Frances Bula header image 2
← →

Upcoming talks on new transportation plan contemplate “road diet”

May 7th, 2010 · 21 Comments

We’ve been seeing a lot of action at city hall lately when it comes to bike lanes in a few areas. But there’s a much bigger, more comprehensive re-think coming in the fall, when the city will start talking about an update to its 1997 Transportation Plan.

One topic for sure that is going to come up in the debate, as I outlined today in the Globe, is a reallocation of the existing road space. The city has had a policy since 1997 of not creating new road space. Now it will be looking at who should get which part of its current road network among the groups competing for it: car drivers, commercial truck traffic, buses, future rapid transit, cyclists, pedestrians, taxis, car co-ops, skateboarders, motorcyclists, electric-bike riders and probably a few more categories that I missed.

Other cities have talked about “road diets” — squeezing cars into smaller spaces to make room for the other modes. Wait for that term to appear here.

Categories: Uncategorized

  • mezzanine

    Thanks for the article. Contrary to previous discussions you don’t need to build tram just to take cars off the road, as there are lots of groups that can use that space just as well. I really do want to see more dedicated/protected bikeways on arterials.

  • Michael Geller

    It doesn’t necessarily take more space to make the city more pedestrian friendly… a different approach to traffic signalization might help. For example…

    Why not do what they do in Auckland and other cities and manage the lights at major intersections so that all pedestrians have the right of way, IN ALL DIRECTIONS, at the same time. This would allow people to cross east-west, north-south and on the diagonal. I’m told this used to happen in Vancouver, but it was stopped since it slowed down the traffic. Hello?

    Also, at intersections with major pedestrian activity we should consider banning right turns on red lights. Some Georgia Street intersections (Burrard, Howe, etc.) might be good candidates for this.

    And while I agree with the general desire to put our roads on diets, I would like to see more space devoted to median planting and trees. Richmond has done a very good job of this…just drive down Gilbert to see what a difference it can make.

    The new roundabouts in Vancouver are a significant improvement in this regard, although I wish someone would teach us all how to use them. But that’s another story.

  • Tiktaalik

    “Pedestrians don’t have a lobby group, but many councillors say they need to get more attention.”

    This is an interesting point often lost in the discussion about bike lanes. I think almost every neighbourhood street could well use an extended sidewalk. In some neighbourhoods it’s very bad, such as Denman St and the southside sidewalks of Yaletown.

  • Richard

    The separated bike lanes on arterials will help pedestrians by increasing the distance between the sidewalk and the traffic. Safe cycling lanes on the street will dramatically reduce the number of people cycling on the sidewalks.

    As well, many of the improvements that cyclists pushing for also are used by pedestrians including the Central Valley Greenway and the bike path on the Canada Line Bridge. Signals and traffic calming that are funded through the bike budget also benefits pedestrians.

    Finally, cyclists were pushing for two lanes of traffic to be reallocated on the bridge so pedestrians could still use the east sidewalk. Hopefully, when the city decides what the permanent configuration for the bridge, a solution will be found that will allow pedestrians back on the east side.

    Still, much more can be done to make the city better and safer to walk around. Slowing down traffic would be a great start. Pedestrian streets downtown would be fantastic as well.

  • Joe Just Joe

    I’m a big fan of encouraging cycling and walking. In fact I don’t even insure my car anymore except for my annual camping excursions. That said I don’t think we need to take a stance of punishing car users in order to reward the alternatives. Implement a bike sharing program, provide safer and more parking options (huge peeve that there is no mandatory guest bike parking for residential buildings). I know I’ll get a barrage of hatred for suggesting this but I favour a provincial wide bicycle regristration system, heck if you don’t want to do it by bikers then do it by bike, a one time fee of $20. Should your bike ever get stolen it would make it easy for the police to return. Most of my collegues don’t ride not because they are scared of their safety it’s because they’ve either had a bike stolen or are scared of having it stolen.

