Jump to content

      













Photo

[Bicycles] Bike lanes and cycling infrastructure in Victoria and the south Island


  • Please log in to reply
8755 replies to this topic

#41 arfenarf

arfenarf
  • Member
  • 322 posts

Posted 17 August 2012 - 05:25 AM

That $220M being priced out is for between now and 2035, you know. It isn't as if they're proposing to spend it all tomorrow.

I was amazed that it's going to cost $3M just to put a coat of lipstick on the intersection at HWY 17 and Sayward. $10M/year isn't bunches of money in that kind of context.

I was reading the Shelbourne corridor report recently and have to tip my hat to the transportation planners. They are really stuck between a rock and a hard place on that one. They proposed a number of options, but they're limited by a relatively narrow right-of-way. Unfortunately, one idea that keeps popping up is moving the bike corridor to Cedar Hill or Richmond. Both those roads are hilly and I believe that money spent on dedicated cycling infrastructure will be wasted... cyclists seek flat routes.

#42 Sparky

Sparky

    GET OFF MY LAWN

  • Moderator
  • 10,524 posts

Posted 17 August 2012 - 05:39 AM

^ Yes, like Wallace Drive (the Saanich portion) That is one nasty piece of road to be used as a bike corridor....but it's flat.

#43 Holden West

Holden West

    Va va voom!

  • Member
  • 9,058 posts

Posted 17 August 2012 - 06:09 AM

Unfortunately, one idea that keeps popping up is moving the bike corridor to Cedar Hill or Richmond. Both those roads are hilly and I believe that money spent on dedicated cycling infrastructure will be wasted... cyclists seek flat routes.


They've already created a small stretch of bike route on Cedar Hill just south of McKenzie. I've tried it but I'm not fond of it because it soon spits you back on to the road where you run the risk of being creamed by a right-turning driver, which is why you should never ride on a sidewalk.

I don't think it's good for bikes to be segregated because there's only so long you can be in a safe zone before you enter the car zone and take a driver by surprise. I think it's better for cars and cyclists to be in constant awareness of each other and I think bike lanes can provide a false sense of security.
"Beaver, ahoy!""The bridge is like a magnet, attracting both pedestrians and over 30,000 vehicles daily who enjoy the views of Victoria's harbour. The skyline may change, but "Big Blue" as some call it, will always be there."
-City of Victoria website, 2009

#44 VicHockeyFan

VicHockeyFan
  • Suspended User
  • 52,121 posts

Posted 17 August 2012 - 06:49 AM

I was amazed that it's going to cost $3M just to put a coat of lipstick on the intersection at HWY 17 and Sayward. $10M/year isn't bunches of money in that kind of context.


If I'm not mistaken, they had/have to buy a bit of private land for the lanes here, that's part of the cost, and why it's phased, there is some legal and survey work to do still before the lanes.
<p><span style="font-size:12px;"><em><span style="color:rgb(40,40,40);font-family:helvetica, arial, sans-serif;">"I don’t need a middle person in my pizza slice transaction" <strong>- zoomer, April 17, 2018</strong></span></em></span>

#45 Bingo

Bingo
  • Member
  • 16,666 posts

Posted 17 August 2012 - 01:14 PM

Unfortunately, one idea that keeps popping up is moving the bike corridor to Cedar Hill or Richmond. Both those roads are hilly and I believe that money spent on dedicated cycling infrastructure will be wasted... cyclists seek flat routes.


Unfortunately much of Victoria is hilly, and all of the flat section roads are not suitable for bike lanes. Cyclists might need to add a bigger sprocket to their bikes tohelp with the hills.

#46 Holden West

Holden West

    Va va voom!

  • Member
  • 9,058 posts

Posted 17 August 2012 - 01:42 PM

^But the whole point is to reduce unnecessary car usage and get more bikes on the road by making biking look more attactive. So the wise men said here's a new path for you---OVER THAT MOUNTAIN.
"Beaver, ahoy!""The bridge is like a magnet, attracting both pedestrians and over 30,000 vehicles daily who enjoy the views of Victoria's harbour. The skyline may change, but "Big Blue" as some call it, will always be there."
-City of Victoria website, 2009

#47 jklymak

jklymak
  • Member
  • 3,514 posts

Posted 17 August 2012 - 02:29 PM

Unfortunately much of Victoria is hilly, and all of the flat section roads are not suitable for bike lanes.


Huh?

#48 Bingo

Bingo
  • Member
  • 16,666 posts

Posted 17 August 2012 - 03:24 PM

I meant to say that not all of the flat roads are suitable for bike lanes. Shelbourne being one of them, unless you remove rows of houses and widen the road.

