Bike Lanes And The Big Picture
[Update – March 7, 2013: The report scheduled for discussion on March 13th has been posted here including some very interesting fall 2012 survey data here in Attachment 2 pf the report showing that more than half of Edmontonians already cycle, and that many would ride more with better facilities, including bike lanes.]
Last week the effort to increase cycling opportunities in Edmonton hit some bumps.
First, a consultation session designed to share information and get feedback about routes planned for implementation this season degenerated into a shouting match, which hindered the City from getting precisely the input they were there to hear. (The details of the proposed routes are here.)
The next morning the Mayor added fuel to the fire with a sharply worded inquiry that garnered a lot of media attention at the Transportation committee (you can watch the comments here by clicking on item 2.1 and waiting about 30 seconds).
The route network from the Bicycle Transportation Plan – major routes shown in blue, connector routes shown in green. Click to zoom in.
The inquiry will result in a report for discussion at the March 13th Transportation Committee. I won’t be at all surprised at that point if the whole program is put on hiatus for ‘study’, rather than having a real debate about whether Council actually supports making some tough decisions to enhance transportation choice. (Some of the city-building benefits making these tough choices are well articulated in this blog post from Executive Director of the Edmonton Bicycle Commuters’ Society.)
One of the more constructive suggestions I heard last week was from Paula Simons, which was to focus our efforts on high quality cycling facilities in the core (such as Downtown and Oliver, Strathcona and University areas).
This makes sense. I’d like to see those routes prioritized too. That’s where existing demand is highest, and where the greatest short-term potential is to attract new riders.
However, the City’s Bicycle Transportation Plan still calls for a citywide network of bike lanes to provide enhanced choices for all Edmontonians, and better facilities for those who already choose to ride.
Council has an overall vision and numerous policies and plans that explicitly champion more transportation choices for citizens.
More travel options are crucial to dealing with worsening traffic congestion. Those options can also lead to a healthier city, cleaner air, and savings for individuals and the City.
Yes, most Edmontonians drive, but if we aren’t willing to endure some changes to make way for new choices, then traffic congestion will only get worse. That’s the real inconvenience to everyone, including present and future drivers. That’s the big picture.
Getting into the details, some people wonder why certain roads have been selected as cycling routes, but there is logic to it in the plan. The routes generally have two characteristics: 1) they are through roads, and 2) they are less busy. 106 Street instead of 109 Street, for example. People have suggested the city use local roads, and where they run through this makes great sense (like 83 Avenue between Mill Creek and 112 Street).
In any case, I don’t think the routes are the real issue.
The fact is there is simply no way to make space for bike lanes without making some changes to the roads they would share – and the same tensions that have come up (mainly around lost parking) will come up anywhere. This happens in every city that has tried to make this shift.
More engagement with residents and businesses is good; the City can always learn from the public when making changes to an area. I know the implementation of bike lanes in my ward benefitted from local knowledge – in many cases protecting parking for schools, businesses and churches based on feedback.
But I don’t think this is really about consultation either.
To me, this is about comfort zone: is Council willing to work through the discomforts of change to deliver on the vision for more transportation choice in our city?
All I know is that people are surprisingly resilient to change. They clear out their garages. They park around the corner. Sometimes they even chose to walk or bike more. If we move ahead it will work out; after all, the sky hasn’t fallen anywhere in my ward where the lanes have already gone in.
22 thoughts on “Bike Lanes And The Big Picture”
Comments are closed.
I was very disappointed in the Mayor’s statements the other week and made my feelings known to his office. There are hundreds of roads in the city; how many have bike lanes? Really, if people have to walk a couple of blocks to their cars this will be a benefit to their own health!
Are the city’s bike lanes perfect? Certainly not. 106 st is not an ideal bike lane – there is a lane in one direction (and not all the way either) and sharrows in the other. Compromises that compromise the usefulness of bike lanes. The city still seems oblivious to the need to maintain bike lanes in the winter, but this is essential. We need to be courageous and provide a useful cycling infrastructure to our City! Cars have quite enough space thank you!!
“All I know is that people are surprisingly resilient to change.”
People will kick and scream and wail and cry and tweet and rant and write to venting columns when presented with change, but they always adapt to it.
My concern is with the idea that we should put bicycle lanes on major vehicle throughways… I think it’s dangerous to encourage riders to share a road with cars. Instead we should widen sidewalks into multiuse trails, like those alone the LRT or on sidewalk bike lanes like in Munich, or build bicycle friendly throughways on long service roads, where the bikes can have their own right of way (or ride in an area with reduced traffic). Edmonton is a big sprawling city, and a bike path does not take up much room. There is clearly more creative options than asking riders to compete in traffic with cars…
Other problem of putting bike lanes on roadways is that they are only respected by the painted lines on the road, which in this city don’t last very long (due to the climate eroding the paint) and are buried in snow and gravel most of the year. Drivers will not respect the line and instead treat it like another car lane.
