Cycling in Ottawa

[TransitZilla]

Originally Posted by Kitchissippi

I look at those projects and realize how useless it is to most cyclists and how much of the cycling budget is being hijacked by projects that are really for cars. For example the $4 million "renewal" program sounds ridiculous. It looks like they are just resurfacing these roads and painting new lines. The cycling portion on projects like these should be just the cost of the paint.

Also, I find it stupid that they account for shoulders as merely for cycling. They are not, otherwise they would not install them on the 400 series highways. Shoulders prevent soil erosion at the edge of the roadway, extending the life of the main surface. Since bikes have the right to be on the road, a cycleable shoulder really just frees the main roadway for cars.

What I am getting at is that the cycling budget should be spent on bike paths and segregated lanes (if warranted) and things like specialized bike signals and signage. What worries me is that it is being used to pad road building budgets.

Another thing that pisses me off royally is that the is nothing here for the downtown core where cycling facilities need a drastic fix especially if we are serious about expanding the Bixi program. The NCC had wanted a Bixi station at Parliament Hill until they realized there wasn't a safe way to get from there to the other stations in the Market and in Gatineau. Now that is sad.

Kitchissippi, I have to disagree. I agree that there should be more invested into paths and segregated lanes, but retrofitting existing roads to acommodate cycling facilities is also imporatant. To be fair, there is $4.5 million for segregated pathways (even if it is the stimulus money).

In many cases they are actually moving the curbs to widen the road for bike lanes, so it's a bit more than lines. For the McIlraith Bridge, they are widening the bridge for better sidewalks and bike lanes.

It's pretty cynical to say that a paved shoulder just frees the road for cars. I cycle from outside of the Greenbelt and on the Airport Pkwy, and I am happy to be cycling on the paved shoulder- it's a far more comfortable environment. Maybe cycling programs should not bear the entire cost of paved shoulders, but they do make a significant contribution to the "cycleabilty" of a road.

This is somewhat off-topic, but it is frustrating that the MTO paves shoulders on 400-series highways (where bikes are banned), but does not pave them on 2 lane highways like Hwy 7, where bikes are allowed and where they would make cycle tourism much more attractive. I guess that's a whole other ball of wax, though...

[Kitchissippi]

My point was that on projects where road rebuilding or sewer replacement is involved, upgrading to include cycling facilities should be automatic, same as with new road building. The portion for cycling should not be separated out, it's just part of the cost of doing or redoing a road.

I also ride my bike extensively and use shoulders anytime when they are available. You just have to bear in mind that every time you do, you technically surrender your right to the main part of the road. So while shoulders make a significant contribution to the "cycleabilty" of a road, it also adds to its "driveability". Again, what I am saying is that shoulders on highways should just be a required standard and not a cost attributed to cycling. A highway that is safer for cyclists is a highway that is safer for all.

[TransitZilla]

Originally Posted by Kitchissippi

My point was that on projects where road rebuilding or sewer replacement is involved, upgrading to include cycling facilities should be automatic, same as with new road building. The portion for cycling should not be separated out, it's just part of the cost of doing or redoing a road.

I agree it should be automatic, but if they didn't split out the cost separately, there would be complaints that nothing is being spent on cycling, which would not be correct.

I also ride my bike extensively and use shoulders anytime when they are available. You just have to bear in mind that every time you do, you technically surrender your right to the main part of the road. So while shoulders make a significant contribution to the "cycleabilty" of a road, it also adds to its "driveability".

I'm not convinced that the driveability is much affected. What usually ends up happening is that the drivers just buzz by the cyclists, which is much more uncomfortable for the cyclist than for the driver.

I think the 2010 plan is a good step forward; I just hope that the funding for multi-use pathways doesn't dry up next year when there are no stimulus funds.

[Radster]

These changes/improvements are not going to increase bike ridership in Ottawa, they are not going to help accomodate the BIXI system either.

Many of these improvements are for multi use paths, which again, is the WRONG, oldschool direction to be heading into! Ottawa should once and for all seperate the cyclists from pedestrians/joggers!

Cyclists should have their own pathways, where no other mode of transit is allowed. Walkers and joggers would then have the sidewalks and recreational paths to use, and cyclists with maybe rollerbladers, and electric mopeds (as is the case in Europe and Montreal) would have the bike lanes.

Kithissippi is right. We need segregated lanes downtown and on many East/West, North/South arteries, complete with their own traffic signals and signage. This isn't rocket science. If they managed to get this done with great success on tight and crowded streets on the Island of Montreal, then surely it can be done on our wide open Ottawa streets inside the Greenbelt!

Why can't they look at New York City's example? What about Montreal's example?

[Radster]

Maybe the city is worried about losing the revenue generating on-street parking meter spots? They shouldn't be, because the bike lanes can be incorporated without any or very little on-street parking sacrifice, proof again is in Montreal.

