By Staff
August 26, 2016
BURLINGTON, ON
The debate continues but the marked bike lanes on New Street are almost ready to go.
One bike user gave it a go day before yesterday – he liked what he saw. It is a very quick trip – 49 seconds on a weekday.
We will have a look at the traffic on a weekday morning and in an evening as well and see what it looks like.
Keep in mind that this is a pilot project.
New Street road diet – video clip
The bike rider did say: “I was skeptical, but it’s nice – even if VERY bumpy!”
I travel both to and from downtown Oakville, via New and Rebecca. Oakville have 2 plus turn lane and no bike lanes. However they have their bus stops at curb cut out, so buses can pull off to allow traffic to flow while picking up passengers. Also a larger portion of traffic gets on New at Bronte road to come west, not coming from downtown Oakville. So traffic flow there and here are different.
Unfortunately because there is no bike lanes on their road, the mortality rate of bikers in Oakville must be much higher than in Burlington (must be, right). These added bike lanes on all our streets must be why Burlington is #1 and Oakville #2, in the mayors prize Money Sense rating (it should be renamed Money Spent Unwisely award).
As another post referenced the Ont law requiring 3 ft separation of car and bike, this will no longer apply on this section of road since they are in their own separated marked bike lane.
Just about forgot, Friday in the 8am time frame I got to see 1 bike on New St, but only 800 cars, this is obviously why we needed this road diet.
I was the original poster of the video… Stephen White surmised things really well. I think if they want to reduce the lanes to two for whatever reasons(traffic calming, like how it is out further east around Bronte), then great. But I too agree it shouldn’t be done for “cycling” purposes. The city is saying its for cycling commuters, but really, how many people cycle to work on Brant St(unless its government workers!).
Harvester or mainway problem has much more people employed.
Also beware… I’ve tried to use the lanes everyday this week, and the video posted was probably my best experience. There has been constant construction in the lanes, (with them closed off completely in parts!) which means that as a cyclist I have to go into that one lane shared with a car… Fantastic! Plus i’ve gotten a flat from the construction debris.
Maybe hold off until the city gives the go ahead that its ready.
All bicyclists should be licensed, tagged, yearly stickered, safety inspected, taxed and adequately insured on the roads, and also road safety and tested for any cyclist over the age of 16, with a valid, paid for yearly renewable license, separate from their driving taxes and fees. They can allow certain roads for under that age to be used to gain experience. No more freebies! And they should be ticketed for EVERY SINGLE INFRACTION they commit. Including drinking and cycling….I have seen it, and it endangers the lives and safety of the drivers behind them. Some cyclists say ‘My taxes also pay for roads!’…..but bike lanes are different, as cars cannot access them, but bikes can access anywhere. Pay up, freeloaders!
I sure hope this pilot project includes monitoring traffic impacts on the surrounding streets and other east-west routes. With New Street strangling off traffic, it will be interesting to see where the cars will go to avoid it, and how bad it gets on other east-west routes. As it is, Lakeshore, Fairview, and Harvester are already disastrous during the evening rush hour. Funny how driving a car is practically considered a crime these days.
Ten Reasons why “Road Diets” aren’t such a great idea (and why this one on New Street stinks):
1) A designated lane for cyclists offers no real protection. A thin white line painted on the road is no protection against a two ton car. If the cyclists’ lane were actually painted a different colour (e.g. green) then it would be more easily recognized by motorists, but it isn’t.
2) The law requiring drivers to give cyclists a one metre (three foot) space requires cars to move into what will become, on New Street, the centre turning lane, with a much greater potential for head-on collision with oncoming vehicles travelling in the opposite direction.
3) When an accident on the Burlington Skyway occurs cars get off and drive through Burlington on east-west arteries to avoid sitting in traffic. A reduction in lanes will only augment the traffic congestion problem.
4) Lane reductions have not worked well. Traffic congestion on Appleby between Spruce and Lakeshore has actually increased since the road was converted to one lane. If you get behind a bus there is no way to pass. If you want to make a left on Spruce while travelling southbound on Appleby you can wait an inordinate amount of time before you can safely turn due to the volume of oncoming traffic.
5) Lane reductions don’t make it easy on bus or truck drivers. Because of the height of these vehicles it is actually more difficult to see cyclists. On a four-lane road they could squeeze over to the outside lane. On a two-lane road their options are limited and they actually will be driving closer to cyclists.
6) Lane reductions are confusing. Examples: southbound on Brant Street, or on Lakeshore between Torrance Brant and Maple Avenue. Near accidents are caused by drivers who have to suddenly merge and other drivers who can’t or won’t let them in. This situation is especially confusing for out-of-town visitors and tourists.
7) In winter road width can be reduced by snow mounds. On a four-lane road you can move into the outside lane. On a two-lane road your options are reduced.
The number of cyclists is considerably reduced between November and April. Effectively, this initiative only benefits a handful of cyclists most of whom only ride half of the year.
8) Ineffective consultation. Share the Road obviously carries more clout than taxpayers’ opinions. Public servants at City Hall made no effort to broadly consult with area residents. More importantly, like Burlington Council, they didn’t really listen (Interesting point: it is fascinating to me how fast the signs announcing this “road diet” went up on New Street….almost as if the decision were a “fait accompli”).
9) Cyclists have an obligation to ride safely. That doesn’t mean “Idaho stops” or riding two or three abreast. On a four lane road if cyclists ride two or three abreast a motorist can pass them easily on the outside lane. It isn’t as easily done on a two-lane road.
10) There are plenty of other things the monies allocated for this project could have been spent on.
Of course, these are all logical arguments…but logic evidently wasn’t one of the determining factors in arriving at this “road diet” decision.
I am hearing 10 minutes to get walkers to Guelph now and nobodu is seeing any bikes as expected based on city numbers of bikers using this road as u say a pilot perhaps shorter than a year if bike volumes stay low and traffic times continue to be unacceptable
Craig- 10 minutes for that distance,with all the signal lights,sounds reasonable.
Is it the number of lanes or does it just take more time to travel in Burlington than it use to ?
Today I traveled south on Guelph Line and made a left on Prospect.
This is an intersection with two lanes and left turn lanes in both directions. Additionally, cyclists on both sides and advance green signals for left turns. It took three complete signal light cycles to complete the turn. 10 minutes, sure felt like it.