Cycling in the National Capital Region

[phil235]

Originally Posted by Kitchissippi

So if the city wants to remove a traffic lane and turn it into a bus lane, would it also require permission? Doesn’t the Carling plan have stretches of shared bus a bike lanes?

Don't think so. The legislation is specifically about bike lanes, so it shouldn't affect the Carling plan. It's too bad that shared bike/bus lanes are such a bad idea, as that might be a way around it. You could also arguable remove a car lane for a sidewalk without needing Doug's permission.

On the topic of Kent, which was discussed earlier, I had a closer look tonight. There are 3 car lanes for the entire length and then the permanent parking lane on the west side. That lane has a bunch of concrete bulb outs to create permanent parking bays, so it isn't a travel lane for 90% of the length of the street. On the other hand, there are a couple of very short stretches where it becomes a left turn lane.

The legislation prevents the construction of bike lanes that would reduce the number of vehicle lanes available for travel "along any portion of or on either side of the highway where the bicycle lane is to be located". The length of the lane doesn't seem to matter, which is another stupid aspect of the law. Even the elimination of a couple of short turning lanes would appear to trigger the prohibition. If the City actually wants to proceed with long term plans, it should start by getting rid of turn lanes now, which would put them in a better position to build bike infrastructure down the road. Particularly on Kent, those turn lanes would hardly be missed.

[Richard Eade]

The wording in the Ontario Highway Traffic Act is as follows:

Prohibition re reduction of lanes
195.3 (1) Except as permitted by the regulations, a municipality shall not, by by-law or otherwise, reduce or permit a reduction in the number of marked lanes available for travel by motor vehicles on a highway or a portion of a highway under the municipality’s jurisdiction and control for any of the following purposes:
1. A bicycle lane.
2. Any other prescribed purpose. 2025, c. 14, Sched. 5, s. 5.

One could argue that purpose 2, “Any other prescribed purpose”, could be taken to include ANYTHING in the lane that takes it away from car use. For example, if a city decided that a ‘road diet’ was in order, and converted a traffic lane to a sidewalk, or a parkette, or space for bistro tables, or just grassed the lane, that would not be permitted, since it is a reduction of number of lanes available to motor vehicles. If the lanes were simply narrowed, but their number remained the same, then that is permitted.

So, my interpretation is that a city could reconfigure a roadway that had two 4-m lanes per direction into two 3-m motor vehicle lanes + a 1-m bicycle lane in each direction – without needing any additional ministerial approval.

As for converting a car lane to a transit lane; I believe that that would be permitted – even though a transit lane reduces the road capacity for PRIVATE vehicles, and could be included as “Any other prescribed purpose”. In the case of a bus, it is also a “motor vehicle”; meaning that two general traffic lanes is the same count of “motor vehicle” lanes as one general traffic lane plus one bus lane.

It is too bad that so many of the cycling advocates feel that having bikes share a bus lane isn’t separate enough. If, for example, the outside lanes of Carling were converted to bus lanes, bikes could be moved from traveling in busy mixed traffic lanes (which include buses) into shared, sparsly used, bus lanes. (The # 85 frequency is about every 15 minutes.)

[phil235]

^ A « prescribed purpose » in legislation just means a purpose that is set out in the regulations made under the Act. I don’t believe there is a regulation on that subject (though I haven’t looked thoroughly), so it is just conversions to bike lanes that are prohibited. You are correct that it would allow narrowing of existing lanes.

As for combined bus-bike lanes, there is a reason they really aren’t built anywhere. Having large, faster vehicles bearing down on small, vulnerable road users is ideal for neither, regardless of the frequency.

[hwy418]

Originally Posted by Richard Eade

Does the Province not review and approve every provincial EA done? Many of those include roadway modifications. Don't mistake allowing municipalities leeway to do local planning for lack of involvement.

All provincial EAs, which municipalities must adhere to, are filed with the Ministry of the Environment, Conservation and Parks (MECP). There are different levels of review and approvals needed depending on the project class.

[ponyboycurtis]

Originally Posted by phil235

^ A « prescribed purpose » in legislation just means a purpose that is set out in the regulations made under the Act. I don’t believe there is a regulation on that subject (though I haven’t looked thoroughly), so it is just conversions to bike lanes that are prohibited. You are correct that it would allow narrowing of existing lanes.

