Cycling in Ottawa

[lrt's friend]

The 417 widening project will include a replacement of the Maitland 417 overpass with cycling facilities: https://ottawa.ca/en/maitland-avenue-highway-417-bridge-cycling-improvements-environmental-assessment#online-consultation

Apparently this level of cycling facilities on a highway overpass/interchange are a first for the MTO...

This should now be standard practice in urban areas. Bridges are so problematic for cyclists, often with limited sight lines and traffic congestion.

[Urbanarchit]

This should now be standard practice in urban areas. Bridges are so problematic for cyclists, often with limited sight lines and traffic congestion.

I agree. There are several bridges that could use better cycling-inclusive designs to make it easier and safer to cross. Bronson, Confederation Plaza (?), Bank, Pretoria, Booth, Champlain at the very least could use improvements. The Somerset viaduct and Somerset street could use a redesign for sure.

I've ridden on Maitland 3 times from the Experimental Path to Carling, and crossing the Queensway is terrifying right up until I turn onto Fraser.

[Kitchissippi]

As a cyclist, awesome. But, some things are really confusing me about the design. #1 being, what is the purpose of east-west bicycle crossings at the ramp terminals? Why would a cyclist want to cross there... they can't honestly be anticipating enough east-west cycling volume to warrant cross rides.

*Edit, I'm pretty sure for some projects the City is just implementing crossrides EVERWHERE, without really thinking about what cyclists actually do or want.

That is odd, unless the tracks are bi-directional which I doubt they are. The other weird thing is the missing cross-ride on the southeast side, where it would be a good idea to have one, but they probably omitted it because it won't be signalled. So maybe the extra cross-rides are like "Look we know one is missing, but hey here's four extra." :D

[TransitZilla]

As a cyclist, awesome. But, some things are really confusing me about the design. #1 being, what is the purpose of east-west bicycle crossings at the ramp terminals? Why would a cyclist want to cross there... they can't honestly be anticipating enough east-west cycling volume to warrant cross rides.

*Edit, I'm pretty sure for some projects the City is just implementing crossrides EVERWHERE, without really thinking about what cyclists actually do or want.

I think part of the idea is that since the cycle tracks are uni-directional, you would use them for u-turns to access something on the opposite side of the street in between signals.

For example there is a business on Maitland just south of the 417:

https://www.google.ca/maps/@45.3688592,-75.7537943,3a,75y,280.64h,79.19t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sKojzbAO0FFQGTMD2Oqvt_w!2e0!7i13312!8i6656?hl=en

A cyclist coming from the south would access it by travelling north on Maitland as far as the ramp terminal, crossing Maitland via the cross-ride and then riding south on the opposite side of the road.

[roger1818]

But, some things are really confusing me about the design. #1 being, what is the purpose of east-west bicycle crossings at the ramp terminals? Why would a cyclist want to cross there... they can't honestly be anticipating enough east-west cycling volume to warrant cross rides.

I was thinking the same thing. The only thing I could think of is if they plan to put MUPs perpendicular to Maitland opposite to the ramps (to St. Basil's Church on the north-east and to Riddell Ave on the south-west).

The other weird thing is the missing cross-ride on the southeast side, where it would be a good idea to have one, but they probably omitted it because it won't be signalled.

They have one that won't be signaled on the off-ramp, just not the on-ramp. My guess is that it is because cyclists will be approaching from behind the motorist and they are trying to prevent cyclists from zipping in front of a car that doesn't see them coming. For the off-ramp, the cyclists will be in front of the cars using the ramp and thus easily seen.

[Multi-modal]

I think part of the idea is that since the cycle tracks are uni-directional, you would use them for u-turns to access something on the opposite side of the street in between signals.

For example there is a business on Maitland just south of the 417:

https://www.google.ca/maps/@45.3688592,-75.7537943,3a,75y,280.64h,79.19t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sKojzbAO0FFQGTMD2Oqvt_w!2e0!7i13312!8i6656?hl=en

A cyclist coming from the south would access it by travelling north on Maitland as far as the ramp terminal, crossing Maitland via the cross-ride and then riding south on the opposite side of the road.

For that specific business... I feel like it would be faster to dismount at the intersection to the south and walk. The other thing is, bike crossing aren't free.... in a traffic sense. They take up space, and make the intersection wider, which means all-reds have to be longer and the signal isn't as efficient. I'm all for cycling infrastructure, but you can't be putting stuff in willy nilly just cause one bike a day might want to u-turn for a small business.

[roger1818]

Are there plans for the city to extend these cycle tracks on either side of the overpass at some point? They would still be beneficial without as overpasses are always scary for cyclists.

[Kitchissippi]

They have one that won't be signaled on the off-ramp, just not the on-ramp. My guess is that it is because cyclists will be approaching from behind the motorist and they are trying to prevent cyclists from zipping in front of a car that doesn't see them coming. For the off-ramp, the cyclists will be in front of the cars using the ramp and thus easily seen.

I don't think you can put a cross ride (or a crosswalk for that matter) without some sort of signalization or a stop sign in Ontario. I suspect that off-ramp will have something but the on-ramp won't.

[zzptichka]

When does this thing get built?
As far as I recall 417 widening should be completed by 2020?

Next Steps
• Online Public Consultation: March 2 to March 15, 2018
• Prepare “What we heard” summary: March 2018
• Prepare Class EA Report: March / April 2018
• Notice of Completion: April 2018
• 30-day public review of Class EA Report: May / June 2018
• Detailed Design (2019)

[TransitZilla]

A couple of alternative proposals for the Maitland interchange:

https://bikeottawa.ca/index.php/news/news/246-merge-lanes

http://hansonthebike.com/2018/03/06/maitland-overpass-cycling-improvements/

[TransitZilla]

Some new online consultations on new cycling projects:

New connection from Manotick to Osgoode Pathway:
https://ottawa.ca/en/city-hall/public-engagement/osgoode-pathway-manotick-link-mitch-owens-road-and-rideau-forest-neighbourhood#1133534

New pathway from Cyrville Station to the Aviation Pathway at Ogilvie/Aviation:
https://ottawa.ca/en/city-hall/public-engagement/cyrville-station-ogilvie-road-multi-use-pathway#1135461

[rocketphish]

City wants to cut fees for bike-sharing companies to use public land

Jon Willing, Ottawa Citizen
Published on: May 2, 2018 | Last Updated: May 2, 2018 7:50 PM EDT

More bike-share stations could pop up in Ottawa this summer if council agrees to make it cheaper for those companies to use public land.

The transportation committee on Wednesday endorsed the fee break, allowing bike-share companies to expand their services without paying a hefty bill for encroachment fees.

CycleHop, the company that runs the VeloGo bike share in Ottawa and Gatineau, has been meeting with city officials in recent months about expanding the service. Under a pilot program for 2018, ending on Nov. 15, the company and the city would work on new locations for the bike stations.

