Metro Vancouver Bike & Pedestrian Discussion

[Large Cat]

Originally Posted by Klazu

Well, parking on Howe seems popular and is always full, but I am not sure who are these people parking there. There is nothing that exciting along south Howe that would require people coming to Downtown. If it's just commuter parking, that can always be forced to nearby parkades.

As a side note, adding bike lane on Howe had one disadvantage and that was it removing One Wall Centre tower from having any move-in parking space. It was a pain having to park in the parkade when we moved out, causing lots of walking and time wasted.

It would be interesting if the city added maybe 1 taxi/move in parking spot per condo building, if only because taxi drivers are often (read: hundreds of times a night) forced to use bus stops instead to do their busines (contributing hugely to bus delays), and indeed it would be hard to move in or out everything if using a personal vehicle to bring the stuff. Or, if they converted still more regular street parking to these limited uses. It does seem like most of the people parking on Howe and Seymour have no special reason to be parking there throughout the day or night.

[s211]

Originally Posted by Large Cat

It does seem like most of the people parking on Howe and Seymour have no special reason to be parking there throughout the day or night.

I'm sure they only park there for sh-ts 'n' giggles.

[officedweller]

Off-topic...

During university in Toronto, I lived at 1001 Bay (early 1990s)-
It had an actual loading bay for moving in and out that could hold a reasonably sized truck (not a semi-tractor trailer I don't think).

It also had a double-sided moving elevator where the "back" door of the elevator opened directly onto the loading bay.

Since the building had 2 banks of elevators (lowrise and highrise) facing each other - if you were moving using an elevator on the other bank, the elevator backing onto the loading bay would sit at ground with both doors open and serve as a passageway to the loading bay.

But of course all that's too "big city" for Vancouver.

[wrenegade]

As a cyclist who commutes along Smithe requently, I think a Smithe street bike lane is a terrible idea. Right now, the access that is provided to Beatty street is great and worthwhile. However, continuing up Smithe street is a waste of time for most cyclists. In order to hit all of the lights (even with a separated bike lane) one would have to average over 38km/h and put out over 400 watts for about a minute. And make the light coming off of the Cambie bridge. That is tough for most cyclists, let along commuters with a backpack or panniers (in all my attempts I've made it once).

Strava: Smithe Street Lights

Adding lane separation, and potentially restricting right turns would jam up Smithe onto the Cambie street bridge in the morning rush. It would only provide access to another good bike route all the way up at Hornby as in order to get onto Richards you'd have to cross three lanes of traffic to make a left turn. Directing bike traffic to Robson street where traffic is slower and the road is narrower is a much better idea. After the climb up Beatty (which has a bike lane), Robson has less of a grade and it is easier to make a turn to get onto Richards.

As for Nelson? I very rarely bike it, but drive it almost daily. It is a zoo with traffic. There are frequent right turns at Howe, Richards, Mainland and Cambie. A lot of those are cabs zipping across two lanes to make the turn into Yaletown. Why choose Nelson over Helmcken, which already has the Comox bikeway connection? I find this choice a little dumb as well. Obviously the south connection to get onto the Cambie bridge from Helmcken would require more work than from Nelson, but I think there is plenty of room along Cambie to make the connection from Helmcken park to Nelson (as there is a landscaped median in the middle of the road).

Changes to Smithe/Nelson, whether or not they eliminate a lane of traffic (god help us if they do) will slow the flow of traffic and cause further backups on those two arterials due to conflicts with turning cars and bikes in curb lanes. I am ALL for improvements to bike infrastructure (the Richards bike lane separated by parked cars is great) but I would definitely advise against either of these two routes unless cyclists are comfortable in traffic and can move very quickly.

[officedweller]

City of North Vancouver to use reserves for bike lift study
Ben Bengtson / North Shore News
December 9, 2015 12:00 AM

...

