degrandprix
New Member
Are "local street bikeways" the same as sharrows?
|
|
|
- Thread starter Daveography
- Start date
dkazzed
Active Member
Yea. I'm also going to call out the contraflow painted bike lanes. I took 96 St yesterday just to head up to Yellowhead SUP and it is unrideable from 111 Ave to 119 Ave and also 102A Ave to 103A Ave. You go from high priority snow clearing protected bike lanes to not even on the radar for the bikeways and contraflows.
Fancy protected intersections like on both sides of Burrard Street Bridge would be amazing but I think in Vancouver's case, it was a need. High Level Bridge sees 2,000 cyclists per weekday in the summer months and Burrard Street Bridge in excess of 7,000 per day in the summer, dropping to 1,500 on average in the winter. But it does beg the question what kind of numbers could we see in Edmonton if proper bike lanes were built across the river connecting the university and downtown (without having to dip into the valley).
Yes.
Barnaby
Active Member
Local street bikeways on one-way streets with modal filtering can actually be great compared to the norm. I don't think we should be completely throwing them out.
The issue isn't the design of the street as much as the use of the street by cars. Neighbourhoods that have cars cutting through them will naturally be bad for biking of this kind.
I definitely prefer MUPs and dedicated lanes, but these shared streets can be done right, as seen in Europe.
The issue isn't the design of the street as much as the use of the street by cars. Neighbourhoods that have cars cutting through them will naturally be bad for biking of this kind.
I definitely prefer MUPs and dedicated lanes, but these shared streets can be done right, as seen in Europe.
dkazzed
Active Member
City of Vancouver largely has bike ways outside of the central core too. Most cross traffic has to stop for them yet it's inconvenient to impossible for cars to use as a through route thanks to the median filters like what was installed on Whyte Ave and 97 St as well as islands. But the key phrase is done right, and whether they attract new mode shift cyclists or even casual cyclists is the other question.
thommyjo
Senior Member
I think bikeways are only acceptable if there's a least 1 fully AAA (all ages and abilities) bike route along a parallel corridor. (within a few blocks and traveling the same way)
For example, where I live on the West End, 95ave is becoming the District Connector. They're making it a MUP (not ideal, but ok), but it's fully separated/protected and goes from 189st to 142st. Amazing. 92ave and 97ave are also E/W bike routes currently. No infrastructure, just sharrows. Ideally those roads would have neighbourhood level MUPs in the future, but then being "local street bikeways" for now while demand is lower is fine. People can take slight detours to access the main protected route for longer trips. But if people need to start doing 40,60,80% of a trip on non protected routes (or uncleared winter routes), then only the most confident riders will be out there.
Local bikeways take little effort and should be a part of vision zero/street lab level projects. The 100 Million for Bike Lanes should be high quality, Key Routes, that maximize improvements to our city-wide bike grid. That's what it was touted as. Not crappy little modal filters that should happen with or with/out this special funding.
That's my beef. We have to maximize ridership.
Also, difference in Vancouver as someone that works/rides there: 1) way narrower streets, 2) no snow, 3) slower streets, 4) denser core with low car use meaning less busy bikeways as more people walk/transit. And even still, you rarely see kids/seniors biking on 10th ave, but you see lots on the Arbutus greenway. So it clearly isn't a solution for All riders.
Good video here. 6min mark has some interesting thoughts on MUPs/sidewalks and also mentions the critical need for protected intersections of which we have 0 still I believe.
For example, where I live on the West End, 95ave is becoming the District Connector. They're making it a MUP (not ideal, but ok), but it's fully separated/protected and goes from 189st to 142st. Amazing. 92ave and 97ave are also E/W bike routes currently. No infrastructure, just sharrows. Ideally those roads would have neighbourhood level MUPs in the future, but then being "local street bikeways" for now while demand is lower is fine. People can take slight detours to access the main protected route for longer trips. But if people need to start doing 40,60,80% of a trip on non protected routes (or uncleared winter routes), then only the most confident riders will be out there.
Local bikeways take little effort and should be a part of vision zero/street lab level projects. The 100 Million for Bike Lanes should be high quality, Key Routes, that maximize improvements to our city-wide bike grid. That's what it was touted as. Not crappy little modal filters that should happen with or with/out this special funding.
That's my beef. We have to maximize ridership.