  • Dan Cooper

    With no disrespect meant to Mr. J-cubed, I think that fear of a bicycle being stolen is not the most common concern keeping people from cycling. I commute by bicycle year round, and this morning there were mobs of people going along 10th Ave. between Quebec and Brunswick about 8:30, while a few months ago I would have seen only two or three. The most obvious differences are rain and temperature, which contribute also to visibility and safety. Put together, these come to “how funtional and comfortable – physically and emotionally – is it to cycle, compared with the alternatives?” Anything that can increase that function and comfort, such as protected lanes, would help. (Fear of getting run over by cars going the opposite direction on narrow streets with parking on both sides, including those designated as “bike routes,” is the number one cause of stress for me.) Not much you can do about rain and snow of course. Well, unless of course there were roadside microloans for fenders and rain gear, with free installation? *heh*

    While I’m on the topic, may I take this opportunity to say that, on average, drivers in Vancouver are the most polite I’ve seen anywhere? Quite often they will stop and wave me through an intersection, even though they aren’t required to do so. I’ve never seen that anywhere else!

  • Bill Lee

    And can this city-owned land on which a street is placed be taken over by an adjacent property owner to increase their lot size, 160 foot length?, and thus increase the permitted size of castle they can build?

    Montreal’s Plateau district is doing this street de-accessioning, speaking of more progressive cities: http://www.cbc.ca/canada/montreal/story/2010/05/05/montreal-green-space-plan.html
    also http://www.cbc.ca/canada/montreal/story/2009/03/02/traffic-plan.html

    The Bing bird’s eye view of St. Dominque, Laurier and St. Joseph. http://preview.tinyurl.com/2wpnwhd

  • Chris Keam

    The one-time registration fee for motor vehicles is $18.

    Bicycles are rarely returned because so few theft victims file a claim with the police, mostly because of the high deductibles. Also, you don’t see many people commuting on expensive road or downhill rigs (by expensive I mean over $2500). The great bulk of commuters according to my observations on the bike route are riding bikes in the $200 – $1000 range.

    If we did that (register bikes) then it would only be fair to register skateboards, mobility scooters, etc. With the HST already being added to bike costs, I don’t think yet another add-on cost is a good idea, esp. as I can’t see a good rationale for registering. My guess is the cost of administering the program would exceed any revenues and there’d have to be exceptions for kids bikes, other municipalities might not follow suit, driving customers out of the city to purchase, etc.

    Free registration was tried with PropertyCop, but the scheme unfortunately didn’t last.

    http://www.bclaws.ca/EPLibraries/bclaws_new/document/ID/freeside/29_334_91

  • Chris Keam

    Re-reading your comment JJJ I see you qualified the registration suggestion as province-wide. That would address one of my objections to be sure, but I still don’t see it as doing much to encourage cycling.

  • Zweisystem

    In France, where there has been an explosion of new light rail lines, including 100 km. of LRT in Paris by 2015, the current thinking is replacing car lanes with tram rails.

    This does two things:

    1) Creates passive traffic calming by reducing car lanes, thus pushing car drivers onto transit and

    2) Increases the capacity of a traffic lane from about 1,6oo to 2,000 persons per hour per direction to over 20,000 pphpd!

    The key is a large accessible LRT network to make it happen, something you can’t get with their VAL light-metro or our SkyTrain light-metro.

    The drum beat of new tram lines opening and new LRT systems being built certainly shows the success of their planning.

  • Zweisystem

    I also forgot to add this, most new LRT lines are lawned, bringing a spiderweb of ‘green’ linear parks in rather dull city centres and new bike-ways are part of all new LRT lines.

  • Richard

    Another powerful argument for reclaiming road space is that the number of trips by car are decreasing significantly.
    http://www.translink.ca/en/About-TransLink/Media/2010/April/Metro-Vancouver-Travel-Profile-Getting-Greener.aspx

    Note that this study was completed before the opening of the Canada Line and the increasing of capacity on the SkyTrain lines.

