Metro Vancouver Bike & Pedestrian Discussion

[biketrouble]

Originally Posted by LeftCoaster

why draw the line at 30km?

Because the data shows that the rate of pedestrian fatalities and severe injuries sharply increases as impact speeds go above 30kph. So if the desire is to get the best effect on fatalities while minimizing the impact to drivers, 30kph is an optimal speed limit.

See: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zone_30

[go_leafs_go02]

Originally Posted by biketrouble

Because the data shows that the rate of pedestrian fatalities and severe injuries sharply increases as impact speeds go above 30kph. So if the desire is to get the best effect on fatalities while minimizing the impact to drivers, 30kph is an optimal speed limit.

See: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zone_30

If you're going to have the road signed at 30 km/h, you better have a road meant to be driven at 30 km/h.

Speed Limits are meant to be set at a speed in which it's safest to drive. people drive at what they feel comfortable. Heavy heavy heavy enforcement will cause them to slow down, but it can also turn political for those very reasons.

[jlousa]

Easy then move all bikes and pedestrians to the lanes where the limits are already 20km/h, all in the name of safety of course.

[mezzanine]

Originally Posted by go_leafs_go02

If you're going to have the road signed at 30 km/h, you better have a road meant to be driven at 30 km/h.

Totally agree with this. If we need to slow traffic on local street bike lanes, hardwire the speed limit by building traffic calming measures.

The city is enhancing the pedestrian realm by building wider sidewalks and curb bulges on bute street. Car traffic will be slowed by this. what is the chicken vs the egg?

[biketrouble]

Originally Posted by jlousa

Easy then move all bikes and pedestrians to the lanes where the limits are already 20km/h, all in the name of safety of course.

Is it too much to ask that the moderator not troll the forum?

[biketrouble]

Originally Posted by go_leafs_go02

If you're going to have the road signed at 30 km/h, you better have a road meant to be driven at 30 km/h.

Speed Limits are meant to be set at a speed in which it's safest to drive. people drive at what they feel comfortable. Heavy heavy heavy enforcement will cause them to slow down, but it can also turn political for those very reasons.

I agree, like Mezzanine above. Traffic calming is key here. This is one of the things that drives me nuts about the updates to Capilano Road in North Van - the road has a 50kph speed limit but is built like a mini-freeway, and guess what, people drive like it is one - I have a hard time keeping my speed in the car down too, despite seeing exactly what it's like from the other side. Why build a road with a design speed that's twice the speed limit? It's enough to make you yearn for speed cameras.

[go_leafs_go02]

Originally Posted by biketrouble

I agree, like Mezzanine above. Traffic calming is key here. This is one of the things that drives me nuts about the updates to Capilano Road in North Van - the road has a 50kph speed limit but is built like a mini-freeway, and guess what, people drive like it is one - I have a hard time keeping my speed in the car down too, despite seeing exactly what it's like from the other side. Why build a road with a design speed that's twice the speed limit? It's enough to make you yearn for speed cameras.

I must ask, would you feel more comfortable if they simply raised the speed limit onto that road to 70-80 km/h to replicate how its' been designed?

There's nothing wrong with fast moving roadways, provided there's space provided for cyclists and pedestrians to keep them away from traffic. AND they're not in heavy residential neighbourhoods.

Traffic Calming is NOT always the solution. It's great for local roads, and in and around school zones. but some roads are meant to carry higher levels of traffic, and therefore also have higher speeds overall.

I just find it interesting how the speed limits here are often posted 20-40 km/h LOWER than what's safe to drive (based on the road conditions).

Wonder if people who have "speeding" concerns would really be concerned if the speed limit was close to what people drive, simply based on the road conditions.

Where I live, out in Cloverdale, most people drive 60 - 80 km/h on the arterial road network. Of course, the density is much lower, but still, the speed driven is realistic based on the road characteristics.

[jlousa]

Originally Posted by biketrouble

Is it too much to ask that the moderator not troll the forum?

I'm a member first and foremost, also don't see how it's a troll, it's certainly viable option if we're trying to seperate fast moving vehicles from slower moving methods of transportation. I can argue that it's no more silly then reducing the limit to 30km/h on all streets with pedestrians.

[deasine]

Originally Posted by go_leafs_go02

There's nothing wrong with fast moving roadways, provided there's space provided for cyclists and pedestrians to keep them away from traffic. AND they're not in heavy residential neighbourhoods.

Traffic Calming is NOT always the solution. It's great for local roads, and in and around school zones. but some roads are meant to carry higher levels of traffic, and therefore also have higher speeds overall.

This is the key here. There needs to be more effort in separating the different modes of traffic in order to reduce conflict between different modes of transport.

Case study: various cities in the Netherlands. In local roads with lower speed limits, all modes coexist with one another, but in higher speed roads, you are sure to see separate lanes for bike and vehicles.

[biketrouble]

Originally Posted by go_leafs_go02

There's nothing wrong with fast moving roadways, provided there's space provided for cyclists and pedestrians to keep them away from traffic. AND they're not in heavy residential neighbourhoods.

My argument in the case of Capilano Road is that either a) the separation between cyclists and cars is inadequate or b) the design speed is too high. It is a designated (and busy) bike route with standard-width painted bike lanes on each side (where it has any), which would be fine if the traffic were actually travelling at 50kph - which of course it isn't. So in this case the designated speed limit seems to be a fig-leaf which allows the designers to say they've done their job. I disagree.

[mezzanine]

Originally Posted by go_leafs_go02

Where I live, out in Cloverdale, most people drive 60 - 80 km/h on the arterial road network. Of course, the density is much lower, but still, the speed driven is realistic based on the road characteristics.