Also, difference in Vancouver as someone that works/rides there: 1) way narrower streets, 2) no snow, 3) slower streets, 4) denser core with low car use meaning less busy bikeways as more people walk/transit. And even still, you rarely see kids/seniors biking on 10th ave, but you see lots on the Arbutus greenway. So it clearly isn't a solution for All riders.
Good video here. 6min mark has some interesting thoughts on MUPs/sidewalks and also mentions the critical need for protected intersections of which we have 0 still I believe.
degrandprix
New Member
I got a reply on this, they said they are unable to edit Google Maps
They referred me to this map which is quite accurate, unfortunately it can't be used for route planning though.
Guess I'll try suggesting edits to Google again one day when I have nothing better to do..
CplKlinger
Senior Member
The Transit App recently got an update which made it a lot better for cyclists. Even better, they take feedback!I got a reply on this, they said they are unable to edit Google Maps
They referred me to this map which is quite accurate, unfortunately it can't be used for route planning though.
Guess I'll try suggesting edits to Google again one day when I have nothing better to do..
"It’s early days for our bike routing — if we give you a helmet-scratcher of a route, help us make an improvement so all riders can benefit! Take a screenshot of the issue, and tell us what you would have preferred to see instead by tapping this link on your phone."
Gronk!
Senior Member
Options for new bike lanes on Victoria Promenade hit planning stage
The City of Edmonton has presented five new options for bike lanes along Victoria Promenade in Wîhkwêntôwin as part of its renewal program for the neighbourhood.
edmonton.taproot.news
dkazzed
Active Member
There's room to do a two way protected bike lane on 121 St from Jasper Ave to the 102 Ave bike lanes and maintain street parking between the protected bike lane and the travel lane. It can transition to the two way bike path north of 102 Ave. Forcing riders to transition from a two way to a one way at Jasper Ave will be a frustration point with an extra light to contend witih, and doing one way along the promenade is just going to irk residents again.
YEG imagineer
Active Member
Has the city changed the policy to add private contractors for MUPs, sidewalks and bike paths? In Royal Gardens this morning at 6 when I was walking the dogs, noticed a private operator and trailer parked beside a cleaned off path. Then noticed a green John Deere with plow motoring along cleaning. This is great because our paths are never clean until at least 2 to 3 days after a snow event. I approve if the city has done this.
ntt1
Active Member
I believe it’s been this way for at least the last two years now (maybe someone else knows for sure). I’ve seen the same green vehicles clearing the double wide paths this year too:
Definitely a bit hit and miss, though. My neighborhood, which is on a 5 day clear schedule, was done last night too. That’s great, but all the multiuse trails along the major road leading out of the neighbourhood have not been touched. The Royal Gardens/Greenfield zone(?) has definitely been one of the more consistently and reliably clear areas this year.
Heading north into Malmo and Lendrum is a different story, though (not a good one).
dkazzed
Active Member
Today's my last day at the office for the rest of the year and I haven't been on my bike since Monday, so hopefully they at least clear the neighbourhood so I can get some pleasure rides in. My calorie burn rate is way down and calorie intake has been way up.
Cycling numbers were reasonably good yesterday on the priority clearing routes at >100, down to a few dozen on the surrounding paths, and virtually non existent in the suburbs. After 2027 with the completion of 132 Ave, the 74km of varying degrees of cycling infrastructure, and a dozen or so neighbourhood renewals, we are still going to have far too many missing links/middles for people to consider warm season riding let alone winter riding. Only Clareview/Manning and Terwillegar is going to join Mill Woods/Ellerslie as having a continuous protected bike route to the central core by then.
Cycling numbers were reasonably good yesterday on the priority clearing routes at >100, down to a few dozen on the surrounding paths, and virtually non existent in the suburbs. After 2027 with the completion of 132 Ave, the 74km of varying degrees of cycling infrastructure, and a dozen or so neighbourhood renewals, we are still going to have far too many missing links/middles for people to consider warm season riding let alone winter riding. Only Clareview/Manning and Terwillegar is going to join Mill Woods/Ellerslie as having a continuous protected bike route to the central core by then.
thommyjo
Senior Member
The need for routes into the inner suburbs and better snow clearing has been so obvious this year. Any “missing links” in a journey are almost impossible to make work after days like yesterday. The “bikeway” believers can shut up, we need dedicated paths or lanes that are cleaned for any hope of winter cycling numbers to exist.