[waterloowarrior]

I have to agree with Kitchissippi and Radster. The Cycling Plan doesn't seriously consider the types of infrastructure Radster mentioned. I think the proposal to look at an downtown segregated cycling was only added at Committee by a couple of the Councillors. And IIRC the cycling plan was significantly chopped down from a previous version.

Look at the proposed cycling network. There are 1967 KM of bike facilities in the proposed network, but 32% (622 KM) are "signed only" routes, 38% are paved shoulders (757 KM), and 5% are wider curb lanes (97 KM). So about 75% of the network is basically widening roads slightly, which will probably increase traffic speeds, and putting up signs to share the road.

Most of the 360 KM of proposed off-road pathways is in the rural areas and/or newly developed areas around Barrhaven/Kanata etc. There are also 134 KM of on road bike lanes proposed. So basically the already cheapened bikeway network does very little for the urban part of the city, where I assume cycling rates are much higher. Promoting more cycling in the rural areas (especially separated pathways between towns) and intra/inter-suburban bikeways are important, but the core and inner suburbs also need serious investments and the City can't just continue to rely on the NCC "multi-use" pathways.

[TransitZilla]

Originally Posted by Radster

These changes/improvements are not going to increase bike ridership in Ottawa, they are not going to help accomodate the BIXI system either.

Many of these improvements are for multi use paths, which again, is the WRONG, oldschool direction to be heading into! Ottawa should once and for all seperate the cyclists from pedestrians/joggers!

Cyclists should have their own pathways, where no other mode of transit is allowed. Walkers and joggers would then have the sidewalks and recreational paths to use, and cyclists with maybe rollerbladers, and electric mopeds (as is the case in Europe and Montreal) would have the bike lanes.

Kithissippi is right. We need segregated lanes downtown and on many East/West, North/South arteries, complete with their own traffic signals and signage. This isn't rocket science. If they managed to get this done with great success on tight and crowded streets on the Island of Montreal, then surely it can be done on our wide open Ottawa streets inside the Greenbelt!

Why can't they look at New York City's example? What about Montreal's example?

I think you're being far too negative.

While I certainly agree that we need to look at segregated lanes across downtown, I don't think having separate cyclist paths are necessary everywhere.

Where there is a lot of volume (i.e. along the Canal) a system similar to Vancouver's is probably warranted. (see picture below).


I do also like the BikeWest idea for a dedicated bike route from the west, complete with signals, etc. (http://westsideaction.blogspot.com/2...ks-part-i.html)

But I think we also need to be looking at expanding the network of paths, and I don't think it's necessary to build separate cyclist paths until volume warrants it. With limited resources, let's maximize the size of the network.

I also think that bike lanes are an integral part of the network. We're never going to be able to put bike paths everywhere you want to go, so for commuting purposes, bike lanes are necessary to complete the link from A to B.

[waterloowarrior]

Some of the problems with the plan for bike lanes is that a lot of the proposed 134 KM bike lane network is for high speed, high volume suburban 4-6 lane arterials like Baseline/Heron, Terry Fox extension, Hunt Club, and Riverside/Vanier. I don't think it's appropriate to have bike lanes as the solution for these roads, with heavy traffic flowing by at 80-100 km/hr in some places. I don't think I've ever seen someone biking on the bike lanes on Hunt Club east of Lorry Greenberg, where proper use of bikeways where the sidewalk/path area is would have been a much better solution. (that area also has one of the those random endings of the bike lane into a merge lane.. which then reappears briefly and ends as vehicles prepare to turn right ).

Maybe hardcore cyclists will use them but the average person will just stick to the sidewalk, side streets, or NCC paths. Seems like more of a waste of funds to build a bike lane no one will feel safe using. These more high speed suburban roads should have separate paths like in this video I posted earlier ( doesn't have to be as wide/fancy if not necessary), with better treatment at intersections than the NCC's practice of just ending paths at crosswalk island or the ambigious designs that can be found around the city. . Just putting up 'share the road' signs beside empty sidewalks also seems like a waste.

[Kitchissippi]

I think the standard for 80 km/h arterial roads should be bike lanes PLUS a multi use pathway beside it. I used the bike lanes on Innes a lot when I lived in Orleans and there were lots of other commuters who do. It would benefit a lot from a pathway on the north side though, from Blackburn Hamlet to Blair. (The NCC is working on a meandering gravel path along Green's Creek but it won't be great for commuters). Conroy Road between Hunt Club and Walkley has this configuration.

[waterloowarrior]

Originally Posted by Kitchissippi

I think the standard for 80 km/h arterial roads should be bike lanes PLUS a multi use pathway beside it. I used the bike lanes on Innes a lot when I lived in Orleans and there were lots of other commuters who do. It would benefit a lot from a pathway on the north side though, from Blackburn Hamlet to Blair. (The NCC is working on a meandering gravel path along Green's Creek but it won't be great for commuters). Conroy Road between Hunt Club and Walkley has this configuration.

