Tuesday, 28 June 2016

Edmonton LRT. A new standard for them?

Our LRT system needs several things to make it safer and more efficient. Here are my ideas.

We need a few infill stations. One at 40 Ave and 111 St and another at the future LRT line down to Ellerslie Rd and Heritage Valley at 9 Ave N. On the North side of the line, we could benefit from a stop at 95 Ave, and on the route between Clareview and Gorman, we can put a stop halfway between 144 Ave and 153 Ave.

Second, we need a system that is safe at the level crossings. We do have a few grade separations, but not many stand alone ones. We could benefit from having one at Ellerslie Rd, 51 Ave and probably the Whitemud Drive / 111 St interchange and under under University Ave, possibly at 60 Ave as well. 112 Ave and 129 Ave also can be problem spots for traffic. They can get quite tied up, especially when a T or cross road junction is added to the mix because the left turns have to always be on a different cycle. Even at intersections without the LRT but with left turns on a separate cycle, they are better because of the lack of pre emption. Add pre timed traffic signals and it does not work very well. These grade separations also help with preventing an: LRT train, a 125 thousand tonne object that can go up to: 70 km/h, from crashing into a : car going ;0 km/h in the direction the train is moving at. They are very often severe crashes, the car or truck will be totaled, if the vehicle is a truck then the train can also be very severely damaged, and very likely someone will be killed or severely injured. We could use grade separations over 178 Ave, Whitemud Drive and 66 St, if the LRT gets expanded to the East, then under 75 St at 98 Ave and if the LRT gets extended Southeast, then 23 ave as well.

We need more lines at a much more rapid pace than we have in the past. I calculate that we have another 68 km of lines left to be planned to go through St Albert, to Windemere, to 41 Ave from Mill Woods, to Sherwood Park and to Fort Saskatchewan. Let alone the works we have already to be added. We have about 113 km in total to build, or about 4-6 billion dollars worth It doesn't need to be at once of course, and the federal and provincial governments are probably going to take up about 2/3 of the cost for a remainder of about 2 billion or so. Over 10 years worth of funding, we can contribute about 200 million dollars towards the LRT and so can the feds and province.

We need better bus connections. Seeing what buses are actually at the terminals helps a lot. And having buses that can turn around and go back and stop easier is better.

We need a bikeshare system at the stations. This is very useful for ensuring that we are always in range of our end destination, easily, on the other end of the LRT or transit.

Better speed. I know very well that our trains could go 10 km/h faster on everything than they actually do. They test the trains for 10 km/h faster. Faster, even to save seconds for a transfer, is invaluable.

Priority at junctions. We still need this, pre emption in fact. But we can have, the rest of the time, signals according to actual demand.

Just my takes. Share yours in the comments below. Bye.

Sunday, 19 June 2016

Drivers aren't evil. A review of penalties for offending drivers

I heard on the radio the story of someone who did actually drink, drive and run over a pedestrian, killing him. I want to share about my feelings on this.

Today, just a few minutes ago, I was coming home from a party for my grandfather who is amazingly still alive after all these years. I was listening to the radio. A segment about the story from a former drunk driver aired. He killed about 15 years ago, an 11 year old boy in a crosswalk. He's been having nightmares, and felt like the worst person in the world, until he committed suicide a few years ago. He was genuinely tearful.

It made me think about what happens when I get angry at people who do bad things. Most of these people aren't evil. You probably know by now who Brock Turner is. And you probably know that he was drunk at the time of the rape.

But the big difference with this drunk driver and Brock is that the driver was genuinely sorry, and came clean as soon as it is humanly possible. He's spoken out against his own behavior. He was willing to do what he could.

Some drivers, like some Brock Turners, don't admit their own guilt. These need a larger penalty, and they need to be convinced of how bad of a driver they were. It is a good idea to make examples out of these on the internet.

And some people really are incapable of driving safely, and not because of any fixable things like alcohol. Or they were so reckless so often that they have shown that they cannot prove to be safe drivers. These people should be prohibited from driving.

This is why I like penalties that correlate with the offense itself. If you go ahead and drink and drive, you need an alcolock interlock in your car that checks at random intervals for extra samples along the way. A fine that takes away a certain amount of your disposable income, also called day fines in some countries like Finland, is calculated by taking half of the money that you have on a typical day to spend on whatever is just a want, not a need, and then multiplying that by a certain number of days to account for the severity of the offense. The police google your after tax incomes and taking in certain guesses for how much money one is likely to need to spend on their expenses, then they use a mathematical formula to calculate your fine. I like the system quite a lot, especially given that it's generally those with money to spare who commit traffic offenses and not care about it.

