Metro Vancouver Transit Discussion

[jollyburger]

Originally Posted by aberdeen5698

It's well established that the basic formula for COVID transmission risk is:

distance x proximity

And there's the whole enclosed space factor as well.

[officedweller]

With the Phase 3 Return to Sport guidelines (which allow 'contact' (being under 2m proximity)),
risk is based on the 'number of contacts' and 'intensity' (with type of contact/proximity/indoor/outdoor and duration being under 'intensity').

[Reecemartin]

[Deleted]

[WarrenC12]

Originally Posted by Reecemartin

Bikes on arterials are fine, just minimize conflicts between them and other road users.

They can be minimized to zero if bikes use available parallel routes.

Bikes can't travel as fast as cars and are inherently unpredictable. They slow traffic and aggravate drivers.

[Migrant_Coconut]

The optimal, unrealistic solution would be to have a repeating pattern of pedestrian/bike-only streets, traffic/transit streets and transit-only streets.

Obviously we don't really have the space for it, but "share the road" doesn't work. And there's not much point in having a bike highway on 10th and Broadway at the same time.

[ilikeredheads]

bicycles and heavy traffic don't mix. Putting bike lanes on arteries is plain stupid. It's a lose lose situation for everyone.

[scottN]

Originally Posted by ilikeredheads

bicycles and heavy traffic don't mix. Putting bike lanes on arteries is plain stupid. It's a lose lose situation for everyone.

It's a win if you want to ride your bike to, or between businesses on that street, or if there are no alternatives (for example downtown). The businesses are mostly why the parked cars are there too. If you remove the businesses and parking then we end up with highways, strip malls, mini malls, etc. all of which are terrible for pedestrians and challenging to serve with transit.

[officedweller]

Originally Posted by ilikeredheads

bicycles and heavy traffic don't mix. Putting bike lanes on arteries is plain stupid. It's a lose lose situation for everyone.

Agreed.
It puts cyclists in a dangerous position with lots of vehicles turning and parking, as well as narrow clearance to trucks and buses.
That's versus using a parallel route a block away and turning at the proper street for your destnation. A cyclist forced to use an arterial bike path may not even be interested in browsing the shops.
i seem to recall the basis being to make cycling more "visible".

[scryer]

I know that it isn't possible on every street but are we forgetting about bike protected paths on roads?

[idunno]

^^ Exactly. Remember that people on bikes need to access businesses on arterial streets just like people driving and people walking. Look at Copenhagen, or Dutch cities. Protected bike paths are on every arterial because that's where people's destinations are.

[officedweller]

I'm just refernecing the open bike lanes, not the protected ones.
In particular - Cambie St.
Protected lanes are no problem from a risk perspective.
And from the rider's view (for the unprotected lanes), it's a question of risk tolerance - use the unprotected lane with more risk and more convenience, or use the parallel side street route with less risk but more inconvenience.

[Migrant_Coconut]

Depending on who you talk to, the parallel side street may even be better than the segregated lane.

I don't have a horse in this race, but bike lanes on arterials do take up space that could be used for transit or sidewalk/median improvements.

[VancouverOfTheFuture]

i remember reading a study (i think??) UBC did, years ago, that looked at people biking on an arterial, separated lane vs a side street such as 10th av with regards to pollution in their lungs.

cant find it now but it found what most would expect. those who rode on arterial's had ~2x more pollutants in their lungs. car exhaust was a big one. and it mentioned the particles got deeper into the lungs due to the heavy breathing from exerting themselves.

maybe someone else can find it. pretty sure i saw it on here.

[scryer]

Perhaps the compromise on bike lanes in arterials is that they should be protected bike lanes?

[Aroundtheworld]

Originally Posted by idunno

^^ Exactly. Remember that people on bikes need to access businesses on arterial streets just like people driving and people walking. Look at Copenhagen, or Dutch cities. Protected bike paths are on every arterial because that's where people's destinations are.

Agreed. We need to stop thinking of cycling as transit where having a suitable route every few blocks is ok. We need to think of cycling more like walking. I wouldn't accept a sidewalk a few blocks away from my destination.

That said, it doesn't mean necessarily we have separated bike lanes on every street. Sometimes the best option might be to have bike boulevard instead. However, there's no reason we can't have every street be suitable for cyclist of all ages and abilities.

[aberdeen5698]

Originally Posted by Aroundtheworld

I wouldn't accept a sidewalk a few blocks away from my destination.

Good thing you don't live in Surrey...

[Migrant_Coconut]

Walkability and cyclability aren't the same at all. Everybody uses the sidewalk, even drivers and bikers; not everybody can use the bike lane.

[WarrenC12]

Originally Posted by officedweller

I'm just refernecing the open bike lanes, not the protected ones.
In particular - Cambie St.
Protected lanes are no problem from a risk perspective.
And from the rider's view (for the unprotected lanes), it's a question of risk tolerance - use the unprotected lane with more risk and more convenience, or use the parallel side street route with less risk but more inconvenience.

I commuter cycled downtown to Richmond for a number of years, all seasons. I started using Cambie south of about 16th, not really knowing any better.

Once I "discovered" Ontario, it was no contest how much nicer it was. Better views, quiet, better air quality, safer, etc.

I strongly feel the city should actually remove the Cambie painted lanes and direct people to Ontario, and improve the facilities along Ontario where possible.

[cganuelas1995]

Originally Posted by Migrant_Coconut

Walkability and cyclability aren't the same at all. Everybody uses the sidewalk, even drivers and bikers; not everybody can use the bike lane.

I hate it when cyclists use the sidewalk.

[Migrant_Coconut]

Originally Posted by cganuelas1995

I hate it when cyclists use the sidewalk.

That too, but I meant that as soon as bikers park the bike, they become pedestrians. Ditto drivers.