Canada Line | Completed

[DKaz]

What? I see quite a few large parkades when I travel through the states.

I think the plan is that the parkade would be used by commuters during the day and casino goers in the evening.

[twoNeurons]

So does Calgary for that matter. They have great ridership.

I guess they foresee a lot of people in the area will drive and then take the train.

Personally, I don't know if I'd get off the 91 to go to train if I was coming from White Rock/South Surrey... and Richmond is close enough to downtown to add a few extra minutes taking the bus... but I guess they foresee a need for it.

Think of it this way. Full Park and Rides are living proof that there are lots of people who really don't like buses.

[Whalleyboy]

Originally Posted by lightrail

It's seven story parkade with 1,200 parking stalls committed to SkyTrain park and ride. Second largest park and ride in the region (after Scott Road on the Expo Line).

i think i like the parkade idea better then all the land being used up for flat ground parking at scott road
they could make a nice arena or stadium or if surrey could bring back casinos a nice casino down in that area=P

[Metro-One]

Think of it this way. Full Park and Rides are living proof that there are lots of people who really don't like buses.

I am one of those people. I hate buses (i can not ride a bus any longer than 10 minutes) but i love trains! I feel we should have more park and rides. In Japan it was very common for people to have their wife or husband drive them to the train station or for someone to have a park and ride stall at a train station. Very few buses in Japan (at least from what i saw). It was pretty much split between bikes, cars and trains.

[DKaz]

Most Japanese people walk or cycle to the train. I remember at Akasaka Station on Chuo Line having a multilevel bicycle PARKADE.

[twoNeurons]

Originally Posted by DKaz

Most Japanese people walk or cycle to the train. I remember at Akasaka Station on Chuo Line having a multilevel bicycle PARKADE.

Different context though.
Bikes in Japan:

• Range from $75-200 on average
• Are built for utility and practicality (they have baskets
• Are usually from 1-3 gears (cheaper to make).
• don't require their rider to wear a helmet
• generally driven on sidewalks (which tend to be wider) alongside with pedestrians.
• Are meant for commuting to a station or shorter trips, shopping
• have less of a problem with bicycle theft (Why steal a bike when it's not worth much)

There are lots of barriers to entry for bikes here:

• Must take a helmet.
• Having a basket is somehow "not cool" or "girly"
• If it doesn't have 16,000 gears, it's not suitable.
• If it doesn't cost at least $5000, it's not a real bike.
• Rain
• Emphasis is on high-speed cycling, not utility cycling. So you may need a shower.

Richmond is an ideal cycling city.

• Lots of Asians who don't have the "mountain-bike" image problem.
• It's Flat
• Wide Roads (widen the sidewalks too)

A typical Japanese Bicycle:

source (This one's a hybrid electric bike, so it's a bit pricier: $1400)

We tend to put bikes with cars, which, in my opinion is the wrong way to go about things.

Before anyone goes on about how dangerous it is to ride a bike with pedestrians and no helmet... this seems to work well in this video:
• Video Link

It begs the question. Could something like this work here?

An interesting website about utility cycling.

[LotusLand]

I've always thought that we should have bikes on sidewalks. What irks me is Kingsway is not really bike suitable the lanes are too narrow and they take up the whole lane sometimes. I'm all for more bikes on the city streets but on the sidewalk, unless there is a dedicated lane. However, most of our sidewalks are too narrow to accomodate both peds and cyclists and homeless and skateboarders etc...

[DKaz]

Most cyclists here ride too fast for the sidewalks. Unless you're like under 8 or 9 years old, you should be on the road. I knew how to ride in traffic when I was in grade 3.

[zivan56]

^^ By law they are prohibited from riding on sidewalks unless a detour over a sidewalk or a separate bicycle lane exists.

[twoNeurons]

Originally Posted by DKaz

Most cyclists here ride too fast for the sidewalks. Unless you're like under 8 or 9 years old, you should be on the road. I knew how to ride in traffic when I was in grade 3.

That's because most cyclists are for lack of a better term "hard-core enthusiasts" and not utility cyclists. Usually young males.

If you only have a one-speed bike you can't go that quickly.

Why not create a different designation for bikes. One which is classed a road bike can be considered a vehicle and the other a utility bike. Limit utility bikes to 3 gears, require them to have a bell, and other requirements, fix them to a certain speed limit on sidewalks.

Or better yet, have a speed rating for bikes. Over a certain speed rating it becomes a road bike, and can't be ridden on sidewalks.

This isn't much different from the different designations for mopeds and motorbikes.

Mopeds are limited to 49cc and don't require a bike license, but they can't be ridden on highways.

Can you see your grandma riding with traffic?

[crazyjoeda]

Or better yet, have a speed rating for bikes. Over a certain speed rating it becomes a road bike, and can't be ridden on sidewalks.

This isn't much different from the different designations for mopeds and motorbikes.

Mopeds are limited to 49cc and don't require a bike license, but they can't be ridden on highways.

Can you see your grandma riding with traffic?

Like a speed rating on bicycles is going to be enforced. I am firmly against any law that will not/can't be enforced. Bike lanes/routes make more sense in Vancouver. Generally the people who choose to ride on the sidewalks have poor coordination and even though they go slow they still make pedestrians nervous.

[SpongeG]

Originally Posted by tintinium

So does Calgary for that matter. They have great ridership.

I guess they foresee a lot of people in the area will drive and then take the train.

Personally, I don't know if I'd get off the 91 to go to train if I was coming from White Rock/South Surrey... and Richmond is close enough to downtown to add a few extra minutes taking the bus... but I guess they foresee a need for it.