At Monday’s council meeting it was decided in a 4-3 vote that the CNV would use $60,000 appropriated from its general reserve fund to pay for a study to look at an urban bike lift’s feasibility.


...

http://www.nsnews.com/news/city-of-north-vancouver-to-use-reserves-for-bike-lift-study-1.2129068

[Large Cat]

Originally Posted by officedweller

http://www.nsnews.com/news/city-of-north-vancouver-to-use-reserves-for-bike-lift-study-1.2129068

Sweet. Here's hoping New West follows suit or draws on this study.

[CanSpice]

Originally Posted by Large Cat

Sweet. Here's hoping New West follows suit or draws on this study.

They probably will. I was talking with one of New West's councillors the other day, he said that they just did a field trip with the mayor of North Van because the two cities are incredibly similar. They talked about housing (the mayor of North Van lives in a laneway house, which is what's being talked about in New West these days with the Official Community Plan consultation process currently going on) and transportation. There's been rumblings in New West for a while for some kind of bike escalator from downtown to uptown, and I would be shocked if the two groups didn't talk about this sort of thing.

[officedweller]

Originally Posted by CanSpice

... because the two cities are incredibly similar.

Weren't they both laid out the same way by the Royal Engineers?

[officedweller]

Price Tags has a post on the proposed pedestrian & bike bridge in New Westminster to Queensborough:

https://pricetags.wordpress.com/2015/12/10/q2q-bridge/


http://www.newwestcity.ca/database/files/library/Q2Q_Bridge_Brochure_2015_02_02.pdf



https://pricetags.wordpress.com/2015/12/10/q2q-bridge/

[Marshal]

Originally Posted by wrenegade

As a cyclist who commutes along Smithe requently, I think a Smithe street bike lane is a terrible idea. Right now, the access that is provided to Beatty street is great and worthwhile. However, continuing up Smithe street is a waste of time for most cyclists. In order to hit all of the lights (even with a separated bike lane) one would have to average over 38km/h and put out over 400 watts for about a minute. And make the light coming off of the Cambie bridge. That is tough for most cyclists, let along commuters with a backpack or panniers (in all my attempts I've made it once).

Strava: Smithe Street Lights

Adding lane separation, and potentially restricting right turns would jam up Smithe onto the Cambie street bridge in the morning rush. It would only provide access to another good bike route all the way up at Hornby as in order to get onto Richards you'd have to cross three lanes of traffic to make a left turn. Directing bike traffic to Robson street where traffic is slower and the road is narrower is a much better idea. After the climb up Beatty (which has a bike lane), Robson has less of a grade and it is easier to make a turn to get onto Richards.

As for Nelson? I very rarely bike it, but drive it almost daily. It is a zoo with traffic. There are frequent right turns at Howe, Richards, Mainland and Cambie. A lot of those are cabs zipping across two lanes to make the turn into Yaletown. Why choose Nelson over Helmcken, which already has the Comox bikeway connection? I find this choice a little dumb as well. Obviously the south connection to get onto the Cambie bridge from Helmcken would require more work than from Nelson, but I think there is plenty of room along Cambie to make the connection from Helmcken park to Nelson (as there is a landscaped median in the middle of the road).

Changes to Smithe/Nelson, whether or not they eliminate a lane of traffic (god help us if they do) will slow the flow of traffic and cause further backups on those two arterials due to conflicts with turning cars and bikes in curb lanes. I am ALL for improvements to bike infrastructure (the Richards bike lane separated by parked cars is great) but I would definitely advise against either of these two routes unless cyclists are comfortable in traffic and can move very quickly.

Bang On!
I am also a committed cyclist who would like some common sense applied to the visions promoted by a number of Metro municipalities. I would love better biking infrastructure in order to make it more efficient, less in conflict with car traffic, and more safe. However, the bike lanes we currently have downtown are enough. Until the percentage of travel by bicycles grows way beyond where it is today, I think it is stupid to remove car lanes and parking. Yah, we want to promote this green mode of transport. I think the current lanes do that. In fact, as well used as they are, their potency is more symbolic than anything. I have no trouble connecting up reasonable routes and creating new separated routes in less dense parts of the city, but the inner city is a grown up place; a place where fact and reason should govern. Again, it is simply true that not nearly enough people want to use bikes to get around. I do, but I'm not stupid enough to think my pure green cycling heart needs to win the battle over space.