Demerit points are a good idea, but you often need too many demerits in too short a time for people to believe that their license is in danger.

Community service is a good idea. If you can just pay a fine, even a relatively high one, it's still mainly an annoyance and lost dinner parties. If you actually have to go and spend 6 hours out of your Saturday doing things like cleaning up the park, you are not going to be happy. And you are not going to be likely to commit traffic offenses.

This part is mainly deterrence, to deter others from doing the same. It's not really doing all that much to give back. But given that they weren't actually in a crash, they didn't scare anyone and it was a violation of the rules of the road, this is OK.

The biggest thing that makes people less likely to commit traffic offenses is getting caught for them. So ramping up the frequency of enforcement is also very helpful, as are well used automatic cameras.

And of course, prevention is better than having to go and arrest the person who did cause a crash. I'd rather have no crash than fining someone who caused a crash if I had the choice. Alcolocks that are the less annoying kind that just check at the beginning of the trip are still effective, are probably a bit cheaper, can be integrated into the vehicle when it's made, reducing costs further and they also make it much harder to drink and drive.

But the biggest thing that keeps people safe is a sustainably safe road. With features that automatically enforce safe speed, forgive errors to the degree required to ensure that no serious injury nor death can occur and ensuring that any conflict that does happen, can only happen at acceptable speeds, acceptable differences in masses and acceptable differences in direction, tailor made to the tolerance of the human body and the way that our vehicle's protection systems can ensure that occupants and other road users are protected.

Enforcement is good to have, it ensures justice for the victims of road crashes and things that cause secondary effects like cars beginning a stop start wave, etc, but infrastructure is the basic thing needed to keep us alive and well.

Monday, 13 June 2016

Our transit system currently is a joke.

Today, I'm going to do a final exam for high school. And tomorrow and Thursday. And I am beginning to get really mad at the transit system.

Well, not really the people who do run it. I heard that only Edmonton and other Canadian citizens thank their bus drivers when they leave the bus.

I am really only annoyed at the people who have the funds and the decision making authority.

It takes a minimum of 85 minutes to take the bus to the school. It takes 23 minutes by car. The bus isn't very direct, with many twists and turns through the collector roads, with many stop signs to deal with. It is also pretty infrequent, showing up every half hour. And because my dad wants me to be a bus early, I have to tack on another 30 minutes to the trip time just in case. In Japan, trains leave to the 10 second or so. Average delay being 6 seconds off chart. And these are on the bullet trains, arriving every 3 minutes. Extremely punctual, you can rely on them without accounting for extra time to your trip.

Good buses and good transit is relatively isolated from things that can delay them, congestion, with reserved bus lanes or train tracks, priority at crossings with other traffic, stops that allow quick boarding and unloading. You get your ticket before boarding, and you can board from any door, and following a fairly straight line.

I also cannot borrow a bicycle at the other end of the trip. I either have to have a pre arranged bicycle at the other end, feasible only for commutes, or bring my own bicycle, something I cannot do on the train during peak hours and it's awkward to take it around on the stairs and elevators.

Incidentally, my trip could actually be built with quite simple LRT construction projects. A 2.7 km extension from Strathearn on 95 Ave and 85 St to Capilano and an already planned extension to Heritage Valley is all I need. One simple transfer at Churchill Station and I can ride the 2.5 km to the transit centre intended to be built at Ellerslie Rd. The extension on the Capilano side isn't even hard, no bridges, nothing really difficult, a rebuild of the transit centre there maybe, no demolitions, nothing problematic, no grade separations even and just 4 low floor stops.

I'm pretty sure that the system we have isn't worth $3.25/90 minutes on it. A trip like the one I need would need very nearly this entire length for a trip that can be done in less than a third the time in a car for a price of about 2 dollars in fuel costs.

