Metro Vancouver Transit Discussion

[dreambrother808]

Originally Posted by Migrant_Coconut

Never accuse a NIMBY of having common sense:

It’s deeply comical really, how tone deaf those NIMBY comments are.

[officedweller]

I hope they realize that consult doesn't necessariliy mean they have to act on the comments received.

[MIPS]

I like it but the colors are suspiciously ambitious.

[Bdawe]

A technical take - the buses should stop in the travel lane, rather than on bus pullouts. This will both calm traffic in front of a place where lots of people will live, and also prevent the impact of having to wait for a gap in traffic making the bus less reliable. Further, it will reduce the extent the bridge might need to be widened. Yes, it will prevent various Kenneths from going vroom vroom, but I don't terribly care for that impact

[madog222]

Originally Posted by Bdawe

A technical take - the buses should stop in the travel lane, rather than on bus pullouts. This will both calm traffic in front of a place where lots of people will live, and also prevent the impact of having to wait for a gap in traffic making the bus less reliable. Further, it will reduce the extent the bridge might need to be widened. Yes, it will prevent various Kenneths from going vroom vroom, but I don't terribly care for that impact

I was writing an actual response then realized this can’t be serious.

[Metro-One]

Originally Posted by Bdawe

A technical take - the buses should stop in the travel lane, rather than on bus pullouts. This will both calm traffic in front of a place where lots of people will live, and also prevent the impact of having to wait for a gap in traffic making the bus less reliable. Further, it will reduce the extent the bridge might need to be widened. Yes, it will prevent various Kenneths from going vroom vroom, but I don't terribly care for that impact

Sorry, but intentionally planning transit infrastructure to be as disruptive as possible helps no one.

Also all following buses caught in the resulting traffic jam would also be delayed, so your theory even breaks down in that it would have any positive time savings for buses.

[Rico]

Originally Posted by Bdawe

A technical take - the buses should stop in the travel lane, rather than on bus pullouts. This will both calm traffic in front of a place where lots of people will live, and also prevent the impact of having to wait for a gap in traffic making the bus less reliable. Further, it will reduce the extent the bridge might need to be widened. Yes, it will prevent various Kenneths from going vroom vroom, but I don't terribly care for that impact

I agree with this on places like Main or 41st. Think bus bulb, but this is an elevated structure and the proposal will be more pleasant for people waiting.

[Bdawe]

Originally Posted by Metro-One

Sorry, but intentionally planning transit infrastructure to be as disruptive as possible helps no one.

Also all following buses caught in the resulting traffic jam would also be delayed, so your theory even breaks down in that it would have any positive time savings for buses.

1) This isn't making transit infrastructure as disruptive as possible. Buses, which are full of people, move away from stops with minimum disruption. A handful of people in cars, may be slightly delayed. This is minimizing disruption for the most people


This is an actual thing that that transit-prioritizing traffic engineers do-you don't have to imagine just-so stories about followup buses. You can see some bus bulb-outs on Main Street, for example.

[s211]

Originally Posted by madog222

I was writing an actual response then realized this can’t be serious.

Um, no unfortunately not. He's serious.

But in a sense what weight can we give to people who resort to stereotypes and trope-y names to justify their opinions. (Or am I doing that with just this very response? Oh, what a ridiculous time in which to live. )

[Changing City]

Originally Posted by s211

Um, no unfortunately not. He's serious.

But in a sense what weight can we give to people who resort to stereotypes and trope-y names to justify their opinions. (Or am I doing that with just this very response? Oh, what a ridiculous time in which to live. )

Said the person who wrote "E-bikes only exist so that soy-boys won't over-exercise"

[s211]

Originally Posted by Changing City

Said the person who wrote "E-bikes only exist so that soy-boys won't over-exercise"

Don't worry. I remember that post too. Just getting tired of the free pass that zealots seem to get on this site.

[Migrant_Coconut]

Implying, of course, that other people are fanatical and you aren't...

Originally Posted by Bdawe

1) This isn't making transit infrastructure as disruptive as possible. Buses, which are full of people, move away from stops with minimum disruption. A handful of people in cars, may be slightly delayed. This is minimizing disruption for the most people


This is an actual thing that that transit-prioritizing traffic engineers do-you don't have to imagine just-so stories about followup buses. You can see some bus bulb-outs on Main Street, for example.

Burrard Bridge being a bridge, passenger disruption is minimal to begin with - bulbs wouldn't really achieve anything.

[Changing City]

Originally Posted by Migrant_Coconut

Implying, of course, that other people are fanatical and you aren't...



Burrard Bridge being a bridge, passenger disruption is minimal to begin with - bulbs wouldn't really achieve anything.

Wouldn't the bus be able to stay in the same lane, without having to pull back into traffic?

[Migrant_Coconut]

I'd agree for a normal road, but on a bridge, there's not much traffic to pull back into. Burrard itself often has gaps large enough to jaywalk.

[Changing City]

Originally Posted by Migrant_Coconut

I'd agree for a normal road, but on a bridge, there's not much traffic to pull back into. Burrard itself often has gaps large enough to jaywalk.

Fair enough. But doesn't that suggest that it wouldn't inconvenience many drivers, and would mean less construction and messing with the bridge, as Bdawe noted was an advantage?

[Migrant_Coconut]

Originally Posted by Changing City

Fair enough. But doesn't that suggest that it wouldn't inconvenience many drivers, and would mean less construction and messing with the bridge, as Bdawe noted was an advantage?

Could go either way; 2.5 lanes do provide more flexibility than 1.5. More importantly though, if you've got a solution where everybody wins, why not just go with that one?

[Bdawe]

Originally Posted by Migrant_Coconut

Could go either way; 2.5 lanes do provide more flexibility than 1.5. More importantly though, if you've got a solution where everybody wins, why not just go with that one?

Because we don't have to go for the maximally expensive, maximally disruptive solution here? We're talking widening the bridge to support bus loads, when we could just...not do that and be fine

[Migrant_Coconut]

Originally Posted by Bdawe

Because we don't have to go for the maximally expensive, maximally disruptive solution here? We're talking widening the bridge to support bus loads, when we could just...not do that and be fine

A) It's the sidewalks that're getting extended outward. Burrard is clearly already capable of carrying buses.

B) We can afford $39 million and two years' construction time to give Granville Bridge bigger sidewalks. Surely a ~70m stretch of Burrard for much less (possibly even MST/Westbank's money instead of the City's) is more than manageable.

I know this forum likes to speculate, but let's see how much work needs to be done and who's paying for it before we start playing politics and value engineering.

[scottN]

In the southbound direction, burrard street is changing from 2 lanes over the bridge to 4 lanes at the burrard/cornwall intersection, so having a bus pullout doesn't actually impose an additional merge for the bus. The bus will be turning right at cornwall anyway.

[madog222]

Originally Posted by scottN

In the southbound direction, burrard street is changing from 2 lanes over the bridge to 4 lanes at the burrard/cornwall intersection, so having a bus pullout doesn't actually impose an additional merge for the bus. The bus will be turning right at cornwall anyway.

The sidewalk and bike lane will still be inside the large columns at the bridge approach so the bus will need to merge where there is still 2 lanes, atleast according to the current renders.