Metro Vancouver Bike/Pedestrian Discussion

[racc]

http://www.vancouversun.com/travel/B...813/story.html
Burnaby considers reducing car speeds on bike routes

BY KELLY SINOSKI, VANCOUVER SUN DECEMBER 19, 2010


Burnaby is considering following Vancouver's lead in making roads safer for cyclists by imposing a 30-km/h speed limit on streets with designated bike paths in north Burnaby.

Stuart Ramsey, an engineer and planner with the City of Burnaby, said council will consider in January whether to approve a year-long pilot project for a 30-km/h limit on bike lanes in the Burnaby Heights and Capitol Hill neighbourhoods.

The lower speeds would be mainly along the Sea-to-River Bikeway on Carleton Avenue and the on-street portion of the Trans-Canada Trail on Fell Avenue.

The proposal is part of a public consultation process on a series of traffic-calming measures that also includes a 40-km/h hour limit on all neighbourhood streets. The current speed limit is 50 km/h.

Ramsey said the move is intended to make it safer for cyclists and encourage more people to ride their bikes. If council approves the proposal, and it works, it will consider imposing the lower speed limits on all Burnaby street bikeways. Otherwise the old limits will be reinstated.

According to the Burnaby Transportation Plan, up to 3,000 vehicles per day can be expected on local residential roads, and up to 5,000 vehicles per day on local collector roads.

The proposed lower speeds would be restricted to neighbourhood streets and will not apply to major commuter roads with bike lanes such as Lougheed Highway. "We're not planning on slowing down arterial roads," Ramsey said.

Meanwhile, Vancouver city crews are in the midst of installing the lower speed limits signs on streets designated as bike paths and greenways, said spokesman Dale Bracewell.

The lower speeds, he said, would lead to a more consistent speed limit on streets where bikes often travel.

"It's about encouraging more cycling," he said. "If vehicles still need to be driving in those local streets, it's about driving on streets compatible with bike users."

Vancouver estimates an average of 60,000 bike trips a day now take place in Vancouver.

[email protected]

© Copyright (c) The Vancouver Sun

[twoNeurons]

Reducing the speed limits without traffic calming measures, imho, is a little silly.

In Vancouver, on most side streets cars don't travel more than 30km/h because most of them, once you park cars on each side, are more or less single lane. As such, people go slower and use them as the final

Burnaby's side streets are wider, so unless they're planning on adding traffic circles or other measures, this will only mean more people will get tickets.

Most people will travel a road's design speed. Artificially lowering that number only serves to irritate drivers.

[racc]

Originally Posted by twoNeurons

Reducing the speed limits without traffic calming measures, imho, is a little silly.

In Vancouver, on most side streets cars don't travel more than 30km/h because most of them, once you park cars on each side, are more or less single lane. As such, people go slower and use them as the final

Burnaby's side streets are wider, so unless they're planning on adding traffic circles or other measures, this will only mean more people will get tickets.

Most people will travel a road's design speed. Artificially lowering that number only serves to irritate drivers.

Yes, traffic calming will be needed on some roads but lowering the speed limit is a good first step that sends a clear message to drivers to slow down. Research has shown that cyclist and pedestrian fatalities rise dramatically at motor vehicle speeds over 30km/h.

Making roads safer is much more important than worrying about irritating drivers.

[crazyjoeda]

It would be nice to see the speed limit enforced on local roads and cycle routes. Maybe it's just me but I've only ever seen speed checks on highways and major roads, and that's stupid because speeding is more of a safety issue when cars share a confined road space with cyclists and pedestrians.

I regularly see careless drivers speeding along the Off Broadway cycle route; ironically drivers like that probably complain most about separated bike lanes being built, yet they exemplify why they're necessary.

The police should look into spending more resources enforcing speed limits on cycle routes; not only because it's a safety issue but also speeding on those routes has the harmful effect of making cyclists feel unsafe and discourages cycling overall.

