Winnipeg Construction VIII

[wags_in_the_peg]

Originally Posted by rrskylar

Hope your not talking about the cyclists who feel the need to take up a whole lane, peddle 5 KMPH in rush hour in January. Of course their not selfish at all, after all they are saving the environment and the cars and buses forced to idle behind them, well then they should have taken their bikes instead as well....sound about right for some of the dip shit cyclist types?

and they pay taxes too so they have the right to the road.

[Riverman]

Pretty sure we are both talking about the fact that very few cyclists observe or obey the rules of the road. If they did there would be no complaints from me.

[bomberjet]

Originally Posted by steveosnyder

I think the difference comes with the on and off ramps for bikes and buses. If we sunk the RT to seperate the grade we would still need to move buses on and off the RT line somewhere along it. I doubt we would do anything sane like have people transfer from a local route to the RT route at stations along the line.

I was thinking the BRT would go over the intersections. You could lower the east-west roads crossing under by a few metres without requiring pump stations everywhere. As there is still a hump left in the roads where it used to cross the tracks. So you would only be required to raise the transitway be a few metres, as opposed to 7m-10m if the ground was completely flat.

You could have access points for buses to come and go from the transitway at locations away from the intersections. But would still have issue with uses crossing the AT path. I think that is the main benefit of BRT. The buses can leave the transitway, do a loop through local neighborhoods, and get back on the transitway for the trip downtown.

[CoryB]

Originally Posted by plrh

Couldn't they just use rail crossing arms? It wouldn't be much to stop traffic for ten seconds every 7 minutes or whatever. Just thinking out loud.

Transit priority traffic lights would likely be a cheaper solution to implement. Most of the streets crossing the old railway ROW between Raleigh and Gateway already have traffic lights. You then put a sensor in the ground an appropriate distance away to notify the existing traffic light a bus is coming and to yield access. You match that with the similar sensors on the grade crossing to provide a light to the bus letting them know it is clear or blocked. It is very similar to the crossing arms.

Originally Posted by steveosnyder

Is there enough room between Raleigh and Gateway for both an AT path and a BRT line? I'd say the ROW is somewhere between 80 and 100 feet... With the space needed for stations, accessability ramps, and bus exit ramps at major cross streets I don't know if that's enough room.

I saw a COW presentation a number of years back that said the cooridor conversion was done with a future transit way in mind. I can't remember to full details of the layout and that could be changed by the time the implementation happens.

[cllew]

Originally Posted by bomberjet

I was thinking the BRT would go over the intersections. You could lower the east-west roads crossing under by a few metres without requiring pump stations everywhere. As there is still a hump left in the roads where it used to cross the tracks. So you would only be required to raise the transitway be a few metres, as opposed to 7m-10m if the ground was completely flat.

You could have access points for buses to come and go from the transitway at locations away from the intersections. But would still have issue with uses crossing the AT path. I think that is the main benefit of BRT. The buses can leave the transitway, do a loop through local neighborhoods, and get back on the transitway for the trip downtown.

BRT plans I saw a few years ago for that line were all level crossings. I think the BRT lanes had vehicle detector loops so they would get priority at the signals.

[steveosnyder]

Originally Posted by bomberjet

I think that is the main benefit of BRT. The buses can leave the transitway, do a loop through local neighborhoods, and get back on the transitway for the trip downtown.

I'm personally not a big fan of this sort of design/planning. I would prefer a method where you take a local route from wherever you are to the RT station and transfer. It means you would need less stations along the Rapid Transit route, less on/off areas, and it makes transit more predictable.

The other thing about that sort of plan is that you can have hubs at the stations... Right now all the stations are just sit and wait, but if every local route in the area dumps people off in a terminal/station to transfer then it creates a critical mass of people to sustain some sort of retail within it, which would (could) generate money to offset costs of operating transit.

[rrskylar]

Originally Posted by steveosnyder

I hope you're not talking from the perspective of an automobile commuter who feels the need to change lanes every 100 feet, cutting people off just to save themselves 5 seconds. Of course they're not selfish at all, even though the projects we build to save them a few more seconds are forcing everyones taxes up... Sounds about right some dip shit "my time is more important than sustainable government" automobile types?

No I'm just talking about certain cyclists who feel the need to monopolize a lane usually during rush hour to the detriment of everyone else! The whole active transportation BS propagated by a very, very small but overly vocal minority seems to have had their way with city hall. AT fanatics got their way with the Disraeli rebuild, separate dedicated bridge and all except NO ONE uses it and bicyclists still use the main bridges. Exactly what happens when certain groups get more clout than they rightfully should!

[esquire]

Originally Posted by rrskylar

No I'm just talking about certain cyclists who feel the need to monopolize a lane usually during rush hour to the detriment of everyone else! The whole active transportation BS propagated by a very, very small but overly vocal minority seems to have had their way with city hall. AT fanatics got their way with the Disraeli rebuild, separate dedicated bridge and all except NO ONE uses it and bicyclists still use the main bridges. Exactly what happens when certain groups get more clout than they rightfully should!

The reality is that an actual AT network doesn't exist yet. The hardest parts of that network to build are the river crossings and grade separations, so this was a golden opportunity to build a challenging part of the network early on, at a fairly modest cost. Once more AT routes feed into the bridge, I'm sure it will become better used.

