The Official No Need To Start a New Thread, Thread

[SSM_DC5]

Vancouver might not join the 10pm crew..... Instead they'll make it 30 everywhere at all times!

https://vancouver.ca/streets-transpo...e-program.aspx

[RabidRat]

You know what would be easier and cheaper, is just stop fixing the roads where you want people to slow down.

And if you don't want to wait so long for the roads to naturally degrade, then pour a bunch of gravel.

[Great68]

This is Saanich now, it's all 40 and 30 everywhere, only the largest arterials are 50km/h.

Fucking maddening.

[unit]

i drive through a school zone during school hours every day on the way home. after 4pm its a rare sight for me to see a single kid on that street. 10pm is just insane

[Dbone]

In Nanaimo they have school zones signed where they have been deemed non-compliant and so they are unenforceable.

But they won't take the signs down and now you are either an asshole for speeding through a signed school zone (think of the children!) or you're an idiot for falling for the fake signage and doing 30kph on a road everyone does 70kph on.

[GLOW]

Originally Posted by RabidRat

You know what would be easier and cheaper, is just stop fixing the roads where you want people to slow down.

And if you don't want to wait so long for the roads to naturally degrade, then pour a bunch of gravel.

sales of subies would go through the roof, the identity of this forum would change

[RabidRat]

Originally Posted by GLOW

sales of subies would go through the roof, the identity of this forum would change

No, the identity of this forum has already changed.

There're probably 5+ Lezbaru owners by now. Which is like, 250% of the RS population.

[unit]

i always park my lezbaru away from the meet by a few rows and walk over. next time im parking in the middle and i will no longer hide in shame

[radeonboy]

^Have pride with your ride! Subaru even makes a badge for that:



See all the badges here:
https://badgeofownership.ca/en-CA/Build

[spoon.ek9]

y'all gonna scissor each other at the next meet or..?

[Badhobz]

I’m going to dock my lezbaru with raedons lezbaru.

[RabidRat]

Are you guys gonna order that Subaru badge? Looks like there's a bunch of selection there!

[supafamous]

Originally Posted by donk.

Drove over the new riverview bridge today, and to my surprise, its 2 lanes.........

Population was less than half in 1930 when the last bridge was built.
Blows my mind they did not add at least 1 lane.

Traffic has doubled since 1930, and will quadruple by 2130 (in comparison to 1930) when it gets replaced next

Great use of future proofing the city for X billion

It's provisioned, as needed, to be expanded to 6 lanes down the road but, as roastpuff mentioned, New West objected to 6 lanes because they don't have road capacity for that much traffic.

Traffic volume forecasting is notoriously inaccurate - traffic engineers over the years have grossly exaggerated how much traffic volumes will grow. Even if there was demand for the volume they forecast there's no viable land available for new roads to be built (especially considering how much land is worth). We already spend something like 25-35% of land on roads and parking - it's just not practical to keep adding lanes as they don't carry enough people.

In relation to this, DH had some useful data on traffic volume of bridges:

https://dailyhive.com/vancouver/iron...raffic-volumes



Reading between the lines a few things show up:

- The max capacity of a lane is around 20-22k vehicles per day. The Second Narrows and the Massey are pretty darn congested at that volume. The Lions Gate at 19k/day is merely "quite busy".
- You can squeeze more capacity out if the lanes are standard size like the Port Mann. If the Second Narrows had standard lanes it could probably handle 24-25k vehicles a lane (ignoring capacity on both ends of the bridge)
- The old Patullo was only handling about 15k vehicles per day. This is probably because the narrow lanes and various closures made 15k the max compared to other bridges.
- The new Patullo/Riverview with its standard sized lanes should give the bridge about 33-50% more capacity than before even though it's the same number of lanes. They didn't need to add 2 more lanes to make traffic better - if they did 6 lanes right off the bat they'd be looking at a doubling of capacity compared to the old bridge so I get why New West said "Hell no" to that.

[Mikoyan]

Originally Posted by SSM_DC5

Vancouver might not join the 10pm crew..... Instead they'll make it 30 everywhere at all times!

https://vancouver.ca/streets-transpo...e-program.aspx

Technically, it's supposed to be 30 on all sides streets already, but the VPD said they can't enforce it without signage, unless they put up the slow neighborhood zone areas....

My inlaws are in the Hastings Sunrise area, and they're now slow zoned... Plus they remapped a crisscross of one way streets, so we've had to relearn how to drive through the neighborhood. Some people don't care though, I've seen lots of cars driving the wrong way through the new one way streets.

