The Official Transit Thread

[ronthecivil]

Yes, connections like these can be built to increase pedestrian traffic, but if that's your goal, then you should just build pedestrian briges like these 2 in Surrey--

http://www.surrey.ca/NR/rdonlyres/770E6A92-321B-4AB4-B63E-E00E778813D5/52181/BPWPioneerOpenHouseBoards_final_reduced.pdf

http://www.surrey.ca/NR/rdonlyres/010AA553-10B9-4C49-8326-28A5C3DE676F/52855/TyneheadBoardsreduced.pdf

Or build both. If you have an urban highway it's pretty much impossible to have enough crossings. (It is possible to have too many interchanges though).

For something analogous, and parts of it have been proposed, what do you think of this....

Extend Nelson to connect with Wayburne, build an overpass at Wayburne and connect it to Beta Ave. You would then have a local road from Marine to Hastings that would for example make an excellent bus and cycling route with many destination nodes in addition to allowing local traffic in Burnaby to not have to fight with the traffic trying to get out to further outlying suburbs. As is if you want to go north south you have terrible congestion in a car, and it's pretty scary as a pedestrian let alone a cyclist. All that congestion slows the buses down as well.

Would you consider that a good project or a bad project? One of the bad legacies of the freeway construction is the devision of the community. This helps to mitigate that.

[inane]

Or build both. If you have an urban highway it's pretty much impossible to have enough crossings. (It is possible to have too many interchanges though).

For something analogous, and parts of it have been proposed, what do you think of this....

Extend Nelson to connect with Wayburne, build an overpass at Wayburne and connect it to Beta Ave. You would then have a local road from Marine to Hastings that would for example make an excellent bus and cycling route with many destination nodes in addition to allowing local traffic in Burnaby to not have to fight with the traffic trying to get out to further outlying suburbs. As is if you want to go north south you have terrible congestion in a car, and it's pretty scary as a pedestrian let alone a cyclist. All that congestion slows the buses down as well.

Would you consider that a good project or a bad project? One of the bad legacies of the freeway construction is the devision of the community. This helps to mitigate that.

I really don't know much about that area of Burnaby...I'm more of a Vancouver/Richmond/South of Fraser guy to be honest.

Out of curiosity, which of the proposed bridges do you prefer for the two projects in Surrey?

[ronthecivil]

I really don't know much about that area of Burnaby...I'm more of a Vancouver/Richmond/South of Fraser guy to be honest.

Out of curiosity, which of the proposed bridges do you prefer for the two projects in Surrey?

The cheaper one.

As for comments....

If it's a ped only bridge going through the forested area isn't the best idea. It would be fairly scary at night to a lot of people and would be fairly desolate.

168th street (and 156th) would be good locations to put in overpasses like the one in Poco as well. Pretty hard to convince someone to walk, cycle, or bus from that community on the north side of the highway to get to destinations on the south (like skytrain) when you have to fight with the traffic jam from the highway (and even if uncongested the speeds would be scary as well).

Oh, and on the second one, if they are building a ped bridge the curvy one to look nice would in fact make the walking route longer (which is bad) while certainly being more expensive. I don't know how that one even got to the final plans.

Edited January 25, 2010 by ronthecivil

[inane]

The cheaper one.

As for comments....

If it's a ped only bridge going through the forested area isn't the best idea. It would be fairly scary at night to a lot of people and would be fairly desolate.

168th street (and 156th) would be good locations to put in overpasses like the one in Poco as well. Pretty hard to convince someone to walk, cycle, or bus from that community on the north side of the highway to get to destinations on the south (like skytrain) when you have to fight with the traffic jam from the highway (and even if uncongested the speeds would be scary as well).

I was expecting you to say the straight one.

edit--there you go! you did

FYI--the costs are nearly the same and yeah, your walk would be longer but really how much..?

Edited January 25, 2010 by inane

[ronthecivil]

I was expecting you to say the straight one.

edit--there you go! you did

FYI--the costs are nearly the same and yeah, your walk would be longer but really how much..?

The curvy one isn't nearly as bike friendly either. It would restrict sightlines and either reduce cycling speeds or run the risk of people being run over. For peds and cyclists as short straight and flat as possible.

