2302 replies to this topic

[Rob Randall]

Save it for the podcast, chum.

[Jackerbie]

OK. this discussion has clearly drifted off course. Let's reel it back in to the topic at hand: issues with pike and pike lanes.

[Mike K.]

This wave of off-topic posts is going to net an off-topic warning from Nparker.

[lanforod]

This wave of off-topic posts is going to net an off-topic warning from Nparker.

 

Oh whale. It was fun whale it lasted.

[Rob Randall]

[Saskatoon] The Fourth Avenue protected bike lanes, which were first installed in 2016 as part of a two-year experiment with dedicated downtown cycling lanes, are set to be removed over the course of five days starting on Thursday. The Fourth Avenue lane was officially opened on May 19, 2016 by former mayor Don Atchison, who had already stated his opposition to the pilot project.

 

The lanes quickly drew complaints from a smattering of drivers, with the issues ranging from the elimination of parking stalls to lanes causing confusion for motorists.

 

 

The smattering wheel gets the grease.

[Rob Randall]

Before:

 

 

After:

 

 

As the pictures prove, the new bike lanes in Saskatoon have caused traffic mayhem.

 

[Jackerbie]

^ There's even more to the history when you look at the Street View on 4th Ave N at 23rd St E...

 

2009 - No bike infrastructure

2013 - Sharrows

2015 - Painted bike lane in door zone

2016 - Painted bike lane buffered by parking

 

So... which condition are they returning it to? Sharrows? Bike lane in door zone? Nothing?

[Mike K.]

I had no idea they had these lanes installed.

The 23rd Street lanes will remain, and following the 4th Ave lanes’ removal the City will engage the public on how to proceed with their bike lane network. So it sounds like 4th Ave. was not a good placement.

[Jackerbie]

I had no idea they had these lanes installed.

The 23rd Street lanes will remain, and following the 4th Ave lanes’ removal the City will engage the public on how to proceed with their bike lane network. So it sounds like 4th Ave. was not a good placement.

 

Looks like Council endorsed 3rd Avenue, 23rd Street and 19th Street as the best candidates for expansion of the active transit network back in April this year. The resolution passed on a 6-5 vote.

Edited by Jackerbie, 10 June 2019 - 01:31 PM.

[aastra]

 

As the pictures prove, the new bike lanes in Saskatoon have caused traffic mayhem.

 

Another formerly vibrant commercial street mortally wounded by bike lanes?

 

Seriously though, that street is mainly office blocks and other operations that have ample on-site parking. Small businesses are conspicuously absent. If people aren't using the bike lane then I can understand some complaints about that, but then again what harm could the bike lane possibly be doing simply by being there? Now that it's there you might as well leave it for a little while even if just 'cuz. Maybe some people will eventually start using it.

 

A cynical person might wonder if these changes back and forth are all about wasting money and stirring things up etc. while not really making any positive progress on anything. If I ever meet a cynical person I'll be sure to ask him about it.

[aastra]

 

“It wasn’t a good pilot project, and I think us leaving it there for as long as we did tainted and soured the community (to bike lanes),” Ward 1 Coun. Darren Hill said.

 

The lanes were initially installed in 2016 as a pilot project demonstration on a minimal budget, to gauge how protected lanes would affect how many people cycled through the downtown core.

Drivers have criticized the lanes for making intersections more dangerous due to blind spots involving cyclists, while others have complained that the paths are seldom used and the lanes were often cleared of snow before roads in the winter.

from https://www.ckom.com...etwork-survive/

 

Such a long time, since 2016. Saskatoon moves at a very brisk pace, apparently.

Edited by aastra, 10 June 2019 - 02:13 PM.

[Victoria Watcher]

Many Lochside Regional Trail-users ignore stop signs at crosswalks.

 

Saanich Road connects McKenzie Avenue and Tattersall Drive. As it passes Swan Lake, Saanich Road is intersected by the Lochside Regional Trail. Cyclists and pedestrians alike use the trail and the cross-walk over Saanich Road. The crosswalk has a pedestrian-activated light, used mostly by pedestrians while many cyclists drive right through.

 

On Wednesday morning, 18 cyclists drove through the cross walk in just 10 minutes. Only one used the light. Some cyclists checked for cars and then went on their way, but others just drove right through assuming they had the right of way.