Also… most potholes and rutting appears in the end lane near the curb, which will be the bike lane… potholes are a major problem with our climate and cyclists can not keep up to a roadway speed on a rutted pot hole roadway (many of the existing bike lanes in the east campus village area of the U of A are currently in this sort of condition)
Finally… a bike goes 10-15 kph for most riders. A car goes 50-70kph on most of the proposed routes… How is it really safer to have the bike lane at car level, with this speed differential and the dangers associated, rather than have the bike lanes above the curb, on sidewalk level (with none of the vehicle related risks, and better drainage to protect the lane from potholes and degradation.)?
After going to the latest information session, i am disappointed to find that, that for these new lanes, the city seems to have put a large effort into avoiding doing anything except painting lines on the road. I understand this is the cheapest way to add bicycle infrastructure, but it is a huge problem, when these lanes have to merge with traffic because the city wouldn’t restructure a few meters of curb after intersections. bike infrastructure is great, but a complete waste if the city has to go back and redo these lanes in the future. I would like to see the city scale back its plans, and take a bit longer to create more bike lanes if it means the creation of properly planned and maintainable infrastructure.
We are still in the early stages of developing bicycle infrastructure. I keep hearing about how we cannot just take European bicycle infrastructure and expect it to work in our city. I’m not yet sure if i agree with this(or if i even understand what people mean by this), but this is a critical point for Edmonton. We can take this as a challenge and become innovators. We can rethink intersections and bike lanes and develop prototypes to make this work for Edmonton, then implement these properly, or we can take some cookie cutter guide for North America, and hope that in 5 or 10 years, we wont have to spend more money to fix or replace them.
Great post, and thank you for making it. Small correction: there was no shouting match at the Hazeldean meeting. I’m surprised anyone besides Kerry Diotte is saying otherwise. The planners were well able to hear anything that participants had to say:)
While I appreciate that there is a desire to create options in travel, expecting more than a marginal bike commuter community during the winter and a small community during the summer seems simply unrealistic. It seems that way since it would require that this city not be the giant sprawling monster it is with the economic and social infrastructure that it has – something that council continues to support. This feels more like a feel good project for people who know that they can’t win the big fight against the development community that would be necessary for real change.
Thank you for demonstrating the leadership it will require to implement these progressive changes to our city.
well i really think you would not need bike lanes if both vehicle drivers and bike drivers would follow road rules and learn to share the roads. Then those funds could be channelled to other areas…..
Just a few comments to some of the points raised:
1) Re: change. It’s not quite correct to say that people oppose change. People oppose change that doesn’t make sense to them. As an example of opposite, people at large embraced the change when south LRT was put in use, and the ridership from the day 1 was even higher than anticipated. Also, nobody is “kicking and screaming” about phasing out pennies. It has been well explained and people generally see it as a good idea. Forcing change that people don’t want is a bad idea though, no matter how good the intentions are. So, in this particular case, focusing on high-volume, safe (not just a paint-on-the-road) bicycle trails would help both the cyclist to get around and the non-cyclist to see that this is working, worthy and may encourage more people to make the transition. Chances are, if done right, people (general public, not just groups with a vested interest) will be “kicking and screaming” about lack of bicycle trails!
2) Focusing on a few trails done right would also help with another utter failure – maintenance.
3) Consultation – I’m sorry to disagree, but this is a big issue, and I would even call it a disaster. Between the process not being designed sufficiently and the unfortunate approach/attitude of City Administration, we are looking at a large controversy, rather than constructive dialogue. Putting any blame for this situation on general public would be just adding salt to injury.
4) Lost parking – this has been beaten to death, so it seems, and yet some people would just simply dismiss this issue with “you are too lazy to walk a few blocks”. There are many places where eliminating parking can be even a good thing, or just a (acceptable) hassle. However, there are a number of situations, where eliminating parking in front of property changes the situation drastically – from not being able to get services (furnace cleaning anyone? Goods/service delivery? Moving? Residents with disabilities?), to significant impact to businesses… When buying/renting a property, commercial or residential, one goes by some assumptions, and access/infrastructure is one of them. When there’s suddenly no parking, how many potential buyers will simply pass when they can’t even park in front of the listed property? Do we know the exact effect on property values? The point is not avoid eliminating parking – but to ask, and to actually listen, for feedback from affected citizens/businesses.
5) I am somewhat disappointed about the disparaging comment of “sky not falling down in Ward 10”. Factually it is correct indeed, but the damage done to relationship between residents/community leagues and the City (Council and Administration) will take a long time to repair. The amount of frustration and time spent on trying to resolve the issues should deserve at least an acknowledgement. Mistakes has been done, and the best for everyone is to admit that, fix it, and move on.