Unless you also build a car overpass with bikelanes beside it. Then you can make it as curvy as you want I guess. As a pedestrian I would still prefer flat and straight though. If pedestrians didn't want flat and straight, you wouldn't see short-cut paths worn into the ground all over the place (any curvy looking sidewalk I ever made has one). If anything, I would say that pedestrian want a flat straight route more than just about anyone. People climb fences and barriers to not have to go around all the time.

[inane]

The curvy one isn't nearly as bike friendly either. It would restrict sightlines and either reduce cycling speeds or run the risk of people being run over. For peds and cyclists as short straight and flat as possible.

Unless you also build a car overpass with bikelanes beside it. Then you can make it as curvy as you want I guess. As a pedestrian I would still prefer flat and straight though. If pedestrians didn't want flat and straight, you wouldn't see short-cut paths worn into the ground all over the place (any curvy looking sidewalk I ever made has one). If anything, I would say that pedestrian want a flat straight route more than just about anyone. People climb fences and barriers to not have to go around all the time.

Reducing speeds on a pedestrian overpass is a good thing, I can only see massive conflicts if bikes are sailing through at top speed.

Sure, pedestrians take the shortest route possible, but when you're on a overpass and it's your only option, what's a few more dozen feet?

[ronthecivil]

Reducing speeds on a pedestrian overpass is a good thing, I can only see massive conflicts if bikes are sailing through at top speed.

Sure, pedestrians take the shortest route possible, but when you're on a overpass and it's your only option, what's a few more dozen feet?

I see the massive conflicts as well, problem is, if I can't sail through at top speed on my bike, all the more reason to drive right? If your goal is to make a tourist attraction, well done. If you goal is to provide a transportation alternative, it's a fail.

If I was able to sail along at 40 km/h on my bike without having to worry about pedestrians, traffic lights, or getting hit by a car, my desire to get around on my bike would skyrocket.

If you don't want bikes on the brigde install a "cyclists dismount" sign on either end and if needed the anti bike fences. Even as a pedestrian being able to see what's coming up is a lot more reassuring.

Besides, who is all this architectual goodness aimed at, the drivers queuing up for the Port Mann? That's the only people that are really going to see it.

[inane]

I see the massive conflicts as well, problem is, if I can't sail through at top speed on my bike, all the more reason to drive right? If your goal is to make a tourist attraction, well done. If you goal is to provide a transportation alternative, it's a fail.

If I was able to sail along at 40 km/h on my bike without having to worry about pedestrians, traffic lights, or getting hit by a car, my desire to get around on my bike would skyrocket.

If you don't want bikes on the brigde install a "cyclists dismount" sign on either end and if needed the anti bike fences. Even as a pedestrian being able to see what's coming up is a lot more reassuring.

Besides, who is all this architectual goodness aimed at, the drivers queuing up for the Port Mann? That's the only people that are really going to see it.

Well the bridge isn't 10 meters wide, if you're sailing by at 40kph the pedestrians are going to be nervous straight or not. And it's not like the proposal has you cycling in circles, it's a gentle curve... It's not for people going over the Port Mann, it's to connect Fraser Heights with the rest of Surrey--and to link Surrey Bend with Tynehead/Green Timbers. Down south, it's to link the neighbourhood squished between the King George and HWY 99 with all that new retarded walmart commercial crap on the other side.

[ronthecivil]

Well the bridge isn't 10 meters wide, if you're sailing by at 40kph the pedestrians are going to be nervous straight or not. And it's not like the proposal has you cycling in circles, it's a gentle curve... It's not for people going over the Port Mann, it's to connect Fraser Heights with the rest of Surrey--and to link Surrey Bend with Tynehead/Green Timbers. Down south, it's to link the neighbourhood squished between the King George and HWY 99 with all that new retarded walmart commercial crap on the other side.

I understands what it connects but most of the people that see it will be on the highway.

Unless you do something to stop bikes from going on it some people are going to sail over it. I know I would.

Only need 3-4m of width for two way full speed bike travel.

But you do understand my main point don't you? If you want to reduce people's desire to drive, slowing them down and making them go further is certainly going to contribute to that cause. The same principle applies to any form of transportation, including cycling and walking.

Effectively (and the "pedestrian only" label makes this loud and clear) the goal is to not have cyclists on this bridge. Well, fine and dandy, if that's the goal, ban cyclists from the bridge (or make 'em dismount). Not that I personally would actually follow those rules, and really, how do you enforce it?