[racc]

More cycling makes streets safer for everyone.

http://newurbannetwork.com/news-opin...-safer-streets

More bicycling means safer streets
Blog post by Robert Steuteville on 21 Dec 2010
Source: New Urban News
In July we published an article on a surprising trend in New York City — as bicycle use skyrockets, bicycle accidents are dropping. When many bicyclists are on the road, cycling safety improves substantially. This observation is consistent with data from other countries. Cycling is far safer in countries where bicycles are used more often — such as the Netherlands, Germany, and Denmark (see graph at bottom right).

Now comes data from Portland, Oregon, that suggests encouraging bicycle use leads to greater traffic safety in general. Check out the attached graphs. The one at top right shows the trend in bicycle use versus crashes in Portland. The bicycle use is counted across four major bridges connecting to downtown (these increases have also been documented in other parts of the city). Bicycle trips have more than tripled since 1991.

Bicycle crashes citywide have risen little since 1991 — despite the dramatic increase in cycling. There was a noticable rise in reported crashes in 2008 and 2009, but that was mostly due to changes in policy that have required even minor bicycle accidents to be recorded.

The cycling increase has largely resulted from Portland’s aggressive policy to increase bicycle use. The city has installed 300 miles of bicycle trails, lanes, boulevards (bicycle-friendly streets), and other facilities in that time period. This 300-mile network cost approximately the same as the construction of a mile of urban freeway, according to Mia Birk, a planning consultant and the former director of Portland’s bicycle program.

Now comes the payoff. Portland’s overall crash mortality rate for all traffic accidents plunged during this period (see "Portland traffic fatalities" graph). Compare that graph to the US overall crash mortality figures (immediately below the graph on Portland traffic fatalities), and you see how well the city performs.

Of course, this can’t all be attributed to Portland’s bicycle policies. The city and the Metro area have invested heavily in mass transit, encouraged transit-oriented development, limited the availability of parking downtown, and have taken other measures that have likely reduced automobile use. But the bicycle program has been unusual and significant. It has slowed down traffic on many streets and generally taken asphalt away from the exclusive use of fast-moving cars. When drivers are aware of many bicyclists on the road, they drive with more care. That tendency benefits everyone on the road.

[hazel]

Originally Posted by racc

More cycling makes streets safer for everyone.

http://newurbannetwork.com/news-opin...-safer-streets

And I'm sure that not wearing helmets also helped...

[racc]

Originally Posted by hazel

And I'm sure that not wearing helmets also helped...

Well, that was out of left field. Oh great, lets start another helmet debate.

Wrapping everyone in bubble wrap and confining them to rubber rooms would improve safety but it would be a ridiculous intrusion on people's freedom. For example, cyclist fatality rates are much lower in countries like Denmark where pretty much no one wears helmets. Instead, they focus on infrastructure improvements and education of cyclists and motorists.

Measures that prevent collisions are far more effective than forcing people to wear helmets while cycling. Reduced vehicle speeds also prevent accidents and reduce their impact on cyclists, drivers and pedestrians. Unfortunately in BC, people seem fixated on forcing cyclists to wear helmets while ignoring other ways to improve the safety of all road users.

[racc]

Oh, and by the way, around 80% (which is higher than the percent in BC) of cyclists in Portland wear helmets by choice as they don't have a helmet law. So, even if you are convinced that cyclists should wear helmets, there is little need to force them too.

[tybuilding]

Originally Posted by racc

Oh, and by the way, around 80% (which is higher than the percent in BC) of cyclists in Portland wear helmets by choice as they don't have a helmet law. So, even if you are convinced that cyclists should wear helmets, there is little need to force them too.

And with better infrastructure comes higher numbers of cyclists because they feel safe. Having good infrastructure allows non cyclists to start cycling. I think we can all agree that almost everyone would feel safe cycling the seawall. Most people also like separated paths and wide non separated paths.

With higher number of cyclists comes the expectations of drivers for cyclists, in Denmark and high cycling countries is because most drivers are cyclists as well, so they know what to expect. Safety in numbers. They also have dedicated cycle lanes that are set up well and not just an after thought.