Edmonton has completely failed to build transit at nearly the rate it should have. For 24 km of LRT, over 38 years to build, we get about 1.58 km per year. We twin arterial roads at a rate probably at least 10 times higher. The LRT takes about 110 thousand people per day on it. More than the Whitemud Drive did in 2014. A system that can be used by anyone, regardless of age. They can be blind and use the train. They can be less than 16 and use the train on their own. The system is essential to me, as I cannot drive a car on my own. I know that many people are sick and tired of driving, and it can be quite expensive for them. It's also quite risky. A train is incapable of leaving the tracks on a pure whim. A second of distraction will not be a problem for the train given the automatic safety systems. Parents don't want to need to drive their kids around, my mom doesn't want to drive me to the test taking place despite the ridiculous amount of time the bus takes. By making cars practically a necessity to get around for non communing and even commuting trips, it encourages car use, even in a city with an LRT line,

Cities that continue to chose this path, I have a message for you. Stop hitting your heads on the asphalt and K rails and start putting them to work making high quality transit, almost like BRT on arterials and LRT on main routes, high quality cycleways, and walking attractive. To not do so is a direct infringement of my right as a citizen to travel in Canada. By that right, it means to effectively travel, not being theoretically capable of doing so. I should be able to decide on what means I get around. Amsterdam allows all means. Edmonton is not among the cities which is effective at getting people to get around.

Sunday, 12 June 2016

What it takes to make my own neighbourhood Sustainably Safe

I created a list of all the things that would be needed to turn my neighbourhood, Blackmud Creek, into a neighbourhood of Dutch quality. It is a quite comprehensive list. I tallied up everything that from memory, we would need. I will put a link to an example with each requirement.

5.27 km of access road, with parking on one side of the road that alternates every 75 metres, with a ~4.5 metre wide brick paved carriageway and 1.8-2 metre wide sidewalks. Where possible, extra trees and plants shall be added. http://streetmix.net/CyclingEdmonton/510/access-road

1.5 km of collector road, a pair of 2.5 metre wide cycle tracks on both sides of the road on Blackmud Creek Drive to the East of Blackmud Creek Crescent and on the Crescent itself, a 4 metre wide two way cycle path on the south side of Blackmud Creek Drive to the West of the Crescent, with the collector road itself to be between 5.6 metres wide and 6.2 metres wide, with generally between 2.8 metre and 3.1 metre wide travel lanes and 2 metre wide sidewalks on both sides of the road, except within 300 metres of the school, where it would be 2.5-3 metres wide. The buffer between cycleway/footway and roadway shall be at least 1 metre, should be 1.5 metres or more if possible. http://streetmix.net/CyclingEdmonton/511/distributor-road

7 access closures http://www.designcouncil.org.uk/sites/default/files/styles/dc_-_wysiwyg_-_smart_embed/public/assets/images/roadclosure.jpg?itok=e43oOInM

1 220 metre long downgrade from collector road to access road https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q57sa7tjSNk

2.5 kilometres of upgraded recreational trail to 3 metres, smooth black asphalt, with lighting and a 1 metre wide clear zone on either sidehttps://www.google.ca/maps/@51.7300447,5.2422711,3a,79.1y,206.42h,70.96t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sf_YorNxQDh-6SlJUBzrQpg!2e0!7i13312!8i6656?hl=en
530 metres of upgraded, 88 metres new, cycle and pedestrian shortcut, 3 metre asphalt cycle path + 2 metre wide sidewalk in each casehttp://2.bp.blogspot.com/-fGqAe0NeyMI/Vk4fMZmOLbI/AAAAAAAADxw/8Rqjz12pqxM/s400/9.JPG

1.87 km of new 4 metre wide cycle path + 2 metre wide sidewalk to be rebuilt next to Ellerslie Road and James Mowatt Trail. https://www.google.ca/maps/@51.7007981,5.275647,3a,49.2y,301.4h,78.17t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sIpVJ2gQ6Rmh2hjY5KxbpXg!2e0!7i13312!8i6656?hl=en

1 new safe zebra crossing (with non priority cycle crossing) at Bowen Wynd and James Mowatt Trail, may need to be traffic light controlled crossing with 5 second waiting time. https://www.google.ca/maps/@52.9951641,6.5113471,3a,75y,352.98h,76.08t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1srpvglb0L2dO-uPxb-PPlwQ!2e0!7i13312!8i6656?hl=en

4 new zebra crossings with raised table, overhead signage and a sharp bend with a design speed of 30 km/h, one at both ends of the trail through the stormwater pond, one at Barnes Way and Blackmud Creek Drive, and one at both junctions of Blackmud Creek Drive and Blackmud Creek Crescent https://www.google.ca/maps/@51.9210855,4.3848527,3a,75y,233.69h,72.28t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sTMc0fdWUMaEckyrUPUSH0w!2e0!7i13312!8i6656?hl=en

