Complete Street Policy

[aberdeen5698]

Originally Posted by s211

I'm coming to the conclusion that Vancouverites in general are like drug addicts when it comes their truly destructive ways to fark up its transportation system. Their blind-Vision ideas are like drugs: insanely bad for you, mess you up for life and are just plain bad for you.

Despite this, Vancouver seems to remain very popular - perhaps these things are not quite as bad as you think...?

[Vin]

Originally Posted by aberdeen5698

Despite this, Vancouver seems to remain very popular - perhaps these things are not quite as bad as you think...?

The natural environment is what makes this place great. The urban landscape built by generations ago was generally very progressive and helped in enhancing life in this part of the world. However, what's taking place at the moment can be pretty destructive. We are just living on the greats of the yesteryears, before the hippy generation and the drug/homelessness-problems we have of today.

Hence, for a relatively small city, we are already having one of the worst city-traffic congestion problems in North America, as the current generation is a pretty short-sighted bunch, forever clamouring for the frills and frivolous, but seemingly unable to focus and missing the mark on the real goals and aspirations.

[aberdeen5698]

Originally Posted by Vin

We are just living on the greats of the yesteryears, before the hippy generation and the drug/homelessness-problems we have of today.

Yeah, I think the drug problems create a lot more human misery than the transportation problems do. And it seems like a tougher issue to solve.

[VancouverOfTheFuture]

now here is a "Complete Street."

• most traffic underground
• some surface parking and local streets on surface level
• add in separated bike-lanes on surface level
• add in HOV-lanes on surface level
• add in wider sidewalks on surface level

[Jebby]

I'll pass on that.

[Alex Mackinnon]

Originally Posted by Vin

The natural environment is what makes this place great. The urban landscape built by generations ago was generally very progressive and helped in enhancing life in this part of the world. However, what's taking place at the moment can be pretty destructive. We are just living on the greats of the yesteryears, before the hippy generation and the drug/homelessness-problems we have of today.

Hence, for a relatively small city, we are already having one of the worst city-traffic congestion problems in North America, as the current generation is a pretty short-sighted bunch, forever clamouring for the frills and frivolous, but seemingly unable to focus and missing the mark on the real goals and aspirations.

Thanks for that generalisation. Could it be that most people under 30 can't afford a car or somewhere to park it?

Hooray for diminished career opportunities and greatly increased costs of living.

[ilikeredheads]

Originally Posted by aberdeen5698

I think you've just made the exact argument why a separated bike lane is necessary.


Have you seen how the bus stops work on the Dunsmuir bike lane? They coexist very nicely.

I'm not saying no to bike lanes. I'm saying bike lanes on Georgia makes no sense.

The bus stops on Dunsmuir are on an island. When the bus pulls over it doesn't block the bike lane. On Georgia, the bike lane is right next to the curb. Buses have to block the bike lane to access the stop. Apples and oranges.

[officedweller]

To me the notion of a compete street is asking a street to be all things to all people and to simultaneously serve a multitude of functions.

Typically, that means that it may do a multitude of things, but won't do them well.

There's a reason that West Georgia is not a major shopping street
- because if it were, it would not be efficient at moving traffic
- the solution found by the marketplace wasn't to make Georgia more pedestrian friendly,
it was to establish a shopping street adjacent to Georgia, on Robson.

I think that it's perfectly fine to have different street serve different roles.

You can see the same in the use of rights-of-way on roadways and railways.
Long haul traffic can be separated onto high speed freeways and exclusive RoW railways.

If you are trying to be "complete" and all things to all people:
- then you'd need to increase traffic flows in congested shopping districts
- you'd open up Granville Mall to car traffic
- you'd build at grade / in roadway LRT instead of giving them their own guideways

I think you can mitigate effects of a roadway such as West Georgia near Stanley Park,
but I don't think you can expect it to be a place for a pleasant stroll (nor should it be, with the seawall a stone's throw away).

[s211]

Let's just cut through the treacle and admit that "complete streets" is a logical impossibility. Otherwise, call it for what it really is, and don't pretend that the actual intention isn't just another urbanista fantasy.

[idunno]

I wouldn't put down the concept too much. Complete Streets, while acknowledging public art and other pedestrian amenities, is really about the transportation aspect of the roadway.

Does the roadway serve people using all modes well in terms of safety? We can all agree that at this time, Georgia Street in this section (especially around the Pender intersection) does not.

[aberdeen5698]

Originally Posted by ilikeredheads

I'm not saying no to bike lanes. I'm saying bike lanes on Georgia makes no sense.

The bus stops on Dunsmuir are on an island. When the bus pulls over it doesn't block the bike lane. On Georgia, the bike lane is right next to the curb. Buses have to block the bike lane to access the stop. Apples and oranges.

