I attended the North Hill Traffic Study open house tonight. (It is still going on as I type.) The plan covers an area bounded by 16th Ave on the south, 32nd Ave/Confederation Park on the north, and by 19th St in the west to Edmonton Trail in the East.
There are a number of traffic calming measures being proposed for the area, speed humps, curb extensions, traffic circles, "limit your speed" signs and the like. All seem sensible as traffic can always use more calming. A big complaint in the area is drivers "cutting through" residential areas and people speeding down residential streets. (I live on a corner and the speed of some of the traffic is scary, especially since the road ends a block later!).
There is a bike lane proposed on 10th St/Cambrian Drive. It would start at 23 Ave and go North to Cambrian and Northmount.
Phase II of this would connect it up with the work being done around U of C. This would be a full on bike lane. A bike-way would be designated along 21 Ave, and 24th Ave. Some pathways and stuff would be added in that gravel area to connect the lanes on 10th to 21 Ave.
I was quite pleased to see this. Of course it would have been even better to continue the bike lane south on 10th Street, all the way to Kensington, but one thing at a time. 21 Ave is already a decent route as traffic is fairly light. It is a bus route and bus/bike encounters never seem to be pleasant, but the bus along there is a community bus, the 404, and seeing one is rare. The only problem with 21 Ave is the crossing at 14th St. It can be a pain during high traffic times.
Good to see
Submitted by pinkrobe on
As a former resident of Mount Pleasant, it's nice to see a comprehensive strategy for traffic calming with bike routes. Rosedale has had it for years...
20th still too good?
Submitted by mikewarren on
It is nearly always faster to drive on 20th Avenue than on 16th Avenue (at least between the points I typically use) -- which I think probably greatly contributes to the volume on 20th and connected roads.
I didn't see anything about bike lanes in the survey I was sent, but maybe I didn't look closely enough.
The bike lane stuff was only
Submitted by amf673 on
The bike lane stuff was only at the meeting. Don't know why.
Friendly curb extensions
Submitted by DD on
it would great if the city would come up with a different design for curb extensions that allow bikes to pass through rather than being forced left to take the lane.
They Exist
Submitted by SpeedyJ on
I agree - the ones that are in use in this city are stupid-scary. I know that I've seen better ones, but can't remember where (possible Copenhagen or Stockholm). The ones that we see here were already outdated by the time they were installed, other cities recognized the problems that they created (funneling cyclists into the sides of cars) and quickly came up with something better.
Basically they look the same, but extend past the bike lane and the bike lane passes straight through them. It forces cars away from bikes, and gives momentary physical protect to cyclists from cars. Kind of like a short protected bike lane.
J
I agree those extensions are
Submitted by gp4000 on
I agree those extensions are the worst thing that have been installed. Especially on roads that have 'natural' (two lanes; wide lanes; little parking) bike lanes. When I'm riding roads I know have these I refuse to ride to the right but instead hold a line that will aloow me to clear the exrension without having to move into the traffic lane at the last minute. I'd hate to be shoulder checking and hit one at speed.
don't worry...
Submitted by mikewarren on
...because according to the mailout I got, the curb extensions "have no impact on cyclists".
I saw that too!
Submitted by amf673 on
In theory, they could have "no impact on cyclists", if the road were a couple of meters wider, but in practice, they do.
I have a couple of places where curb extensions enter into it, on 20th Ave NW and 26th St SW. There is parking on both sides of the street. So you have a "parking lane" (storage space for personal vehicles, paid for by my taxes grr.) two travel lanes and another parking lane.
To avoid the "door zone" I travel 1 to 1.5 meters from the parked cars. That puts me just at the edge of the travel lane, which is uncomfortable, and unsafe I think, as it encourages unsafe passing, so I move to the left, into the right hand wheel rut. Traveling there, curb extensions are irrelevant. But of course motor traffic is going to be impacted. (Funny though, I seem to worry about that less and less).
If there are no parked cars, I could use the parking area to travel in, then everyone is happy. The problem there is, when I approach a parked car, or a curb extension, I have to take the lane again, which is hard to do if traffic is heavy (often on both 20th Ave and 26th St). I figure I am invisible to drivers if I am over there so moving left must be done cautiously.