26 new pedestrian non priority crossings with dashed parallel lines perpindicular to the road, a raised table and a centre median, one at each minor side road where zebra crossings are not used. https://www.google.ca/maps/@52.0959974,5.1137669,3a,75y,323.51h,72.65t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1siUG3EqzHLKkz10jEoERJVg!2e0!7i13312!8i6656?hl=en

12 new bus stops with cycle parking, a 20 cm high curb, tactile markings, bench and shelter, a departure board and inset bay if mixed with general traffic, all along James Mowatt Trail or Ellerslie Road. https://www.google.ca/maps/@51.8618078,5.8631445,3a,73.9y,203.31h,76.97t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1s9YR8csL-LEQaake-hpSmqg!2e0!7i13312!8i6656?hl=en

14 new raised intersections at access road to access road junctions. https://www.google.ca/maps/@51.6882764,5.2818385,3a,75y,358.3h,69.15t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1spVu4_AblGIPQNyHQRnQKfA!2e0!7i13312!8i6656?hl=en

12 new gateway style access road to distributor road crossings with continuous footway and cycleway. https://departmentfortransport.files.wordpress.com/2012/08/continuous-path-cycle-view.jpg

1 new single lane roundabout at Blackmud Creek Drive and James Mowatt Trail, https://cyclebath.files.wordpress.com/2014/09/screen-shot-2014-09-21-at-16-58-09.png, 1 new turbo roundabout to be built at James Mowatt Trail and Ellerslie Road. https://bicycledutch.files.wordpress.com/2013/05/turbo-roundabout2.jpg

1 new set of underpasses for vulnerable traffic users at the turbo roundabout. http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-VURs-WK-JqU/U_SNmzVAu_I/AAAAAAAATJQ/Bfaf39Lo9Sk/s1600/102_5212_1.jpg

New protected intersection at Ellerslie Rd and Blackmud Creek Drive. http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-TMQ7ttT6XRI/VYGxKIcQNQI/AAAAAAAAYvo/JnL1zhaZIJQ/s1600/DSCF6801-1.JPG

New ban on vehicles over 3500 kg except for emergency vehicles and public service vehicles from entering the neighbourhood.

As you could see, a fairly simple list of actually relatively cheap things we can do, some things we could do in a day if we wanted to, like the no trucks and filtered permeability, painted crosswalks, and a few other things. Why don't we take simple measures to do things like this? 

Thursday, 9 June 2016

I give you readers a challenge

Well, not everyone. Really only people who are concerned about particular streets or claiming that there isn't room for Sustainable Safety and Dutch style cycling on all of our streets.

Send me a link to the location on streetview or overhead view on Twitter, tell me via #notenoughroomDutchcycling that this is a location you believe where it won't fit, and I'll reply with a cross sectional design for you.

I'll pay attention quite often. Here is the initial Tweet I released earlier today on this subject. https://twitter.com/CyclingEdmonton/status/740882596561752066.

You can also reply in the comment section of this post.

I'm pretty sure that I won't be losing this bet.

Saturday, 4 June 2016

Automatic enforcement cameras

There is often a lot of buzz, especially in the news, about automatic traffic enforcement cameras. I have some words to say about it.

The idea is that a camera is fixed in a certain positions with some sensors on or near the road to determine whether anyone has committed a traffic offense. For example a radar system to measure speed and a camera to record which vehicle, and in some cases which driver (if the vehicle is the target not the drive then the owner of the vehicle is fined unless they can prove who did drive it when the offense happened). It's fairly common, you see it around the city quite a lot.

Police have fairly limited time to stop traffic for common offenses like speed or red light running, they could use their time more effectively by pulling over people who are unlikely to be caught in other ways like DUIs, and by pulling over drivers they are actually putting themselves in quite a lot of risk, both from the passing traffic and also because the suspect may be actually going to try to attack them. The police don't know who's who in the vehicle. And if the cop hears a slobbering enough story or is emotionally swayed, they are more likely to be a bit too lenient.