Think of it this way. Full Park and Rides are living proof that there are lots of people who really don't like buses.

yes whenever there is a game or concert or the fireworks - the lougheed mall parking lot gets suspiciously filled up when the mall itself is closed...

yet there is no official park n ride there and signs telling "commuters" they cannot park there

they should add a multilevel park n ride at braid station - its close to the highway and people would drive to it and catch the skytrain

they should add more park n rides at many of the stations but briad would be a good place for people who want to use their cars instead of a bus

[twoNeurons]

Originally Posted by crazyjoeda

Like a speed rating on bicycles is going to be enforced. I am firmly against any law that will not/can't be enforced. Bike lanes/routes make more sense in Vancouver. Generally the people who choose to ride on the sidewalks have poor coordination and even though they go slow they still make pedestrians nervous.

Perhaps you haven't ridden one of these utility bikes. The way it's geared, you CAN'T get above a certain speed without looking like Fred Flintstone taking off from a stop. Bikes geared a certain way have an intrinsic speed rating, so defining a bike based on gear-ratio isn't that difficult. Not to mention just looking at one of these bikes and you can tell.

Using that reasoning, then the current law doesn't make sense... because it obviously will not/can't be enforced.

All I'm saying is decriminalize riding on sidewalks for these types of bikes. If they wouldn't enforce stopping road bikes from going on sidewalks, how do they do it now?

A blanket statement saying "people on sidewalks are poorly coordinated" is rather extreme, too.

As you likely saw in the video, pedestrians and cyclists can easily co-exist.

Those that travel at high-speeds aren't going to ride on the sidewalk anyway, when there's a bike lane without obstructions.

Dedicated bike lanes are a good idea as well. Or better yet, dedicated raised bike pavement. Painting a line on a road just gives more room for cars. Measures like painting the surface red would even help.

However, in general, people in cars have tended to be more protective of their road than pedestrians have been.

We're not really talking about the same type of cycling. Look up "utility cycling" to see what i mean.

[DKaz]

Originally Posted by tintinium

Those that travel at high-speeds aren't going to ride on the sidewalk anyway, when there's a bike lane without obstructions.

*cough*bicycle couriers*cough*

They pose a safety hazard to everyone including themselves.

http://www.walk.com.au/pedestriancouncil/Page.asp?PageID=177

"This report, which was put together by a multi-partisan committee of the NSW Parliament, has been gathering dust for six months. The community has had enough of certain bicycle couriers who behave like urban cowboys and seriously jeopardise pedestrian safety and upset the amenity of the city. One pedestrian and one bicycle courier have already been killed due to their outrageous behaviour and lack of consideration for others. The amenity of the CBD is being compromised by their open flouting of our laws and the attraction of the city as a retailing centre is being substantially diminished. The employers of these couriers are equally to blame and continue to embrace an "Eyes Wide Shut" philosophy while the rest of the community suffers. Bicycle couriers are also giving a bad name to other law abiding cyclists at a time when lawful cycling should be encouraged as an important transport mode and governments should be putting in place better infrastructure to support bicycle transport and assist in making Sydney the "living and accessible city. We want action and we want it now."

http://www.parliament.nsw.gov.au/prod/la...08400173f67ca25704a001dcf6b!OpenDocument

In 1995 there were a total of 7 pedestrian deaths and 215 injuries. Of these, one pedestrian was killed and 12 injured when hit by pedal cycles. In the case of the fatality the pedestrian was deemed responsible. In 5 of the cases of pedestrian injury the cyclist was deemed responsible and in only 1 of those 5 cases was the cyclist identified as a courier.
In 1996 there were a total of three pedestrians killed and 260 injured. Of these, there were 14 pedestrians injured when hit by pedal cycles. In 10 of these cases the cyclist was deemed responsible and in 8 of those 10 cases the cyclist was identified as a courier.
In 1997 there was one pedestrian killed and 257 injured. Of these, there were 8 pedestrians injured when hit by pedal cycles. In 4 of these cases the cyclist was deemed responsible and in only one of those 4 cases was the cyclist identified as a courier.
In 1998 there were a total of 2 pedestrians killed and 278 injured. Of these, there were 4 pedestrians injured when hit by pedal cycles. In 3 of these cases the cyclist was deemed responsible. In all 3 of these cases the cyclist was identified as being a courier.
In 1999 (provisional data) there were no pedestrians killed but 208 injured. Of these, there were 14 pedestrians injured when hit by pedal cycles. In 10 cases the cyclist was deemed responsible. In 5 of those 10 cases the cyclist was identified as a courier.

[SpongeG]

has anyone seen this set of pics?

http://www.flickr.com/photos/88364173@N00/sets/72157610684810854/

some neat ones

[officedweller]

Yeah, they were posted a while back.

[argon007]

Olympic Station will be finished construction by September 2009?? it looks behind when i see the tafyn's blog...

[SpongeG]

where is olympic station?

[Vancity]

isn't olympic station bridgeport station?

[Vancity]

Originally Posted by mr.x2

you might get some short stub office buildings as tall as River Rock and a few casino/hotel expansions, but nothing more than that considering it's right under the YVR approach.

I see. I'm curious, but why doesn't Richmond build more office towers? And why can't they build higher buildings that are not under the YVR approach? I wonder why the city can't build higher buildings (residential or otherwise) around the No. 3 Rd area? surely that area is not under the YVR approach, is it? Just wondering about that, cause Richmond could really use a more diverse skyline. as it is right now, it's pretty flat. and they need to densify even more!