Terry Fox is also like that in some places, but it has the problems of poor intersection design, a narrow width, random pathway ending at sidewalks, and a somewhat windy route. Trying to make turns on these paths can be awkward. Woodroffe between Sportsplex and Fallowfield also has a pathway and bike lanes (much better implementation than TF), but it also has the issue of randomly ending into the crosswalk of a major intersection. Conroy looks like a better implementation, but IMO if the pathways are properly designed (straighter, wider, better intersections/signalling etc) they can accommodate both the recreational and commuter cyclists. Proper facilities can reduce some of the redundant suburban pedestrian/cyclist infrastructure (where we build bike lanes but people stick to the sidewalk) and attract more people who just don't feel safe right now on Ottawa roads.

It doesn't have to be that fancy, but the thinking has to be consistency, clear direction/signage/priority, directness, a good surface, and safety... here's a quick example I found. It isn't that much of a difference from some of the facilities we are already building, but there is just more clarity, consistency, and better connectivity (and it's actually useful for non-recreational cyclists). I feel it's less redundant and people will feel safer using it. I noticed at the latest Canadian transportation conference there were several sessions on cycling infrastructure design--- maybe we will see changes in laws, pavement markings, signage etc to improve these types of facilities.

edit: speaking of Innes, here's another bad bike lane ..

[Kitchissippi]

Originally Posted by waterloowarrior

edit: speaking of Innes, here's another bad bike lane ..

Yes, that is a particularly bad example and I think the city should just remove that portion past Cyrville. Instead, it should invest in proper bike lanes/shoulders all along Cyrville Road, from Ogilvie all the way to the other end past the city garage near the Brick and connect with the old Railway ROW. A paved bike path should be built to take advantage of the unused underpass beneath the 417 and connect with a pathway on the other side of Innes (between Innes and Old Innes) and then continue into the General Hospital campus and connect to the pathways at Hurdman. That railway ROW is also slated to become a gravel pathway that connects with the Prescott Russell Trail, and when that happens, we'll have a bike path from Ottawa all the way to the Quebec border at Rigaud.

Another one that should be built is a pathway from Cyrvile/Labrie to St.Laurent parallel to the south side of the Queensway. The is currently a stub of a pathway here from Triole to the crossing signals at the Queensway ramps. This would connect to the pathway along Tremblay, on to the Train station then Hurdman.

From the north end of Cyrville, there should also be a bike friendly route that follows Cummings to Donald to a bridge across the Rideau to Somerset East connecting to the Corktown Bridge into downtown.

I would have appreciated these routes when I was living in the east end.

[waterloowarrior]

Those are all great ideas. The MTO has been looking at how to better design interchanges/bridges for pedestrians and cyclists (study underway in southern ontario) so hopefully we will be seeing some changes around these interchanges including better crossings and alternative routes. Interchanges like this (Woodroffe) can be a big discouragement to cycling, and scary/dangerous for even experienced cyclists. I'm also looking forward to that Prescott Russell path connection and some of the other rural pathways (like from South Keys area to Osgoode)

In the cycling plan there is a plan to connect bike routes near Cyrville by extending this path through the hydro corridor down to the Prescott Russell pathway, and the NCC capital pathway will also connect Innes and the p.r. pathway near Blair Road. Bike lanes/shoulders on Cyrville would offer that EW connection though (edit: looks like there is a plan for bike lanes on Cyrville in the cycling plan as well ) .

[Kitchissippi]

Yes, I wish the MTO would be required to put cycleable box culverts in between interchanges where possible.

When Orleans was planned, the greenways were supposed to have been interconnected across the highway, so there are these corresponding corridors that simply dead end at present. There are one or two spots between each interchange (Vinyard to Youville, Fortune to Lumberman, Bilberry to Roque Park, and a couple of spots by the town centre). When they widened the highway to four-lanes they could have placed cheap culverts like these:



or these:


Had they done this, Orleans would have been infinitely more bike friendly today, and maybe even given hope to a more humane St Joseph main street

[TransitZilla]

Originally Posted by Kitchissippi

Yes, I wish the MTO would be required to put cycleable box culverts in between interchanges where possible.

When Orleans was planned, the greenways were supposed to have been interconnected across the highway, so there are these corresponding corridors that simply dead end at present. There are one or two spots between each interchange (Vinyard to Youville, Fortune to Lumberman, Bilberry to Roque Park, and a couple of spots by the town centre). When they widened the highway to four-lanes they could have placed cheap culverts like these:

Had they done this, Orleans would have been infinitely more bike friendly today, and maybe even given hope to a more humane St Joseph main street

That is too bad, for sure. Several of these corridors have perfectly corresponding paths on the north and south sides of the highway, but nothing to join them together.

