More traffic on Cambie Street
Over on the Livable Blog Patrick Golier is drawing attention to the activity by the City of Vancouver Engineers who want to increase car traffic on Cambie now that construction of the Canada Line is nearing completion.
Now the first thing we need to note is that the Canada Line is supposed to have the capacity to shift 100,000 people per day – or the equivalent of ten lanes of single occupant vehicles. So why do they now need more car capacity than they had before? Of course there is no need for that much capacity so they have already reduced the number of trains, to stay within budget.
As I have written on here many times, if you go for cheap, surface light rail you can not only increase people carrying capacity you can also reduce car capacity. As Meredith Botta pointed out Copenhagen has long-standing policy of removing just 3% of the space allocated for cars every year. And that has worked very well to improve the liveability of the city and because of the gradualism that I advocate for changes in density, it is accepted becuase it is not really noticeable. So the City could have simply put back what was there before – or actually used the opportunity of all the people moving capacity underground to make Cambie less of a drag strip.
I have always been a bit wary of that “heritage boulevard” designation. I mean, yes it looks nice as you swish by, and it improves the view from the residents’ front windows – as they only see three lanes of moving traffic not six. But for a sizeable chunk of city real estate it does not seem to me to have much utility. Perhaps re-allocating space to produce a slower, 3 or 4 lanes of gp traffic – and use the rest for walking, cycling and recreation of various informal kinds might be more urbane. But then streets are the territory of the engineers, not the planners. And they don’t even speak the same language.
And the other thing that they should do is put back the trolleybuses, and also put in bus bulges at the stops. These bulges also make crossing the street easier, as the distance to get across is shorter. Why would you do this? To get in the way of the cars. Because what we need to do is build a place for people – not a place for automobiles!
Here’s the City’s website on the restoration of Cambie Street.
http://vancouver.ca/engsvcs/transport/rto/canadaline/cambie/streetscape.htm
As a pedestrian, I’m not keen on the pedestrian bulges. Without the bulge you could inch out into the crosswalk to show your intent to cross and essentially force a car to stop. I know that cars are legally obligated to stop if you are in a crosswalk, but I don’t like jumping off the curb at a pedestrian bulge directly into the path of a car (that’s just one step at a bulge) – I’d rather inch out and make sure the car will stop. Otherwise I am stuck on the curb waiting for the generosity of a driver.
Ron C
February 12, 2008 at 7:06 pm
Which tends to support Hans Monderman’s theory that there should be fewer traffic signs and signals so that drivers are forced to make eye contact with other road users. In areas where cars and pedestrians mix, both must have much greater awareness of each other. So things which slow down drivers and make them feel less comfortable are a good start. But there are some incredibly rude people out there – sometimes they are walking, sometimes they are riding bikes, sometimes they are driving or roller blading or on Segways. It is the human factor that matters, not the mode. We all need to be concerned about the welfare and safety of others – not just the selfish enjoyment of our own ability to move.
Stephen Rees
February 13, 2008 at 8:05 am
To clarify the point of the blog that I wrote for the Livable Region site, the City is not trying to increase traffic – however, they are restoring all vehicular capacity to Cambie Street (north of 12th Avenue) at the expense of improving the infrastructure for alternate modes which should take priority. Instead of allowing for on-street parking and adding bicycle lanes, which would also make for a more pleasant and safer pedestrian environment, the roadway is being redesigned solely for fast movement of vehicles. This is, of course, despite the future presence of the Canada Line stations, which, ironically, the City is hoping people will bike and walk to.
Patrick Golier
February 13, 2008 at 8:58 am
Point taken. We do not know the actual motivation of these particular Engineers. BUT the consequences of choosing a design that allows more space for moving cars is that there will be more traffic – and indeed your original post actually says that “Vehicular Capacity Will Induce Traffic” – and I have a strong suspicion that both the engineers and the politicians know that – and if they don’t (or won’t admit it) that means they have ignored the experience of every other city that has tried to cope with congestion by expanding road capacity
Stephen Rees
February 13, 2008 at 9:22 am
A couple of points. First, it appears the recently restored King Edward to 16th Ave segment of Cambie has been redesigned to accommodate a centre median, left turn bays at almost every block, and bicycle lanes between the travel lane and parking lane. The previous configuration in the Cambie Village did not have a median except at a few major interections. I’m not sure if this is just a temporary thing or not (it’s only paint at this point), but it struck me that built-up medians would help accommodate the local traffic, remove one lane capacity from speed demon through-commuters (maybe slow them down a little), and provide a refuge for pedestrians crossing Cambie. Perhaps this is part of the City’s strategy when their final restoration plans for which they have budgeted $2 million.