The committee voted unanimously to knock the regular encroachment fee down to $250 per station, per year, and $1 per bike, per month.

There is no encroachment fee specifically for bike stations in the city’s bylaw, but the city quotes a rate of $1.52 per square metre, per day if the station is on the sidewalk, or 65 cents per square metre, per day on a boulevard. The average station is about 14 square metres, so companies would need to pay thousands each season to offer a hub-based bike-share program on a sidewalk. The city tacks on a $59.20 processing fee. There is no cost per bike.

Council needs to sign off on the fee reduction next Wednesday.

Coun. Keith Egli, the chair of the transportation committee, said the same deal would be available to other bike-share companies.

The VeloGo bike share has operated stations on lands owned by the National Capital Commission and the City of Gatineau since 2015. The rental service allows people to reserve bikes and return them to hubs scattered across the region.

The City of Ottawa plans to suggest new regulations for bike sharing and bike parking in 2019 during a review of the municipal parking strategy and encroachment bylaw.

Bike-share business models have gone beyond the hub system of short-term bike rentals.

Afraj Gill of Dropbike told councillors about his company’s model, which allows people to find a Dropbike bike through a smartphone app and return it to a lock-up location. The service currently operates in some Canadian cities, but not Ottawa. Gill received no questions from councillors during the committee meeting.

jwilling@postmedia.com
twitter.com/JonathanWilling

http://ottawacitizen.com/news/local-news/city-wants-to-cut-fees-for-bike-sharing-companies-to-use-public-land

[Uhuniau]

Is bike-sharing working anywhere in the world?

[acottawa]

Is bike-sharing working anywhere in the world?

I think it works in China where people are adverse to theft/vandalism and labour costs are low. Western cities usually have to sink a lot of money into these projects with unclear benefits.

[dougvdh]

Is bike-sharing working anywhere in the world?

What do you mean by 'working'?

I use it few times a month in Ottawa, usually as a replacement for a taxi between downtown and where I work near Dow's Lake. It takes a comparable amount of time as a cab (provided you don't have to wait for the cab) and costs about 20% as much. I'd argue that's 'working'.

As for financial viability, I haven't seen numbers, but I'd say it's only fair to evaluate it is comparison to the other public transportation options (and to the per trip subsidy that private traffic gets) to decide if the City should be investing (either in terms of grants or encroachment fee reductions).

[dougvdh]

I think it works in China where people are adverse to theft/vandalism and labour costs are low. Western cities usually have to sink a lot of money into these projects with unclear benefits.

It's arguably not working in China where, generally, an oversupply due to lack of regulation has both resulted in bankruptcies of providers and massive numbers of abandoned bikes.

Here's a read on the issue of where it's working and what metrics we could evaluate 'working' by:

https://www.outsideonline.com/2136406/do-bike-share-systems-actually-work

[acottawa]

What do you mean by 'working'?

I use it few times a month in Ottawa, usually as a replacement for a taxi between downtown and where I work near Dow's Lake. It takes a comparable amount of time as a cab (provided you don't have to wait for the cab) and costs about 20% as much. I'd argue that's 'working'.



So you're using them to commute? Why don't you take your own bike?

[Uhuniau]

What do you mean by 'working'?

Not failing. Bike-share companies don't seem to be very successful, even in countries and cities that are otherwise very bike-friendly and bikeable places.

[Aylmer]

Because transportation is never profitable. Sidewalks, public transport, roads... even taxis are only marginally so because they don't have to pay for the infrastructure they drive on.

In fact, I'm of the opinion that bike-share should just be integrated into public transportation agencies as a first/last-mile solution. So with one transit ticket, you can take out a bike and ride it to the station same as you would transfer to a bus. It has the potential to greatly increase the catchment radius of transit; a 10-minute walk from LRT is less than 1km, but a 10km bike ride is about 3km. That's a 900% increase in catchment area, in businesses, people, stores, institutions that can be easily accessed at every station.

So let's not look at bike sharing as a standalone service, but as a multiplier.

[dougvdh]

So you're using them to commute? Why don't you take your own bike?

Often because I'm doing a one way trip. Frequently take a cab to City Hall because a) I've got a bunch of boxes of drawings to deliver, or b) I've booked a cab for a fixed departure time to get to a meeting.

So on the way back to office post delivery / meeting, I'm carrying less stuff so a bike works fine and/or meeting doesn't have a fixed end time, so taking bikeshare is faster than call and waiting for a cab.

(I've also got a co-worker who uses Velogo as her regular commute because she doesn't have anywhere secure to lock up a good bike at home).

Edit: When I make these sorts of trips, I'm on billable time and disbursements, so I'll choose whatever mode I project to have the lowest overall cost to the project.

[dougvdh]

Not failing. Bike-share companies don't seem to be very successful, even in countries and cities that are otherwise very bike-friendly and bikeable places.

Velogo is into year three here and negotiating land rights for an expansion - that doesn't sound like failure to me.

[acottawa]

Because transportation is never profitable. Sidewalks, public transport, roads... even taxis are only marginally so because they don't have to pay for the infrastructure they drive on.
In fact, I'm of the opinion that bike-share should just be integrated into public transportation agencies as a first/last-mile solution. So with one transit ticket, you can take out a bike and ride it to the station same as you would transfer to a bus. It has the potential to greatly increase the catchment radius of transit; a 10-minute walk from LRT is less than 1km, but a 10km bike ride is about 3km. That's a 900% increase in catchment area.

I don't have a problem with that, but such services are rarely designed to provide a useful last mile service and in fact are usually in competition with transit.

[Uhuniau]

Because transportation is never profitable. Sidewalks, public transport, roads... even taxis are only marginally so because they don't have to pay for the infrastructure they drive on.

Sure those are externalities, but car makers and car leasers and car renters and car-sharers continue to make profits and continue to exist, where there are very few examples of successful bike-shares anywhere, even in really bikey places.

[acottawa]

Often because I'm doing a one way trip. Frequently take a cab to City Hall because a) I've got a bunch of boxes of drawings to deliver, or b) I've booked a cab for a fixed departure time to get to a meeting.

So on the way back to office post delivery / meeting, I'm carrying less stuff so a bike works fine and/or meeting doesn't have a fixed end time, so taking bikeshare is faster than call and waiting for a cab.

(I've also got a co-worker who uses Velogo as her regular commute because she doesn't have anywhere secure to lock up a good bike at home).

Edit: When I make these sorts of trips, I'm on billable time and disbursements, so I'll choose whatever mode I project to have the lowest overall cost to the project.

Ok, but that sounds like a pretty specific circumstance that may not be generally applicable.

And when the LRT opens that trip would probably be faster/cheaper on transit.

[Aylmer]

I don't have a problem with that, but such services are rarely designed to provide a useful last mile service and in fact are usually in competition with transit.