I thought the whole point of the exercise was to come up with a workable design. The fact that the bike lanes are right next to the curb now doesn't mean they have to be there for all time.

[waves]

Originally Posted by idunno

I wouldn't put down the concept too much. Complete Streets, while acknowledging public art and other pedestrian amenities, is really about the transportation aspect of the roadway.

Does the roadway serve people using all modes well in terms of safety? We can all agree that at this time, Georgia Street in this section (especially around the Pender intersection) does not.

But I think the point ilikeredheads is trying to make is that not all transportation facilities need to serve all modes of transportation and that sometimes trying to serve all modes of transportation can mean not serving any form of transportation well.

I agree with him that bike lanes on Georgia do not make sense because Georgia should be a vehicle centered facility because it is single largest entry point to downtown Vancouver and that entry point can't be anywhere except Georgia. Bikes and pedestrians need their own bike and pedestrian centric facilities and not have to share it with vehicles. Robson for example should be pedestrian and bikes only, the whole way from Denman to the Stadium

The only world where I see Georgia becoming bike and pedestrian friendly is if they carryout a Chicago big dig on it, and the likelyhood of that ever happening is the equivalent of firing a shotgun and successfully hitting the moon.

[Migrant_Coconut]

Right. "One size fits all" generalization only goes so far; for example, you can merge a fork and spoon (spork), or fork and knife, but trying to combine a spoon, knife AND fork into one utensil will not end happily.

Likewise, trying to get West Georgia to fit bikes, pedestrians, transit and vehicles all at the same time is going to leave you with a street of all trades, master of f**k nothing, because it's just not wide enough. Pick three (and one of them has to be vehicles), go from there.

[cornholio]

Originally Posted by Migrant_Coconut

Right. "One size fits all" generalization only goes so far; for example, you can merge a fork and spoon (spork), or fork and knife, but trying to combine a spoon, knife AND fork into one utensil will not end happily.

Likewise, trying to get West Georgia to fit bikes, pedestrians, transit and vehicles all at the same time is going to leave you with a street of all trades, master of f**k nothing, because it's just not wide enough. Pick three (and one of them has to be vehicles), go from there.

Except Georgia handles pedestrians fine. You can argue for some better steer furniture and what not. As for bikes use parallel streets or use the curb lane if you are experienced enough to share the road like you are allowed. The bigger problem Georgia has right now is handling traffic and that's where improvements need to be made but this is not about that and we all know that.

Going back to my earlier post I had a look at google maps and there is no room for left turn bays except at Pender and Nicola. My suggestion is is to ban curb side parking, create 2 permanent through lanes per direction and reuse the other two lanes for left and right turn bays to better distribute traffic. Sync the lights for optimum throughput and build scramble pedestrian cross walks. When pedestrians cross no cars move, when pedestrians dont cross west/east traffic flows with a right turn arrow and left turn green light with a short arrow cycle at the end. Follow this with a north/south cycle. Then pedestrians cross again using the scramble setup. imo this would be the best solution for everyone. Bikes should be a after thought on this street.

Also most mid blocks you could probably fit in a couple drop off / pick up parking spots for taxis/cars/buses/etc. as you will have road space mid block left over for this for a small pull out.

[aberdeen5698]

Originally Posted by waves

I agree with him that bike lanes on Georgia do not make sense because Georgia should be a vehicle centered facility because it is single largest entry point to downtown Vancouver and that entry point can't be anywhere except Georgia.

Sure, but it's not exactly as if the area being discussed is cramped. Between the 7 existing lanes and the huge verge on the north side, there's plenty of room to accommodate all modes - particularly when you consider that everything is capacity constrained by the bridge / Denman anyway. And IMHO the very fact that Georgia is the sole entry point argues for it serving everyone.

[s211]

Originally Posted by cornholio

Going back to my earlier post I had a look at google maps and there is no room for left turn bays except at Pender and Nicola. My suggestion is is to ban curb side parking, create 2 permanent through lanes per direction and reuse the other two lanes for left and right turn bays to better distribute traffic. Sync the lights for optimum throughput and build scramble pedestrian cross walks. When pedestrians cross no cars move, when pedestrians dont cross west/east traffic flows with a right turn arrow and left turn green light with a short arrow cycle at the end. Follow this with a north/south cycle. Then pedestrians cross again using the scramble setup. imo this would be the best solution for everyone. Bikes should be a after thought on this street.

The lack of proper left turn bays in this city is one of its defining features, and deliberately so. It's driven me crazy for decades. Years ago, ICBC famously paid for left turn bays at certain high-accident intersections because the city refused to do so. In that light, don't expect Vision to suddenly see the light.