My fear, when they say "no impact to cyclist" is that traffic planners feel that the 60 cm or so of space between the curb extension and the moving motor vehicles is enough for a cyclist!
All that being said, traffic planners seem to be in love with curb extensions, so we seem to be stuck with them for now.
Is the right wheel rut safe?
Submitted by winterrider on
I find that riding in the right wheel rut (as opposed to the right side of the lane) reduces the number of people making dangerous passes, but when they do pass dangerously they are much more dangerous.
For this reason I ride either out of the lane (when there is room to allow safe passing) or in the left wheel rut to make it crystal clear to cars that they must use the next lane over to pass me. I do this regardless of whether that lane is going the same direction as me or is the oncoming traffic lane.
I'm curious if your experiences are similar? Or perhaps the dangerous driving behavior varies by location in the city, which I suspect is the case to some degree as on some roads drivers accept cyclists more than on others.
I like the right wheel rut
Submitted by Cword on
Because it's faster, and a more predictable surface.
But
I do ride with a mirror and when a car approaches from the rear I will move right to the "debris sweep" that area where all the gravel and road debris goes as traffic uses the road.
That movement seems to buy me some favour, sort of a negotiation with the driver and I'm usually passed politely.
Once the passing car is clear I make a point of exaggerating my move back to the rut (ie. move to the left edge of the rut) so that if the driver is still paying attention they are aware that I "opened the door" for them.
left wheel rut
Submitted by ride on
On a four lane road without clear, bare, dry shoulder space, I ride in the left wheel rut of the right-hand lane, and I keep my speed up. I ride right down the Centre St bridge this way (okay, it's usually after 930am when I do so). I give 4th Ave, 5th Ave and 6th Ave downtown the same treatment. If I can't keep my speed up, I ride in the right wheel rut. Under no circumstances do I ride on sketchy ice or snow just so single-occupant vehicles can go by me. That said, I ride with a glasses-mounted rear-view mirror, and if I see that an overtaking driver has an attidue (they're easy to spot), I get prepared to get out of the way.
I have learned that under normal circumstances, riding in the right wheel rut leaves just enough room in the lane for the dickheads to try to squeeze past, especially in the afternoon rush hour.
If I'm going up the Centre St. bridge hill, and moving very slowly, I just ride on the MUP/sidewalk. No point taking up room on the road if I can't keep up. The right lane is populated by buses, and they can't pass in the lane if there's a bike there.
In residential neighbourhoods with cars parked on both sides (e.g. Crescent Heights), I ride down the middle of the road so as to prevent overtaking vehicles from trying to pass me - there's isn't room for it to be done safely, and even if they do pass, they often end up at the next intersection still in the oncoming lane. If a car comes toward me, I hold my position until I see them let up just a bit (which confirms they've seen me), then move over to about the middle of where a car would be - giving the driver a little more room than another car would give them, but not so much that they can rush by at high speed.
It's all about the negotiation, as you point out. And if don't ride with a mirror, you can't be aware enough of what the traffic is doing all around you to be able to negotiate effectively, or stay safe.
Ditto.
Submitted by amf673 on
On those points.
In residential areas, narrow street, parked cars on both sides, I use the middle of the road, then 'negotiate' according to the situation. I have had quite a few clever drivers try to pass just before an intersection and end up stopped in the on-coming lane, but that is just funny, especially when someone if trying to turn right from the cross street.
It always depends
Submitted by amf673 on
Like ride, when I am on a 4 lane round I use the left rut (10th St NW). Motorists have a whole other lane for their use.
On 26th St SW, which is a school zone, I use the left rut. The road is too narrow, there are too many cars, moving and parked, elementary school kids, dogs, etc. Everyone just needs to chill. Besides, there is NO PASSING in a school zone.
Being in the right rut doesn't prevent dick-heads from cutting it too close, but nothing does. It raises the chances that they see you, and gives you some room to maneuver if you need to. On most roads it cuts off passing when there is on-coming traffic (though I have had drivers pass me by going into the other lane nearly hitting on-coming traffic, then blaming me!)