...Precisely because they're not integrated.
I live part-time in Montreal and I took out a Bixi subscription. But unless it's really necessary, I'll avoid transit to avoid having to pay twice for a trip, even if transit might be preferable. But if a monthly transit pass included Bixi, I'd have no qualms taking the bike to the nearest metro station and grabbing another bike the other end.

It's as if you had one ticket for LRT and a separate one for buses - instead of working together, they'd be in competition with each other for the same routes and riders.

[Aylmer]

Sure those are externalities, but car makers and car leasers and car renters and car-sharers continue to make profits and continue to exist, where there are very few examples of successful bike-shares anywhere, even in really bikey places.

I just don't get why they need to be profitable any more than public transit.

[acottawa]

...Precisely because they're not integrated.
I live part-time in Montreal and I took out a Bixi subscription. But unless it's really necessary, I'll avoid transit to avoid having to pay twice for a trip, even if transit might be preferable. But if a monthly transit pass included Bixi, I'd have no qualms taking the bike to the nearest metro station and grabbing another bike the other end.

It's as if you had one ticket for LRT and a separate one for buses - instead of working together, they'd be in competition with each other for the same routes and riders.

But if it was integrated into transit it wouldn't be useful to most of the current users, who use it instead of transit.

[Uhuniau]

I just don't get why they need to be profitable any more than public transit.

Because, unless it's a public body providing the service, the company that is providing the bike-share service is going to not provide the bike-share service for very long if there's no return.

Again, I ask: is there anywhere that bike-share services are actually, you know, not failing?

[dougvdh]

Ok, but that sounds like a pretty specific circumstance that may not be generally applicable.

And when the LRT opens that trip would probably be faster/cheaper on transit.

Not really that specific, I could think of lots of scenarios where I'd make a return trip by a different method than an outbound trip. One way trips are exactly what bike share is aimed for.

As for comparison to LRT, bikeshare for the the City Hall to Dow's Lake costs ~$2.50 and takes about 14 min (4.5km). I doubt that taking two LRT trains with a transfer at Bayview would be quicker.

[dougvdh]

Because, unless it's a public body providing the service, the company that is providing the bike-share service is going to not provide the bike-share service for very long if there's no return.

Again, I ask: is there anywhere that bike-share services are actually, you know, not failing?

I'd look at Washington, DC.

[Jamaican-Phoenix]

I think that cycling culture (and it's lack thereof) needs to be taken into account.

[phil235]

Because, unless it's a public body providing the service, the company that is providing the bike-share service is going to not provide the bike-share service for very long if there's no return.

Again, I ask: is there anywhere that bike-share services are actually, you know, not failing?

My understanding is that Bixi in Montreal has been successful and that it was just their international ventures that got the company in trouble. It is certainly very well used.

[acottawa]

My understanding is that Bixi in Montreal has been successful and that it was just their international ventures that got the company in trouble. It is certainly very well used.

Bixi received a $108M bailout in 2011 and still had to file for bankruptcy in 2014. Well-used and able to cover costs are different things.

[acottawa]

Not really that specific, I could think of lots of scenarios where I'd make a return trip by a different method than an outbound trip. One way trips are exactly what bike share is aimed for.

As for comparison to LRT, bikeshare for the the City Hall to Dow's Lake costs ~$2.50 and takes about 14 min (4.5km). I doubt that taking two LRT trains with a transfer at Bayview would be quicker.

Velogo advertises its cost as $5 for a 30 minutes (which I assume is the minimum charge), which is considerably more than a transit fare (which is good for 3x longer).

[zzptichka]

Citi Bike is a massive success in NY. I believe they operate without public money.

Bike share in US is growing rather than failing, so I guess investors see the potential.
http://velojoy.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/03/BikeShareGrowth_1200_b-edit.jpg

[dougvdh]

Velogo advertises its cost as $5 for a 30 minutes (which I assume is the minimum charge), which is considerably more than a transit fare (which is good for 3x longer).

Unless they've changed things from last year (the website does not indicate a change), the first 30 min is also prorated by the minute, so a 15min ride would cost $2.50 on the basic level of membership.

Also a transit fare is only good for as long as you need to take the transit (up to 1.5h), so it doesn't deliver great value on short trips.

[phil235]

Bixi received a $108M bailout in 2011 and still had to file for bankruptcy in 2014. Well-used and able to cover costs are different things.

Right, but was the bailout due to the operations on Montreal, or was it because they over-expanded to other cities. My understanding is that it was the latter, and that operations in Montreal were doing fine.

[Uhuniau]

Velogo is into year three here and negotiating land rights for an expansion - that doesn't sound like failure to me.

That does not negate my general sense that bike-sharing, overall, doesn't seem to be doing very well in most places that it's been tried.

[OtrainUser]

That does not negate my general sense that bike-sharing, overall, doesn't seem to be doing very well in most places that it's been tried.

Why do have that sense to begin with?

[acottawa]

Right, but was the bailout due to the operations on Montreal, or was it because they over-expanded to other cities. My understanding is that it was the latter, and that operations in Montreal were doing fine.

I can't find its books online, but it seems both.

http://montrealgazette.com/opinion/opinion-no-bixi-montreal-is-not-profitable

[acottawa]

Why do have that sense to begin with?

Because there is a constant stream of stories about losses, bankruptcies and bailouts coming out of the sector. I don't know if that is a sampling problem (media are more likely to report on bankruptcies than companies doing just fine).

[Uhuniau]

Why do have that sense to begin with?

Because

https://www.theatlantic.com/photo/2018/03/bike-share-oversupply-in-china-huge-piles-of-abandoned-and-broken-bicycles/556268/

and

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Capital_Bixi

and

http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/ottawa/cyclehop-ottawa-bike-share-service-won-t-fully-launch-until-2015-1.2737821

and

http://www.scmp.com/tech/start-ups/article/2120358/chinas-third-largest-bike-sharer-bankrupt-riders-worry-about-money

and

http://www.nydailynews.com/news/national/citibike-stalled-article-1.3228521

and

https://www.seattletimes.com/seattle-news/transportation/seattle-pronto-bike-share-shutting-down-friday/

and

https://www.citylab.com/transportation/2017/01/seattle-bike-share-pronto-goes-under/513575/

and

https://www.theglobeandmail.com/opinion/its-too-early-to-give-up-on-bike-sharing/article13043182/

and

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2017/jul/16/manchesters-bike-share-scheme-isnt-working-because-people-dont-know-how-to-share

and

https://www.citylab.com/transportation/2013/12/londons-bike-share-crisis/7844/

and

https://www.mercurynews.com/2017/01/23/sf-bike-share-startup-caves-to-city-demands/

etc., etc., etc., etc., etc.

