11042 replies to this topic

[Bob Fugger]

Certainly less complex than Fort Street and Pandora Avenue were.

Disagree.  The two other existing bike lanes will form T junctions with the Wharf street bike lane.  And because cyclists deserve a view of the harbour more than car drivers, the bike zealots will be situating the bike lane on the west (water) side as opposed to the east side, which would make for much easier intersections and integration with other bike lanes.  These intersection upgrades will blow the budget.

[Coreyburger]

Disagree.  The two other existing bike lanes will form T junctions with the Wharf street bike lane.  And because cyclists deserve a view of the harbour more than car drivers, the bike zealots will be situating the bike lane on the west (water) side as opposed to the east side, which would make for much easier intersections and integration with other bike lanes.  These intersection upgrades will blow the budget.

 

Actually, it is the opposite. By placing on the West side, you avoid a bunch of cost:

1. Light at Yates and Wharf

2. Left-turn bay or some sort of traffic control at Broughton & Courtenay

 

As for integration, also disagree. By building on the west side, the connection to the Goose at the JSB is a single light crossing rather than two

[DustMagnet]

But it's really about the view of the harbour, right?

[Coreyburger]

But it's really about the view of the harbour, right?

 

Given that this is the beginning of the Seaside Touring Route, it definitely should be part of the equation. Tourist bike riders want to ride on the waterfront.

[Bob Fugger]

Actually, it is the opposite. By placing on the West side, you avoid a bunch of cost:

1. Light at Yates and Wharf

2. Left-turn bay or some sort of traffic control at Broughton & Courtenay

 

As for integration, also disagree. By building on the west side, the connection to the Goose at the JSB is a single light crossing rather than two

Perhaps I'm being obtuse, but a cyclist turning onto Wharf Street from Fort Street (and Pandora Avenue, for that matter) will need to cross over two opposing lanes of traffic and if going south, and additional bike lane of traffic going the other way.  And this is supposed to be done without any traffic control?

 

With respect to integration with the JSB and Goose, they could have planned it way better.  But as I'm sure was the case, the JSB project operated in one silo and Biketoria operates in another.

Edited by Bob Fugger, 14 June 2018 - 09:54 AM.

[nagel]

There are signals.

[lanforod]

Given that this is the beginning of the Seaside Touring Route, it definitely should be part of the equation. Tourist bike riders want to ride on the waterfront.

 

They should have a route down below then, not up on wharf.

[DustMagnet]

They should have a route down below then, not up on wharf.

The view is probably not the driving factor though.

I think the argument for not putting the lanes on the east side of Wharf had to do with service access to businesses there, but I can't seem to find that reference now.

[nagel]

On the east side there are 4 road crossings, and zero on the west.  Having it on the west also reduces the number of crossings required dealing with the JSB intersection nightmare, going from the goose to Capital Park which is the main driver of bike traffic for this route.

[Mike K.]

The west side has Pandora, Johnson and Yates as road crossings and four parking lot crossings, although one will be removed as part of the Northern Junk project and who knows what Ship Point will entail.

On the east it has five road crossings (add Courtney and Broughton) but only one driveway crossing (between Broughton and Fort).

[nagel]

You forgot Fort, and also if the bike lane were on the east there would be the cray cray at Humboldt at Government to negotiate as well for James Bay bound bike traffic, that with bikes on the west requires no crossings.

 

I have never seen a car turn down that bit of Yates.  Didn't even register it as a crossing.  The volume from Yates east of Wharf is quite high though and the crossing distance is massive.

 

Also good you brought up Johnson, because on the eastern side it's a dangerous slip lane.  Currently there's the slip lane on the west side too from JSB turning right onto Wharf but the city is going to raise the ped/bike crossing to slow traffic there.

[Mike K.]

Ah, right. Fort as well.

[Bob Fugger]

There are signals.

And so in your opinion as a cyclist, the clusterfudge of an intersection that is depicted in that infographic at Fort Street, with the interactions from Fort Street pushed across the street to the west side (across two lanes of vehicle traffic and potentially one lane of bike traffic) is preferable to the potentially seamless integration if the bike lane was on the east side of the street?  Wow.

[nagel]

And so in your opinion as a cyclist, the clusterfudge of an intersection that is depicted in that infographic at Fort Street, with the interactions from Fort Street pushed across the street to the west side (across two lanes of vehicle traffic and potentially one lane of bike traffic) is preferable to the potentially seamless integration if the bike lane was on the east side of the street?  Wow.

I don't see the issue.  I have space to wait while waiting for my phase to cross, and that space is protected.  That's the whole point.

[nagel]

And by the way, by seamless integration with an east side design, you mean no right on reds for cars at Johnson, Fort, Broughton and Courtney with no room for a right turn lane for the latter 3 of those.  There's your clusterfudge.

[Bob Fugger]

And by the way, by seamless integration with an east side design, you mean no right on reds for cars at Johnson, Fort, Broughton and Courtney with no room for a right turn lane for the latter 3 of those.  There's your clusterfudge.

The entire model is based on no right turn on red.

[Nparker]

Bingo, on 16 Jun 2018 - 5:02 PM, said: 

I saw that abandoned green bike four days ago in the Cook Street Village, and then yesterday it was at a bus stop on Quadra Street...

Two more have been abandoned in the hedge at my condo building again today. 

[shoeflack]

There's a very good article on Wired about the craziness of dockless bikes in Seattle. Worth the read whether you're pro- or anti-green bike.

 

https://www.wired.co...e-nowhere-else/

[Coreyburger]

So a few facts: biking is up 37% on their main downtown bike lane

https://www.seattleb...e-lanes-expand/

 

and this. Complaints are mostly negative, yet survey shows majority support.

https://www.seattleb...ery-supportive/

 

There's a reason why bike lane opponents keep losing elections - they're actually quite popular, despite the yelling

Edited by Coreyburger, 16 June 2018 - 06:31 PM.

[DustMagnet]

I was cycling east along Island Highway on Wednesday afternoon, and due to construction there is alternating single-lane traffic.  Of course, traffic was backed-up at least to Helmcken and a bit before.  As I was in the bicycle lane I was zipping past all this traffic until finally I get to the head of the line where a flagperson is holding the traffic.  I came to a stop and the flagperson says to me, "You don't have to wait if you want to ride on the sidewalk." and points to the asphalt on the other side of the concrete curb.

 

I looked back at the long line of cars, laughed and said, "No, I'll wait.  It's only fair."

 

Can flagpersons override the laws (with respect to riding on sidewalks) in that scenario?  I suppose it's not much different than when they redirect motor vehicles into the bike lane (which you normally can't drive in) when they are doing maintenance on the median garden beds, except that it wasn't necessary in this case.