Metro Vancouver Road Infrastructure Discussion

[Zassk]

Originally Posted by libtard

The nelson road overpass was not built to accommodate any extra lanes.

It was built to fit 3 lanes under each span without height restrictions.

The current obstacle to easily adding lanes to 91 is just the rail crossing at No. 9 Road.

Originally Posted by Mininari

So, we'll have 10 lanes on the new George Massey Bridge, and 7 lanes (shoehorned) on the Alex Fraser Bridge... this will equate to 9 lanes northbound during the morning rush hour, and 8 northbound during the evening rush hour.

Meanwhile the OSB, KSB, ad QBB all have 2 lanes northbound, for a total of 6.

This math... doesn't make sense. How exactly can the ministry justify unplugging two major chokepoints crossing onto an ISLAND, without accounting for the additional demand that will be placed on the North Arm Crossings?

60% of the traffic crossing the Fraser south arm terminates in Richmond, so it doesn't necessarily have to add up to the same number of lanes on the north arm.

However, you forgot that the north arm has the Arthur Laing. So the north arm has 8 lanes across.

[Bdawe]

Originally Posted by Zassk

It was built to fit 3 lanes under each span without height restrictions.

The current obstacle to easily adding lanes to 91 is just the rail crossing at No. 9 Road.



60% of the traffic crossing the Fraser south arm terminates in Richmond, so it doesn't necessarily have to add up to the same number of lanes on the north arm.

However, you forgot that the north arm has the Arthur Laing. So the north arm has 8 lanes across.

Which is a figure that is itself related to the existing congestion through the Massey Tunnel. Faster and more consistent traffic flow will encourage people to make further trips

[jollyburger]

I guess requiring people to wear bright reflective vests and blinking lights when crossing dark roads would just be crazy talk.

The North Shore’s medical health officer is pushing for a drop in the speed limit to 30 kilometres per hour on neighbourhood streets in the name of public health. Dr. Mark Lysyshin is the keynote speaker at the Slow Down North Shore Forum scheduled for Thursday, Jan. 26 at District of North Vancouver council chambers.

http://www.nsnews.com/news/campaign-on-for-30-km-h-on-north-shore-s-residential-streets-1.8203921

The Provincial Health Officer had a similar report last year but their math seems to be bouncing around.

North Shore: “When pedestrians get hit at 30 km/h, they have a 90 per cent chance of surviving, whereas when they get hit at 50 km/h, they only have a 50 per cent chance of surviving,” he said.

BC: The human body has a limited tolerance for experiencing physical force. For
example, research shows that pedestrians have a 10 per cent risk of dying when
hit at 30 km/h, but an 80 per cent risk of dying when hit at 50 km/h. There are
different survivable speeds for different road users.

http://www2.gov.bc.ca/assets/gov/health/...ts/reducing-motor-vehicle-crashes-bc.pdf

The Globe & Mail seems to suggest these numbers are reflective of a free fall to the ground.

Although statistics vary, the research shows that being hit at 30 km/h is roughly like falling from the second storey of a building. Most people will survive. Being hit at 65 km/h is more like falling from the fifth floor. Most people will die. According to the Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development, when someone is hit at 70 km/h – a common speed on some Toronto arterial roads – they have a statistically zero chance of surviving.

30 - 10% chance of dying
50 - 80% chance of dying
70 - 100% chance of dying

I jyst want to know what are the percentages at 40km/h please.

[Xrayal]

Originally Posted by jollyburger

I jyst want to know what are the percentages at 40km/h please.

Here is a link to a good graphic I recently saw relating pedestrian death % to vehicle speeds.
https://pbs.twimg.com/media/C2zYj83XUAQqrIm.jpg:large

[jollyburger]

Thanks. Someone from AAA (yes, possibly biased) but some background on some of the research out there.

https://www.aaafoundation.org/sites/default/files/2011PedestrianRiskVsSpeed.pdf

[Pinion]

Originally Posted by jollyburger

I guess requiring people to wear bright reflective vests and blinking lights when crossing dark roads would just be crazy talk.



http://www.nsnews.com/news/campaign-on-for-30-km-h-on-north-shore-s-residential-streets-1.8203921

The Provincial Health Officer had a similar report last year but their math seems to be bouncing around.

