2302 replies to this topic

[Rex Waverly]

how do the delivery trucks get in and out of save on there?

 

I might have not been clear; northbound traffic will be blocked just south of Pandora (between Pandora and the service road).  Vehicles can still turn north off of Pandora (although after that they will have to turn at Balmoral) so i don't think Save-on access is affected.  

Edited by Rex Waverly, 08 January 2021 - 10:02 AM.

[Ismo07]

how do the delivery trucks get in and out of save on there?

 

They deliver off of Meares...

[Nparker]

They deliver off of Meares...

It's quite a hike from Meares to Save-on-Foods, but this seems exactly like the sort of thing the Vancouver Street "redesign" would create.

[Nparker]

They deliver off of Meares...

I suspect you meant Mason.

Edited by Nparker, 08 January 2021 - 10:13 AM.

[Ismo07]

I suspect you meant Mason.

 

Yes Mason

Edited by Ismo07, 08 January 2021 - 10:21 AM.

[mbjj]

I've seen quite a few emergency vehicles turn left from Cook up Richardson lately, to attend incidents actually on Richardson (I investigated). This left turn will be disallowed with the new, stupid bike lane and road blockages. There will be a lot of maze-driving to reach their destinations. 

[Ismo07]

I've seen quite a few emergency vehicles turn left from Cook up Richardson lately, to attend incidents actually on Richardson (I investigated). This left turn will be disallowed with the new, stupid bike lane and road blockages. There will be a lot of maze-driving to reach their destinations. 

 

Emergency vehicles will be able to access through those areas as needed...

[rjag]

Emergency vehicles will be able to access through those areas as needed...

Doesn’t matter it’s a dumb idea to block that road to solve a non existent problem

[Rex Waverly]

Doesn’t matter it’s a dumb idea to block that road to solve a non existent problem

 

To be fair, the problem (a lack of safe east/west bike routes in the area) isn't non-existent, it's just not a problem that matters to you.  

[FogPub]

Even when you have the the most simplistic, intuitive design, roads are a hazardous place to start with. You've got some folks on foot, some on bikes and some driving ever-larger motor vehicles. Factor in numerous other factors, from weather to good old-fashioned human idiocy, and your starting from an already risky place. You start throwing in any elements that will confuse the humans, however theoretically great these may be, and you're potentially increasing the danger. I just don't think it's worth it. I understand what you're saying. I personally like roundabouts, for example, but I don't think we should use them because I can see that they create confusion for some.

The problem with that line of thought is that everything ends up being designed for the lowest common denominator of potential user, and thus less efficient for all.

[rjag]

To be fair, the problem (a lack of safe east/west bike routes in the area) isn't non-existent, it's just not a problem that matters to you.  

Nope going to call bs on that, this is political that’s going to have the usual unintended consequences. Already seeing it on Quadra and the same will happen on Fairfield. Blocking roads such as this isn’t necessary to make a safe route, there’s agendas at play here

[Rex Waverly]

Nope going to call bs on that, this is political that’s going to have the usual unintended consequences. Already seeing it on Quadra and the same will happen on Fairfield. Blocking roads such as this isn’t necessary to make a safe route, there’s agendas at play here

 

Not saying blocking roads is necessary to make a safe route. I'm saying that not having a safe route is a problem that exists (and therefore is not non-existent as you stated).  Maybe there's a better design / route that will solve the problem, but not hearing a lot of constructive suggestions.  

[rjag]

Not saying blocking roads is necessary to make a safe route. I'm saying that not having a safe route is a problem that exists (and therefore is not non-existent as you stated).  Maybe there's a better design / route that will solve the problem, but not hearing a lot of constructive suggestions.  

 

First off, you claim there is no 'safe route'. I guess its the play on words that is weaponised here. Richardson is safe for the average bike rider as is. Already 30-40kmh, wide road, straight sight lines etc. 

 

What particular part do you consider it to be a 'not-safe' route? Why dont we start from that perspective and then work to provide a mutual beneficial solution? 

 

Heres some of my suggestions... There could be a few tweeks to the road to improve it slightly, including some speed humps and a controlled crossing at Cook etc. but there is no history of this being a kill-zone for pedestrians or cyclists. 

 

Ok your turn...

[mbjj]

Richardson St. certainly does not need to be blocked off in three different locations. Put in bike lanes if you must, but again, like Vancouver St. why the need to block a perfectly usable road? I don't recall any cyclist accidents on Richardson St. in the past forty years. Yes perhaps emergency vehicles can manage to wend their way down narrow streets to get to Richardson, but it won't be easy. Why make things so damn difficult for residents that they start to hate cyclists? 