Secondly, a good portion of pedestrian, bus and corner bulges I’m aware of in Vancouver are associated with pedestrian and bicyclist-activated lights. Again, the pedestrian refuge idea makes sense, especially when the bulge occupies a parking lane that would otherwise partially obscur pedestrians, especially on our all-too-common dark rainy nights.
I agree fully that regular trolley service should be restored on Cambie. I am a little dismayed they missed the opportunity of placing a Canada Line station at 16th Ave.
Meredith
February 13, 2008 at 10:07 am
If I remember correctly, TransLink has no intention of restoring trolley service to Cambie. I can’t remember at the moment in which document I read that. It would be a shame since trolleys are so much nicer than a noisy diesel (unless the trolley poles keep coming off the wires).
I like pedestrian bulges personally, though I do not live near one. I like what I’ve seen on Main Street except the bulges are just more concrete in a concrete environment. I wish the city would do more greening up or spicing up of the bulges. They are just plain concrete at the moment. Nice to have the pedestrian space, but really quite bland to be honest.
Henry
February 13, 2008 at 11:28 pm
The Main Street curb bulges are bland, but they work well. The budget for the Showcase project was only $6 million from three agencies, and that had to cover the entire length of Main from the inlet to the river. In effect, the blandness of plain concrete reflects the budget. In future they can be planted up and receive a more refined hard treatment with accent paving, more pedestrian scale lighting and even public art. The work so far could be considered as building a foundation.
Meredith
February 14, 2008 at 9:07 am
One of the major benefits of bulges is that they discourage people from parking too close to, or even in, the crosswalk, which I’ve seen way too many times in my neighbourhood. This is especially frustrating when I see people do this even when there are plenty of free parking spaces nearby.
Sungsu
February 14, 2008 at 2:28 pm
I agree with Stephen that the Heritage designation is somewhat specious. Why not have King Edward West, Renfrew and 16th Ave West designated heritage boulevards?
Cambie St. residents complained vocally about the transit line but their property values will increase a lot owing to having the line underground. People on Knight Street would have loved to have had such a great transit line. The east-west bus routes, such as the new route 33 along 33rd Ave on the East side and 16th Ave on the west side, would be ideal for trolley wires, but poles would of course have to be added. I would like to see trolley buses returned to 41st Ave before returning to Cambie St.
Graeme
February 14, 2008 at 7:36 pm
The difference is in the trees. There are something like 150 different species planted there, according to their website.
Dave 2
February 15, 2008 at 12:17 pm
I’ve always been impressed by the boulevard section of Cambie. My feeling has been that if we wanted to impress first time visitors coming from the airport we ought to bring them down Cambie rather than Granville or Oak. Now many will be coming down Cambie, under ground. Protecting the boulevard was the right thing to do in my view.
The trolleys should definitely be returned to Cambie but I don’t think Translink sees it that way.
Bulges tend to slow traffic, especially on bus routes as the bus stays in the traffic lane to load and unload, in theory also speeding up bus service.
Although it would be extremely unpopular among motorists generally I am in favour of raised crosswalks (at least in areas with high pedestrian activity) which effectively become a speed bump while making the pedestrians more visible.
Wayne
February 15, 2008 at 12:27 pm
Oops, make that ~75 species, I miscounted their list (double spaced)
Dave 2
February 15, 2008 at 1:07 pm
[...] capacity – and of course transit can move many more people than a lane of cars. Which is why the Cambie Street situation is so unnecessary. But central places are where cities show why they have persisted for [...]
How to reduce road space « Stephen Rees’s blog
February 15, 2008 at 2:50 pm