The city needs to knock off the silliness and realize that their efforts need to be focused on transit!

As a bit of a side note, the best thing I ever did was hang up my road bike and pick up a mountain bike. In city traffic, I can go just as fast (close) and there is a lot of security (which reduces stress) in knowing I can't be thrown by a pebble or a grate, and that I can ride up a curb, or whatever, if I need to. I would have quit city cycling if I hadn't done this change. When the stats show a certain percentage of cyclists are injured or killed every year by traffic, I know that my mountain biking odds are considerably better.

[s211]

Originally Posted by Marshal

Bang On!
I am also a committed cyclist who would like some common sense applied to the visions promoted by a number of Metro municipalities. I would love better biking infrastructure in order to make it more efficient, less in conflict with car traffic, and more safe. However, the bike lanes we currently have downtown are enough. Until the percentage of travel by bicycles grows way beyond where it is today, I think it is stupid to remove car lanes and parking. Yah, we want to promote this green mode of transport. I think the current lanes do that. In fact, as well used as they are, their potency is more symbolic than anything. I have no trouble connecting up reasonable routes and creating new separated routes in less dense parts of the city, but the inner city is a grown up place; a place where fact and reason should govern. Again, it is simply true that not nearly enough people want to use bikes to get around. I do, but I'm not stupid enough to think my pure green cycling heart needs to win the battle over space.

The city needs to knock off the silliness and realize that their efforts need to be focused on transit!

As a bit of a side note, the best thing I ever did was hang up my road bike and pick up a mountain bike. In city traffic, I can go just as fast (close) and there is a lot of security (which reduces stress) in knowing I can't be thrown by a pebble or a grate, and that I can ride up a curb, or whatever, if I need to. I would have quit city cycling if I hadn't done this change. When the stats show a certain percentage of cyclists are injured or killed every year by traffic, I know that my mountain biking odds are considerably better.

Post of the week.

[jozero]

Originally Posted by Marshal

Bang On!
I am also a committed cyclist who would like some common sense applied to the visions promoted by a number of Metro municipalities. I would love better biking infrastructure in order to make it more efficient, less in conflict with car traffic, and more safe. However, the bike lanes we currently have downtown are enough. Until the percentage of travel by bicycles grows way beyond where it is today, I think it is stupid to remove car lanes and parking. Yah, we want to promote this green mode of transport. I think the current lanes do that. In fact, as well used as they are, their potency is more symbolic than anything. I have no trouble connecting up reasonable routes and creating new separated routes in less dense parts of the city, but the inner city is a grown up place; a place where fact and reason should govern. Again, it is simply true that not nearly enough people want to use bikes to get around. I do, but I'm not stupid enough to think my pure green cycling heart needs to win the battle over space.

The city needs to knock off the silliness and realize that their efforts need to be focused on transit!

As a bit of a side note, the best thing I ever did was hang up my road bike and pick up a mountain bike. In city traffic, I can go just as fast (close) and there is a lot of security (which reduces stress) in knowing I can't be thrown by a pebble or a grate, and that I can ride up a curb, or whatever, if I need to. I would have quit city cycling if I hadn't done this change. When the stats show a certain percentage of cyclists are injured or killed every year by traffic, I know that my mountain biking odds are considerably better.