As for combined bus-bike lanes, there is a reason they really aren’t built anywhere. Having large, faster vehicles bearing down on small, vulnerable road users is ideal for neither, regardless of the frequency.

It really isn't when you consider the bus would need to leave 1m to legally pass. You would basically have the bus riding the line to pass a cyclist. Plus the conflict of a cyclist coming up to a stopped bus... going to move around the bus and putting them self in traffic.. and whoopsies.. the bus starts moving again. Rinse and repeat.

I would detest the idea of cycling in a dedicated bus lane personally.

[dougvdh]

Originally Posted by ponyboycurtis

It really isn't when you consider the bus would need to leave 1m to legally pass. You would basically have the bus riding the line to pass a cyclist. Plus the conflict of a cyclist coming up to a stopped bus... going to move around the bus and putting them self in traffic.. and whoopsies.. the bus starts moving again. Rinse and repeat.

I would detest the idea of cycling in a dedicated bus lane personally.

The minimum width of lane for a bus to pass a cyclist in a shared use scenario would be in the range of 6.3m. We should assume the cyclist riding 1m out from the curb (basically the nearest straight line path avoiding things like catch basins). Plus the width of the cyclist (nominally we'll say 1m). Plus the safe passing distance (1m). Plus the width of the bus (3.30m). So all that taken into account, we either have to assume the bus is leaving the lane every time they pass a cyclist or just come to the conclusion it's better to build a 1.8 m wide cycletrack and a bus lane.

[Richard Eade]

I think I understand the logic: That a shared bus/bike lane is not perfect, therefore, it is unacceptable.

I spent years cycling along Baseline Road IN MIXED TRAFFIC. I would have loved to only have to deal with the professional drivers in buses.

Ask yourself: “Would I rather ride my bike along Baseline in the TRAFFIC AS IT EXISTS NOW?” That is; vehicles zipping by (with less than a metre buffer distance) at between 60 KPH and 80 KPH. Vehicles including buses (operated by professional drivers), yahoos piloting cars, and any truck that happens by, sometimes driven by renters who don’t have a good idea of how wide their vehicle is.

Or, would you prefer to ride in a lane that you share with a bus every 10-15 minutes?

Honestly, if I start about 10 minutes behind a bus, I will likely make it the whole length of Baseline without getting passed, because the bus and I are going the same direction. Yes, the bus has to stop (at every stop along Baseline, it seems), but it travels faster between stops. That said, I have played ‘Leap-Frog’ with buses along Baseline, and it wasn’t the end of the world – and that was while dodging the rest of the traffic, since I was in FULL MIXED TRAFFIC. Remember, those buses had to go around me, also in mixed traffic.

I fully agree; that if I was taking a child cycling, I would want fully segregated bike paths. (Even MUPs have potential conflicts.) But since getting fully segregated bike paths everywhere is very unlikely. Personally, I would be good with a major improvement in cycling safety for commuter cyclists who use roads like Baseline and Carling.

Just for your information, Montreal has some designated Bus-Bike lanes, and they seem to be fine.
https://montreal.ca/en/articles/cycling-reserved-bus-and-taxi-lanes-18535
And Velo Quebec endorses them:
https://www.velo.qc.ca/en/issues-and-positions/bus-bike-lanes-pros-and-cons/

[phil235]

Originally Posted by Richard Eade

Just for your information, Montreal has some designated Bus-Bike lanes, and they seem to be fine.
https://montreal.ca/en/articles/cycling-reserved-bus-and-taxi-lanes-18535
And Velo Quebec endorses them:
https://www.velo.qc.ca/en/issues-and-positions/bus-bike-lanes-pros-and-cons/

I think you need to re-read those articles again. The articles are about whether bikes should be allowed in designated bus lanes, not shared facilities. And the Velo Quebec article is an opinion piece from 2016 on the same topic that specifically states that shared lanes are not a substitute for cycling facilities, but that bikes should be allowed in bus lanes because otherwise you would effectively be prohibiting them from using those streets. It is definitely not Velo Quebec endorsing shared lanes.

