11042 replies to this topic

[Victoria Watcher]

I agree. Sky is not falling people. Richardson is a minor street.

[Rex Waverly]

Rex: isn’t that the same as what they just did on Humboldt? This is where I’m confused because you say it’s not (or am I misreading your previous comment?).

 

Advisory bike lanes have marked bike lanes separating cars from vehicles; in order to pass, vehicles have to pull into the bike lane (after checking for cyclists in the lane, who have priority).  They are a new design and pretty uncommon in Canada.

 

Yield streets also require vehicles to pull over to pass;0. however they pull into gaps in on-street parking (typically at driveways) to pass. Vehicles and bikes are not separated, and there are no lane lines (Richardson bike route should not be called 'bike lanes' as there are no lanes).

[IPH]

A 9m roadway with parking on both sides is very common in Victoria. As an example, McClure St and Collinson St (the streets directly north and south of Richardson) are 9m wide with parking both sides (at least between Vancouver and Cook).  Drivers have to drive slow and cautious but that's what you want when it's a local residential road (which is what they are trying to turn Richardson into).  

Just because we have existing streets that don't meet the City's own design standards doesn't mean we should throw out the design standards wherever it serves some special interest group's agenda!  The standards are there for a reason and should be followed for any new changes, just like we don't say there is no point on following the new fire or seismic codes when designing new buildings, just because there are old buildings that don't meet it. 

 

Besides, who said we wanted to turn Richardson into a slow and cautious local road?  Certainly not the residents of all the surrounding streets.  McClure and Collinson both end 1 and 1/2 block east of Cook respectively and as a result are naturally slow cautious local roads similar to Burdett, Trutch, Harbinger, Cornwall, Linden, etc.  But that wont last for long as all the vehicles that use to take Richardson cut down these streets to get to where Richardson use to take them.  

[IPH]

Advisory bike lanes have marked bike lanes separating cars from vehicles; in order to pass, vehicles have to pull into the bike lane (after checking for cyclists in the lane, who have priority).  They are a new design and pretty uncommon in Canada.

 

Yield streets also require vehicles to pull over to pass;0. however they pull into gaps in on-street parking (typically at driveways) to pass. Vehicles and bikes are not separated, and there are no lane lines (Richardson bike route should not be called 'bike lanes' as there are no lanes).

So no different than now, except your adding parking to one side where it doesn't exist making it even narrower for the cars and bikes to share.  Even with the reduced number of cars that's still more dangerous than it currently is for cyclists and you've got the added bonus of stuffing more cars into all the other side streets making them more dangerous for pedestrians and kids that use to be able to play on their formerly quiet street.  Way to go Victoria, brilliant!

[Victoria Watcher]

Just because we have existing streets that don't meet the City's own design standards doesn't mean we should throw out the design standards wherever it serves some special interest group's agenda! The standards are there for a reason and should be followed for any new changes, just like we don't say there is no point on following the new fire or seismic codes when designing new buildings, just because there are old buildings that don't meet it.

Besides, who said we wanted to turn Richardson into a slow and cautious local road? Certainly not the residents of all the surrounding streets. McClure and Collinson both end 1 and 1/2 block east of Cook respectively and as a result are naturally slow cautious local roads similar to Burdett, Trutch, Harbinger, Cornwall, Linden, etc. But that wont last for long as all the vehicles that use to take Richardson cut down these streets to get to where Richardson use to take them.

calm down. our
bike lanes don’t bring out more cyclists.

it’s all the same in the end. minus a few $$ million taxpayer money.

Edited by Victoria Watcher, 26 July 2020 - 01:10 PM.

[A Girl is No one]

Advisory bike lanes have marked bike lanes separating cars from vehicles; in order to pass, vehicles have to pull into the bike lane (after checking for cyclists in the lane, who have priority). They are a new design and pretty uncommon in Canada.

Yield streets also require vehicles to pull over to pass;0. however they pull into gaps in on-street parking (typically at driveways) to pass. Vehicles and bikes are not separated, and there are no lane lines (Richardson bike route should not be called 'bike lanes' as there are no lanes).

I see, thanks for the explanation.

[Rex Waverly]

Just because we have existing streets that don't meet the City's own design standards doesn't mean we should throw out the design standards wherever it serves some special interest group's agenda!  The standards are there for a reason and should be followed for any new changes, just like we don't say there is no point on following the new fire or seismic codes when designing new buildings, just because there are old buildings that don't meet it. 