[TransitZilla]

The NCC is accepting comments on the Billings Bridge pathway underpass project to be built this summer.

http://ncc-ccn.gc.ca/our-projects/bank-street-underpass-multi-use-pathway-project

http://s3.amazonaws.com/ncc-ccn/images/_image/Screen-Shot-2018-05-02-at-4.41.41-PM.png?mtime=20180502164210


The project will include:

-Three-metre-wide concrete multi-use pathway below the two-year high-water mark
-Three-metre-wide asphalt multi-use pathway above the two-year high-water mark
-New tie-in points to the existing multi-use pathway on Riverside Drive
-Concrete block retaining walls with limestone face texture
-Pedestrian handrail along the full length of the retaining wall

The existing multi-use pathway at the intersection will remain in place. As the Rideau River is prone to periodic flooding, the proposed grade-separated pathway will, on occasion, need to be closed temporarily. During such flooding events, cyclists and pedestrians will be able to approach Bank Street via the existing multi-use pathway and cross at the signalized intersection.

[JHikka]

Again, I ask: is there anywhere that bike-share services are actually, you know, not failing?

Velib in Paris and Velo'v in Lyon.

There's also this article from Wired:

Why Investors Are Betting That Bike Sharing Is the Next Uber
RIN GRIFFITH
BUSINESS
10.16.1709:00 AM

THERE’S A TROPE that foreign startups can’t innovate—they just copy ideas created in Silicon Valley. The success of China’s dockless bike-sharing startups has flipped that script, and now US companies are scrambling to catch up.

Bike-sharing programs have spread across the US in recent years, but slowly. It takes time to secure government and corporate sponsorships, which cover the cost of installing expensive docks to hold the bikes, as well as credit-card payment systems. Motivate, the country’s most prominent operator, has programs in nine US cities.

In China, though, bike sharing has exploded seemingly overnight, thanks to an influx of venture capital and a model that eschews docks, making expansion cheaper and easier. Dockless bike companies scatter their bikes around a city, and customers use an app or scan a code to unlock them. The bikes lock themselves and can be left near a bike rack, on a sidewalk, or in a park. Without the need for docks, these startups can launch in a new city in a matter of weeks, no government subsidies required. For now, they’re subsidized by venture capital.

Dockless Chinese companies are expanding into the US. Mobike, a two-year-old Chinese startup valued at $3 billion, launched in Washington, DC, in September. Ofo, its top rival, launched in Seattle in August.

Now come dockless US rivals. On Monday, San Francisco-based LimeBike said it raised $50 million in funding led by Coatue Management, valuing the company at $225 million. The deal shows how aggressive things are getting: LimeBike was started just 10 months ago; it raised $12 million in March. The company already operates in 20 US markets, including Seattle and Dallas.

Investors are hot on bike sharing because the Chinese companies have proven it can be a big business, according to Bill Maris, who invested in LimeBike via his new firm Section 32. What’s more, they’ve figured out basics like how to enter a market, how to build internet-connected bikes that lock themselves, and how much to charge. (LimeBike is as inexpensive as $1 a ride). “A lot of questions have been answered,” he says.

Jeff Jordan, a partner at Andreessen Horowitz who led LimeBike’s March funding, was inspired by the rapid growth of Mobike and Ofo. For dockless bike sharing to work stateside, he believes operators need strong relationships with local governments.

Technically the dockless companies can enter a market without asking permission. They only need to leave some bikes around the city, and anyone with the app can start riding. But since bikes are portable and can be left anywhere, they’re vulnerable. An unhappy city regulator could round them up and haul them away at any time. “[This is] ask permission, not forgiveness,” Jordan says, reversing a popular Silicon Valley mantra. “It’s not like Lyft, where the cars are moving around, or Airbnb, where you don’t publish the address.” (Andreessen Horowitz has invested in both companies, which have tussled with regulators in cities around the world.)

The market is getting crowded. Five bike-share companies are operating in Washington, DC—Mobike, LimeBike, Ofo, Spin, and JumpDC. It’s reminiscent of the early days of ride-hailing, when it felt possible that Hailo, TaxiMagic, Gett, Juno, or Whisk might take significant market share. Uber’s aggressive fundraising propelled it to its leading position. “We did not expect to be running unopposed,” Jordan says, and he expects the market will consolidate to a “winner-take-all” situation similar to ride-hailing.

LimeBike believes it can fend off rivals with a city-friendly approach. That includes investing in higher-quality bikes (including safety features like solar-powered lights), sharing aggregated usage data with cities, and educating riders about where to leave their bikes. In addition to cities, LimeBike is targeting universities and corporate campuses, including the University of Notre Dame and Arkansas State University. “It’s a relationship land grab,” says CEO and cofounder Toby Sun.

Mobike cofounder Hu Weiwei says she believes being the “biggest and first” player in the market with operations in 100 cities gives her company an advantage. Further, Mobike has customized its bikes for the US to include features like gears.

Motivate, the docked bikeshare leader, has been critical of the what it calls “rogue” dockless bike-share programs. It is also venture-backed: The company has raised an undisclosed amount of funding from Generation Investment Management, the investment firm of Al Gore, as well as Equinox Fitness and Dan Doctoroff, CEO of Alphabet’s Sidewalk Labs. Motivate’s dockless rivals argue that their services are complementary to the docked programs, since they aren’t limited to areas where docks are installed and can scale up or down quickly to meet changing demand.

The bike-share companies are spending their venture funding aggressively to compete. Like Uber and Lyft, the bike-share companies argue that they can turn a profit in markets where they’ve operated the longest. Unlike Uber and Lyft, they don’t have to pay drivers, though they have to maintain bikes, replace stolen ones, and move ones parked inappropriately. Sun says LimeBike can be profitable if each of its bikes is used two to three times a day. “The model works, but we need a lot of bikes,” he says. “People ride more because they see the bikes. It’s very simple.” The influx of competition means LimeBike is pedaling as fast as it can.

https://www.wired.com/story/why-investors-are-betting-that-bike-sharing-is-the-next-uber/

And in China, which has been covered in this thread already:

Most city bike-sharing systems, such as the Vélib scheme in Paris, depend on fixed docks in which cycles must be parked. Ofo and Mobike instead pioneered a “dockless” bike secured with a smart lock that can be released with a smartphone app. They charge much less than public programmes. In London it costs £2 ($2.66), and typically lots of poking at an unresponsive kiosk-mounted screen, just to unlock a city-run shared bike. The equivalent with an Ofo, after an initial deposit, is 50 pence every half an hour and a few seconds to get going. In China rides cost between 0.50 and 1 yuan ($0.08-0.15) for 30 minutes.

It helps that the firms save on physical infrastructure such as docks. But the main reason they can afford such low fees is because they have abundant funding: in June Mobike raised $600m, much of it from Tencent, a messaging, gaming and payments giant. (Qualcomm, an American chipmaker, made a smaller investment this month.) In July Ofo raised $700m in a funding round led by Alibaba, an e-commerce and payments company.

Many smaller, copycat bike-share startups have gone under. Last week it emerged that Bluegogo, a distant third in China’s bike-sharing wars, had gone bust. Its puny $90m in funding and 700,000 bikes were no match for the market leaders. Another operator shut down after 90% of its 1,200 bikes were stolen six months after launch. Many schemes have been funded with scant financial analysis by investors.