Many people oppose these cameras. A common argument is that red light cameras have the amber light set too short. Now if that is indeed true from the programming of the lights, then you have a case and should go to court over it, you also have the right to inspect the programming. But if the lights meet best practices standard, legal requirements for amber time, usually 3 seconds (3 seconds is enough for a car at 70 km/h to stop from full speed, even assuming a second of that is thinking time, although for safety I'd use 5 seconds for speeds over 50), then it's pretty obvious. You broke the law. You signed the agreement when you got your license to drive that you'd obey the rules of the road, and you seriously endanger other road users by not obeying red lights correctly in a car or other motor vehicle, and often yourself. Even if you didn't sign that agreement, you still broke the laws, and common sense. You should be penalized. Not with jail, a fine proportional to income, some demerits and maybe a traffic class should be enough.

And whoever's idea it was to pay a red light camera ticket in pennies, you were being very mean to the clerk you gave the pennies to, she wasn't a judge, she couldn't do anything about your fine. Give the pennies to the judge instead if you want to protest the ticket. Good thing that in Canada, pennies aren't legal tender if you use more than 40 at once, and similar limits apply to other low denominations as well. Well, they don't have to accept them.

Another common argument in relation to speed is that the design speed, or speed at which the traffic is flowing, is much higher than the legal limit. I sympathize you on this one. Much of the time the design speed indeed is higher. The design principles we have need to reflect this. However, once you leave the area in which it is indeed safe to go the design speed, for example 130 km/h on a motorway designed for 130 without competing traffic, and are suddenly in a school zone, going 50 in a 30 limited area, you do have to slow down. There are overpowering reasons for not going the 85th percentile. Photo enforcement is completely justified here, although I would like to see physical measures to prevent the speeding in the first place.

California has a law I believe in which the driver must be photographed as well, ensuring that the correct person is sent a ticket. This is a good idea. It ensures that the right tickets get sent to the right person. It can also be used to track vehicle thieves, who often break traffic regulations. It also ensures that more than just a fine can be sent, demerit points that deter future offenses and maybe even a bit of traffic school and for rather serious offenses, maybe even community service and for really bad, criminal offenses, arrest.

I would also be nervous if a private company was working with the tickets, aside from insurance companies worried about whether you might cause a crash. You do have a right to be suspicious, and to make it less dependent upon the flow of money, I wouldn't permit anyone but the police or other sworn law enforcement officers dealing with the tickets, and the camera company only gets paid for the cameras, sensors and the program to run it, not per ticket.

Bus lane tickets are common in the UK. And Leeuwarden has a fine and camera system so that those caught entering the city centre in an unauthorized car are fined. Those are good ideas too. The bus lane should be well marked, ideally with dyed asphalt or concrete, signed, ideally on overhead signage, and ideally with something like raised ridges to protect it, and to make it very clear when, how, and why you are allowed to cross them. Same idea in Leeuwarden. Assuming those requirements are met, and everything else I said in this post, then they are perfectly fine in my opinion. Bus lanes are for buses, motor vehicle lanes are for motor vehicles. You could even apply this to cycle lanes. That would be nice.

However, I want to stress that enforcement like this, while predictable, going to catch every offender or nearly all of them, giving you a very high chance (with obvious reasons for why this is) of being caught, a vital part of making a road regulation credible in the minds of it's users, should not be the go to option for dealing with traffic problems. Infrastructure design that makes it obvious what to do, who by, when, where and why and also how is the best way to get people to use the correct behavior. I mean, it's nice knowing that if a car crashes into me at a traffic light that they are going to be given a traffic ticket, but I don't want the crash from happening in the first place. More visible traffic signals with a large backplate, 30 cm diameter aspects and a good high contrast stripe around the edge of the signal, plus speed tables and other calming devices to assure the correct speed, is best to deal with red lights (assuming you need the lights, roundabouts are even better ideas). Brick paving, narrow lanes, curving roads, even if just going around parking that alternates sides of the roads every 80 metres works well to enforce a school zone limit. You also know what the speed limit will be just by looking at the road. This is the idea behind "self explaining roads", something that Sustainable Safety is often paraded around as being.

Photo enforcement is a useful tool, but make sure that they aren't tied to people who can make money off of it (maybe just send it off to a zebra crossing construction fund), make sure that the road itself and signal programming prevents offenses as much as possible, good amber light timings, speed limits equal to the design speed, and people will obey the law even more than they do now.