 

Besides, who said we wanted to turn Richardson into a slow and cautious local road?  Certainly not the residents of all the surrounding streets.  McClure and Collinson both end 1 and 1/2 block east of Cook respectively and as a result are naturally slow cautious local roads similar to Burdett, Trutch, Harbinger, Cornwall, Linden, etc.  But that wont last for long as all the vehicles that use to take Richardson cut down these streets to get to where Richardson use to take them.  

 

Which CoV design standards do these not meet?  The 'Typical Local Street' road cross-section (https://www.victoria...cifications.pdf, page 19) specifies a road width of 9m to 12m (although it does recommend 10m for high density townhouse / low-rise apartments such as are on the west section of Richardson).  Yield streets are not just relics of old-style city design but are commonly installed today.  

 

As for 'who said we wanted to turn Richardson into a slow and cautious local road', that's a separate debate; if you don't want changes to Richardson, i doubt there's a AAA cycling facility design that you will approve of. But IF the goal is to create a AAA facility (which is clearly what the City intends), a 9m yield street is a proven, common-place and current design. 

 

(if any of you are interested, here's a pretty good overview of the concept behind a yield street: https://nacto.org/pu...s/yield-street/)

[mbjj]

Now that people are getting back to work, the volume of people turning left from Cook onto Richardson late on a weekday afternoon has increased almost to previous levels. I wonder where they will all go if that left turn is going to be disallowed? Those are the sorts of things we object to; things like making it difficult for us to get home, to the hospital, into Oak Bay, etc. with all the planned blockages.

[rjag]

Now that people are getting back to work, the volume of people turning left from Cook onto Richardson late on a weekday afternoon has increased almost to previous levels. I wonder where they will all go if that left turn is going to be disallowed? Those are the sorts of things we object to; things like making it difficult for us to get home, to the hospital, into Oak Bay, etc. with all the planned blockages.

 

Going to be more traffic down McClure, Carnsew, Moss, St Charles, Rockland etc...when Helps says they are saving x thousand tons of CO2 by reducing traffic on Richardson you know she's blowing smoke out her a$$ as all it will do is go to alternate roads. The environment will likely be worse off by the slightly added congestion and slower moving and idling traffic elsewhere. 

[Rex Waverly]

Going to be more traffic down McClure, Carnsew, Moss, St Charles, Rockland etc...when Helps says they are saving x thousand tons of CO2 by reducing traffic on Richardson you know she's blowing smoke out her a$$ as all it will do is go to alternate roads. The environment will likely be worse off by the slightly added congestion and slower moving and idling traffic elsewhere. 

 

Yes, with the left turn restriction on Cook there will like be some drivers that will be diverted on the roads listed above, but only the local traffic (people living west of Lotbiniere / Durban). Through traffic will be blocked here, and there really isn't another east-west through route, with the possible exception of Rockland which is already pretty narrow and restricted.  Through traffic will have to take the arterial / collector roads (such as Fairfield,  Fort, Oak Bay Ave).  

 

Obviously the trade-off with the Richardson plan is that drivers will have to re-route, and potentially have a slightly increased commute. But besides the benefits to cyclists, I assume there are a fair number of residents living directly non Richardson that will appreciate the reduced traffic volumes, noise, and emissions as well as the improved safety for their kids / grandchildren. 
 

[Love the rock]

Yes, with the left turn restriction on Cook there will like be some drivers that will be diverted on the roads listed above, but only the local traffic (people living west of Lotbiniere / Durban). Through traffic will be blocked here, and there really isn't another east-west through route, with the possible exception of Rockland which is already pretty narrow and restricted.  Through traffic will have to take the arterial / collector roads (such as Fairfield,  Fort, Oak Bay Ave).  

 

Obviously the trade-off with the Richardson plan is that drivers will have to re-route, and potentially have a slightly increased commute. But besides the benefits to cyclists, I assume there are a fair number of residents living directly non Richardson that will appreciate the reduced traffic volumes, noise, and emissions as well as the improved safety for their kids / grandchildren. 
 

Ok Maybe I’m missing something  . Can you explain the Mayor’s CO2 statement. 

[A Girl is No one]

Yes, with the left turn restriction on Cook there will like be some drivers that will be diverted on the roads listed above, but only the local traffic (people living west of Lotbiniere / Durban). Through traffic will be blocked here, and there really isn't another east-west through route, with the possible exception of Rockland which is already pretty narrow and restricted. Through traffic will have to take the arterial / collector roads (such as Fairfield, Fort, Oak Bay Ave).

Obviously the trade-off with the Richardson plan is that drivers will have to re-route, and potentially have a slightly increased commute. But besides the benefits to cyclists, I assume there are a fair number of residents living directly non Richardson that will appreciate the reduced traffic volumes, noise, and emissions as well as the improved safety for their kids / grandchildren.

