Broadway Corridor Development Plan

[Changing City]

Originally Posted by Migrant_Coconut

Let's be real - there'll be bikes riding on the sidewalk whether they have dedicated lanes or not. Meanwhile, the buses need at least two lanes per side (or bus bays, which most urbanists think are bad) in order to pass MV traffic and each other.

No bike lanes guarantees 100% of cyclists will be on the sidewalk. Generally trolley buses don't pass each other.

[officedweller]

The other reality is that no one (whether on bus, in car or on bike)
can expect to get EXACTLY to the FRONT DOOR of their destination IN/ON THAT MODE.

• A bus passenger must walk from the bus stop (bus routes aren't on every street, either).
• A SkyTrain passenger must walk from the station (400m radius).
• A driver must walk from the parking space (ie parking restrictions).
• A cyclist must walk from the bike rack (shouldn't lock to trees).

What you are asking for is akin to a driver circling the mall parking lot (or the city block) and waiting for someone to leave to get the parking space that has the minimal walking distance to the mall entrance or destination. That's a bit entitled, unless you're handicapped.

Likewise, the network of one-way streets and left turn restrictions on any street - that apply to drivers and cyclists also means that you often need to take circuitous routes. You often see cyclists flouting the rules on the sidewalk or wrong-way on the Smithe bike lane instead of on Nelson St.

[Migrant_Coconut]

Correctamundo. Broadway's being shrunk to the point where we can have pedestrians and buses or pedestrians and bikes... and it's a bit harder to move the buses off Broadway.

Originally Posted by Changing City

No bike lanes guarantees 100% of cyclists will be on the sidewalk. Generally trolley buses don't pass each other.

No bike lanes means the ones that follow rules will come down from 8th or 10th and walk their bike, and the ones that don't will be weaving through pedestrians. Adding bike lanes means the ones that follow rules will be riding in the lanes, and the ones that don't will be weaving through pedestrians. Same difference to me.

Battery and diesel buses do. Granted, the 99 will no longer be present on Central Broadway, but since the FTN is likely going to increase in frequency over time and slowly ditch the caternaries, it'd be better to have at least four lanes.

[Changing City]

Originally Posted by Migrant_Coconut

No bike lanes means the ones that follow rules will come down from 8th or 10th and walk their bike, and the ones that don't will be weaving through pedestrians. Adding bike lanes means the ones that follow rules will be riding in the lanes, and the ones that don't will be weaving through pedestrians. Same difference to me.

Battery and diesel buses do. Granted, the 99 will no longer be present on Central Broadway, but since the FTN is likely going to increase in frequency over time and slowly ditch the caternaries, it'd be better to have at least four lanes.

I don't doubt that's likely to work. Let's hope there's at least wider sidewalks because much of the street won't be redeveloped any time soon, and people walking their bikes take up a lot more space than pedestrians.

I'm pretty sure the catenaries aren't going to be ditched slowly. It will be all at once, or not at all. As TransLink are buying a replacement fleet of trolley buses, that's not likely to be in the next 20 years.

[s211]

Originally Posted by Feathered Friend

Regardless of whether your guess that the results of the upcoming provincial election will defy the polls is accurate or not, it's noteworthy that a provincial minister is supporting this, especially given the funding shortfall.

As for citing the One City councilor, I have no partisan motives, its simply where I first saw the letter.

The province's letter to the city about Broadway is just a back door attempt to enforce the city's former administration's heavily-tilted-NDP-style way of virtue signalling. It's like trying to govern after losing an election.

[Migrant_Coconut]

Originally Posted by Changing City

I don't doubt that's likely to work. Let's hope there's at least wider sidewalks because much of the street won't be redeveloped any time soon, and people walking their bikes take up a lot more space than pedestrians.

I'm pretty sure the catenaries aren't going to be ditched slowly. It will be all at once, or not at all. As TransLink are buying a replacement fleet of trolley buses, that's not likely to be in the next 20 years.

If closing two vehicle lanes for the sake of more pedestrian space somehow doesn't end in wider sidewalks, I suspect something has gone terribly wrong...

That makes sense: by 2043, battery buses will have either matured or died out altogether.

[Changing City]

Originally Posted by Migrant_Coconut

If closing two vehicle lanes for the sake of more pedestrian space somehow doesn't end in wider sidewalks, I suspect something has gone terribly wrong...

Indeed. It seemed possible that ABC would be capable of deciding not to widen the sidewalks, as well as not favouring bike lanes. We'll see next week...