But if that's the plan, and your intentionally slowing down cyclists or making them dismount, well, that's going to reduce the number of cyclists. If the goal is to contribute to alternatives to driving, this will be significanltly less effective. If the goal is to make a tourist attraction, congrats, they do look pretty.

You would think that surrey would learn their lesson from the narrow Burrard Bridge sidewalks and it's pedestrain/cyclist conflicts.

Call me crazy, but I would go ahead and assume that it will be popular, and that one day dense developement will occur on both sides and a ton of people will be using it, why not make it 4-5m wide with good sightlines so it can accomidate bikes and pedestrians safely and effeciently well into the future, working on a model of spending the money on function rather than on the obviously fasionable options they have selected.

[inane]

I understands what it connects but most of the people that see it will be on the highway.

Unless you do something to stop bikes from going on it some people are going to sail over it. I know I would.

Only need 3-4m of width for two way full speed bike travel.

But you do understand my main point don't you? If you want to reduce people's desire to drive, slowing them down and making them go further is certainly going to contribute to that cause. The same principle applies to any form of transportation, including cycling and walking.

Effectively (and the "pedestrian only" label makes this loud and clear) the goal is to not have cyclists on this bridge. Well, fine and dandy, if that's the goal, ban cyclists from the bridge (or make 'em dismount). Not that I personally would actually follow those rules, and really, how do you enforce it?

But if that's the plan, and your intentionally slowing down cyclists or making them dismount, well, that's going to reduce the number of cyclists. If the goal is to contribute to alternatives to driving, this will be significanltly less effective. If the goal is to make a tourist attraction, congrats, they do look pretty.

You would think that surrey would learn their lesson from the narrow Burrard Bridge sidewalks and it's pedestrain/cyclist conflicts.

Call me crazy, but I would go ahead and assume that it will be popular, and that one day dense developement will occur on both sides and a ton of people will be using it, why not make it 4-5m wide with good sightlines so it can accomidate bikes and pedestrians safely and effeciently well into the future, working on a model of spending the money on function rather than on the obviously fasionable options they have selected.

Hey man, I'm not in love with the winding bridge as a design, I just think claiming people won't use it cause it will take them 15-20 seconds longer to cross it is a stretch.

Where does it say pedestrian only? It's for both.

Why not make it 4-5 m wide? $$$$$$$$$

[ronthecivil]

Hey man, I'm not in love with the winding bridge as a design, I just think claiming people won't use it cause it will take them 15-20 seconds longer to cross it is a stretch.

Where does it say pedestrian only? It's for both.

Why not make it 4-5 m wide? $$$$$$$$$

If it's for both and doesn't accomidate bike path design standards (and yes they do exist, much like for roads) then if it doesn't meet the standards for width and sight distance when a cyclist runs someone over, if they get hurt, they are opening themselves up to be liable.

And of course it won't eliminate people from using it if it's long and slow, it will just make it less of an attractive alternative. Traffic calming the cyclists (!!! I thought planners loved cyclists!!!) to save money is hardly a good long term plan.

Fancy designs could be made more cost effective by using conventional designs and putting the money into more room. Especially the one over the highway.

[inane]

If it's for both and doesn't accomidate bike path design standards (and yes they do exist, much like for roads) then if it doesn't meet the standards for width and sight distance when a cyclist runs someone over, if they get hurt, they are opening themselves up to be liable.

And of course it won't eliminate people from using it if it's long and slow, it will just make it less of an attractive alternative. Traffic calming the cyclists (!!! I thought planners loved cyclists!!!) to save money is hardly a good long term plan.

Fancy designs could be made more cost effective by using conventional designs and putting the money into more room. Especially the one over the highway.

they're both over highways. are you even looking at them?

if they could spend millions on this, i'm sure they would accommodate everyone. you gotta pick and choose, parks depts. don't get unlimited funds like engineering does.

[ronthecivil]

they're both over highways. are you even looking at them?

if they could spend millions on this, i'm sure they would accommodate everyone. you gotta pick and choose, parks depts. don't get unlimited funds like engineering does.

Ok, your right, the top one is over hwy 99, so it's the same principle. The main people looking at it are people on the highway.

Not having enough money to do it right doesn't make my points any less true. Why not just build one now and leave the other to later if they are so cash strapped? Half assed solutions don't really solve anything in the long run.