  • Richard

    Zwei

    Trams are great but don’t forget the largest investment that Paris is making is in an automated metro. Street space can also be reclaimed for pedestrian and cycling if a subway is built. La Rambas in Barcelona is a great example of this.

  • Joe Just Joe

    hmmm green linear parks with trains running down them, I think that would work nicely. Might give enough time for my dog to do his business before the next train comes. Perhaps I could lay down and read a whole page in a book. I vote that we plant grass along the CP and CN lines as well and we could have the worlds longest linear park. Might have to talk to Jimmy and get the people at Guinness to loosen the definition of what makes a park first.

  • Zweisystem

    Richard, you have it all backwards. Metro and subways do not remove cars from the street. Metros and subways are only built to cater to high passenger demands. Automatic metros become efficient when ridership exceeds about 20,000 pphpd.

    Finally the Meteor Metro costs about 10 times more to build than LRT/tram, thus the perceived higher investment.

    The one thing European transit planners have found out is that subways do not reduce auto traffic, which has paved the way for the LRT/tram Renaissance in France and Europe.

  • Zweisystem

    @Joe

    Lawned rights-of-way is a powerful tool in making a city livable. Get used to it.

    http://railforthevalley.wordpress.com/2009/07/07/how-green-is-my-rapid-transit/

  • Joe Just Joe

    Zwei, great pictures you linked too, notice how not a single one of them has a person using the green space. The only thing it’s accomplished is it looks prettier then pavement, it’s not any more usable and it’s a farce to call it a linear park. The only thing it’s accomplished is raised maintenance costs.

  • david m

    three low-ish cost, short/medium term moves to improve the pedestrian experience:

    1. widening virtually every city walkway. the sidewalk are ludicrously small by any reasonable standard, and it discourages walking.
    2. require awnings everywhere, retractable if necessary. rain and wind discourages walking more than anything.
    3. create pedestrian ‘arterials’ where density allows. granville is close enough already, do robson next (see above), etc.

  • Zweisystem

    Joe, you are just anti LRT, sad because TransLink has gone bankrupt financing your prized SkyTrain.

    Lawned rights-of-ways, contrary to what you say, do not raise maintenance costs, unlike automatic metros which are a maintenance nightmare.

    Now, I don’t expect kids to ply footy on a lawned tram route, no more than kids playing in the median of a highway.

    So for more heartburn, try this –

    http://railforthevalley.wordpress.com/2010/05/06/the-broadway-follies-part-2-questions-answers-about-lrt/

  • voony

    Zwei,

    You see France with psychedelic glasses:
    You will have eat too much of those mushroom growing in the Canada line tunnel.

    Paris has more than 200km of subway and still adding…
    Paris has more than 500km Rail Raid transit (RER) and still adding
    Sure it can have 100km of trams…

    Paris has also “Paris Plage” (“paris beach” http://www.pps.org/great_public_spaces//one?public_place_id=997), and that is possible because transit is underground!

    yes surface street is for people, not motorized vehicle…

  • Frank Ducote

    As one of the staff team on the landmark 1997 Vancouver Transportation Plan, the idea of a road diet is well worth pursuing. Vancouver is the most “urban” municpality in Canada, in the sense that more of our land area is platted in a grid pattern (including lanes) than any other city in the country. This means we generally have alternate routes to get where we want to go. Further, experience elsewhere has shown that a well-designed three-lane road can carry as much traffic volume as four-lane ones.

    Given the presence of such route choices and road space, it means thre is an opportuunity for some street space to be converted from car-dominated uses to other uses, perhaps including green space for park-short neighbourhoods, for plazas in neighbourhood centres, for larger cafes in sun-exposed areas (!!) , for rain gardens, and for alternative transportation, most importantly – for me, anyway – for additional sidewalk space.

    A few additional feet can make a very big difference in the comfort and enjoyment of a sidewalk, and also provide more soil for treet roots so that our urban forest can reach more of its natural potential.