2302 replies to this topic

[LJ]

^I think he meant "we have sidewalks"........

[Mike K.]

Eh?  We certainly don't have bike lanes on many if not most of the main roads.  Shelbourne being the obvious example.  

And main roads in most cases are the most efficient routes for cyclists.  Main roads are where they are because they are efficient routes.  Whether you are driving or cycling makes no difference.

 

Shelbourne is too narrow north of Hillside to support a bike line, hence why it isn't there and won't be unless Saanich reduces lane capacity to one in each direction and both municipalities install the lanes.

 

Marking a bike lane is not always as simple as slapping paint on a road, it can require major road reworks and years of consultation. And main roads for vehicles are not always main roads by bicycles. A whole slew of factors play into why many cyclists ride on roads without bike lanes despite paralleling routes designated for bikes.

[pherthyl]

Shelbourne is too narrow north of Hillside to support a bike line, hence why it isn't there and won't be unless Saanich reduces lane capacity to one in each direction and both municipalities install the lanes.

This is probably quite likely. The current setup is not efficient for cars and dangerous for bikes. Much better would be a single lane each way with a center turn lane and bike lanes.

Marking a bike lane is not always as simple as slapping paint on a road, it can require major road reworks and years of consultation. And main roads for vehicles are not always main roads by bicycles. A whole slew of factors play into why many cyclists ride on roads without bike lanes despite paralleling routes designated for bikes.

Two factors stand out though:
1. Efficiency. Side roads are often hillier, have more stop signs, and less direct.
2. Road quality. Many Victoria side roads are rough and annoying to ride on at speed

Good cycling infrastructure on the main roads would allow cyclist commuters to use the most sensible routes

[Mike K.]

^all points taken.

 

This morning (10AM) I walked across the bridge and did a count of cyclists who crossed during my walk. Crossing from the new Delta Hotel driveway to the very end of the bridge on the downtown side took 2:46. In that time three cyclists crossed the bridge.

 

Of course this is anecdotal and 10 minutes later a dozen may have crossed in the span of just under three minutes but this was my observation.

[http]

Eh?  We certainly don't have bike lanes on many if not most of the main roads.  Shelbourne being the obvious example.  

And main roads in most cases are the most efficient routes for cyclists.  Main roads are where they are because they are efficient routes.  Whether you are driving or cycling makes no difference.

 

I would bet money that you're not a year-round cyclist.

 

Cyclists must apply larger personal effort, resulting in sweat, to go over hills.  Car drivers must adjust their foot on the gas pedal.  Cyclists care about this difference if they don't want to show up sweating and stinky.

 

Riding in light rain is not a big deal, but riding in the bike lane on a busy roadway in light rain (and for a little while after) will get you soaked in moments, as the spray generated by cars going at 50 km/h (or higher) is significant.  Mike earlier outlined his route to his old office in Saanich; I took that route myself.  Going along highway 17 was much shorter, but guaranteed to produce a drowned rat in the workplace.

[Mike K.]

Yup, for the most part bike lane or not you're going to take the route that is most efficient and sensible for you, not the road network, not the bike lane layout. That's why the Pandora bike lane has been a failure by most accounts. Pandora is hilly and there are alternate routes into town more conducive to cycling (i.e. Yates).

 

Another major problem is black ice in the winter months. I've wiped out on the stuff along a side road paralleling a busier route. Imagine wiping out into traffic on a cool morning.

[North Shore]

^ How to define efficiency, though?

I live not far from Mackenzie and Shelbourne.  My most direct, and flattest, route downtown is straight down Shelbourne, right on Bay, and then left on Cook to either Yates or Pandora. If traffic is light, I'll do that.  If the weather/light is dodgy, I'll suffer the hills on Mackenzie to the Goose, and then hammer on down there, taking a time penalty, but not having to worry about traffic.  Likewise, on my return , I'll often avoid Mackenzie altogether, and take the Mt. Doug X route, just to avoid the traffic.