Anyone who doubts the power of a well designed AT route to attract cyclists should come and check out the Assiniboine Ave cycling path.

[rrskylar]

Originally Posted by esquire

The reality is that an actual AT network doesn't exist yet. The hardest parts of that network to build are the river crossings and grade separations, so this was a golden opportunity to build a challenging part of the network early on, at a fairly modest cost. Once more AT routes feed into the bridge, I'm sure it will become better used.

Anyone who doubts the power of a well designed AT route to attract cyclists should come and check out the Assiniboine Ave cycling path.

An AT network works when it is separated traffic, what they are trying to do in Winnipeg makes little sense, narrowing already overly used roadways for AT is just BS and creates even more gridlock.

[rypinion]

Originally Posted by rrskylar

narrowing already overly used roadways for AT is just BS and creates even more gridlock.

Except the exact opposite is being proven again and again as true. Narrowing roadways is substantially reducing accidents and the severity of those accidents, while not affecting throughput.

[robertocarlos]

Originally Posted by rrskylar

An AT network works when it is separated traffic, what they are trying to do in Winnipeg makes little sense, narrowing already overly used roadways for AT is just BS and creates even more gridlock.

Hargrave down to one lane is wonderful. The cyclists and wheelchair users have an easy time getting through the rough streets to the mall even in the winter. The sidewalks are useless. If you want more than one lane for car travel, get rid of some parking lanes.

[cllew]

What frosts me is on streets like Princess where the bikes are in the traffic lanes and not using the dedicated bike lane on the left side of the street.

[1ajs]

the bike lane on princess is unsafe to use

[LilZebra]

Originally Posted by esquire

The reality is that an actual AT network doesn't exist yet. The hardest parts of that network to build are the river crossings and grade separations, so this was a golden opportunity to build a challenging part of the network early on, at a fairly modest cost. Once more AT routes feed into the bridge, I'm sure it will become better used.

Anyone who doubts the power of a well designed AT route to attract cyclists should come and check out the Assiniboine Ave cycling path.

The southbound bike lane over the Osborne St. Bridge curves/tapers at the end.

I find that dangerous to my safety.

Maybe that's why I hardly use it.

And, why no cycling lanes along Smith/Donald Streets?

[The Unknown Poster]

Getting lost is the point that was made of how so many cyclists still disobey traffic laws. I wish the bike lobby would target their own users. I think much of the discourse between cyclists and drivers is the lack of respect of many cyclists. Not all, ofcourse, but many.

[buzzg]

Originally Posted by cllew

What frosts me is on streets like Princess where the bikes are in the traffic lanes and not using the dedicated bike lane on the left side of the street.

Well the problem with Princess is that a) the bike lane abruptly ends at McDermot and the lanes narrow, b) because the bike lane (for some reason) is on the left side, when it does end, all of a sudden you're on the wrong side of the street compared to most other streets/lanes. It's dumb. So as annoying as it is, I don't blame cyclists for going on that side. To make matters worse, where it ends at McDermot, if you turn left (because it's a one-way) there's no bike lane until you cross Main. It's a mess.

I don't really know why they didn't account for a bike lane on the RHS when they just redid Donald from Ellice to Graham... the Princess portion of the lane had already been painted for a few years.

What really annoys me beyond the cities poor/inconsistent bike wayfinding system, is when they just arbitrarily but up green "Bike Route" signs on random streets that are clearly not designed for bikes and are very unsafe/narrow. Just because you put up a sign doesn't mean this is really an acceptable "bike route."

[esquire]

Originally Posted by The Unknown Poster

Getting lost is the point that was made of how so many cyclists still disobey traffic laws. I wish the bike lobby would target their own users. I think much of the discourse between cyclists and drivers is the lack of respect of many cyclists. Not all, ofcourse, but many.

I can't say I've noticed this to be a major problem. Which laws do you see cyclists disobeying?

[Simplicity]

Originally Posted by esquire

I can't say I've noticed this to be a major problem. Which laws do you see cyclists disobeying?

Everybody gets pissy about cyclists not stopping at 4 ways when there is no other traffic when a lot of cities have already relaxed that requirement a long time ago...

[CoryB]

Originally Posted by esquire

I can't say I've noticed this to be a major problem. Which laws do you see cyclists disobeying?

1. Cyclist ask other vehicles for a meter of space when they pass but forget that when pulling up next to those same vehicles at lights.

2. Cyclists moving between the roadway and sidewalk as it suits their personal desires.

3. Cyclists using pedestrian crosswalk lights to force traffic to stop so they can ride across at an otherwise uncontrolled intersection. If a cyclist absolutely must cross there the proper procedure is to dismount first and walk your bike across.

And that is just the start of the list.

Originally Posted by Simplicity

Everybody gets pissy about cyclists not stopping at 4 ways when there is no other traffic when a lot of cities have already relaxed that requirement a long time ago...

So should motorized vehicles also be allowed to do a rolling stop at a 4 way when there is no other traffic? Traffic laws need to be applied in a uniform manner.

[Riverman]

Originally Posted by esquire

I can't say I've noticed this to be a major problem. Which laws do you see cyclists disobeying?

Haha funny.