[Richard Eade]

OK, phil235, this is another thing that we will have to agree to disagree on.

Here are two questions that I would like you to answer for me:
1) Would you feel comfortable cycling the length of Baseline Road, AS IT EXISTS TODAY? i.e., inside of a 60 KPH lane, sharing it with cars, trucks, and buses.
2) Would you feel comfortable cycling in a reserved lane that you share with a bus every 10-20 minutes?

[phil235]

Originally Posted by Richard Eade

OK, phil235, this is another thing that we will have to agree to disagree on.

Here are two questions that I would like you to answer for me:
1) Would you feel comfortable cycling the length of Baseline Road, AS IT EXISTS TODAY? i.e., inside of a 60 KPH lane, sharing it with cars, trucks, and buses.
2) Would you feel comfortable cycling in a reserved lane that you share with a bus every 10-20 minutes?

For me, the answer to both is no. I’d give you that the second option is better, but I still wouldn’t put that in the comfortable category. I also don’t believe that there would only be a bus every 10-20 minutes. If we build bus lanes, I would sincerely hope that we would use them more than that. Not to mention that other vehicles can use the lanes, and there will be cars in and out of the lane to turn etc.

I think the real question isn’t what you asked, but whether shared bus lanes are a substitute for bike infrastructure. Are they better than nothing - sure, a little. Are they a substitute for proper bike infrastructure on a wide arterial like Carling - nope.

[lrt's friend]

Originally Posted by phil235

For me, the answer to both is no. I’d give you that the second option is better, but I still wouldn’t put that in the comfortable category. I also don’t believe that there would only be a bus every 10-20 minutes. If we build bus lanes, I would sincerely hope that we would use them more than that. Not to mention that other vehicles can use the lanes, and there will be cars in and out of the lane to turn etc.

I think the real question isn’t what you asked, but whether shared bus lanes are a substitute for bike infrastructure. Are they better than nothing - sure, a little. Are they a substitute for proper bike infrastructure on a wide arterial like Carling - nope.

Agreed. what purpose does it serve to build rapid transit infrastructure and share it with slower bicycles? and if both prove popular. we will have conflict. Imagine if we would have allowed bicycles on the Transit ways without separate cycle tracks. But it was a sign of the times, when cycle infrastructure was just a painted line along the side of the road. It is time to do things properly.

[Richard Eade]

Well, let’s take the Baseline BRT as an example. Originally estimated at about $300M ($160M + $140M) for the entire corridor, Data Centre to Bayshore, it was deemed too expensive by the City. The city wants upper levels of government to pay. So, for the last 9 years (it was approved Feb., 2017), the city has left cyclists riding along Baseline in full mixed traffic – which includes cars, trucks, and buses.

Now, the updated cost figures are about $400M per half. That will not be any more affordable from the city’s standpoint, and there has still been no upper level of government offering to pay.

One of the things that affects the cost is land requirement. As designed – as a Complete Street, with segregated cycle tracks – the Baseline BRT will require partial acquisition of about 200 properties, and full expropriation of 15. The reason so much property if needed? Because a Complete Street is WIDE. Even in its most compact layout, 32.7 metres of width is required. If the project was only to add side bus lanes, that could easily be done within the existing Right of Way (RoW), which is about 29 metres in width.

The narrowest section of the approved plan contains:

0.5m inner blvd.,
2.0m sidewalk,
1.5m cycle track,
1.2m outer blvd.,
3.3m vehicle lane,
3.3m vehicle lane,
3.8m transit lane,
1.5m central median,
3.8m transit lane,
3.3m vehicle lane,
3.3m vehicle lane,
1.2m outer blvd.,
1.5m cycle track,
2.0m sidewalk,
0.5m inner blvd..
32.7m total width

Some comments:
Why is a central median needed for a road with a 60 KPH speed limit? Richmond Road, between Holly Acres and John Sutherland, has a speed limit of 80 KPH, and just a paint stripe. Also, it is transit-only lanes on either side of that median. If bus drivers had no problem staying in their lanes on the Transitway, they should be able to do it along Baseline. Besides, if the city wants people to drive slower, it needs to make roads feel a little less safe.
There are few areas along Baseline where a lot of people walk. The current sidewalk width of 1.8-m is probably sufficient.