I wonder what kind of dollars we'd be looking at to retrofit something like that now, and where the priorities would be. (My vote would probably be Bilberry-Rocque Park, which gives a direct N-S connection to Belcourt; followed by Vineyard-Youville).

At least today, the city is building new arterials with bike lanes, and the MTO is planning to eliminate the free-flow ramps on interchanges like Woodroffe.

[TransitZilla]

Originally Posted by Kitchissippi

Yes, that is a particularly bad example and I think the city should just remove that portion past Cyrville. Instead, it should invest in proper bike lanes/shoulders all along Cyrville Road, from Ogilvie all the way to the other end past the city garage near the Brick and connect with the old Railway ROW. A paved bike path should be built to take advantage of the unused underpass beneath the 417 and connect with a pathway on the other side of Innes (between Innes and Old Innes) and then continue into the General Hospital campus and connect to the pathways at Hurdman. That railway ROW is also slated to become a gravel pathway that connects with the Prescott Russell Trail, and when that happens, we'll have a bike path from Ottawa all the way to the Quebec border at Rigaud.

I think this is all part of the plan. According to this document (Excel; refer to the Appx A- Sidewalks&Pathways tab) the Prescott Russell pathway will be from the City Limits to "Innes in Rail ROW". So I'm not sure if the 2010 project will extend west of the 417 or not. I hope so.

In either case, I think the 2010 program is a good start- certainly there will be lots left to do!

[TransitZilla]

Originally Posted by waterloowarrior

These more high speed suburban roads should have separate paths like in this video I posted earlier ( doesn't have to be as wide/fancy if not necessary), with better treatment at intersections than the NCC's practice of just ending paths at crosswalk island...

I really like the bike path shown in this video, and the dedicated signalization, etc.

I'm a little confused where pedestrians are supposed to go. There doesn't really seem to be a sidewalk, and it doesn't seem like this bikeway is intended for people walking.

In Ottawa, even when paths are provided parallel to the road, it's intended to sort of double as a sidewalk. I think something like BikeWest (http://westsideaction.blogspot.com/s...abel/bikewest), where you'd have separate road, sidewalk and bikeway) could be tried as a pilot project.

[waterloowarrior]

Originally Posted by bradnixon

I really like the bike path shown in this video, and the dedicated signalization, etc.

I'm a little confused where pedestrians are supposed to go. There doesn't really seem to be a sidewalk, and it doesn't seem like this bikeway is intended for people walking.

In Ottawa, even when paths are provided parallel to the road, it's intended to sort of double as a sidewalk. I think something like BikeWest (http://westsideaction.blogspot.com/s...abel/bikewest), where you'd have separate road, sidewalk and bikeway) could be tried as a pilot project.

From what I've seen in NL if it's bikeway only it's shared, but there are lots of bikeways with a pavement/sidewalk running along them like BikeWest. Pedestrians are allowed to use cycle paths if there isn't a sidewalk, so they could use the pathway shown in the video (you can see some pedestrian lights at the crosswalks where the sidewalks from the industrial park cross the road)

speaking of tunnels under highways, here's a cool one from Holland
http://hembrow.blogspot.com/2009/10/...cathedral.html

[Kitchissippi]

Part of the problem with signals for bikes is the extremely slow time it takes for Ontario to change its rules. I'm not sure if they have made lights the shape of bikes legal yet, or if signal lights smaller than the present standard are acceptable. This is why the lights at the east side of Mackenzie King are the regular kind with a just a sign that says "bicycle signal" on it.

Quebec, on the other hand, is far more flexible and more responsive to the needs of cyclists. Velo Québec has a good relationship with the MTQ and they developed the Route verte together. There was an attempt with the Cycle Ontario Alliance to get some progress in Ontario, but sadly the organization went bankrupt last year.

[Kitchissippi]

One bike tunnel I like is the one under March Road which connects the NCC path to Kanata. The city should really build more of these – Woodroffe just north of Baseline could certainly use one – in areas where the pathways cross busy arterials.

[RTWAP]

Originally Posted by Kitchissippi

One bike tunnel I like is the one under March Road which connects the NCC path to Kanata. The city should really build more of these – Woodroffe just north of Baseline could certainly use one – in areas where the pathways cross busy arterials.

I second this.

As further confirmation that bikes are an afterthought, they broke the cycle path near Baseline station during the construction, routing the path onto the transitway, which you're not allowed to bike on. But there's a well-hidden bike access to the tunnel under Baseline just beside the former Nortel building on Constellation. Except you can't get to it by pathway because of the construction. There is a bit of gravel at the corner of the parking lot that serves as a ramp, although when biking my youngest to daycare the gravel doesn't really help the trailer.

And then they closed that second access point. This time at least they put up a sign. It says use Woodroffe. Riiiiight.