 

 

https://www.vicnews....d-intersection/

 

you don't say.  

Edited by Victoria Watcher, 26 June 2019 - 04:51 PM.

[DustMagnet]

That's terrible.

 

This is terrible: https://www.vicnews....gn-as-optional/

 

Everybody is terrible.

 

Also, someone has to put a blitz on that those flashing orange lights means road users must stop and yield to the crosswalk. (http://www.bclaws.ca...8_05#section131)

[FogPub]

Many stop signs should be yield or give-way signs anyway, except at 4-ways where everyone has to stop.

 

As for Lochside Trail - as long as a cyclist checks for cars and there aren't any, what's the point of stopping? (and "because there's a stop sign" isn't a good enough answer)

[Cats4Hire]

Many stop signs should be yield or give-way signs anyway, except at 4-ways where everyone has to stop.

 

As for Lochside Trail - as long as a cyclist checks for cars and there aren't any, what's the point of stopping? (and "because there's a stop sign" isn't a good enough answer)

admittedly I don't use the trail very often but looking on Google Street View you can't see the path (the swan lake side is worse but neither are very good) until basically the intersection. I imagine the path is similar in vision so it makes sense to have a stop there.

[DustMagnet]

Many stop signs should be yield or give-way signs anyway, except at 4-ways where everyone has to stop.

 

As for Lochside Trail - as long as a cyclist checks for cars and there aren't any, what's the point of stopping? (and "because there's a stop sign" isn't a good enough answer)

 

Your ticket, pal.  Seriously, stop signs aren't optional regardless if there is no one for miles around or not.  Pesky perhaps, but that's the way the law is written.  Go with your idea of changing the signs to Yield instead.

While we are at it, change the Yield sign where Burnside Rd W. meets the Old Island Hwy to Merge... Fine, that's not cycling-related but that never stopped me anyone before.

[DustMagnet]

admittedly I don't use the trail very often but looking on Google Street View you can't see the path (the swan lake side is worse but neither are very good) until basically the intersection. I imagine the path is similar in vision so it makes sense to have a stop there.

 

I imagine this is why they added Stop signs to the Goose where it crosses Atkins Rd (closer to Wale than Six Mile) - you can't see anything from the trail to the road nor the road to the trail.  Sight lines are zilch.

Zooming though the Sannich Rd. crossing sounds suicidal to me.

[Jason-L]

Many stop signs should be yield or give-way signs anyway, except at 4-ways where everyone has to stop.

 

As for Lochside Trail - as long as a cyclist checks for cars and there aren't any, what's the point of stopping? (and "because there's a stop sign" isn't a good enough answer)

I think I'll try that line on the police the next time I run a STOP sign.

[rmpeers]

Many stop signs should be yield or give-way signs anyway, except at 4-ways where everyone has to stop.

As for Lochside Trail - as long as a cyclist checks for cars and there aren't any, what's the point of stopping? (and "because there's a stop sign" isn't a good enough answer)

Pretty sure a fair portion of Victoria cyclists already perceive stop signs as meaning either yield or keep on truckin'. No need to change the signs.

[laconic]

The article shows the car-centric nature of the decision making. It says the sight lines are bad so pedestrians and cyclists should stop, while the bigger, faster and more dangerous cars continue on their way. It also shows the lack of continuity due to difference jurisdictions.

 

Once a cyclist headed into downtown is past the switch bridge, all the intersections have stop signs for cars while pedestrians and cyclists have right of way. Those intersections were changed more than five years ago.

 

On the E&N side of the trail, the intersection at Wilson should have a stop sign. Cars often fail to stop for pedestrians, largely because they can't see them on the west side of the intersection. At Lampson Street, a controlled crosswalk, bikes generally don't use the signal unless the car traffic gets busy. At Admirals/Colville almost everyone uses the signals even during quiet times because the intersection is a bit crazy. Maplebank is the worst. The southwest corner has a retaining wall right up to the intersection. The bike traffic coming into the base from the west in the morning is phenomenal.

 

Traffic rules. at least for cars, are based on having a consistent behaviour. It is the consistency that fosters safety. If you're going to have a bike corridor which is heavily used then it makes sense to offer cyclists more protection rather than setting them for serious accidents. As with the switch bridge heading north intersections, make the cars stop at the lightly car-used intersections.