So how about the city do the following – even temporarily:

0.5m inner blvd.,
1.8m sidewalk,
1.5m painted bike lane,
3.8m bus lane,
3.4m vehicle lane,
3.25m vehicle lane,
0.5m road marking stripe, with rumble strip,
3.25m vehicle lane,
3.4m vehicle lane,
3.8m bus lane,
1.5m painted bike lane,
1.8m sidewalk,
0.5m inner blvd..
29.0m total

And, since there is a lot of pavement, how about they make each half of the road crowned, so that half of the water flows to the side, and half to the center of the roadway. The central ‘Rumble Strip’ would actually be a series of grills over a stormwater catchment trough. This also helps ensure that the ‘rumble’ doesn’t disappear when snow gets packed in divets. Hey, how about using coloured grills, so that the central road marking doesn’t need re-painting? (OOO! – whimsey hits – And for a bonus, make the grills play a tune if the bus drives along it at the correct speed.) Splitting the water means that the side catchment basins could be smaller, and embedded under the sidewalk, so that bicycles would not need to deal with sewer grills.

I understand that this is still not a cheap project. It involves rebuilding most of the roadway. There will be sections where the city can leave the existing sidewalks and simply reconfigure the roadway between. That could save some money. And I do appreciate that constructing all of a Complete Street at once is the least expensive way to construct it. This just goes part of the way there, but still has a high price – although lower that the Complete Street plan.

I mentioned that this could be a temporary arrangement. If, in the future, the city finds more money for property acquisition, the road sides can be modified to move the sidewalks out and install segregated cycle tracks. During that construction, at least two lanes of traffic would remain. Once the cycle tracks are installed, it would be possible to move the transit lanes into the median, if that is still desired. But I still don’t think that professional bus drivers need a central median. They didn’t on the 90 KPH Transitway. And, maybe by then, an electric tram will be desired, instead of buses. The central sewer trough will help keep stormwater away from bus platforms, if the lanes are moved in.

Absolutely, painted side bike lanes are not as safe as segregated cycle tracks. But they are much better than the status quo. And they are do-able at a lower cost – so they might actually happen, instead of waiting many more years, hoping for the perfect solution to be given to the city.

(PS Woodroffe, south of Norice, has had a similar setup for years, with painted bike lanes outside transit lanes.)

[dougvdh]

Originally Posted by Richard Eade

. . .Absolutely, painted side bike lanes are not as safe as segregated cycle tracks. But they are much better than the status quo. And they are do-able at a lower cost – so they might actually happen, instead of waiting many more years, hoping for the perfect solution to be given to the city. . .

The City has found that it's less expensive to do cycle tracks than painted lanes since painted lanes require subgrade and asphalt design suitable for heavy vehicle traffic. Cycle tracks, on the other hand don't need to support those loads and are thereby less costly to construct. That's a big part of the reason that the city standard on all new construction
is cycle tracks.

[ponyboycurtis]

Originally Posted by lrt's friend

Agreed. what purpose does it serve to build rapid transit infrastructure and share it with slower bicycles? and if both prove popular. we will have conflict. Imagine if we would have allowed bicycles on the Transit ways without separate cycle tracks. But it was a sign of the times, when cycle infrastructure was just a painted line along the side of the road. It is time to do things properly.

To be fair it would be on point for Ottawa to build new infrastructure with every compromise under the sun.

[zzptichka]

Beachburg Rail Corridor Multiuse Trail

The project proposes a compacted stone dust multi-use trail to be built on the existing railway bed, with a width ranging from 2.5 m – 3 m along the corridor. The existing rail bed would be regraded, and overgrowth would be cleared

https://ottawa.ca/en/city-hall/public-en...h/beachburg-rail-corridor-multiuse-trail

Good link for Kanata North. With groomed ski trails in the winter. Nice.

[J.OT13]

• Video Link

[ponyboycurtis]

I can tell you yesterday the MUP heading north from Bayview and then heading towards Zibi I might have seen a record amount of cyclists which was awesome to see. I will once again advocate for wider paths that are marked for cyclists. They have a portion of that on the newer path that cuts over towards the aquaduct but its dead in comparison to the "trunk route" that I was on.