#49 jklymak

jklymak
  • Member
  • 3,514 posts

Posted 17 August 2012 - 03:34 PM

Or you remove a lane of car traffic. Despite all the moaning and groaning, I don't think removing two lanes of traffic have hurt Fort St traffic flow one iota. I don't think it'll hurt Shelbourne either.

#50 Dimitrios

Dimitrios
  • Member
  • 316 posts

Posted 19 August 2012 - 05:49 PM

Then why are cars VASTLY more popular even though they cost 10, 15 or 20 times as much as a (good) bicycle to purchase, and require expensive fuel and insurance to operate? When human-powered bikes are able to move at 50-70 km/hour then maybe they will supplant cars, but I don't see this as happening any time soon. BTW I own neither a bicycle nor a car.


Isn't it obvious? Because people are lazy. Because cars shelter you from the elements, from noise and from other people, just like the aristocrats originally got from stagecoaches 120 years ago. Because car ownership has been a status symbol for generations. Because cars are comfortable, and you can get away with sleeping in them, using them as portable offices, and making out in them, if you need to. Because you can carry kids, groceries, furniture, etc. around in them quickly and easily. Sure, cars are great fun and pretty much unbeatable for certain tasks.

But so what? Time to wake up and grow up - cars for single person routine transport is inefficient and damaging. Just because our bodies crave salt and sugar and fat doesn't mean it's good to eat those all the time, and similarly, just because it's easy to sit down doesn't mean it's good to sit all the time either. It makes sense for planners to be working hard to create incentives for alternatives. All that non-renewable energy used to move hunks of steel, 3000 lb objects thrown around at high speeds just to move a 200 lb person on the same route every day? Fine for emergencies and what, not really fine for the masses. We wouldn't tolerate this level of waste with other purchases, for instance, and it doesn't make sense to tolerate it, or at least encourage it, for mass transport any longer either.

#51 Dimitrios

Dimitrios
  • Member
  • 316 posts

Posted 19 August 2012 - 05:57 PM

I don't think it's good for bikes to be segregated because there's only so long you can be in a safe zone before you enter the car zone and take a driver by surprise. I think it's better for cars and cyclists to be in constant awareness of each other and I think bike lanes can provide a false sense of security.


This is pretty much the biggest source of controversy in existence among cyclists. The 'vehicular cycling' theory (bikes are just like skinny, slow cars, and should always take the lane so that cars get used to bikes being part of traffic) vs the 'separated' philosophy, (sometimes termed 'as far right as possible', or FRAP) - that bikes and cars should be separated, bikes are unique from pedestrians and from vehicles and deserve their own infrastructure, etc.

I'm kind of on the fence on the subject. I like the safety of bike lanes and separated paths, but I agree that places where cars are used to having cyclists on the road leads to safer road cycling. And there will clearly never be enough lanes and paths for getting around town entirely separated from vehicles.

Check out http://www.bikeforum...ar-Cycling-(VC) (Bike forums vehicular cycling sub-forum) if you want to read some strong opinions on both sides of this.

#52 Dimitrios

Dimitrios
  • Member
  • 316 posts

Posted 19 August 2012 - 06:06 PM

The question is, while yes the can be be fined, can they be reported, like any other user of the road with a license plate.


Just like jaywalking pedestrians.... isn't it sad that those pesky pedestrians can just walk around freely, with no way to identify them? Who do they think they are? If only we could identify everyone, maybe with a tattoo, or an embedded chip...

Vehicle drivers pay additional taxes and face additional regulation because


1-they can and do kill people; roughly 3,000 a year, (as of 2004, with a gradually declining trend http://www.statcan.g.../10648-eng.pdf ). Cyclists kill very few people, so few that stats for Canada are not easy to find... in the UK (pop. 62 million), it seems about 3 pedestrians/year are killed by cyclists. I haven't heard of any pedestrian-caused pedestrian or cyclist deaths, but somewhere a runner probably knocked over a senior and led to his/her untimely death.

2-vehicle drivers are responsible for vastly more pollution, including emitted particulate matter, smog and anthropogenic climate change, than cyclists or pedestrians. I don't feel like looking for links for this now, but it's obviously true.

3- vehicles take up far more public space; this is handy, or course - many people use cars as portable offices. But rather than worrying about the loss of roadways to bike lines or larger sidewalks, can you imagine how much extra public space we'd have if we didn't need room for vehicle parking? Pedestrians, with the minor exception of folks with shopping carts (binners) or who happen to be walking around with construction material, take up the space of their bodies. Cyclists take up maybe twice this much, similar to senior or disabled folk in mobility carts or wheelchairs (I guess recumbents and trikes take up probably a bit more than this). I think Brompton did a great job with this ad, 42 folding bikes in one parking spot:


4- because they are so heavy and dangerous, vehicles require vastly more infrastructure and maintenance. Just look around and think of all the signage, traffic lights, road engineering, line painting needs, etc. Cyclists and pedestrians need none of this. Stop signs did not exist before cars; horses, bikes and pedestrians did fine without them. The Goose and Lochside trail see non-stop summer traffic despite no traffic lights (except for roadway crossings), one middle line (disappears frequently) and virtually no traffic engineering except for directions and location markers.