North Shore: “When pedestrians get hit at 30 km/h, they have a 90 per cent chance of surviving, whereas when they get hit at 50 km/h, they only have a 50 per cent chance of surviving,” he said.

BC: The human body has a limited tolerance for experiencing physical force. For
example, research shows that pedestrians have a 10 per cent risk of dying when
hit at 30 km/h, but an 80 per cent risk of dying when hit at 50 km/h. There are
different survivable speeds for different road users.

http://www2.gov.bc.ca/assets/gov/health/...ts/reducing-motor-vehicle-crashes-bc.pdf

The Globe & Mail seems to suggest these numbers are reflective of a free fall to the ground.




30 - 10% chance of dying
50 - 80% chance of dying
70 - 100% chance of dying

I jyst want to know what are the percentages at 40km/h please.

I'd rather have more strict eyesight tests for drivers. It's not speeders that are the problem, it's people who literally can't see someone crossing the street. I have to turn on my phone flashlight to get people to stop at the crosswalk sometimes, even in good conditions.

And the amount of times I see 5+ cars blast through a crossing before I stop and the pedestrian enthusiastically thanks me is pathetic.

[aberdeen5698]

Originally Posted by jollyburger

I guess requiring people to wear bright reflective vests and blinking lights when crossing dark roads would just be crazy talk.

While wearing clothing that makes you visible isn't a bad idea, it won't prevent you from being hit by a distracted driver.

30km/h on residential streets seems like a perfectly reasonable proposal to me. Virtually all residential streets in the city are within 2 to 4 blocks of an arterial, so it's not as if it would have much of an impact on travel times.

[Metro-One]

I would think that 40 on residential streets and of course 30 near parks and schools would be a good compromise, but it would have to be an enforced 40.

I feel that having no difference between regular residential streets and parks / schools may actually make people drive faster through said zones.

Like everything it is a two way street. Both drivers and pedestrians should be aware when on the street, and wearing visible markings at night if riding or jogging is just a good idea if you are into such things as self preservation.

[CanSpice]

Reducing speed limits is something we're trying to do in New Westminster too. We (and here I'm putting on my hat as a member of the Advisory Committee for Transit, Bicycles, and Pedestrians) are going to start by recommending 30km/h limits along designated bicycle routes. New West doesn't have a lot of separated bike paths, so most of our bike routes use sharrows along (mostly) residential streets. Dropping the limits to 30km/h along these routes seems to make sense.

There are two major problems that are difficult to overcome when it comes to lowering speeds. One, the streets aren't designed for lower speeds. A lot of our streets and roads are wider than they need to be, and wider streets mean higher speeds. This is mostly easily seen in passing lanes on highways -- ever been stuck behind someone dawdling along on a single-lane highway waiting for the passing lane to pass them, only to have them speed up when the passing lane comes? They just naturally speed up because the road is wider, and they feel that they can drive more safely at higher speeds. Same thing happens on our residential and arterial streets. It doesn't matter what the speed limit sign says, people will just naturally drive the speed they feel is appropriate, and if the street is wide they'll drive faster. Fixing the streets is expensive.

The second problem is enforcement. You can put a 30km/h sign on a street but without additional police resources to enforce the speed, it's probably going to be for naught. And if you think that the police department can just write more tickets so they get more funding, that's not how it works. Traffic violation fines get sent to the provincial government, who then sends out money to each city and municipality according to the population. Vancouver PD could write zero traffic violation tickets and still get money from the traffic violation fine pot. Not only that, writing a ticket isn't "free money" because the officer needs to do paperwork, make themselves available for any appeals, etc, etc, etc.

[MIPS]

Cyclists are statistics in my opinion. I ain't driving at 30 outside of a school zone because because buddy doesn't want the people he's holding up behind him to rub him into the pavement.

[GlassCity]

Originally Posted by MIPS

Cyclists are statistics in my opinion. I ain't driving at 30 outside of a school zone because because buddy doesn't want the people he's holding up behind him to rub him into the pavement.