Lots of spirited riders we'll just say. I don't really have a problem with them riding a bike quicker than the 20kmh to be honest. It's just that the path was a little crowded so not ideal. Solo pedestrians also need to be mindful to try and hug the right. There was one guy basically walking on the yellow line yesterday and wasnt aware of the cyclists approaching him from behind despite the bell. I moved over to the side of the path on my side to allow the cyclist passage without jamming on the brakes.

I don't know if there is a dataset out there showing which paths are busy but I know there are several that could use an upgrade. The east side of Rideau river is one off the top of my head.

Having crowded pathways. This is a good problem to have!

[J.OT13]

Originally Posted by ponyboycurtis

I can tell you yesterday the MUP heading north from Bayview and then heading towards Zibi I might have seen a record amount of cyclists which was awesome to see. I will once again advocate for wider paths that are marked for cyclists. They have a portion of that on the newer path that cuts over towards the aquaduct but its dead in comparison to the "trunk route" that I was on.

Lots of spirited riders we'll just say. I don't really have a problem with them riding a bike quicker than the 20kmh to be honest. It's just that the path was a little crowded so not ideal. Solo pedestrians also need to be mindful to try and hug the right. There was one guy basically walking on the yellow line yesterday and wasnt aware of the cyclists approaching him from behind despite the bell. I moved over to the side of the path on my side to allow the cyclist passage without jamming on the brakes.

I don't know if there is a dataset out there showing which paths are busy but I know there are several that could use an upgrade. The east side of Rideau river is one off the top of my head.

Having crowded pathways. This is a good problem to have!

Seeing a lot of cyclists on the new bike path on Albert across the street from Odenak/Adisoke as well. If you build it, they will come.

I really want the NCC to focus on doubling up all pathways along the Ottawa River Parkway and the Canal, separate pedestrians and cyclists. I know they've talked about it, but I'm not sure I've seen any movement on upgrading existing pathways.

[urbanforest]

The April issue of the Mainstreeter included this about biking along the canal:

“Work is progressing well on the new bicycle lanes along the Colonel By Drive and Queen Elizabeth Driveway, the National Capital Commission (NCC) reports. “Mobilization is expected to begin this summer, starting on Colonel By Drive. The impact assessment review process for this proposed project is currently underway.”

As reported in the February issue of The Mainstreeter:, the NCC is creating a northbound bike lane on Colonel By Drive and a southbound bike lane on Queen Elizabeth Driveway with the goal of diverting fast cyclists and e-bikes off the pathways bordering the Canal, thus making the pathways safer for pedestrians and slow cyclists.”

I have a hard time believing that a unidirectional bike lane on Col. By and QED will make a big impact in reducing congestion on the paths, but maybe some of the Lycra warriors will use them.

[ponyboycurtis]

Originally Posted by J.OT13

Seeing a lot of cyclists on the new bike path on Albert across the street from Odenak/Adisoke as well. If you build it, they will come.

I really want the NCC to focus on doubling up all pathways along the Ottawa River Parkway and the Canal, separate pedestrians and cyclists. I know they've talked about it, but I'm not sure I've seen any movement on upgrading existing pathways.

In the grand scheme of this doubling up the pathways you mentioned would be a relatively cheap capital expenditure. Certainly for the value added. Get more people comfortable and active and if some cyclists wants to maintain a 40 kph cruise on a $3500 carbon bike all the power to ya.

Went to Nida, Lithuania. 1,500 permanent residents, albeit busy in the summer with the attraction of the longest sand spit in the world and a unique ecology. They have a fully separated path along the waterfront. Boy I had a scowl at that one I'll tell you.

It's mildly surprising they didn't add lighting to the new pathway I was describing earlier. Only in the immediate area of Baview.

I'd like to see a lighting upgrade along Ottawa River and Rideau pathways. But if they just want to come in quick and dirty and lay down another 2 meters of asphalt and some paint right now I wouldn't say no.

But really though it should be a complete project rather than a patch job. At the very least I would like to see the connection from Bayview to William Commanda done immediately and properly.