As an aside, contrary to popular belief, it seems that roads were not originally built for cars (at least in the US and the UK, if this linked blog is to be believed). Dirt and stone tracks were built for horse-drawn coaches, and then improved to sealed surfaces for bicycles when railroads suddenly killed the stagecoach industry. As Carlton Reid explains, cyclists bear much of the credit/blame for the rise of cars in the 20th century, through their lobbying for better roads in the 19th century. It's pretty interesting to think of transportation planning in the day before the automobile was a given. http://www.roadswere...iltforcars.com/

#53 sebberry

sebberry

    Resident Housekeeper

  • Moderator
  • 18,317 posts
  • LocationVictoria

Posted 19 August 2012 - 09:38 PM

All very compelling arguments for getting people out of cars and onto bicycles, but strangely none of them make me want to turn up to work in spandex and drenched in sweat.

Victoria current weather by neighbourhood: Victoria school-based weather station network

Victoria webcams: Big Wave Dave Webcams

 


#54 Benezet

Benezet
  • Member
  • 1,041 posts

Posted 20 August 2012 - 09:28 AM

This is pretty much the biggest source of controversy in existence among cyclists.


Among *some* cyclists, perhaps. By provincial statute, cyclists must do the same things as motorists, plus move as far as practicable to the right of a lane (which isn't very far sometimes, wink-wink). To me, common sense and the law are in agreement on this one.

#55 jklymak

jklymak
  • Member
  • 3,514 posts

Posted 20 August 2012 - 11:08 AM

All very compelling arguments for getting people out of cars and onto bicycles, but strangely none of them make me want to turn up to work in spandex and drenched in sweat.


A difficulty some people have in taking up bicycling is that they feel they have to ride like they are in the Tour de France. Its ok to go a bit slower and arrive 3 minutes later and a lot less stinky.

#56 Bob Fugger

Bob Fugger

    Chief Factor

  • Member
  • 3,176 posts
  • LocationSouth Central CSV

Posted 20 August 2012 - 11:12 AM

By provincial statute, cyclists must do the same things as motorists, plus move as far as practicable to the right of a lane (which isn't very far sometimes, wink-wink).


Can you point out where in s.183 of the MVA (Rights and duties of operator of cycle) that requires cyclists to move to the right of the lane?

#57 sebberry

sebberry

    Resident Housekeeper

  • Moderator
  • 18,317 posts
  • LocationVictoria

Posted 20 August 2012 - 11:17 AM

That section doesn't say that cyclists have to keep to the right of the lane, but says that cyclists must abide by all rules and regulations that car operators must follow, including sections that do require operators to keep right.

Victoria current weather by neighbourhood: Victoria school-based weather station network

Victoria webcams: Big Wave Dave Webcams

 


#58 jklymak

jklymak
  • Member
  • 3,514 posts

Posted 20 August 2012 - 11:49 AM

Can you point out where in s.183 of the MVA (Rights and duties of operator of cycle) that requires cyclists to move to the right of the lane?


183.2© "must, subject to paragraph (a), ride as near as practicable to the right side of the highway,"

#59 Bingo

Bingo
  • Member
  • 16,666 posts

Posted 20 August 2012 - 12:02 PM

All very compelling arguments for getting people out of cars and onto bicycles, but strangely none of them make me want to turn up to work in spandex and drenched in sweat.


I know there are many cyclists that ride well into their later years, but we do have an aging population that have decided to no longer cycle. This could be due varous factors such as not having the balance or the energy they one had.

It is also questionable if some of them should be driving their cars, but if given the choice, most seniors will be driving rather than cycling.

#60 sebberry

sebberry

    Resident Housekeeper

  • Moderator
  • 18,317 posts
  • LocationVictoria

Posted 20 August 2012 - 01:38 PM

Here's a thought. Instead of the (pro bike+anti car) folks chastising us car drivers for choosing to drive around instead of biking around and insisting that the city dump millions of dollars into cycling infrastructure that both makes it easier for cyclists and harder for drivers to move about, why not move to a place that already has communities built around biking?

Instead of moving to a city and trying to make it what you want it to be, move to a city that is already set up for the lifestyle you want to have.

Victoria current weather by neighbourhood: Victoria school-based weather station network

Victoria webcams: Big Wave Dave Webcams

 


You're not quite at the end of this discussion topic!

Use the page links at the lower-left to go to the next page to read additional posts.
 



1 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 1 guests, 0 anonymous users