In summary:
Improve infrastructure more people bike, as more people bike it becomes more safe because people learn to coexist with cyclists. The more cyclists out there the more people take up cycling because they see it as safe or as a viable alternative to driving or something else and so on...

[twoNeurons]

I would never have thought of cycling downtown (apart from the seawall)... and now that there are dedicated lanes, I'm entertaining the idea.

Not today, though... it's raining.

I saw quite a few on bikes on the seawall... w/o helmets.

[worldwide]

Originally Posted by twoNeurons

I saw quite a few on bikes on the seawall... w/o helmets.

a helmet is next to useless on the seawall. anybody with just a little common sense can see that. no reason to obey the law just because its "the law" just use some common sense

[Spork]

Agreed. If I lived in Vancouver still, I would definitely cycle around downtown, whereas before it was exclusively transit or walking.

[Login650]

Originally Posted by worldwide

a helmet is next to useless on the seawall. anybody with just a little common sense can see that. no reason to obey the law just because its "the law" just use some common sense

I was under the impression the seawall was the one place you didn't need to wear a helmet (by law) - because it's an off-street recreational path or somesuch. Did I make that up?

[twoNeurons]

Originally Posted by Login650

I was under the impression the seawall was the one place you didn't need to wear a helmet (by law) - because it's an off-street recreational path or somesuch. Did I make that up?

Nope. I believe helmets are still "legally" required. I don't agree with it, but it is what it is.

[racc]

Originally Posted by twoNeurons

Nope. I believe helmets are still "legally" required. I don't agree with it, but it is what it is.

The provincial law does not require helmets paths but enables cities to pass bylaws require helmets on paths. The City of Vancouver passed such a bylaw 10 years or so ago that has a map indicating paths where helmets are required. They have not updated the map since so I think that helmets are likely not required on any paths built in the last few years. I'm not sure with respect to the helmet law if separated bike lanes are considered paths or not so helmets may or may not be required on them. Kinda confusing.

Anyway, probably best to play it safe and wear a helmet. If you chose not to though and get a ticket, it is worth challenging the ticket.

[Conrad Yablonski]

I know someone who was ticketed on the seawall for not wearing a helmet.

It was an information ticket (or something equally ridiculous) and it took two police officers to hand out those useless pieces of paper.

[racc]

Originally Posted by Conrad Yablonski

I know someone who was ticketed on the seawall for not wearing a helmet.

It was an information ticket (or something equally ridiculous) and it took two police officers to hand out those useless pieces of paper.

Tough job hanging out on the Seawall handing out tickets to sexy cyclists. They might get sunburn, slip on some suntan oil or wrench their necks scoping out people.

Twenty to thirty people die on the streets of Vancouver in motor vehicle crashes and the police are hanging out on the Seawall. People should be outraged.

Chief Jimmy Chu's email address is:
[email protected]

[Millennium2002]

Technically it's an extension of their summer beach and park patrols... and besides, some sections of the Seawall can get narrow and crowded at the same time.

[crazyjoeda]

Originally Posted by racc

Tough job hanging out on the Seawall handing out tickets to sexy cyclists. They might get sunburn, slip on some suntan oil or wrench their necks scoping out people.

Twenty to thirty people die on the streets of Vancouver in motor vehicle crashes and the police are hanging out on the Seawall. People should be outraged.

Chief Jimmy Chu's email address is:
[email protected]

I'm outraged!! And what about the police giving out tickets for people having cold beers at English Bay on sunny summer days. How does having a beer or two on the beach hurt anyone? I rather see them go after the smokers or maybe try a novel idea like catching some real bad guys!

[madmigs]

http://www.cknw.com/Channels/Reg/New...spx?ID=1340868

One month into the Hornby Street separated bike lane trail, the Downtown Vancouver Business Improvement Association isn't hearing any complaints from its members.

CKNW did its own count around mid day last Friday. We spotted 29 cyclists in the span of one hour.

Considering its only been open a month and the middle of winter, that's not bad, not great, but its a good start.