All of those routes,  I can make a case for being efficient, depending upon my critera...

(Caveats: I'm a fairly strong cyclist so hills don't bother me; I don't work downtown, so showing up to an appointment sweating is no big deal, and i used to be a bike courier, so I'm pretty comfortable on my bike in traffic...)

[Mike K.]

That's precisely my point. Efficiency is different for every cyclist, even on different days/different hours for that same cyclist. As such saying that cycling infrastructure on major routes is a solution to cycling issues is misguided for the very reasons you've outlined. Not imagine that a dozen other cyclists have their own way of getting to and from your 'hood and each has their reasons for it.

[pherthyl]

I would bet money that you're not a year-round cyclist.

 

How much money did I win?  I bike to work every day (and delivery my daughter to daycare in the bike trailer), but it's a short commute (15min).  My wife rides downtown about 3 days out of every week (30min) and takes the bus the other 2 days.

 

 

Cyclists must apply larger personal effort, resulting in sweat, to go over hills.  Car drivers must adjust their foot on the gas pedal.  Cyclists care about this difference if they don't want to show up sweating and stinky.

 

Riding in light rain is not a big deal, but riding in the bike lane on a busy roadway in light rain (and for a little while after) will get you soaked in moments, as the spray generated by cars going at 50 km/h (or higher) is significant.  Mike earlier outlined his route to his old office in Saanich; I took that route myself.  Going along highway 17 was much shorter, but guaranteed to produce a drowned rat in the workplace.

 

 

I don't get your point at all.   Major roads have fewer hills in general than side streets, so that's another argument in favor of riding the major routes.  And with proper cycle infrastructure you are less likely to get splashed when cars overtake you.  On a highway that means physically separated from the road.  On streets that means some space between the bike lane and the road.

Edited by pherthyl, 05 August 2014 - 05:39 PM.

[pherthyl]

^ How to define efficiency, though?

I live not far from Mackenzie and Shelbourne.  My most direct, and flattest, route downtown is straight down Shelbourne, right on Bay, and then left on Cook to either Yates or Pandora. If traffic is light, I'll do that.  If the weather/light is dodgy, I'll suffer the hills on Mackenzie to the Goose, and then hammer on down there, taking a time penalty, but not having to worry about traffic.  Likewise, on my return , I'll often avoid Mackenzie altogether, and take the Mt. Doug X route, just to avoid the traffic.

All of those routes,  I can make a case for being efficient, depending upon my critera...

(Caveats: I'm a fairly strong cyclist so hills don't bother me; I don't work downtown, so showing up to an appointment sweating is no big deal, and i used to be a bike courier, so I'm pretty comfortable on my bike in traffic...)

 

So the only reason you avoid the efficient routes (shelbourn, bay, mckenzie) is because the bike infrastructure sucks on those roads.   If there were nice cycle lanes on those roads (possibly even physically separate from the road surface) I imagine you would take the fast routes all the time.

[G-Man]

No hills on Quadra or Cook street. Hillside is really flat too. Foul Bay, Fort, Pandora Yates all level.

[Nparker]

As I walked home tonight along Vancouver Street from Yates to North Park, not a single one of the 10 or so cyclists I saw was using the dedicated asphalt bike lane that runs adjacent to the sidewalk. All were on the road riding in and around the parked cars. So I have to ask - why spend the money if it's not going to be used? Even if you build it they won't necessarily come.

[LJ]

I was driving up Bay St. from Blanshard to Richmond this morning about 9:15 and I noticed a fair amount of bikes, maybe 10 or 12. There was quite a difference in skill level/ability and speed among them. All the slower ones I saw were using the sidewalks and crosswalks rather than the roadway. It seemed like the better choice as I only saw two pedestrians along the entire way up Bay but a steady stream of vehicles.

[Holden West]

So I have to ask - why spend the money if it's not going to be used? Even if you build it they won't necessarily come.

