter distance / less time to get from one side of the street to the other. I really don't see that it's an unreasonable thing to do on a street like Poirier.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #8  
Old Posted Jun 21, 2013, 7:17 AM
easy as pie's Avatar
easy as pie easy as pie is offline
testify
 
Join Date: May 2012
Location: 94109
Posts: 853
lol, by "street narrowing" do you mean "sidewalk widening"?
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #9  
Old Posted Jun 21, 2013, 4:15 PM
whatnext whatnext is online now
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: Vancouver
Posts: 22,109
Quote:
Originally Posted by quobobo View Post
Good. Maybe Coquitlam will start being a pleasant place to live once it's halfway walkable and dense.

It's not a coincidence that the nicer parts of Vancouver don't have huge roads everywhere.
Vancouver street grid makes for a different traffic flow.

As Osirisboy says, it is just "fad of the moment" urban planning. It's amazing how much damage a handful of ivory tower profs can do the lives of those who live in the real world.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #10  
Old Posted Jun 21, 2013, 6:39 PM
Mininari Mininari is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Victoria (formerly Port Moody, then Winnipeg)
Posts: 2,441
Quote:
Originally Posted by whatnext View Post
Vancouver street grid makes for a different traffic flow.

As Osirisboy says, it is just "fad of the moment" urban planning. It's amazing how much damage a handful of ivory tower profs can do the lives of those who live in the real world.
It could be worse. You could still be stuck in 1960's planning-mode, like we are here in Winnipeg
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #11  
Old Posted Jun 22, 2013, 8:20 AM
xd_1771's Avatar
xd_1771 xd_1771 is offline
(daka_x)
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: Metro Vancouver, Canada
Posts: 1,689
Where the rightmost lane is pretty much a parking lane anyway (i.e. many roads in Metro Van), I can see why it is done. At most, the capacity to dodge slowing right turns and blocking left turns is removed; shortened croswalk distance and usually the addition of bike lanes same-time, however, enhances and traffic-calms the street for the local community.

i.e. in the case of Blue Mountain Park, it appears that a narrow to one-lane/direction is exactly what happens by the time Blue Mountain hits the north side of the park, so I can see why it is justified.

Coquitlam seems to plan for and do a lot of this (shortening the distance for pedestrians to cross), even on its major roads. If you look at the plans for Pinetree Way street-works after the Evergreen Line, in many places the rightmost lane (3 lanes per direction) is being taken away at the far end of the intersection (and the lane on the near end becoming a right turn lane, as well as for parking). In my view this is actually more efficient than keeping 3 lanes per direction (of which the curb lane might be taken away to parking sometimes anyway). A dedicated right turn lane keeps that traffic out of the way for through traffic, and at two lanes with no obstructions, through traffic is given decent capacity. It's not a significant capacity reduction, but it is an effort to improve conditions to pedestrians.

Also, it's not just Coquitlam that might do it. I see this happening sometimes in Surrey, even, where car is king. 148th St from 100th Ave through to 108th is a good example. During the process of redoing the street, bike lanes were also added - making this one of the best north-south bike routes in the area as well. It's quite reasonable in the case of 148th, as it is not a very heavily used - nor commercial - road.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #12  
Old Posted Jun 22, 2013, 5:43 PM
aberdeen5698's Avatar
aberdeen5698 aberdeen5698 is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2010
Posts: 4,423
Quote:
Originally Posted by xd_1771 View Post
...A dedicated right turn lane keeps that traffic out of the way for through traffic, and at two lanes with no obstructions, through traffic is given decent capacity.
One of my pet peeves is people who don't bother getting out of the through lane when making a right turn and then get stuck because of pedestrian traffic. Even without a dedicated turn lane, parking is prohibited for enough space before an intersection to allow one or two cars to pull out of traffic to wait for their right turns. But only a small percentage of drivers actually bother to do that.

Hopefully a dedicated right turn lane in the approach to the intersection will be enough to give even these clueless drivers the right idea...
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #13  
Old Posted Jun 22, 2013, 8:32 PM
Cypherus's Avatar
Cypherus Cypherus is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Surrey
Posts: 1,755
Quote:
Originally Posted by aberdeen5698 View Post
One of my pet peeves is people who don't bother getting out of the through lane when making a right turn and then get stuck because of pedestrian traffic. Even without a dedicated turn lane, parking is prohibited for enough space before an intersection to allow one or two cars to pull out of traffic to wait for their right turns. But only a small percentage of drivers actually bother to do that.

Hopefully a dedicated right turn lane in the approach to the intersection will be enough to give even these clueless drivers the right idea...
The drivers are not clueless - there is no dedicated right lane and they must yield to pedestrians when making a right turn. You can't share lanes with another vehicle yielding to make a right as you're trying to get through the intersection. There is only so much room for them to move over to the right. But if there is not enough room, it's not their fault that the douche truck and other vehicles behind them can't get through the intersection on green while they are yielding to pedestrians.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #14  
Old Posted Jun 22, 2013, 10:51 PM
aberdeen5698's Avatar
aberdeen5698 aberdeen5698 is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2010
Posts: 4,423
Quote:
Originally Posted by Cypherus View Post
The drivers are not clueless - there is no dedicated right lane and they must yield to pedestrians when making a right turn.
I can't tell you how many times I've seen people blocking the through lane while waiting to turn right even though there's more than enough room ahead of parked cars such that they could have moved to the right and been out of the way. Sure, if you get two or three right turners then there's often no choice but for some of them to block the through lane. But in a lot of cases traffic is held up for no reason other than that the one person turning right is oblivious to his surroundings.