[FarmerHaight]

Originally Posted by officedweller

I agree.
Placing bikes on a heavily trafficked arterial (including buses), when there are bike routes on quieter streets immediately adjacent is just "virtue signalling".
(i.e. bike lanes on Cambie)
Ultimately, it is putting the cyclists in danger because of the higher risk of being next to more traffic (not to metion breathing more exhaust pollution).
It would be better to improved the safety level of the bike lanes on the side streets if that's a concern.

You're showing your ignorance. Many cyclists prefer to take on a little more danger to gain expedience. I ride on Cambie and 49th and Pender all the time, even though there are parallel local slow streets, because I can average 30 kmph on the arterials but only 20 kmph on the locals.

We need different types of infrastructure for different types of cyclists. If cars get highways and arterials and collectors and locals, why should cyclists only get locals?

Originally Posted by Migrant_Coconut

Meanwhile, the buses need at least two lanes per side (or bus bays, which most urbanists think are bad) in order to pass MV traffic and each other.

As another user pointed out, eventually redevelopment will add five feet to the sidewalks on both sides. So in the interim we could have two traffic lanes in each direction, a protected bike lane, and status-quo sidewalks, but in the future those sidewalks will grow by 1.5 metres.

[madog222]

The problem is we can’t have a protected bike lane right now. That was never an option.

We could have a protected bike line for 7 nonconsecutive blocks over a 23 block span of the busiest stretch of Broadway. Cyclists would then ??? Be directed to 8th and 10th? Be dumped in the curb lane? End up riding on the sidewalks?

[Migrant_Coconut]

Originally Posted by FarmerHaight

... As another user pointed out, eventually redevelopment will add five feet to the sidewalks on both sides. So in the interim we could have two traffic lanes in each direction, a protected bike lane, and status-quo sidewalks, but in the future those sidewalks will grow by 1.5 metres.

The obvious answer being "why settle for 1.5 metres when it can be 10?" Given a choice between pedestrians or bikes, pedestrians win - bikers, passengers and drivers alike have to leave their vehicle and walk in order to actually use Broadway.

As for road space, that's what we've got with the recommended option: four MV lanes and a turning lane. Alternative #1 has two small bike lanes instead of the turning lane, but I suspect bus passengers will have an easier time with Recommended #1.

[FarmerHaight]

Originally Posted by madog222

The problem is we can’t have a protected bike lane right now. That was never an option.

We could have a protected bike line for 7 nonconsecutive blocks over a 23 block span of the busiest stretch of Broadway. Cyclists would then ??? Be directed to 8th and 10th? Be dumped in the curb lane? End up riding on the sidewalks?

There are discontinuous bike lanes all over the Metro that are waiting for the neighboring blocks to redevelop before they become useful. A few in the Metrotown area come to my mind, such as the one block on McKay between Assembly and Kingsway, the two blocks on Kingsway between McKay and Station, and the two blocks on Imperial between Marborough and Nelson.

Originally Posted by Migrant_Coconut

The obvious answer being "why settle for 1.5 metres when it can be 10?" Given a choice between pedestrians or bikes, pedestrians win - bikers, passengers and drivers alike have to leave their vehicle and walk in order to actually use Broadway.

As for road space, that's what we've got with the recommended option: four MV lanes and a turning lane. Alternative #1 has two small bike lanes instead of the turning lane, but I suspect bus passengers will have an easier time with Recommended #1.

Under option 1 you won't get 10 metres. It's 2 additional metres now plus 1.5 as buildings are redeveloped. So the comparison is 3.5 additional metres vs. 1.5.

I don't think a turning lane is needed. In fact, restrict left turns along the entire length of Broadway and 12th just like with Georgia and Burrard downtown.

[officedweller]

Originally Posted by FarmerHaight

We need different types of infrastructure for different types of cyclists. If cars get highways and arterials and collectors and locals, why should cyclists only get locals?

But cars don't have a highways across the middle of town
- that project was stopped in the early 1970s.
Arterials really only provide for more volume - most have a lot of traffic lights that are not synchonized.
... and with volume comes increased risk - but I suppose that if a cyclist is willing to expose themselves to that risk then they can accept it.
The question is the "all ages and abilities aspect" that a lot of the separated bike lanes are aiming towards.
You won't be able to go 30km/h behind a kid on a bike with training wheels.

[Migrant_Coconut]

Originally Posted by FarmerHaight

... Under option 1 you won't get 10 metres. It's 2 additional metres now plus 1.5 as buildings are redeveloped. So the comparison is 3.5 additional metres vs. 1.5.

I don't think a turning lane is needed. In fact, restrict left turns along the entire length of Broadway and 12th just like with Georgia and Burrard downtown.