Wednesday, 1 June 2016

Fixing Whyte Avenue

For the second Main Street in Edmonton, it's currently a stroad as I have defined before. Let's see what it takes to make it a road for everyone.

To those who don't know Edmonton, Whyte Ave is a major East West route through South Central Edmonton. Strathcona used to be an independent city until a merger in 1912. Whyte Ave used to be the main street for Strathcona, just like how Jasper Ave did the same for Edmonton. it became the main route over time for traffic running through there and didn't bother to go south and use 61 Ave. It is a 50 km/h urban arterial, varies between 4 and 6 lanes, along with turn lanes, some areas have parking, some have a median barrier, it has full sidewalks and a lot of businesses and shops along it, and some apartment buildings. It crosses a creek to the east of the storefront zone. It connects at the East end to a motorway that leads to Sherwood Park and on the West end to 114 St, where the LRT is.

There are no cycleways here. This is one of the big things that make this a bad corridor. There are also a lot of transit passengers in this area. Buses are delayed due to congestion, traffic signals don't give them priority, stops are not very good, and buses often bunch up. Thus, transit needs improvements as well. And because of the way that roads cut through minor side streets and there are multiple lane crossings at speeds of 50 km/h at the crossing itself, and occasionally more than that, along with large trucks, pedestrian collisions are common, and many injuries and deaths have happened as a result.

There are several ways to fix this.

Let's start with the traffic volume. Some of the traffic isn't local. Some of it could take other routes that are more suited to the volume and speed. River Valley Road combined with 98 Ave makes for an effective route to bypass the entire area on the North Side, and it leads from 75 St to Groat Rd, and it has very few local destinations, and even those can mostly be dealt with. We can also add Argyll Road, 63/61 Ave and 113/114 St as a South bypass of the area, and a better route for traffic coming from the East of the city to get around to the University. Both would have fewer stops, in some cases a speed limit of 70 km/h, and with a design to have as few things to deal with as possible.

That should take care of a considerable amount of the traffic on Whyte Ave. Most of the rest would be local traffic. Let's deal with the exact street layout now.

Let's first apply Sustainable Safety. First, classification of function. This road functions as an access road in many ways but it also needs to carry traffic in a fairly efficient way as a distributor road. To solve this problem, we could try using a pair of fiestsraaten parallel with the main roadway. I found that this actually works. I can fit transit lanes in the middle, a pair of motor vehicle lanes at 50 km/h on links, a pair of service roads, parking on one side of the road at a time (this can be alternated as required), and 3 metre wide sidewalks. Link to the design here: http://streetmix.net/CyclingEdmonton/437/unnamed-st. Thus, this road works well in terms of functionality.

The second principle is to make the speeds, masses and directions of road users homogeneous or separated. As you could see in the cross section, I have. I added 30 km/h service roads for local access at low volumes and low speeds, sidewalks, to give slow and vulnerable pedestrians protection. The dedicated transitway in the middle of the road keeps the rather large trains out of the way of cars. I mean, substituting a Blackpool tram style Flexity 2 (the contract to built the low floor line out to Mill Woods was won by a consortium that included Bombardier. No surprise as to which style of LRV's they're going to pick. Their own) for Edmonton, multiply that by 3 to get a platform length of 90 metres, and multiply that by 40 tonnes (per LRV), and you get 120,000 kg on rails facing off against 1500 kg of car, crashing into each other, both at 50 km/h, and it's not pretty. The best solution is to separate these at speeds over 30 km/h. The buses don't need to exist anymore on this corridor, the trains stop frequently enough here (about 400-600 metres apart, the same as modern standards for bus stops in my neighbourhood) and go to the same places anyway, so they don't need to mix with cars anymore. Trucks can be limited to 7500 kg, limiting the results of a crash between motor vehicles and especially trucks and vulnerable road users.

The third principle is to make everything recognizable. As in, if we plopped this down in the centre of Amsterdam or Den Bosch, people would understand the way that you were supposed to use it just by looking at it. The service streets, being fietsstraaten, would get red asphalt and priority over minor side streets, as well as raised junctions and narrow lanes and usually parking. The distributor road part of the road is black asphalt, without parking directly off of it, no local access, it has priority over minor side streets like distributor roads should, and no on street cycling or walking. The speed limit would be 50 km/h, although traffic would go slower at intersections. The railway component of this street would simply be red concrete to indicate it's reserved lane status and have signs and markings to show that it's not part of the road for motor vehicles.