Nor are Ofo and Mobike profitable, though not for want of growth. China’s bike-sharing market grew from 33m yuan in the third quarter of 2016 to 3.9bn yuan in the second quarter of 2017, says iResearch, a market-research firm. Zhang Yanqi, an Ofo co-founder, thinks China could support 300m rides a day, up from 50m-60m today. Both firms believe rental fees alone could make them profitable businesses if they stopped spending on expansion at home and abroad.

Analysts reckon the real money may be in other sources of revenue. The firms hold hundreds of millions worth of yuan in deposits collected from users. For now this money lies unutilised—Chinese law is unclear about how, if it all, it can be used. But firms hope that will change. Lending it would be one possibility. Another idea is a sort of crowdsourced logistics, asking riders to carry along packages in exchange for free rides or a small payment. Mobike already incentivises users to move its bikes around to high-demand areas by offering “red envelopes” worth a few yuan. Advertising on “billboards” within wheels is also a promising avenue. And the firms can agree with brands to offer digital coupons for shops on a rider’s route. Mobike works with McDonald’s and JD.com, an e-commerce company, to do just that.

But most value could come from data, especially used in partnership with Alibaba and Tencent. The bike-sharing firms are already becoming part of their strategic investors’ business models. Ofo uses Alibaba’s credit-rating system to allow users to rent bikes with no deposit, for example. More data could be shared. As Mr Zhang puts it, the firm’s main investor, Alibaba, “already knows how much [users] spend, where they spend it and what they spend it on. But with us they have a very strong idea of people’s total activity.” Mobike says it does not share data on a commercial basis with any firm.

https://www.economist.com/news/business/21731675-one-answer-would-be-ofo-and-mobike-merge-chinas-bicycle-sharing-giants-are-still-trying

The Economist makes it seem as if the Chinese giants would be profitable if they weren't constantly expanding, similar to Uber.

It seems like whenever one goes under another pops up with more funding. :shrug:

[OtrainUser]

Because

https://www.theatlantic.com/photo/2018/03/bike-share-oversupply-in-china-huge-piles-of-abandoned-and-broken-bicycles/556268/

and

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Capital_Bixi

and

http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/ottawa/cyclehop-ottawa-bike-share-service-won-t-fully-launch-until-2015-1.2737821

and

http://www.scmp.com/tech/start-ups/article/2120358/chinas-third-largest-bike-sharer-bankrupt-riders-worry-about-money

and

http://www.nydailynews.com/news/national/citibike-stalled-article-1.3228521

and

https://www.seattletimes.com/seattle-news/transportation/seattle-pronto-bike-share-shutting-down-friday/

and

https://www.citylab.com/transportation/2017/01/seattle-bike-share-pronto-goes-under/513575/

and

https://www.theglobeandmail.com/opinion/its-too-early-to-give-up-on-bike-sharing/article13043182/

and

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2017/jul/16/manchesters-bike-share-scheme-isnt-working-because-people-dont-know-how-to-share

and

https://www.citylab.com/transportation/2013/12/londons-bike-share-crisis/7844/

and

https://www.mercurynews.com/2017/01/23/sf-bike-share-startup-caves-to-city-demands/

etc., etc., etc., etc., etc.

They all made mistakes but there is a demand for Bike sharing and the example shown in NYC is how it should be done. Also to note in NYC bike sharing is only stalled because the mayor is still pro Auto and there are NIMBY's that don't want a bike dock near them even though bike sharing demand is rising.

[acottawa]

This reminds me a lot of the 90s dot com boom. Lots of hype, lots of VC money, very few viable business models.

Now, maybe there is a "google of bike sharing" out there that will figure out a viable business model and take over the world. But maybe not.

[acottawa]

Velib in Paris .



Paris had to turn over all of the billboard advertising in the city (and most of the revenue from said billboards) to pay for the system, plus pay for all of the vandalized bikes.

[lrt's friend]

Paris had to turn over all of the billboard advertising in the city (and most of the revenue from said billboards) to pay for the system, plus pay for all of the vandalized bikes.

I think this is a key. Public infrastructure is so prone to vandalism and bikes are portable so they are even more prone.

But a successful model is also affected by the climate. Ottawa does not have as good a climate as Paris or Lyon or even New York. The season for bike sharing in Ottawa is relatively short, perhaps 6 months.

It is just like being in the ice cream business in Ottawa. You better have other products to sell since ice cream sales collapse after Labour Day.

[waterloowarrior]

Hopefully this can open people's eyes that sharrows are terrible

https://twitter.com/MarcCossette/status/1019218186921705474

[1overcosc]

Someone's going to get killed there.

They just need to get rid of those parking spaces for the duration of the construction. Or if they're too chicken to do that, put up a concrete median in the road instead of a couple barriers so cars can't cut off bikes like that.

[Paul29]

I'm not at all familiar with the area. I saw the green bike markers but why are bikes riding down the centre of the street on a single lane road?

[HighwayStar]

I drove down it yesterday and was totally confused and surprised... definitely a disaster waiting to happen..

[Urbanarchit]

Someone's going to get killed there.

They just need to get rid of those parking spaces for the duration of the construction. Or if they're too chicken to do that, put up a concrete median in the road instead of a couple barriers so cars can't cut off bikes like that.

That was the original plan. The parking on the West side was to be removed to build a temporary, bidirectional bike lane between Byron and Kennilworth for the duration of the overpass replacement. There were community consultations where they planned for it, and the community association supported it. But last minute 118 people (3 were businesses - The Table, Carlo's Pizzza, Elmdale Tennis Club) signed a petition and sent it to Watson, who without discussion decided to unilaterally cancel the bike lane to preserve that parking...

He hasn't spoken at all about it, despite quite vocal criticism from everyone.

[waterloowarrior]

I'm not at all familiar with the area. I saw the green bike markers but why are bikes riding down the centre of the street on a single lane road?

See page 2 of this PDF and the CBC article. The signage and road markings are directing cyclists to ride in the middle of the lane single file.
https://documents.ottawa.ca/sites/documents.ottawa.ca/files/documents/cap087801.pdf

https://i.cbc.ca/1.4749343.1531777760!/fileImage/httpImage/image.jpg_gen/derivatives/original_780/harmer-avenue-detour-cyclist-on-holland-avenue.jpg
http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/ottawa/harmer-bridge-detour-cyclists-1.4748470


Single File (Narrow Roadways)
Sharrows
What are Sharrows?
Sharrows are road markings
that help cyclists position
themselves on the road while
reminding both motorists and
cyclists to share the space.

Some roads do not provide enough space
for cars and bikes to travel side-by-side.
Remember sharrows do not mean that
indicated space is exclusively reserved for
cyclists.