I'm counting both sides of Broadway here. But yeah, my math is wrong: as per the article, status quo is ~2.5m of sidewalk on one side, and ~3m on the other side, for ~5.5 total; option 1 would expand that to ~7 on each side - plus the 1.5 setback on each side - for 17m total; just the setback gets you 8.5m. So that's actually +11.5m against +3m. My bad.

309% of the existing walking space for everybody using Broadway... or 154% for everybody and 155% for the fraction that bike there? Seems like a foregone conclusion.

As long as the 8, 14, 16 and 17 turn left southbound onto Arbutus/Oak/Fraser and/or left northbound into the city centre, a turning lane is absolutely needed. Banning left turns means truncating the sixth, thirteenth and fifteenth most important bus routes in the metro, and not banning left turns means converting five critical transit intersections into one-lane bottlenecks (edit: forgot the 8 on Fraser).
TransLink could make the reroute to 4th permanent for the 14/16, but that defeats the intent of Broadway as the main FTN corridor. And the 8/17 have to cover their respective streets (Fraser, Oak) and SkyTrain stations, so they're effectively immovable.

[madog222]

They can have a transit vehicle exception to a no left turn.

[whatnext]

Originally Posted by Changing City

Indeed. It seemed possible that ABC would be capable of deciding not to widen the sidewalks, as well as not favouring bike lanes. We'll see next week...

In all honesty, would wide sidewalks solve what ails Broadway? I have spent a decent amount of time on it since way back when my parents would take me to the pediatrician in the Fairmont Building. It’s just not an inviting street. I’m not sure wider sidewalks will help. Certainly there are parts of the street with them already and they are no more animated or appealing. Pretty much the only pleasant section that seems reasonably vibrant is between Macdonald and Alma.

[Changing City]

Originally Posted by whatnext

In all honesty, would wide sidewalks solve what ails Broadway? I have spent a decent amount of time on it since way back when my parents would take me to the pediatrician in the Fairmont Building. It’s just not an inviting street. I’m not sure wider sidewalks will help. Certainly there are parts of the street with them already and they are no more animated or appealing. Pretty much the only pleasant section that seems reasonably vibrant is between Macdonald and Alma.

Why would Broadway be unpleasant to visit, or to eat at a patio outside a restaurant? The traffic? Sounds like fewer traffic lanes (and maybe a bike lane or two) might be a solution...

[chowhou]

Originally Posted by whatnext

In all honesty, would wide sidewalks solve what ails Broadway? I have spent a decent amount of time on it since way back when my parents would take me to the pediatrician in the Fairmont Building. It’s just not an inviting street. I’m not sure wider sidewalks will help. Certainly there are parts of the street with them already and they are no more animated or appealing. Pretty much the only pleasant section that seems reasonably vibrant is between Macdonald and Alma.

So... In other words where Broadway is narrower and the sidewalks are wider...?

I think the widened sidewalk on the northwest corner of Broadway and Cambie is very inviting compared to the east side of the street. The difference is pretty noticeable, so I don't really understand your experience.

[whatnext]

Originally Posted by Changing City

Why would Broadway be unpleasant to visit, or to eat at a patio outside a restaurant? The traffic? Sounds like fewer traffic lanes (and maybe a bike lane or two) might be a solution...

Then what a good thing the subway will remove some of the noisiest and most unpleasant of vehicles, the diesel bus.

[whatnext]

Originally Posted by chowhou

So... In other words where Broadway is narrower and the sidewalks are wider...?

I think the widened sidewalk on the northwest corner of Broadway and Cambie is very inviting compared to the east side of the street. The difference is pretty noticeable, so I don't really understand your experience.

The most western part was always more pleasant despite being six lanes, long before the bump outs were added for the sidewalk. The NW corner of Broadway and Cambie may be slightly better because of the trees but it still not anywhere someone wants to linger or stroll.

[Migrant_Coconut]

Vibrancy can be further increased with long continuous streetfronts (such as Greektown or Robson), more greenery and patios, more events and more foot traffic... in other words, a lot of things which would coincidentally also benefit from wide sidewalks.

Originally Posted by madog222

They can have a transit vehicle exception to a no left turn.

There could be, but then you've got a bus waiting to turn left and a car/truck/etc waiting to turn right, and then you're just as gridlocked as if you'd never banned left turns.

Originally Posted by whatnext

Then what a good thing the subway will remove some of the noisiest and most unpleasant of vehicles, the diesel bus.

Anybody who thinks the 99 is the main cause of Broadway's unpleasantness is a few litres short of a full tank.