[bobbinka]

Originally Posted by supafamous

It's provisioned, as needed, to be expanded to 6 lanes down the road but, as roastpuff mentioned, New West objected to 6 lanes because they don't have road capacity for that much traffic.

Traffic volume forecasting is notoriously inaccurate - traffic engineers over the years have grossly exaggerated how much traffic volumes will grow. Even if there was demand for the volume they forecast there's no viable land available for new roads to be built (especially considering how much land is worth). We already spend something like 25-35% of land on roads and parking - it's just not practical to keep adding lanes as they don't carry enough people.

In relation to this, DH had some useful data on traffic volume of bridges:

https://dailyhive.com/vancouver/iron...raffic-volumes



Reading between the lines a few things show up:

- The max capacity of a lane is around 20-22k vehicles per day. The Second Narrows and the Massey are pretty darn congested at that volume. The Lions Gate at 19k/day is merely "quite busy".
- You can squeeze more capacity out if the lanes are standard size like the Port Mann. If the Second Narrows had standard lanes it could probably handle 24-25k vehicles a lane (ignoring capacity on both ends of the bridge)
- The old Patullo was only handling about 15k vehicles per day. This is probably because the narrow lanes and various closures made 15k the max compared to other bridges.
- The new Patullo/Riverview with its standard sized lanes should give the bridge about 33-50% more capacity than before even though it's the same number of lanes. They didn't need to add 2 more lanes to make traffic better - if they did 6 lanes right off the bat they'd be looking at a doubling of capacity compared to the old bridge so I get why New West said "Hell no" to that.

To add, the congestion issues on New West side stemmed from McBride further North at 6th and 8th Ave backing up down to the Bridge (which a new bridge can't fix), all the people/trucks exiting the Pattulo to loop down to Columbia and getting stopped at 2 lights, and then the people/trucks from Columbia trying to take the on-ramp onto the Pattulo, which was impossible to merge onto in the past because they had to sit at a yield sign and wait for traffic to clear before they could go.

The new bridge/design improves on 2 of these major issues, because there's an off-ramp directly from the bridge onto Columbia, bypassing two lights, and there will be a new on-ramp from Columbia onto the bridge that has it's own dedicated lane, so they won't have to sit and wait.

Eventually, they'll have the off-ramp on the Surrey side that ties directly into Highway 17 too.

Even at 4 lanes, the new bridge is significantly more efficient. People think 6 is better than 4, therefore it sucks, but they don't actually think about where the source of the congestion is. We'll need to wait for all the on/off ramps to be finished first this year, but if the traffic still ends up being backed up from Mcbride or the new Columbia off-ramp onto the bridge, then you know the bridge isn't the problem. You could build 10 lanes and it'd still be backed up.

[MarkyMark]

Originally Posted by bobbinka

The new bridge/design improves on 2 of these major issues, because there's an off-ramp directly from the bridge onto Columbia, bypassing two lights, and there will be a new on-ramp from Columbia onto the bridge that has it's own dedicated lane, so they won't have to sit and wait.

The new on-ramp from Columbia to the bridge will merge into the same lane that the on-ramp coming from Royal is connected to. I drive this route every week so I'm curious to see how much it slows traffic down once the semis from Columbia have to merge with the traffic from Royal on the bridge. Ideally the Columbia on-ramp would have it's own separate third lane instead of a short merge lane.

[bobbinka]

Originally Posted by MarkyMark

The new on-ramp from Columbia to the bridge will merge into the same lane that the on-ramp coming from Royal is connected to. I drive this route every week so I'm curious to see how much it slows traffic down once the semis from Columbia have to merge with the traffic from Royal on the bridge. Ideally the Columbia on-ramp would have it's own separate third lane instead of a short merge lane.

Yea, but it's still better than before. 2 on-ramp lanes merge into one dedicated bridge lane, instead of 3 lanes into one before.

[MarkyMark]

Originally Posted by bobbinka

Yea, but it's still better than before. 2 on-ramp lanes merge into one dedicated bridge lane, instead of 3 lanes into one before.

It's better for the people coming from Columbia because they get a merge instead of waiting at a stop sign, coming from Royal and McBride is basically the same because Royal always drove onto the right lane and McBride drives onto the left lane. The biggest difference is semi's won't turn it into a one lane bridge once they are on it taking up both lanes.