I’ll be – of course – very happy to discuss further, when appropriate.
Thank you,
Peter
I can not agree with your perspective at all, mocking those who see the issue differently from yours, and reducing the whole agrument down to a ‘comfort issue’, and ‘the sky is falling’ mentality to refer to those to do not agree with you. To say that passersby have more legitimate needs than the property owners who have to adjust their lifestyle because of a few passersby shows how out of touch you are with the majority of residents in your Ward. You have not adequately worked your Ward to listen, engage, and pass along informnation on this issue. How can you say otherwise? This is the problem with one groups vision. It allows for no other vision or adjustments.
Thanks for sticking up for us cyclists Don! Sadly any sort of loss of parking will always cause some sort of an uproar in this sprawling, car dependent mess of a city. I live in Twin Brooks so I know a thing or two about the nature of NIMBYism.
Thanks for the thoughtful writing. I think the consultation process and information was far more than sufficient for anyone paying attention. I’m an avid year round cycle commuter, and I can assure you that the difference between allocated space on a well maintained moderately busy thoroughfare, or being relegated off to a side street is dramatic. My travel time is halved, my viability moderates the car speed on the thoroughfare, and there is no more hazard than I would find on the blind corners, alley pullouts, and sudden car door openings on a side street. I pay just as much property taxes as anyone, and I don’t see why I have to pay for a parking spot for someone who bought property on a busy thoroughfare, and couldn’t see ahead to the day when it would serve the city best to adjust how the thoroughfare is used. (four lane, bus stop, truck route, emergency access, or bike lane, its citizens priorities over the individuals)
It’s all well and good to dream of Edmonton being Amsterdam. However, this past week is THE FIRST WEEK SINCE HALLOWEEN that the new, virtually unused, bike lanes on 116 St NW between the University and Windsor Park aren’t a two-foot high windrow. Now it’s a layer of gravel. The green bike box at the end of 116 St has only served the purpose of denying law-abiding motorists right-on-red permission. I’ve never seen a bicycle in it, and law-breaking motorists turn right on red anyway (with far greater frequency than one suspects). FAIL, FAIL, FAIL. Tripling the amount of FAILURE won’t make this work.
and I ride my bike when there’s no snow. I walk to work. I’m not a car nut.
Late to the party, but in Seattle, replacing parking spots with bike lanes increased sales in the area by 350%.
https://www.raisethehammer.org/blog/2759/retail_sales_up_350_percent_after_bike_lanes_replace_parking_spots
What a load of BS comes out of the mouths of the fist-in-your-face bike nuts. I see you jerks IGNORING the bike lanes – zigzagging in & around moving vehicles, going through RED lights, jumping curbs, cutting off pedestrians, & generally violating every rule of the road. The only responsible bike riders are the kids under 16 who are carefully riding on the sidewalks. The city has squeezed 106 Street into one lane & the cyclists are still riding on the sidewalks, inside curb lanes & in the car lane – not even the cyclists seem to know where to ride! What a stupid, expensive waste of resources to satisfy the small minority of latte-sipping, anti-car, yuppie 2 wheeled fascists
“All I know is that people are surprisingly resilient to change…after all, the sky hasn’t fallen anywhere in my ward where the lanes have already gone in.”
Don, that is cavalier – you cannot be serious. Resiliency to change is not always an option – survival takes over. Have you driven down 106 st between 34 ave and 40 ave on a weekday morning before schools starts? As a parent, I dread doing so every day. Narrowing 106 to one lane near three schools is possibly the dumbest move I have seen in this area in many many years.
I’m supportive of increasing bicycle infrastructure, but agreeing with that objective is different than supporting avoidance of healthy engagement with affected stakeholders and forcing a program too quickly into communities without due planning and attention. There are areas where two cars cannot pass without breaking the law (entering a bike lane), massive congestion/increased tailpipe emissions at intersections and around schools, and in places, unsafe proximity of bikes to motor vehicles.
We do need a better array of transportation choices but not at the expense of safety and common sense. With Council’s direction, City Administration has needlessly annoyed a great many people. Let the communities be involved in the planning or stop calling it ‘consultation’ when it’s ‘informing’ at best. And the amount of money spent on consultation does not indicate the quality of consultation.
There’s a large majority of reasonable people that I believe would buy into increasing bike infrastructure if done right. Quality vs quantity is a good objective that should be adopted as well as true community engagement.
Many of us have lived in Allendale and Pleasantview since the houses were built. We are the seniors, people with limited mobility, runners, bikers, young families and most importantly tax payers and voters.
Don, when you you were elected to City council, we were very happy and all in the community knew that you would be Mayor one day. That has changed though with the Pleasantview and Allendale 106 Street changes and the proposed Engage 106 Street.