[waves]

Originally Posted by s211

The lack of proper left turn bays in this city is one of its defining features, and deliberately so. It's driven me crazy for decades. Years ago, ICBC famously paid for left turn bays at certain high-accident intersections because the city refused to do so. In that light, don't expect Vision to suddenly see the light.

I agree with the COV for this decision. People who turn left in Vancouver are demonized by other drivers and the left hand turners often don't feel safe to begin with. What this effectively has done is reduced the overall left turn volumes. Intersections can have less intergreen time because they only require two phases. It additionally increases the pedestrian walk time per cycle.

The problem with cornholio's suggestion for three phases is just that; more time is wasted on signal changes than moving traffic. The city generally does a good job at focusing dedicated turn lanes where necessary; denman SB to davie EB, pacific WB to burrard SB, burrard NB to alberni WB, Hornby NB to georgia WB, georgia EB to Howe SB. Georgia WB to Pender WB. Other than the major intersections already with priority Georgia should be right turns only at all intersections in my view. I would however to be interested to see the syncro analysis if cornoholio feels so inclined to test the ped scrambe model.

When I say its the sole entry/exit point I mean that it is that way for vehicles - but not for pedestrians and bikes. Bike traffic has the opportunity for other avenues of entry exit through Stanley Park either beside the lake or near Coal Habour, same with pedestrians.

[s211]

Originally Posted by waves

I agree with the COV for this decision. People who turn left in Vancouver are demonized by other drivers and the left hand turners often don't feel safe to begin with. What this effectively has done is reduced the overall left turn volumes. Intersections can have less intergreen time because they only require two phases. It additionally increases the pedestrian walk time per cycle.

So go against the grain of most other civilized cities in the world? How's that working out for ya?

When you see line-ups literally blocks long in a centre lane along Oak, Fraser or Granville because people don't want drive in the left lane and get held up because of ONE driver vainly trying to turn left, every argument you've made is instantly worthless.

You've essentially designed a left turn lane that can be blocks long.

Gawd, the insanity in this city sometimes.

[Changing City]

Originally Posted by s211

The lack of proper left turn bays in this city is one of its defining features, and deliberately so. It's driven me crazy for decades. Years ago, ICBC famously paid for left turn bays at certain high-accident intersections because the city refused to do so. In that light, don't expect Vision to suddenly see the light.

Your statement doesn't seem to match the evidence. Here an example from 10 years ago. The City initiated adding left turn bays on Knight at 49th Avenue. ICBC contributed, but only $250,000 to a total cost of $4,215,000. Translink and the Federal Government both contributed more, and the City of Vancouver paid the most.

[cornholio]

Originally Posted by waves

I agree with the COV for this decision. People who turn left in Vancouver are demonized by other drivers and the left hand turners often don't feel safe to begin with. What this effectively has done is reduced the overall left turn volumes. Intersections can have less intergreen time because they only require two phases. It additionally increases the pedestrian walk time per cycle.

The problem with cornholio's suggestion for three phases is just that; more time is wasted on signal changes than moving traffic. The city generally does a good job at focusing dedicated turn lanes where necessary; denman SB to davie EB, pacific WB to burrard SB, burrard NB to alberni WB, Hornby NB to georgia WB, georgia EB to Howe SB. Georgia WB to Pender WB. Other than the major intersections already with priority Georgia should be right turns only at all intersections in my view. I would however to be interested to see the syncro analysis if cornoholio feels so inclined to test the ped scrambe model.

When I say its the sole entry/exit point I mean that it is that way for vehicles - but not for pedestrians and bikes. Bike traffic has the opportunity for other avenues of entry exit through Stanley Park either beside the lake or near Coal Habour, same with pedestrians.

The point of a scramble is it allows all pedestrians to cross to all points and eliminates multiple crossings at a single intersection. This allows for a longer delay between cycles to achieve the same results. More importantly no traffic is moving therefore there is ZERO risk of a vehicle - pedestrian collision.

The benefit is then returned once traffic flows as there are no pedestrians crossing, thus you can do safe worry free left and right turns which is safer for everyone and helps with the flow and distribution of traffic. You also have a opportunity for a longer cycle and move more vehicles through the intersection.

In this setup you have as little as 3 signal changes, W->E, N->S, Pedestrians. You can allow for a short fourth of fifth signal to give left turns a green arrow to clear out the left turn lane's (if needed). This becomes less of a problem at intersections where the north/south street is one way. Heck as you don's need the right turn lane for the direction with the left turn lane to the one way street you can create two left turn lanes for even greater throughput.

Lights being synced is just a green wave to eliminate a stop and go situation for as many cars as possible. Time at say 40kmph or something or what ever is optimal.