If the city was smart they would have lobbied the gateway people to build them pedestrian and vehicle overpasses as part of the main contract. Perhaps even done a joint funding thing. No reason the parks people shouldn't be able to talk to the engineering people and look for joint funding as well, moving people is also part of engineerings mandate isn't it?

[inane]

Ok, your right, the top one is over hwy 99, so it's the same principle. The main people looking at it are people on the highway.

Not having enough money to do it right doesn't make my points any less true. Why not just build one now and leave the other to later if they are so cash strapped? Half assed solutions don't really solve anything in the long run.

If the city was smart they would have lobbied the gateway people to build them pedestrian and vehicle overpasses as part of the main contract. Perhaps even done a joint funding thing. No reason the parks people shouldn't be able to talk to the engineering people and look for joint funding as well, moving people is also part of engineerings mandate isn't it?

It's all part of build Canada--they were given a bunch of money and they need to spend it. hence the haste. these things need to be 'substantially completed' by march 2011.

lobbied the gateway people :lol: that's a good one. you know the gateway people is the provincial government right? and you know how the provincial government likes to negotiate? that's right, they don't.

[trevforever]

I think they want to try and divert traffic away from Shaughnessy as it gets really congested in the peak hours and weekends as it only single lane each way. It has been needed for awhile now, glad to see it almost complete.

Yes please!, Shaughnessy is the absolute worst during the rush hour home. I have the pleasure of having our hockey teams practice time during the rush hour home at the Poco rink & half the time I end up taking the long way around just to get around it & still get there before traffic has moved to my light

[ronthecivil]

It's all part of build Canada--they were given a bunch of money and they need to spend it. hence the haste. these things need to be 'substantially completed' by march 2011.

lobbied the gateway people :lol: that's a good one. you know the gateway people is the provincial government right? and you know how the provincial government likes to negotiate? that's right, they don't.

Well, that explains it. Any time governments are spending money because if they don't their budget disappears you know that sub optimal solutions are going to come of it. Why they put stipulations like that in (spend it or loose it) I will never know.

Oh, and fyi, it's not nearly as uncommon or as difficult as you think to piggy back things with the province. I run into example of (for example) a city having plans to upgrade some sort of utility, or having a future road widening contributing some money and simply putting into the larger plan. I know it's done because I have done it. I find it dubious that the province wouldn't want to add in claims of "increasing community connectivity" and "improving movements for transit, pedestrians, and cyclists" to the list of benefits gateway is going to bring to the city of surrey, especially if the city is helping to fund those initiatives.

Clearly someone didn't think about it or didn't try.

Now if you pull a Burnaby and basically say you want nothing to do with the project, and your negotiation revolves around not having the project go forward period, then ya, odds are, it's going to look like the province has no intention of negotiating.

[inane]

Well, that explains it. Any time governments are spending money because if they don't their budget disappears you know that sub optimal solutions are going to come of it. Why they put stipulations like that in (spend it or loose it) I will never know.

Oh, and fyi, it's not nearly as uncommon or as difficult as you think to piggy back things with the province. I run into example of (for example) a city having plans to upgrade some sort of utility, or having a future road widening contributing some money and simply putting into the larger plan. I know it's done because I have done it. I find it dubious that the province wouldn't want to add in claims of "increasing community connectivity" and "improving movements for transit, pedestrians, and cyclists" to the list of benefits gateway is going to bring to the city of surrey, especially if the city is helping to fund those initiatives.

Clearly someone didn't think about it or didn't try.

Now if you pull a Burnaby and basically say you want nothing to do with the project, and your negotiation revolves around not having the project go forward period, then ya, odds are, it's going to look like the province has no intention of negotiating.

I assume the spend it or lose it provincial stipulation is a self-serving means to ensure they get to be there cutting the ribbon and not the next politician who might be in office a few years later. Again, ridiculous short term self interest dominate.

[nitronuts]

CANADA LINE RIDERSHIP ON FRIDAY, JANUARY 22: 120,000

Edited January 28, 2010 by nitronuts

[ahzdeen]

CANADA LINE RIDERSHIP ON FRIDAY, JANUARY 22: 120,000

I would laugh if it wasn't so sad...

[Common sense]

CANADA LINE RIDERSHIP ON FRIDAY, JANUARY 22: 120,000

I'd ask for a source, but if I see that number, I might faint (or be crushed to death by the other 119,999 RAV Line users)