Broadway Subway - Millennium Line Extension to Arbutus | U/C

[mcj]

Originally Posted by WarrenC12

Yes we could just demolish all bridges too, they are expensive to build and maintain.

The weeks when the Patullo was closed were some of the best as a New West resident, but your reply is clearly facetious. However it's clear that the Granville, Burrard and Cambie bridges are overbuilt from a misguided past.

It's really not that far fetched for a city in the modern world to limit private vehicle traffic into it's city centre, very common in Europe to do this. But seems like we've dropped attempting to live up to the misnomer of being a "world class city".

None of this is relevant to this thread though, but active transportation lanes on Broadway are and should be brought back.

[WarrenC12]

Originally Posted by mcj

The weeks when the Patullo was closed were some of the best as a New West resident, but your reply is clearly facetious. However it's clear that the Granville, Burrard and Cambie bridges are overbuilt from a misguided past.

The months when Broadway was closed at Main were a disaster, speaking as a local resident.

I disagree the bridges are overbuilt, with the possible exception of Granville but it is being reformatted with less car lanes. We will need these access points into downtown when the viaducts finally come down.

Originally Posted by mcj

It's really not that far fetched for a city in the modern world to limit private vehicle traffic into it's city centre, very common in Europe to do this. But seems like we've dropped attempting to live up to the misnomer of being a "world class city".

None of this is relevant to this thread though, but active transportation lanes on Broadway are and should be brought back.

Of course it's common in places with vastly superior rail infrastructure. Sign me up.

[mcj]

Originally Posted by WarrenC12

The months when Broadway was closed at Main were a disaster, speaking as a local resident.

I disagree the bridges are overbuilt, with the possible exception of Granville but it is being reformatted with less car lanes. We will need these access points into downtown when the viaducts finally come down.

Of course it's common in places with vastly superior rail infrastructure. Sign me up.

I don't understand why any of this is relevant to giving Broadway a road diet, access would still be maintained, you're constructing facetious arguments here about entirely different things. We are literally putting superior rail infrastructure underneath Broadway with this project.

[s211]

Originally Posted by mcj

Proving that traffic will adjust to a road diet, and we indeed could have installed active transportation lanes on Broadway so that people don't need to ride on the sidewalk

You lost me the second you pulled out your "road diet" dog whistle.

[Cgloins]

Originally Posted by s211

You lost me the second you pulled out your "road diet" dog whistle.

I’m not the original poster but what is a dog whistle in this case? Aren’t we just talking about a way to improve streets? I mean we’re in an urban design forum so that seems like a big reason we’re here.

[mcj]

Originally Posted by Cgloins

I’m not the original poster but what is a dog whistle in this case? Aren’t we just talking about a way to improve streets? I mean we’re in an urban design forum so that seems like a big reason we’re here.

I am the original poster, I have no clue what they're on about. I doubt they intend to engage in good faith.

[Migrant_Coconut]

Moot point, since Broadway belongs to TransLink's Major Road Network; no way in hell they let one of their most important busways be shrunk to two GP lanes. Either close the road to drivers entirely, or give up on bike lanes and upgrade 10th to triple-A.

[WarrenC12]

Originally Posted by mcj

I don't understand why any of this is relevant to giving Broadway a road diet, access would still be maintained, you're constructing facetious arguments here about entirely different things. We are literally putting superior rail infrastructure underneath Broadway with this project.

It's not relevant but I am only replying to the points you brought up.

We are extending a subway by 6 stops but to pretend that can replace a key transportation route and enable us to cut access to cars downtown is absurd.

I understand you come from a perspective that all cars are bad. Reality in Vancouver is a little more nuanced.

[mcj]

Originally Posted by WarrenC12

It's not relevant but I am only replying to the points you brought up.

We are extending a subway by 6 stops but to pretend that can replace a key transportation route and enable us to cut access to cars downtown is absurd.

I understand you come from a perspective that all cars are bad. Reality in Vancouver is a little more nuanced.

A road diet, by definition, doesn't mean that access is cut. Will you quit it with the strawman arguments. Plus, the scenario we are in right now is even more dramatic than a road diet, we don't need to pretend like the sky will fall and no-one can access downtown.

Cars aren't bad, they just don't make sense to prioritize them so relentlessly as we increase density. We already have the majority of people commuting into downtown without a car, we don't need to continue allocating a majority of road space to a minority of people.