What about those who will all of a sudden get a lot more traffic volumes, noise and emissions and reduced safety for their kids / grandchildren? (I have no skin in the game but just following through the logic)

Edited by A Girl is No one, 26 July 2020 - 05:47 PM.

[rjag]

Yes, with the left turn restriction on Cook there will like be some drivers that will be diverted on the roads listed above, but only the local traffic (people living west of Lotbiniere / Durban). Through traffic will be blocked here, and there really isn't another east-west through route, with the possible exception of Rockland which is already pretty narrow and restricted.  Through traffic will have to take the arterial / collector roads (such as Fairfield,  Fort, Oak Bay Ave).  

 

Obviously the trade-off with the Richardson plan is that drivers will have to re-route, and potentially have a slightly increased commute. But besides the benefits to cyclists, I assume there are a fair number of residents living directly non Richardson that will appreciate the reduced traffic volumes, noise, and emissions as well as the improved safety for their kids / grandchildren. 
 

 

Rockland at Moss, St Charles and Gonzales will see far more traffic. How about their safety, noise and emissions? 

[IPH]

Which CoV design standards do these not meet?  The 'Typical Local Street' road cross-section (https://www.victoria...cifications.pdf, page 19) specifies a road width of 9m to 12m (although it does recommend 10m for high density townhouse / low-rise apartments such as are on the west section of Richardson).  Yield streets are not just relics of old-style city design but are commonly installed today.  

 

 

But its not a "local Street" its a "Secondary Collector" which requires a 12 m width when it is a bus route.  That is why there is currently no parking on the north side of the road.  Changing it to a local street is not what the neighbourhood (ie, the taxpayers that have paid and continue to pay for all this BS) want.  Even if its changed to a "local Street" if they put parking on both sides that only leaves 3.6 m of travel width.  

 

How can the City require a full 6 m for a "lane" where no parking is allow on either side but say 3.6 m is wide enough for two way traffic on a local road.  Like I said before, the City even requires a 6 m wide driveway for a residential parking lot with 10 stalls.  So a townhouse development with 10 parking stalls located on Richardson will require a wider driveway than the travel lanes it enters even though that street services thousands of vehicles a day compared to the 10 cars the driveway services?  

[Rex Waverly]

Ok Maybe I’m missing something  . Can you explain the Mayor’s CO2 statement. 

Not really.... i mean, if you make biking easier and driving more difficult, i think it's fair to assume an increase in cyclists and a decrease in vehicles, but most will still drive, just a different route.  

 

 

What about those who will all of a sudden get a lot more traffic volumes, noise and emissions and reduced safety for their kids / grandchildren? (I have no skin in the game but just following through the logic)

 

What does 'a lot more' mean?

Since there's no through route due to the closure at Lotbiniere / Dunbar, it's only the residential traffic between Cook and Lotbiniere / Dunbar. If trying to get from say, downtown to oak bay, that's what the arterial roads are for.  

 

IMO Rockland is the only one that is a viable east / west route between Fairfield and Fort (not counting Richardson obviously), so that may be an issue that has to be monitored and potentially traffic calmed as well. But it's already so tight of a road that i think most would choose to take Fort / Fairfield.  

 

But its not a "local Street" its a "Secondary Collector" which requires a 12 m width when it is a bus route.  That is why there is currently no parking on the north side of the road.  Changing it to a local street is not what the neighbourhood (ie, the taxpayers that have paid and continue to pay for all this BS) want.  Even if its changed to a "local Street" if they put parking on both sides that only leaves 3.6 m of travel width.  

 

How can the City require a full 6 m for a "lane" where no parking is allow on either side but say 3.6 m is wide enough for two way traffic on a local road.  Like I said before, the City even requires a 6 m wide driveway for a residential parking lot with 10 stalls.  So a townhouse development with 10 parking stalls located on Richardson will require a wider driveway than the travel lanes it enters even though that street services thousands of vehicles a day compared to the 10 cars the driveway services?  

 

It is a 'Secondary Collector' right now, although the volumes are currently on the high end (closer to 'Collector').  And I'm not sure if changing it to a local street is what the neighbourhood wants or not, although i'm fairly certain it's not what most of the posters here want. I'm not trying to argue 'for' or 'against' a bike route, just trying to say that IF the road is being changed into a local street, a 9m yield street with parking on both sides is not unusual. 