Cyclists
On narrow roads, you should “take the lane”
by riding closer to the middle of the lane to
reduce the risk of cars passing too closely.

Motorists
On narrow roads, sharrows closer to the middle
of the lane remind you that it is unsafe to
drive side-by side with cyclists. When cyclists
claim the lane, be patient and share the road.

[HighwayStar]

"Sharrows"... ok. I'm both a cyclist and driver.. and can honestly say I've never heard that term before, much less understood it's meaning. The first time I ever noticed the bright green "sharrows" was on Wellington between Parkdale and Holland.. which showed up immediately after Ottawa's deputy police chief was doored there in 2014.

I don't think this is a common concept. Until today I didn't realize it was meant to give cyclist priority in a major traffic lane. I inadvertently drove down Holland yesterday and saw these sharrows for the first time... and "assumed" they meant to "watch out for cyclists". My initial thoughts were: surprise, confusion, and what does this mean on a major thoroughfare??

I'm someone who kinda-sorta knows whats going on.... but I can only imagine the rage and confusion confronting drivers on this street for the first time... and it's only going to get worse as Carling/Kirkwood exits and on-ramps undergo random closures for the next 3 years.

If the Mr Watson anecdote is true... it really is beyond the pale to preserve 5 parking spots for this nonsense.

[acottawa]

This is a direct result of the city's nonsensical obsession with preserving on street parking at all costs. I hope nobody gets hurt.

[Paul29]

Thanks for the link waterloowarrior.

I've never heard of such a thing. "Sharrows"

[waterloowarrior]

@FBorgal
I'm not sure if this picture fully captures how awful this slalom of Sharrows is but it's really scary.

#thoughtsamdsharrows #parkingoverpeople #harmerbridge

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/DiFQ5QEXcAA4W5e.jpg

https://twitter.com/FBorgal/status/1018183952467677186

Yikes! Start on the right side of the road... when the light turns green, proceed and move to the left side of the lane, looking out for cars to your left gunning in on the light and passing you. Once you merge, with the rest of the left turning cars inches behind you, move to the right and take the lane again, watching out for all the cars and buses trying to finally pass you on the right. Then, instead of using the wide shoulder, take the lane going up hill at 10 km/hr as the rest of the cars wait calmly and patiently behind you. :shrug:

[silvergate]

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/DiFQ5QEXcAA4W5e.jpg

https://twitter.com/FBorgal/status/1018183952467677186

Yikes! Start on the right side of the road... when the light turns green, proceed and move to the left side of the lane, looking out for cars to your left gunning in on the light and passing you. Once you merge, with the rest of the left turning cars inches behind you, move to the right and take the lane again, watching out for all the cars and buses trying to finally pass you on the right. Then, instead of using the wide shoulder, take the lane going up hill at 10 km/hr as the rest of the cars wait calmly and patiently behind you. :shrug:

I think the real issue is those bollards. It honestly wouldn't be a huge problem to bike that and stay tight to the parked cars, if you knew that passing cars could take a bit of the other lane when they had space to. The bollards will force cars and bikes into a space much tighter than it needs to be.

[McC]

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/DiFQ5QEXcAA4W5e.jpg

https://twitter.com/FBorgal/status/1018183952467677186

Yikes! Start on the right side of the road... when the light turns green, proceed and move to the left side of the lane, looking out for cars to your left gunning in on the light and passing you. Once you merge, with the rest of the left turning cars inches behind you, move to the right and take the lane again, watching out for all the cars and buses trying to finally pass you on the right. Then, instead of using the wide shoulder, take the lane going up hill at 10 km/hr as the rest of the cars wait calmly and patiently behind you. :shrug:

Interesting, I ride that route every day, and I presumed that what you and Marc-André Cossette (probably correctly) interpreted as instructions to manoeuver from side to side was just a case of the City being chintzy with the green appliqués, and only using two where there should be two pairs of two side by side . I.e.: two on the left in line with the turn lane for those veering east onto Sherwood, and two on the right for those continuing south on Holland. That's the way actual real-world traffic generally flows there, so that's what bikes should be directed to do, too, in a world where bikes are being directed to take lanes. (which is a world I don't particularly like, but it is the most practical way to get on to Sherwood, which is the most practical way to get to all sorts of desireable, bikeable destinations like the Arboretum, Dow's Lake, the Canal, Landsdowne, Mooney's Bay, etc. from that part of town)

[1overcosc]

This is a direct result of the city's nonsensical obsession with preserving on street parking at all costs. I hope nobody gets hurt.

If somebody does get killed there, they should take legal action against the city. The decision to abandon what was a safe design with this extremely dangerous configuration, without a proper analysis, does, in my opinion, amount to the city violating Section 7 of the Charter (the right to life, liberty, and security of the person).

[Urbanarchit]

Mayor rules out changes to Holland Avenue this year

Holland Avenue was designated as a detour for cyclists who use the Harmer Avenue bridge to bypass Highway 417

CBC News · Posted: Jul 19, 2018 4:00 AM ET | Last Updated: 3 hours ago

The Harmer Avenue bridge detour uses sharrows to direct cyclists along the detour route on Holland Avenue. (Marc-André Cossette/CBC)
Ottawa Mayor Jim Watson said there will be no changes to the new bike route along Holland Avenue — at least this year.

"We've got this system in place. Let us go through one season and if there are changes that have to be made, obviously from a safety point of view, we'll do that," Watson said.

The city redesigned the 500-metre stretch between Byron Avenue and Kenilworth Street last week, as part of its two-year plan to replace the Harmer Avenue pedestrian bridge over Highway 417 — a few blocks northeast of the Ottawa Hospital's Civic campus.


Mayor Jim Watson said, at least for this year, there will be no changes to the new bike route along Holland Avenue 0:27
Pedestrians and cyclists that typically use the Harmer bridge to bypass the 417, now have to use the adjacent Holland Avenue.

Cyclists are guided along the route by "super-sharrows" — green road markings with a bicycle and two chevrons, set in the middle of the road.

The idea is to encourage cyclists to "take the lane" by riding on top of the sharrows, with drivers expected to follow in a single file.


This is what it's like for cyclists to share the road with drivers along Holland Avenue. Recent changes mean cyclists are now forced to weave in and out of traffic. 0:46
Sharrows are nothing new to the city, Watson said.

"We have sharrows — for instance — in Hintonburg right now that are well used. Unfortunately, we can't have a segregated lane on every single street."

Plans for the detour initially included temporary segregated bike lanes on either side of Holland Avenue, but that design was quashed after residents complained it would eliminate street parking.

All parties concerned
But both cyclists and drivers who use Holland Avenue have expressed concerns about the detour.

The City of Ottawa has already lowered the speed limit to 30 km/h along the 500-metre detour route.

Jordan Moffatt, a cyclist who often commutes to work using Holland Avenue, says the design is an unsettling ride for cyclists, who might worry about holding back drivers.