[mcj]

Originally Posted by Migrant_Coconut

Moot point, since Broadway belongs to TransLink's Major Road Network; no way in hell they let one of their most important busways be shrunk to two GP lanes. Either close the road to drivers entirely, or give up on bike lanes and upgrade 10th to triple-A.

Appreciate the response in good faith, that makes sense that Translink wouldn't want to disrupt the busway, however besides the 9 is this really going to be a critical corridor in the future that couldn't be replaced by 12th, or any of the other E-W roads.

[WarrenC12]

Originally Posted by mcj

A road diet, by definition, doesn't mean that access is cut. Will you quit it with the strawman arguments. Plus, the scenario we are in right now is even more dramatic than a road diet, we don't need to pretend like the sky will fall and no-one can access downtown.

What strawman arguments? You literally said this.

It's really not that far fetched for a city in the modern world to limit private vehicle traffic into it's city centre, very common in Europe to do this. But seems like we've dropped attempting to live up to the misnomer of being a "world class city".

I replied to it saying we aren't there yet, but you can't hear me up there on your high horse and everything I say "isn't in good faith". You need to grow up, seriously.

Originally Posted by mcj

Cars aren't bad, they just don't make sense to prioritize them so relentlessly as we increase density. We already have the majority of people commuting into downtown without a car, we don't need to continue allocating a majority of road space to a minority of people.

How is it that we have the majority of people commuting downtown without a car, while also prioritizing cars? They are last on the list of every CoV transportation plan since the 1990s or earlier. This is why you aren't being taken seriously. Your solution is always "just eliminate another lane and make it for bikes". It's tiresome.

[seamusmcduff]

Originally Posted by WarrenC12

How is it that we have the majority of people commuting downtown without a car, while also prioritizing cars? They are last on the list of every CoV transportation plan since the 1990s or earlier. This is why you aren't being taken seriously. Your solution is always "just eliminate another lane and make it for bikes". It's tiresome.

The majority of commuters don't drive, and yet if you look at the infrastructure for trains, pedestrians, and cyclists, it is still a much smaller footprint than that for cars.

Cars get inherently prioritized because of their inefficiency. You could have 25 percent of commuters driving and you'd still need to dedicate half of your infrastructure to them.

It takes a lot more than simply providing alternative modes of transportation to deprioritize cars, you need to also be giving some of that space back to other modes (at least if we're talking about maximizing the most efficient movement of people)

[WarrenC12]

Originally Posted by seamusmcduff

The majority of commuters don't drive, and yet if you look at the infrastructure for trains, pedestrians, and cyclists, it is still a much smaller footprint than that for cars.

Yes and no. The roads you are complaining about but omitting by name also have a lot of public transit buses, shared vehicles (taxi, etc), and of course commercial traffic, delivery trucks, etc.

Originally Posted by seamusmcduff

Cars get inherently prioritized because of their inefficiency. You could have 25 percent of commuters driving and you'd still need to dedicate half of your infrastructure to them.

That's an interesting definition of "prioritized".

Originally Posted by seamusmcduff

It takes a lot more than simply providing alternative modes of transportation to deprioritize cars, you need to also be giving some of that space back to other modes (at least if we're talking about maximizing the most efficient movement of people)

Are the bike lanes too crowded? The sidewalks?

I use both on a regular basis downtown. The answer is no.

Could we get more rail traffic downtown? Alternate routes? Absolutely. I would support another Skytrain line downtown (say, E-W along Hastings) immediately.

[officedweller]

From the project Threads:


These diamond crossover tracks have been installed at Broadway-City Hall Station. Here, SkyTrains will be able to switch tracks as needed. Crews are now installing the power and Linear Induction Motor rails.
https://www.threads.com/@broadwaysubwayproject/post/DbGoVmBlgFZ

[seamusmcduff]

Originally Posted by WarrenC12

Yes and no. The roads you are complaining about but omitting by name also have a lot of public transit buses, shared vehicles (taxi, etc), and of course commercial traffic, delivery trucks, etc.

Are the bike lanes too crowded?

Public transit utilizes maybe 10 percent of our road network, even though it could serve far larger of a percent of transportation trips than that. Safe, separated Bike lanes cover an even smaller percentage of our road network, limiting their usability and the number of users comfortable making most trips by bike.