 

Very simple answer: because those are architectural relics from the distant past. Those bike lanes were built decades ago when the concept of a bicycle lane was in its infancy. The uselessness of the lanes was realized soon after they were built. That's why there is no longer any markings on them. Because they are essentially only a doubled sidewalk, they are as dangerous as a sidewalk. If driving on a sidewalk is dangerous, why would it become safe if you give the sidewalk a new name? It's insane and this experiment ended. That's why you rarely see any other paths like that one.

[Nparker]

Very simple answer: because those are architectural relics from the distant past. Those bike lanes were built decades ago when the concept of a bicycle lane was in its infancy. The uselessness of the lanes was realized soon after they were built. That's why there is no longer any markings on them. Because they are essentially only a doubled sidewalk, they are as dangerous as a sidewalk. If driving on a sidewalk is dangerous, why would it become safe if you give the sidewalk a new name? It's insane and this experiment ended. That's why you rarely see any other paths like that one.

So now we can spend $5 million on new bike lanes only to find out they don't get used either. One need look no further than Pandora from Fernwood to Cook Street to see money down the drain on a new biking infrastructure. I rarely see this lane used for its intended purpose.

[http]

How much money did I win?  I bike to work every day (and delivery my daughter to daycare in the bike trailer), but it's a short commute (15min).  My wife rides downtown about 3 days out of every week (30min) and takes the bus the other 2 days.

 

 

 

 

I don't get your point at all.   Major roads have fewer hills in general than side streets, so that's another argument in favor of riding the major routes.  And with proper cycle infrastructure you are less likely to get splashed when cars overtake you.  On a highway that means physically separated from the road.  On streets that means some space between the bike lane and the road.

 

You get a coffee (or tea, if that's your bent) on the next VV tour we take.  [ aside: Mike, when's the next VV tour?  Last one I was on was informative and entertaining. ]

 

I'm not talking about splashing.  I'm talking about the spray that a car travelling at moderate to high speeds generates on a flat roadway with rain on it.  It is continuous, and trails behind and beside the car - going out easily one to two car widths on each side.  One alone isn't enough to soak you, but ten are.

 

I doubt your assertion that major roads have fewer hills.  Anyways, as others have pointed out, each of the multitude of criteria for "a good route" can vary wildly per cyclist, per trip, and per situation.  The idea that "proper" infrastructure would make all cyclists take the same routes doesn't seem tenable to me.

[Mike K.]

You know we should really plan one. Let me think about this a little bit.

[jklymak]

As I walked home tonight along Vancouver Street from Yates to North Park, not a single one of the 10 or so cyclists I saw was using the dedicated asphalt bike lane that runs adjacent to the sidewalk. All were on the road riding in and around the parked cars. So I have to ask - why spend the money if it's not going to be used? Even if you build it they won't necessarily come.

 

Thats a bike lane?  Seriously?  I just assumed it was part of the sidewalks.  There is no way any cyclist would ride on that - it'd be super dangerous.  

[jklymak]

No hills on Quadra or Cook street. Hillside is really flat too. Foul Bay, Fort, Pandora Yates all level.

 

Haultain, Shelbourne and Douglas are all pretty flat, and I think should be bike routes.  Sorry about Douglas, but it is really a good bike route that I ride a fair bit (downtown to Gorge Rd).  How to get from DT to Haultain is a bit of a nuisance, but Vancouver works pretty well most of the way, to Bay and then you have to choose your poison to get over to Haultain.  Bay would be a fine street to bike on too, if only they fixed the bike lane east of Cook (sorry two or three parked cars).  

[Coreyburger]

Thats a bike lane?  Seriously?  I just assumed it was part of the sidewalks.  There is no way any cyclist would ride on that - it'd be super dangerous.  

These are the remnants of an old bikeway design that was the first iteration of what is now called a protected bike lane or "cycle track".

Edited by Coreyburger, 06 August 2014 - 10:02 AM.