"It creates conflict. It makes it so that an injury — or a death — is very easy to imagine," he said.


As a driver, John Salvatore says he understands that more and more cyclists are on the road, but he says not everyone behind the wheel is as considerate.

"I find it's dangerous, because most drivers don't have the patience to stay behind the cyclists," he said.

"Who wants to admit that there's a little bit of frustration there in terms of your speed."


What do Ottawa cyclists think of the changes to Holland Avenue?
WATCH
00:00 00:47


What do Ottawa cyclists think of the changes to Holland Avenue? 0:47
One potential alternative would be to build a segregated bidirectional bike lane on one side of Holland Avenue — similar to what's in place on O'Connor Street in the city's downtown — which we leave one side of of the street open for parking.

Watson said the city "may look at [bidirectional] lanes next year" but is confident in the current system in place.

"What we came up with was what I think is a compromise that our traffic engineers and traffic planners tell me is a safe alternative."

CBC Ottawa
http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/ottawa/jim-watson-holland-avenue-bike-route-1.4752130

There are videos in the article to watch.

It's infuriating how he undemocratically overruled the planned bike lanes and gave us this garbage, and then has not responded or engaged with any of hundreds of people calling him out for what he did. And then he says, "Let's try it for a season," and "We can't have bike lanes on every street."

No one is asking for bike lanes on every street. We're asking for bike lanes on streets that are dangerous and we need them on, such as those that have been planned! Ugh... I hope he doesn't get re-elected this fall and we get a mayor like Valerie Plante or someone with a progressive vision.

[HighwayStar]

It's infuriating how he undemocratically overruled the planned bike lanes and gave us this garbage, and then has not responded or engaged with any of hundreds of people calling him out for what he did. And then he says, "Let's try it for a season," and "We can't have bike lanes on every street."
.

Can someone confirm a source on the above? Not doubting... just curious...

It's going to get interesting... CTV evening news: https://ottawa.ctvnews.ca/my-concern-is-they-do-nothing-to-protect-people-cyclists-say-new-detour-on-holland-avenue-is-dangerous-1.4019218

[Urbanarchit]

Can someone confirm a source on the above? Not doubting... just curious...

It's going to get interesting... CTV evening news: https://ottawa.ctvnews.ca/my-concern-is-they-do-nothing-to-protect-people-cyclists-say-new-detour-on-holland-avenue-is-dangerous-1.4019218

This is the best I can do: Article (https://ottawacitizen.com/opinion/columnists/perry-parking-politics-is-killing-a-safe-route-to-school). Leiper was in favour of the bike lanes and wanted to make them permanent.

Bike Ottawa and Jeff Leiper might have more info on what specifically happened - I've been following @cfulgham (https://mobile.twitter.com/cfulgham) as she has had access to the petition and has had quite a lot to say about the bike lanes. What I do know is that the petition was sent to Watson and he changed the plans in favour of parking. I say undemocratically because, despite having consultations with the community who wanted the bike lanes, he got rid of them without any consultation or discussion with those affected. There's some stuff in the article above that may give a peek into what happened, but hopefully Jeff Leiper can shed some light on what happened exactly. I believe he did not support the change of plans.

This blog post (https://hansonthebike.com/2018/07/17/goodbye-harmer-bridge-1963-2018/) is also worth reading.

[Urbanarchit]

Small cyclist army rides to protest 'harrowing' Holland Avenue detour

KIERAN DELAMONT
Updated: July 21, 2018

A small army of cyclists took to the streets — one street, actually — on Friday night to protest what they say is a dangerous stretch of Holland Avenue, where city staff scrapped a plan for a protected bike lane and replaced it with a confusing slalom of road markings after residents complained about the loss of on-street parking.

The Harmer Avenue pedestrian bridge, recognizable to drivers as the aging footbridge that crosses over top of the 417 near Island Park Drive, is being demolished on July 28 as part of a two-year-long project to replace it. Because of this, a cycling detour was planned for Holland.

The original plan was to have two segregated bike lanes, running on either side of the road. But, said Coun. Jeff Leiper, residents along Holland petitioned the city to reconsider, since that would mean losing some on-street parking. The city sided with them and replaced that plan with bright green “super sharrows” — markings that instead urge bikers to take the centre of the traffic lane.

That, says Leiper, is an unsafe alternative. “You transfer all of the risk to the (cyclists),” he says.

On Friday, Leiper was out with around 75 other cyclists to ride along the route before holding a community meeting to discuss what, if anything, could be done to make the route safer — and how to make sure that cyclists feel heard at city hall.


Residents and bike advocates, along with Coun. Jeff Leiper, came out to ride along Holland Avenue, a stretch they say is dangerous for cyclists, and met to discuss their concerns. KIERAN DELAMONT / POSTMEDIA

“The message to the mayor and council that we’re trying to send today is that when something like a pedestrian and cycling bridge closes for two years, people need a safe alternative to get around that route, and what’s being provided today is not safe,” said Erinn Cunningham, a local cycling activist who organized the protest ride.

“The experience is a little harrowing for most people,” he said. “We saw at the beginning of our ride today that, within a couple of minutes, someone got honked at because they were presumably not going fast enough and, in that person’s eyes, in the way.”

Andrew Berube, a homeowner along Holland, said the debate over the cycling route has become divisive between cyclists and residents, and he would like to have seen a better compromise hashed out from the get-go.

Residents and bike advocates came out to ride along Holland Avenue, a stretch they say is dangerous for cyclists, and met to discuss their concerns.
“I personally am disappointed with the degree of consultation with the city, but I really think there are some options to make this work,” he said. “I’m not convinced this is a safe thing. … I think I would like to see some more collaboration.”

It’s not clear what comes next, though, or whether the city will be able to assuage cyclists’ concerns. The mayor doesn’t have a great deal of interest in re-doing the road now that the sharrows are down — not this year, at least. “We’ve got this system in place. Let us go through one season, and if there are changes that have to be made, obviously from a safety point of view, we’ll do that,” Watson said on Thursday.

Leiper would like to see changes made sooner rather than later.

“I’d like to think that our heels are not dug in. If we need to go back to the drawing board, even if it means going back to the initial staff proposal” — the segregated bike lanes — ”that we could do that in the interest of protecting people’s safety. I don’t see a reason why we couldn’t.

“If it’s not working, let’s not be stubborn. Let’s fix it before somebody gets hurt.”

https://ottawacitizen.com/news/local-news/small-cyclist-army-rides-to-protest-harrowing-holland-avenue-detour?video_autoplay=true

Yesterday, at least 70 cyclists met up to practice some civil disobedience and ride Holland at 5:15pm.

We met afterward at Fisher Park to discuss the sharrows. A resident from the street came to talk to us. He said he was against the bike lanes because he didn't want the parking taken away because his family from Toronto visits and he wants a place for them to park. But he said the current set up is dangerous and he's willing to see if there's a workaround. Jeff Leiper told us that with what the City is currently planning with enforcement and such, it'll cost the City more than if they just built the bike lanes anyway.