I'm certainly not suggesting that anyone run over pedestrians or make any other stupid moves. I'm simply pointing out that you can often safely wait for your right turn while not blocking the other vehicles who want to go straight through the intersection.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #15  
Old Posted Jun 23, 2013, 3:05 AM
rsxstock rsxstock is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Apr 2013
Posts: 274
Quote:
Originally Posted by aberdeen5698 View Post
I can't tell you how many times I've seen people blocking the through lane while waiting to turn right even though there's more than enough room ahead of parked cars such that they could have moved to the right and been out of the way. Sure, if you get two or three right turners then there's often no choice but for some of them to block the through lane. But in a lot of cases traffic is held up for no reason other than that the one person turning right is oblivious to his surroundings.

I'm certainly not suggesting that anyone run over pedestrians or make any other stupid moves. I'm simply pointing out that you can often safely wait for your right turn while not blocking the other vehicles who want to go straight through the intersection.
yes! i hate it when vehicles don't pull completely into the other lane, leaving a corner of the car enough to block traffic. this is the same for left turners that rests over the solid line. the other thing i hate is when just before the turn, they swerve into the other lane like the curb suddenly extended out or something... if you had enough room to be completely in that lane, you have enough room to turn without hitting the curb
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #16  
Old Posted Jun 24, 2013, 6:58 AM
xd_1771's Avatar
xd_1771 xd_1771 is offline
(daka_x)
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: Metro Vancouver, Canada
Posts: 1,689
Quote:
The drivers are not clueless - there is no dedicated right lane and they must yield to pedestrians when making a right turn. You can't share lanes with another vehicle yielding to make a right as you're trying to get through the intersection. There is only so much room for them to move over to the right. But if there is not enough room, it's not their fault that the douche truck and other vehicles behind them can't get through the intersection on green while they are yielding to pedestrians.
I think aberdeen5698 is referring in particular to roads in Vancouver, which have the outer lane often reserved for parking. Where the outer lane is reserved for parking, it can double as a right turn lane at intersections. At these intersections, though, sometimes cars do not completely pull into the outer lane and just sit there diagonally, taking up part of the outer lane and the through lane, while waiting to turn right - even though the vehicle could have pulled completely into the right lane. So, that lane goes out of service.

It could get worse, there could be a left turn at the same time on the leftmost and then no traffic would get through. I've seen this happening on Commercial at Commercial and Broadway some times.

In the most heinous situations, it's where the road is 4 lanes (outer lanes serving parking) rather than 6 - particularly in the West End - and a stubborn right turning driver might be completely blocking all traffic by him/herself.

I guess that the solution to this, if not educating drivers to not be so stubborn, is a slightly longer distance between the intersection and the last parking spot.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #17  
Old Posted Jun 24, 2013, 12:12 PM
idunno idunno is online now
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Posts: 745
What you guys are talking about (and what people have mentioned) is called Traffic Calming! It's done all over the place in Vancouver/Burnaby/Surrey/North Shore on streets near schools, community centres, parks, on greenways etc. and is a very well-established urban design practice all over the world. Often times, streets that were designed in the 90s or before have a design speed that is much higher than the posted speed limit. All the municipal planners are doing is to match the streetscape with the posted speed limit and vehicular demand - sometimes reducing turning radii or turning a 4 lane street into a 2 lane + 2 parking lanes.

The goal is obviously to improve pedestrian safety. It works!
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #18  
Old Posted Jun 24, 2013, 5:09 PM
GMasterAres GMasterAres is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: Hamburg
Posts: 3,055
Yes the issue isn't these specific streets but more the business on the major roads that cause people to need to spill out onto these secondary streets. A poster above had a good point that Lougheed highway is so ridiculously busy and it takes 15+ minutes just to cross 3 intersections in Coquitlam at the best of times.

So as a result, people spill over to secondary streets trying to bypass the craziness. Downtown Vancouver doesn't have this problem that often as it is typically a final destination not a 'pass through', though anyone that drives downtown along Georgia will know that it too runs into this spill out problem. You get stacked in the causeway trying to get through downtown so people veer off onto side streets and start zipping through the West End. The West End is a pain to navigate though so it more often results in frustration and people sticking to the already impossible Georgia street.

My only issue with traffic calming is when it is used on streets that are experiencing spill over without any regard or adjusting to the major through ways that are causing this spill over. For example I'd rather see Coquitlam perform the traffic calming but at the same time FIX the problems around Lougheed Highway and Coquitlam Center.

Do they have jurisdiction on Lougheed Highway though?
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #19  
Old Posted Jun 27, 2013, 4:03 AM
twoNeurons twoNeurons is offline
loafing in lotusland
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Lotusland
Posts: 6,020
So... they're trying to make Coquitlam a destination, instead of a pass-through place. I see no problem with this.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #20  
Old Posted Sep 17, 2014, 10:50 PM
DKaz DKaz is online now
Registered User
 
Join Date: Nov 2008
Location: Kelowna BC & Edmonton AB
Posts: 4,259
If I can add to the old post, sometimes at a typical crosswalk, a driver may be stopped for allow a pedestrian to cross. A driver behind thinks the car in front is performing an unsignaled left turn. The driver then attempts to overtake the car in front and plows into the pedestrian in the process. Bulging sidewalks on what is supposed to be a one lane road prevents this.
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 9:06 PM.

     
SkyscraperPage.com - Archive - Privacy Statement - Top

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.