I'd say both of you are looking at this wrong. You are both dedicated cyclists, you would bike no matter what. Our traffic issues won't be helped by creating more hard core cyclists, what we need is casual cyclists seeing it as a safe everyday mode of transport. Unless there is a solid *connected* *safe* network of bike lanes ordinary people will not see biking as a mode of transportation. Bike lanes are not meant to appeal to hard core cyclists, if they are only used by dedicated cyclists then they have failed. If instead even a small percentage of casual cyclists see the network, and think "you know, I think I can cycle to work safely or make a few trips via bicycle" then they have succeeded. That will not happen unless we have a full network of bike lanes - just like we have a full network of roads for cars even for making short trips.

[Large Cat]

Originally Posted by jozero

I'd say both of you are looking at this wrong. You are both dedicated cyclists, you would bike no matter what. Our traffic issues won't be helped by creating more hard core cyclists, what we need is casual cyclists seeing it as a safe everyday mode of transport. Unless there is a solid *connected* *safe* network of bike lanes ordinary people will not see biking as a mode of transportation. Bike lanes are not meant to appeal to hard core cyclists, if they are only used by dedicated cyclists then they have failed. If instead even a small percentage of casual cyclists see the network, and think "you know, I think I can cycle to work safely or make a few trips via bicycle" then they have succeeded. That will not happen unless we have a full network of bike lanes - just like we have a full network of roads for cars even for making short trips.

Word.

[whatnext]

Originally Posted by wrenegade

As a cyclist who commutes along Smithe requently, I think a Smithe street bike lane is a terrible idea. Right now, the access that is provided to Beatty street is great and worthwhile. However, continuing up Smithe street is a waste of time for most cyclists. In order to hit all of the lights (even with a separated bike lane) one would have to average over 38km/h and put out over 400 watts for about a minute. And make the light coming off of the Cambie bridge. That is tough for most cyclists, let along commuters with a backpack or panniers (in all my attempts I've made it once).

Strava: Smithe Street Lights

Adding lane separation, and potentially restricting right turns would jam up Smithe onto the Cambie street bridge in the morning rush. It would only provide access to another good bike route all the way up at Hornby as in order to get onto Richards you'd have to cross three lanes of traffic to make a left turn. Directing bike traffic to Robson street where traffic is slower and the road is narrower is a much better idea. After the climb up Beatty (which has a bike lane), Robson has less of a grade and it is easier to make a turn to get onto Richards.

As for Nelson? I very rarely bike it, but drive it almost daily. It is a zoo with traffic. There are frequent right turns at Howe, Richards, Mainland and Cambie. A lot of those are cabs zipping across two lanes to make the turn into Yaletown. Why choose Nelson over Helmcken, which already has the Comox bikeway connection? I find this choice a little dumb as well. Obviously the south connection to get onto the Cambie bridge from Helmcken would require more work than from Nelson, but I think there is plenty of room along Cambie to make the connection from Helmcken park to Nelson (as there is a landscaped median in the middle of the road).

Changes to Smithe/Nelson, whether or not they eliminate a lane of traffic (god help us if they do) will slow the flow of traffic and cause further backups on those two arterials due to conflicts with turning cars and bikes in curb lanes. I am ALL for improvements to bike infrastructure (the Richards bike lane separated by parked cars is great) but I would definitely advise against either of these two routes unless cyclists are comfortable in traffic and can move very quickly.

+1

The problems you have pointed out are spot on. I'd add that the Smithe route is especially bad as it is the route for many drivers not used to downtown driving, but coming in to see a game or maybe shop.

Unfortunately the CoV will blithely ignore the traffic jams they will have created over the Cambie Street Bridge, just as they have ignored the ones they created on the Dunsmuir Viaduct. Any theoretical reduction in emissions will be offset by idling vehicles.

[s211]

Originally Posted by whatnext

Unfortunately the CoV will blithely ignore the traffic jams they will have created over the Cambie Street Bridge, just as they have ignored the ones they created on the Dunsmuir Viaduct. Any theoretical reduction in emissions will be offset by idling vehicles.

Blasphemy!