[Nparker]

...Why make things so damn difficult for residents that they start to hate cyclists? 

Because divide and conquer is the modus operandi of the CoV. If you can get the populace fighting among themselves they are less inclined to challenge the asinine decisions you make.

[Rex Waverly]

First off, you claim there is no 'safe route'. I guess its the play on words that is weaponised here. Richardson is safe for the average bike rider as is. Already 30-40kmh, wide road, straight sight lines etc. 

 

What particular part do you consider it to be a 'not-safe' route? Why dont we start from that perspective and then work to provide a mutual beneficial solution? 

 

Heres some of my suggestions... There could be a few tweeks to the road to improve it slightly, including some speed humps and a controlled crossing at Cook etc. but there is no history of this being a kill-zone for pedestrians or cyclists. 

 

Ok your turn...

 

The traffic volumes are the part that is unsafe.  Richardson gets roughly 4000 vpd, which is at 4 times the volumes of a safe shared bike route. Crossing upgrades are also required, i.e. at Cook like you said.  But the main thing safety hazard is traffic volumes; either the volumes need to be reduced drastically or bikes and cars need to be separated.  

 

As per the BC Active Transportation Design Guide, "the desired average daily traffic on a neighbourhood bikeway is 500 motor vehicles per day or less. The maximum average daily traffic is 1000 vpd". Basically, these are the max volumes for a shared bike / car route to be considered safe for all users.  Adding some intersection treatments and a bit of traffic calming isn't sufficient for a road with such high vehicles.  From the design guide:

There are obviously different design choices; neighbourhood bikeways, protected bike lanes, painted & buffered bike lanes, and multi-use pathways are the standard options. In fact, based on the design treatments table above, the volumes are so high on Richardson that an alternate facility type might be a better idea.  I think it'd be great to put in protected bike lanes on Richardson, but that would probably require getting rid of most on-street parking. But honestly, i would be happy with any of these options; which would you prefer?

 

 

(if you're looking for some engineering guidance, the BC Active Transportation Design Guide is found online:https://www2.gov.bc....led_digital.pdf )

[Rex Waverly]

Richardson St. certainly does not need to be blocked off in three different locations. Put in bike lanes if you must, but again, like Vancouver St. why the need to block a perfectly usable road? I don't recall any cyclist accidents on Richardson St. in the past forty years. Yes perhaps emergency vehicles can manage to wend their way down narrow streets to get to Richardson, but it won't be easy. Why make things so damn difficult for residents that they start to hate cyclists? 

 

If by bike lanes, you're talking buffered or protected bike lanes?  That'd be great. Simple painted bike lanes are helpful for strong confident riders but are not a safe option for all users.

 

Either you have to reduce volumes or separate bikes from cars.  That's like, the very bare minimum required for a safe bike route.  

Edited by Rex Waverly, 09 January 2021 - 12:00 PM.

[rjag]

The traffic volumes are the part that is unsafe.  Richardson gets roughly 4000 vpd, which is at 4 times the volumes of a safe shared bike route. Crossing upgrades are also required, i.e. at Cook like you said.  But the main thing safety hazard is traffic volumes; either the volumes need to be reduced drastically or bikes and cars need to be separated.  

 

 

 

So what is the required target of bikes per day to justify such closures? That has to be a consideration here? How many moving vehicle bike interactions have there been on this stretch? I think the danger is more driveway access/egress and door opening than anything. Would be interested to know how many actual moving interactions there have been here and on Vancouver  

[Rex Waverly]

So what is the required target of bikes per day to justify such closures? That has to be a consideration here? How many moving vehicle bike interactions have there been on this stretch? I think the danger is more driveway access/egress and door opening than anything. Would be interested to know how many actual moving interactions there have been here and on Vancouver  

 

Well, from the helpful link you provided earlier (https://public.table...clistsDashboard) between 2014 and 2019 there were 13 crashes involving cyclists on Richardson and 38 on Vancouver St. And keep in mind, these are only crashes that were reported to ICBC.

 

And there's not really a target number of cyclists required before a closure is required, that doesn't make sense. Whether cyclists are using an unsafe route isn't an indicator of how many will use a safe route. How many cars have to ford a river before a bridge is needed?  

[Mike K.]

So 13 collisions involving cyclists on Richardson vs 8.7 million vehicle movements?