The next principle is forgiveness of errors. There is a curb next to the roadway to protect the LRT line, so straying will just make you hit the curb, and in this case it would be a larger curb than normal to protect both the train and the people in the motor vehicle. The speeds at intersections would be low. 30 km/h. And the speed at which cars do mix with bikes is also 30 km/h. Thus, speeds are low, so if a crash happens, there is a much smaller chance of a serious injury or fatality. You can angle the curbs next to where cyclists happen to be riding on, for example the curb that separates parking from the fietsstraat or the curbs on either side of a cycle track, so that hitting it won't cause a fall. You can remove bollards from where cyclists might be riding.

And finally, you must consider factors in relation to the cognitive ability of road users to understand what's going on and their capability to adapt, or State Awareness. In this particular case, we are going to need to deal with a higher chance that someone will be under the influence of alcohol here. I have no idea what the cannabis consumption rate is likely to be next year when it's legalized in Canada, but we are probably more likely to have stoned road users here regardless of that law. So making sure that roads are forgiving is especially important here. There are also going to be a lot of university students, and even when not drunk/stoned, university students tend to take disproportionate risks. We also should consider that there is a children's hospital on the west side, so cognition of children is a factor to think about.

Putting the South Central LRT line here is a good idea, as it's a more or less direct line depending on what the routing is from the west side, and there is lots of space. Plus, it connects well to Bonnie Doon stop on the east side on the Mill Woods line, and could go out to Sherwood Park pretty easily from here. It also wold be a pretty fast and straight route. 50 km/h wold be an easy speed for the train to maintain here.

By prohibiting the left turns for motor vehicles, the signal cycles are simpler and quicker. Because you can use protected intersections for cyclists and pedestrians, it`s easy to allow left turns without being intrusive on the cycle timing. Plus, left turns are among the most risky movement for any road user to make, especially if there is a chance that you can be hit by a train.

The trains should probably have stops on the split side platform style, on one arm you have from left to right, looking into the street, a left turn lane, a train track, the second train track, and the platform, in that order, and then the same goes for the opposite side of the intersection. Like this: http://www.gometrorail.org/clients/2491/480315.jpg. The stops would be 3.5-4 metres wide, with a raised curb, 30 cm high, with a tactile edge, a fence to prevent people from accidentally stepping onto the roadway and to discourage crossing in unsafe locations, off board payment for the trains, shelters and benches, a few other amenities like trash bins, wifi, some decoration, and a real time departure board. It works pretty well in places where this stop style is used. The platforms would be 90 metres long to allow either a pair of 45 metre long trains (Gold Coast in Australia uses trams this long) or 3 30 metre long trains, I don't know which model is going to be used, and a 4 metre long ramp to go from 30 cm to 10 (raised intersections are nice to have to control speeds) to allow wheelchairs to use it as well.

I propose that the following intersections have stops line this on Whyte Ave:

  • 112 St
  • 109 St
  • `106 St
  • Gateway Boulevard
  • 99 St
  • 95a St
  • 90 St
It would join up at Bonnie Doon, stopping there along with the under construction Valley Line. 

But bicycles by far would be the greatest enabler here. By providing continuous networks of cycleways around here, from 30 km/h low volume fietsstraaten to fully protected cycle tracks and everywhere else having low volume 30 km/h access road designs, you can ride anywhere with efficiency and ease. A 5 km journey each way is very easy on a bicycle, taking 20-30 minutes depending on how fast you want to ride. There is a lot of density here, and everything is close together, making it even more attractive. A lot of options too, grids can be very dense for cycle routes. It makes it much easier to ride to the grocery stores for your food needs, to go to retail and clothing stores, to go get your computer fixed. Many university students live without a car quite comfortably, and with LRT and bicycles and an enhanced bus system, it would be very easy and people often feel no need of cars where cycling and public transport is so easy. Many people in central Amsterdam or Groningen don't own cars for this reason. Bikes are just too easy and affordable and usable in the dense urban environment to not chose them. 

Cars aren't even really negatively affected. It's likely that with so few cars and not having to worry about the left turn arrows that your average speed would be higher. 

Whyte Ave could be made a safe place for all to use and a vital transportation corridor while adhering to Sustainable Safety, and a place for people to congregate, a place that people are actually likely to use because cars don't dominate. It would be foolish to do anything else.