 

In a parking lot, the city requires a full 6m lane for two-way traffic (with parallel parking), but only a 3m lane for one-way traffic. Parking lots typically do not have gaps to allow a driver to pull over to yield, so there needs to be space for two-way traffic.  A yield street does not need space for two-way traffic between parked cars, because vehicles don't pass each other where cars are parked on both sides, only at the gaps where one vehicle has pulled over.  And again, this is only for Richardson from Cook to Lotinbiere (Richardson already has parking both sides between Vancouver and Cook). West of Lotinbiere, the road width / parking is unchanged. As for transit, the #1 currently runs down Richardson between Vancouver and Cook and so is clearly able to navigate a yield street. 

 

If cars / buses can get safely from Vancouver to Cook (and vice versa) then they should be able to get through a longer stretch of the same design, provided the volumes are down to local road volumes.

[mbjj]

We will not be choosing Fairfield. Most likely Rockland, then cut through one of those country lanes to get to the Jubilee Hospital area via Richmond. I foresee many more traffic accidents if people cut through a sidestreet, then try to turn left out onto Richardson. It's very difficult indeed.

 

Richardson between Vancouver and Cook is a very quiet stretch. The rest of Richardson is not quiet. If the left turn off Cook is disallowed, people will just turn left onto McClure, right onto Linden, then left onto Richardson (or right). We know several other residents of Richardson. Everyone is pissed off.

Edited by mbjj, 27 July 2020 - 05:58 AM.

[Cats4Hire]

As for transit, the #1 currently runs down Richardson between Vancouver and Cook and so is clearly able to navigate a yield street. 

 

If cars / buses can get safely from Vancouver to Cook (and vice versa) then they should be able to get through a longer stretch of the same design, provided the volumes are down to local road volumes.

It's not like it would be the only bus that goes on roads like this. Ignoring the Westshore/Penisula routes that spend almost their entire time on local roads Oakridge (30) looks exactly like what I think they want Richardson to be and the 30 runs full sized buses opposed to the 1 usually running the smaller ones. I think there's other areas too but I never really take other routes that aren't mostly travelling along main roads so I can't think of any other examples. 

[rjag]

Not really.... i mean, if you make biking easier and driving more difficult, i think it's fair to assume an increase in cyclists and a decrease in vehicles, but most will still drive, just a different route.  

 

 

IMO Rockland is the only one that is a viable east / west route between Fairfield and Fort (not counting Richardson obviously), so that may be an issue that has to be monitored and potentially traffic calmed as well. But it's already so tight of a road that i think most would choose to take Fort / Fairfield.  

 

 

 

 

Fort at OB Junction is now worse off since the reduction to 1 through lane. That's the problem, they are attacking these arterial routes and creating pinch points all over. Its not uncommon to have to wait 2-3 light cycles at that single light now which means more idling traffic, impacted buses etc. If you want to close off or reduce certain roads to create cycling corridors then you need to leave other routes alone. A classic example is the ridiculous arrangement along Cedar Hill X at Shelbourne as well as McKenzie between UVic and Shelbourne. 

 

This isnt rocket science, eithe its engineering or its ideology and right now it appears that ideology is the prevailing mindset which almost always suffers from unintended consequences. And thats one thing this council and their lobbyists are subject matter experts on...unintended consequences

[sebberry]

Fort at OB Junction is now worse off since the reduction to 1 through lane. That's the problem, they are attacking these arterial routes and creating pinch points all over. Its not uncommon to have to wait 2-3 light cycles at that single light now which means more idling traffic, impacted buses etc.

 

Yup. I live close to there so I'm through it often.  Most of the time when I'm passing through there I'm hardly ever waiting for a cyclist.  Pedestrian? Sure, but not cyclists. It's a mess.  I usually zip down one of the residential streets over to Oak Bay Ave and go through it that way.  

[Rex Waverly]

Fort at OB Junction is now worse off since the reduction to 1 through lane. That's the problem, they are attacking these arterial routes and creating pinch points all over. Its not uncommon to have to wait 2-3 light cycles at that single light now which means more idling traffic, impacted buses etc. If you want to close off or reduce certain roads to create cycling corridors then you need to leave other routes alone. A classic example is the ridiculous arrangement along Cedar Hill X at Shelbourne as well as McKenzie between UVic and Shelbourne. 

 

This isnt rocket science, eithe its engineering or its ideology and right now it appears that ideology is the prevailing mindset which almost always suffers from unintended consequences. And thats one thing this council and their lobbyists are subject matter experts on...unintended consequences

 

Yeah, if they're trying to encourage drivers to use the arterial routes, they need to make sure they're functioning adequately; having an intersection operating poorly will absolutely cause drivers to try side streets as shortcuts.