I think you left out a bit of detail. practically, you can only drive that fast in the green belt to the north, west and south, or on 176th street where it is engineered for higher traffic flows. you'd have to have brass balls to do 70-80 km/h by the commercial strip by highway 10, or even less dense areas on 64th ave, where you encounter single family homes, townhouses and parks.

[aberdeen5698]

Originally Posted by jlousa

Easy then move all bikes and pedestrians to the lanes where the limits are already 20km/h, all in the name of safety of course.

I don't have an objection to this in principle - there are already stretches where I bike in the back lanes rather than cycling on the busy adjacent street (for example, north of 54th between Vivian and Rupert).

But the devil is in the details. One of the reasons the bike routes are where they are is because they provide a generally continuous route that has cyclist-activated lights to allow safe crossings of arterials. It's pretty hard to find that in the laneway network.

Speaking as both a motorist and a cyclist, a 30km/h speed limit on bike routes is the sensible thing to do. Those bike routes are on neighborhood streets, and in almost all cases cars don't have to travel on them for more than a few blocks before reaching an arterial or accessing an alternative neighborhood street to take them to an arterial. A speed restriction for those few blocks is not an unreasonable thing to do in return for the increased safety, IMHO.

I agree that without calming measures actual speeds may still be higher, but you've got to start somewhere and at least on average they'll tend to be slower than if the routes weren't posted at 30 km/h.

[WarrenC12]

Originally Posted by aberdeen5698

Speaking as both a motorist and a cyclist, a 30km/h speed limit on bike routes is the sensible thing to do. Those bike routes are on neighborhood streets, and in almost all cases cars don't have to travel on them for more than a few blocks before reaching an arterial or accessing an alternative neighborhood street to take them to an arterial. A speed restriction for those few blocks is not an unreasonable thing to do in return for the increased safety, IMHO.

I agree that without calming measures actual speeds may still be higher, but you've got to start somewhere and at least on average they'll tend to be slower than if the routes weren't posted at 30 km/h.

I'm not sure the speed limits alone will do anything. Frankly there is so little traffic enforcement in the city it's pathetic. I cycle in Vancouver, and unless there are traffic circles at every intersection, drivers will speed through residential areas, and use them as alternatives to busy arterial roads during rush hour (not for just getting to an arterial).

However the traffic circle really does eliminate that shortcutting, and keeps people to reasonable speeds.

[YVR Bruce]

I have looked for but cannot find info on bike facilities on the new bridge. Can anyone provide a link?

[officedweller]

Originally Posted by YVR Bruce

I have looked for but cannot find info on bike facilities on the new bridge. Can anyone provide a link?

If you are looking for the final design, bike paths and multi-user paths are shown on the plans here (go to Coquitlam/Cape Horn or Surrey, as applicable, and look for the applicable plan). The shared path on the bridge is on the east side of the deck.

Originally Posted by officedweller

It may have been posted before, but I just noticed these webpages on the Port Mann Highway 1 website with Detailed Project Designs (dated January 2012):

Vancouver/Burnaby:
http://www.pmh1project.com/in-your-community/vancouver-burnaby/Pages/Project-Designs.aspx

Coquitlam/Cape Horn:
http://www.pmh1project.com/in-your-community/coquitlam-cape-horn/Pages/Project-Designs.aspx

Surrey:
http://www.pmh1project.com/in-your-community/surrey/Pages/Project-Designs.aspx

Langley:
http://www.pmh1project.com/in-your-community/in-your-community-langley/Pages/Project-Designs.aspx

[go_leafs_go02]

http://www.pmh1project.com/Design%20Draw...0Port%20Mann%20Bridge%20-%2020120207.pdf

Multi-use pathway on the east side of the bridge...

[tybuilding]

Originally Posted by go_leafs_go02

http://www.pmh1project.com/Design%20Draw...0Port%20Mann%20Bridge%20-%2020120207.pdf

Multi-use pathway on the east side of the bridge...

This can't be correct:


• A new 1.4 metre-wide pedestrian/cyclist multi-use path on the east side of the
156 Street underpass and a new 1.5 metre-wide shoulder on the west side.
1.4m is not wide enough for a multi-use path. 3m should be the minimum width.

Drawing for 156st/160st

[deasine]

Originally Posted by tybuilding

This can't be correct:


• A new 1.4 metre-wide pedestrian/cyclist multi-use path on the east side of the
156 Street underpass and a new 1.5 metre-wide shoulder on the west side.
1.4m is not wide enough for a multi-use path. 3m should be the minimum width.

Drawing for 156st/160st

I think ti's 1.4m going northbound, and 1.5m going southbound (on the map, there is a cyclist commuter route on the west, and a multi-use path on the east.

[officedweller]

Originally Posted by tybuilding

This can't be correct:


• A new 1.4 metre-wide pedestrian/cyclist multi-use path on the east side of the
156 Street underpass and a new 1.5 metre-wide shoulder on the west side.
1.4m is not wide enough for a multi-use path. 3m should be the minimum width.

Yeah, that's hopefully a typo.
A shared cycle/peestrian path shouldn't be narrower than a dedicated cycle path - there wouldn't be any passing spce.
The multi-user path near 152nd is 3.5 m wide.

[SFUVancouver]

1.4 metres is the width of a standard residential side street sidewalk in the City of Vancouver. Add barriers on either side and what you have is really only suitable for people to walk in single file, much less cycle, much less cycle and pass anyone.

Hopefully its a typo, but this has been a highway project from day one and no amount of 'it supports cycling, walking, and transit!' is going to change that.