[wrenegade]

Originally Posted by jozero

I'd say both of you are looking at this wrong. You are both dedicated cyclists, you would bike no matter what. Our traffic issues won't be helped by creating more hard core cyclists, what we need is casual cyclists seeing it as a safe everyday mode of transport. Unless there is a solid *connected* *safe* network of bike lanes ordinary people will not see biking as a mode of transportation. Bike lanes are not meant to appeal to hard core cyclists, if they are only used by dedicated cyclists then they have failed. If instead even a small percentage of casual cyclists see the network, and think "you know, I think I can cycle to work safely or make a few trips via bicycle" then they have succeeded. That will not happen unless we have a full network of bike lanes - just like we have a full network of roads for cars even for making short trips.

This is exactly what I am trying to say. Smithe is a poor choice for a bike lane except for those who are dedicated cyclists. Separated or not, Smithe/Nelson are inferior choices to Robson/Helmcken because they will make it more imposing to casual cyclists.

[SFUVancouver]

Originally Posted by jozero

I'd say both of you are looking at this wrong. You are both dedicated cyclists, you would bike no matter what. Our traffic issues won't be helped by creating more hard core cyclists, what we need is casual cyclists seeing it as a safe everyday mode of transport. Unless there is a solid *connected* *safe* network of bike lanes ordinary people will not see biking as a mode of transportation. Bike lanes are not meant to appeal to hard core cyclists, if they are only used by dedicated cyclists then they have failed. If instead even a small percentage of casual cyclists see the network, and think "you know, I think I can cycle to work safely or make a few trips via bicycle" then they have succeeded. That will not happen unless we have a full network of bike lanes - just like we have a full network of roads for cars even for making short trips.

Well said. Separated, safe cycling infrastructure is about appealing to the 8 to 80+ age bracket of average cyclists, not road warriors. We could have sidewalks that appeal to dedicated walkers who will walk no matter what, but they probably wouldn't look much at all like the sidewalk network we have today. A sprinter could race across traffic and, thus, not understand the need for a signalized intersection. In fact, they may be hostile to it because it means that they will face criticism from drivers for holding up traffic, which may feel undeserved because they could happily continue dashing across traffic to their heart's content. The sidewalks and signalized intersections are no more intended for the dash-across-the-street "hard core walker" than separated, safe cycling infrastructure is intended for the ride-in-all-traffic "hard core cyclist".

[city-dweller]

Originally Posted by SFUVancouver

Well said. Separated, safe cycling infrastructure is about appealing to the 8 to 80+ age bracket of average cyclists, not road warriors. We could have sidewalks that appeal to dedicated walkers who will walk no matter what, but they probably wouldn't look much at all like the sidewalk network we have today. A sprinter could race across traffic and, thus, not understand the need for a signalized intersection. In fact, they may be hostile to it because it means that they will face criticism from drivers for holding up traffic, which may feel undeserved because they could happily continue dashing across traffic to their heart's content. The sidewalks and signalized intersections are no more intended for the dash-across-the-street "hard core walker" than separated, safe cycling infrastructure is intended for the ride-in-all-traffic "hard core cyclist".

Epic

[officedweller]

Came across this on the VPSN website:


http://vancouverpublicspace.ca/2015/12/09/on-bikes-budgets-and-making-more-room-for-the-sidewalk/

So from that diagram, it suggests the following:

- Smithe and Nelson bike paths will not be "protected" (so minimal interference with vehicle traffic flows)
- the existing Richards St. bike path (on the curb side of parked cars) is considered a "protected" path
- other new "protected" paths could adopt the Richards St. model (i.e extension of the Richards St. path and the Beatty St. path) (without the separated bike lane delayed traffic light issues)

[SFUVancouver]

^ Thanks for the map. It looks like the network that is being built is to take one from a protected ride north and south on the Cambie Street bridge to the protected downtown network on Dunsmuir via Beatty. The buffered bike lane on Dunsmuir will be extended further to meet Pacific to the south and Waterstreet to the north. I fully support these improvements.