Good perspective! They're just human lives after all. The couple hundred metres you'd have to travel on a local road at 30 km/h before you get to the full-speed Oak Street or 49th Avenue are just not worth it.

[cornholio]

Originally Posted by Metro-One

I would think that 40 on residential streets and of course 30 near parks and schools would be a good compromise, but it would have to be an enforced 40.

I feel that having no difference between regular residential streets and parks / schools may actually make people drive faster through said zones.

Like everything it is a two way street. Both drivers and pedestrians should be aware when on the street, and wearing visible markings at night if riding or jogging is just a good idea if you are into such things as self preservation.

Why compromise for the sake of compromising? Roads are to move people, efficiently, reducing speeds bellow a naturally optimal level is just dumb and leads plenty of known problems. Such as speed variance and disrespect for the law. The people pushing it are just special interest groups who like to be busy bots. Its the same people that make life more difficult in stratas. No sense in compromising for the sake of compromising.

[urbancanadian]

I'm fairly ambivalent on the matter as it's really the design of the street that determines the speed of drivers. That's why we put in speed bumps near schools instead of relying on people reading the sign and obeying.

But I don't think residential side streets are meant to move cars as quickly and efficiently as possible. That's what the arterials are for. You're only going to be using the side streets for a couple of blocks at most to reach your destination so the difference between 30 and 50km/h shouldn't be more than a few seconds.

I think it's reasonable to put the comfort of pedestrians and cyclists ahead of motorists on the side streets, especially when the difference in the lives of the latter is so small. Freeways and highways are definitely the place where motorists take precedence. Busy arterials (pedestrian/cyclist-wise), I think, are more up for debate.

[Bdawe]

Originally Posted by urbancanadian

I'm fairly ambivalent on the matter as it's really the design of the street that determines the speed of drivers. That's why we put in speed bumps near schools instead of relying on people reading the sign and obeying.

But I don't think residential side streets are meant to move cars as quickly and efficiently as possible. That's what the arterials are for. You're only going to be using the side streets for a couple of blocks at most to reach your destination so the difference between 30 and 50km/h shouldn't be more than a few seconds.

I think it's reasonable to put the comfort of pedestrians and cyclists ahead of motorists on the side streets, especially when the difference in the lives of the latter is so small. Freeways and highways are definitely the place where motorists take precedence. Busy arterials (pedestrian/cyclist-wise), I think, are more up for debate.

Arterials aren't even for moving cars quickly and efficiently as possible. If they were they'd be freeways. They serve a transportation function, but they also serve as vital platforms for value creation through the commercial uses they support. In so far as that platform for value is diminished by fast moving car traffic, there are tradeoffs to be made.

[WarrenC12]

Originally Posted by MIPS

Cyclists are statistics in my opinion. I ain't driving at 30 outside of a school zone because because buddy doesn't want the people he's holding up behind him to rub him into the pavement.

I sure hope nobody you know "becomes a statistic" while walking or cycling.

[CanSpice]

Originally Posted by MIPS

Cyclists are statistics in my opinion. I ain't driving at 30 outside of a school zone because because buddy doesn't want the people he's holding up behind him to rub him into the pavement.

It's amazing how you can generate such disdain for another human being by putting them on a bicycle.

[Pinion]

All the side streets around me already have speed bumps to force people onto either 3rd, Esplanade or Keith.

My alley doesn't have speed bumps though so people rip down at 60+km/h despite an adjacent children's playground

[fredinno]

Should the Golden Ears Way be expanded to an Expressway that continues along 128th Avenue, and then down towards Albion on 240 St? I mean, there is a lot of non-ALR land in north an East Maple Ridge and North Pitt Meadows that can be developed, and it would make a good bypass outside the city Centre.

[MIPS]

Originally Posted by CanSpice

It's amazing how you can generate such disdain for another human being by putting them on a bicycle.

The amount of distaste I have for greater vancouver cyclists makes me astoundingly bitter and biased. I do apologize for the insensitivity.

[jollyburger]

But how do you enforce with signs when you're in a residential area versus roads clearly designed to handle 50km/h? I guess they don't have resources but they should stick photo radar on side streets to handle idiots that want to speed through residential side streets at $200 a pop.