The majority of people in Pleasantview were/are against these changes. Yet, the 106 St. was modified and barricades on 109 Street were installed creating havoc for all. Allendale was not consulted at all.
Now with Engage 106 Street. We have to sign up for this. Why? Should this not be open to all the public? What is the secrecy for?
All of above for some kind of bike corridor. An excuse that has been used by some is that traffic volume has gone up also.
Well, here are some realities to consider:
1. Since the City expanded beyond the once Heritage Mall, traffic has increased dramatically on the entire south side.
2. You have pushed seniors et al onto busy streets with these ideas. Many don’t want this and are scared to do so.
3. The 109 Street barricades cost ALL Edmonton tax payers a ton of money in Council time, planning, labor and materials. Now they are gone. It is as if our tax money has been burned. The sad reality is that did the City really think that people would evade the U turns?
4. Supposedly, we live in a democratic society. Why were the above changes/proposed changes not put to a vote?
5. Silliness, silliness, silliness. 105 Street, 107 Street and 108 Street have been used by us bikers for decades. You argue that some “bikers” like a straight route.
6. That the use of 105 Street, 107 Street and 108 Street for bikers costs nothing yet how much is the proposed Engage 106 Street going to cost? Doesn’t the City have better things to spend that money on? How about for the homeless or for more police?
7. Right now in the neighborhood a clever, but fitting, saying is going around. “Don, this isn’t Amsterdam”. This is in regards to the silliness of a bike corridor which is likely 25 years away. That the tax money of all Edmontonians is being spent on something that doesn’t have to be.
We are the tax payers who put you into office and believed in you. People in these communities are irate. The frustration builds and builds. We are also the voters who won’t forget this nonsense. It appears that City Council has lost its desire to represent all of its constituents.
We hope a reporter will read this and please help us to bring it to the spot light of all Edmontonians. How much has all of the above cost tax payers? How much money has been lost for good?
It is real sad Don, we believed in you.
Don,
May I ask again, how much money was spent on the failed 109 St barricades in Pleasantness? How did was the total cost of the 106 Street disaster? How many police officers could have been hired in lieu of the 109 Street barricade disaster? Tax money that went up in flames.
May I ask why Pleasantview,106 Street and this Engage 106 Street nonsense was not put to a vote? I thought that we lived in a democracy. Why are some City employees making serious decisions about our neighborhoods when they don’t even live in it?
Why is the Engage 106 street project not fully open to all? Did anybody there think that it is difficult for most seniors to “join”? Do we not count?
In a day and age where more should be allocated to help the homeless, single mothers, and the crucial need for more police, we are allocating so much money for something that doesn’t need to be done?
One of the most ludicrous things that I have heard is that tax payers will also be paying for the installation of foot rests for bikers so they can rest their feet on at stop signs.
If you notice, I refrained from using the word Mayor. It is a term reserved for someone who represents his people. People in all the affected communities hold you, and those who sit with you, at City Hall responsible. People are infuriated in all communities. We are tax payers and voters. We’ll see next election.
Folks, it is so shocking that these unpopular projects and the costs associated with them are so unnecessary. Why isn’t City Council representing it’s people? Why isn’t our tax dollars being spent on more critical projects?
Sad, Don and City Council, sad.
Any comments Don?
Christmas a cometh.
The residents of Allendale and Pleasantview for decades have asked Santa for a mayor who listens to all citizens and not just a minority in regards to the proposed bike lanes. That there are senior citizens and people with limited mobility who will be further pushed onto busy streets in order to give 3 or 4 cyclists 106 Street to use in the winter.
That in lieu of the continued wasted money on these projects, Don (a mayor represents all people) et al will allocate money towards the homeless and of course, more police.
If there were more police patrolling then perhaps that the friendly clerks at both Macs would still be alive.
That after countless disasters the Transportation department would get fired and that new employees would be hired who listen to the majority of residents. And that the new staff would not bully/railroad these clandestine, unnecessary projects.
That the budget is released for the 109 St Pleasantview barricade fiasco. Poof! The tax payer’s money went up in flames with the overall cost. Gone are those tax payers money forever.
That Don can realize that the existing bike lanes are unsafe-esp. in the winter. I tried to use the bike lanes from Keillor Road on 76th Ave to 109 Street this past week. Built up snow has rendered them inactive. Zoom zoom zoom went the cars past me too close at times. That if we implement this on 106 Street, very few will use them. And what about the snow Don? If the snow covers these bike lanes, will that not be a waste of money? Another failed project. : (
Don, the anger grows in both communities. Next election we will speak and we will not forget come voting time.
It was very very good news that the Pleasantview 106 street disaster is over.
In Allendale we will be equally vigilant in fighting Engage 106 Street.
All that tax payer’s money wasted because the City didn’t consult the communities before implementing the changes in Pleasantview. Sad it is.