Not that I'm saying we need to be getting rid of residential streets or anything, but when other methods of transportation struggle with a full cross city network of coverage meanwhile every road has 1-2 lanes of car traffic, plus another 1-2 lanes of parking, that does show a prioritization towards cars. On a road by road basis, it might not seem that bad, but the full networks provided to alternative transportation options tell a different story about how disproportionately cars are supported.

[Nouvellecosse]

Originally Posted by WarrenC12

Yes and no. The roads you are complaining about but omitting by name also have a lot of public transit buses, shared vehicles (taxi, etc), and of course commercial traffic, delivery trucks, etc.

That's an interesting point about the buses. Broadway is known as one of the busiest bus corridors in NA with a very high frequency of service. Once most transit movements on the street will be underground, it makes sense that this would free up space on the surface for other uses like bike lanes. At least for that multi km stretch. It wouldn't really be taking something away from non-transit vehicles since they didn't have full access to the street to begin with given the volume of buses.

[chowhou]

Originally Posted by Cgloins

I’m not the original poster but what is a dog whistle in this case? Aren’t we just talking about a way to improve streets? I mean we’re in an urban design forum so that seems like a big reason we’re here.

Welcome to the forum! Enjoy your stay in between the bickering here and there.

Just FYI arguably this is an urban "tracking" forum not an urban "design" forum and you'll find there's a sizeable population here of people who dislike ways in which the city is changing or developing. We're not all Reddit /r/fuckcars /r/urbandesign subscribers around these parts. It's not all black and white either, Warren is pretty pro-urban development compared to some of the people who are really sour on things. s211 can be a bit that way in my view.

Oh, and to answer your question I believe the "dog whistle" is that "road diet" is a term used by people who would generally prefer there to actually be zero car infrastructure at all. The natural enemy of the "one more lane" person is the "one less lane" person.

[Migrant_Coconut]

Originally Posted by mcj

Appreciate the response in good faith, that makes sense that Translink wouldn't want to disrupt the busway, however besides the 9 is this really going to be a critical corridor in the future that couldn't be replaced by 12th, or any of the other E-W roads.

Even if it was just the 9, two lanes would be near-useless... but moving the 8, 14, 16, et al three blocks away from the major destination street they're trying to serve seems counterproductive to the "world-class city" goal.

10th is one block up; seems more effective to convert that one to triple-A and have bikes and scooters walk down from there.

Originally Posted by seamusmcduff

Public transit utilizes maybe 10 percent of our road network, even though it could serve far larger of a percent of transportation trips than that. Safe, separated Bike lanes cover an even smaller percentage of our road network, limiting their usability and the number of users comfortable making most trips by bike.

If we want to close Broadway off to general traffic and make it a bus/bikeway, that's certainly an option... however, it's not an option currently being considered.

[whatnext]

Originally Posted by mcj

The weeks when the Patullo was closed were some of the best as a New West resident, but your reply is clearly facetious. However it's clear that the Granville, Burrard and Cambie bridges are overbuilt from a misguided past.

It's really not that far fetched for a city in the modern world to limit private vehicle traffic into it's city centre, very common in Europe to do this. But seems like we've dropped attempting to live up to the misnomer of being a "world class city".

None of this is relevant to this thread though, but active transportation lanes on Broadway are and should be brought back.

Except most European cities don’t limit traffic into the city centre, they just make vehicles park on the outskirts of it. For example you would drive over the Cambie Street Bridge and be forced to park in an underground lot at BC Place. Ironically very similar to the Project 2000 parking plan that Gordon Price et al freaked out over. The wild card or difference is that Vancouver is much wetter than most European cities. Not exactly conducive to strolling into the city centre Oct-April.

[aberdeen5698]

FWIW, I've found the changes to Nanaimo Street between Hastings and 1st to work pretty well. They reduced the street to one lane in each direction, and doing so gave them the room to put in a two-way left turn lane. That (mostly) continuous left turn lane does a lot to reduce obstructions due to turning cars and keep everyone moving.

They also marked right turn lanes next to the curb. That seems to help with those idiots who are too dumb to pull out of the travel lane while they wait to make their right turn. All in all it seems to keep traffic flowing nicely.

Would a similar scheme work on Broadway? Higher traffic volumes... maybe, maybe not. But I wouldn't dismiss it out of hand.