Bike Ottawa's Twitter (https://mobile.twitter.com/BikeOttawa) has some photos and videos. Here is another video. (https://mobile.twitter.com/DvdHam/status/1020433233815539712)

Also, multiple cyclists brought it to our attention that the "sharrows on Wellington" (https://mobile.twitter.com/jordobicycles/status/1020660684298866688) Watson mentioned in a previous CBC article (https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/ottawa/jim-watson-holland-avenue-bike-route-1.4752130) aren't really there due to severe fading. (https://twitter.com/modalmom/status/1020292485682118656)

[acottawa]

I wonder how people got the idea that the city is responsible for meeting peoples' visitor parking needs.

At the very least it would be better to remove all of the pavement markings which would encourage all road users to pay more attention.

[PHrenetic]

I wonder how people got the idea that the city is responsible for meeting peoples' visitor parking needs.

At the very least it would be better to remove all of the pavement markings which would encourage all road users to pay more attention.

Good Day.

- ever since they got into the profitable business of selling on-street parking permits, whle they limit parking so more have to street-park.....
- especially for out-of-city visitors (which you have to jump through hoops to even think of getting one, unless you already have your own hoops...I tried!!)
- and really especially for those who wish to get away with flaunting rules and regs of the road, like parking right (and I do mean RIGHT Immediately and in the middle of) on top of a corner. So much for road markings, rules, and regs. (I and a friend witnessed this, in downtown.... and there was a green hornet issuing parking tickets, but not to this one. So we asked..... and he told us the perp had a permit from the City to do it !!!!!)

So.... golden rules made by those what got the gold !

NoJoy!

[roger1818]

The thing I’m surprised no one has brought up is that the bridge is frequently used by children going to/from school and friends’ houses. We are sacrificing their personal safety (and lived) for 5 parking spots. Every time I read Watson’s comment I translate it to, “We’ve got this system in place. Let us go through one season, and [see how many children die to determine] if there are changes that have to be made.“ One has to wonder how many lives a parking spot is worth in his mind. Is it a 1 for 1 thing whereby over the next 2 years we can sacrifice up to 5 lives to keep those 5 parking spots?

[McC]

What makes you think no one is talking about the kids and the schools?

[roger1818]

What makes you think no one is talking about the kids and the schools?

None of the stories I have read have said anything about them (jus a vague cycling community reference).

[acottawa]

None of the stories I have read have said anything about them (jus a vague cycling community reference).

I guess they are not obvious when school is out.

[acottawa]

Usually there is a lot of debate over these things. What is interesting is everyone (except the mayor) seems to think this is a bad idea.

[TransitZilla]

Reevely weighs in...

https://ottawacitizen.com/news/local-news/reevely-as-bad-as-the-holland-avenue-bike-detour-was-on-paper-its-worse-in-real-life

Reevely: As bad as the Holland Avenue bike detour was on paper, it's worse in real life
DAVID REEVELY Updated: July 22, 2018

The temporary bike route on Holland Avenue seemed like a bad idea when the city was thinking it up. As it’s turned out in real life, it’s worse.

This is a short stretch of north-south road that passes under Highway 417, and it matters because there’s a good chance somebody will die there.

For two years, the nearby Harmer Avenue footbridge over the highway will be out of action while it’s replaced. It’s the choice route for kids who live south of the highway who go to schools north of the highway, and plenty of other people who cross the 417 for other reasons. The city had a plan to put in a temporary two-way bike lane along Holland while the footbridge is out, which it nixed at Mayor Jim Watson’s request when 100 people signed a petition complaining about losing parking.

Instead, it’s installed a godawful mess. The city’s deployed signs, paint, bollards, those digital boards that flash your speed at you — every tool and device it has other than the one that would make the route work.

I have biked through it four times now, for science. Drivers and cyclists are in each other’s way, where instructions are clear they’re dangerous, and during school-time rush hours in the fall it’s going to be much worse.

Going north, in the general direction of Tunney’s Pasture, is pretty well fine. That’s a straightfoward route with good sightlines and there’s a short but fairly steep downhill stretch just before the highway underpass that helps a cyclist zip along with motor traffic.

Coun. Jeff Leiper got city council to approve a speed-limit reduction on that stretch of Holland, from 50 km/h to 30 km/h, and temporary signs are up. The city knows full well that drivers will drive as fast as they feel safe driving, no matter what the signs say, and the limit-lowering didn’t come with any promise of enforcement or anything, so it’s just for show.

Southbound is the disaster. The same hill that’s great going the other way is a devil to climb on a bike, either in a low gear or standing on the pedals. There’s a set of traffic lights at the bottom, meaning cyclists will sometimes start from zero. I managed about 15 km/h. On a road built for 60, that feels very slow. Holland Avenue is a wide north-south artery with buses and traffic lights and all the other markers of a road you drive pretty fast on, and it’s fully understandable that a driver who just has to push the accelerator slightly harder to take the hill at full speed would feel impatient.

The city urges cyclists to ride in front of those impatient drivers. New signs say bikes and cars should go up that hill in single file — get out there and take the lane! “Sharrows” are sprinkled all over the road.

Besides telling everyone generally to share the space, sharrows are supposed to be placed deliberately — “Sharrows are intended to indicate to both motorists and cyclists the appropriate line of travel for cyclists,” the official manual for Ontario road designers says. Follow the sharrows on southbound Holland Avenue and you’ll be veering all over: middle, right, left, right again.

(What little evidence there is on sharrows is that they make streets more dangerous rather than less, because they change cyclists’ behaviour but not drivers’. A sharrow is a traffic engineer’s notice of surrender.)

The CBC sent brave reporter Marc-André Cossette to bike through it. Not one but two drivers, including one at the wheel of a Canada Post van, got so ticked at him for doing exactly what he was supposed to do that they veered into the oncoming traffic lane to pass. The video is horrifying, and it’s shot on the easy part of the southbound ride before the hill.

Friday, cycling and pedestrian types went through on a sort of work-to-rule campaign, deliberately obeying the signs and signals to show how terrible they are.

The kicker is that those prized parking spaces, the reason we didn’t, are never full. Not at mid-day, not in the evenings. We’re preserving the idea of parking, not actual parking. We could replace parking on one side of Holland with two-direction bike lanes, move all the parked cars over the other side and still have spaces left over. Cyclists would be safer, pedestrians would be safer, drivers would be less inconvenienced. A handful of people would have to cross the street after parking their cars, as they do on roads all over the city where parking’s allowed on only one side.

Yes, once people get used to the set-up, some will handle it better. Cyclists will learn that the sharrows are booby traps and ignore them. No right-thinking parent will allow their biking kid to ride anywhere but the sidewalk. Drivers will learn patience, maybe.

We have gotten more used to the segregated bike lanes on Laurier Avenue and O’Connor Street and with experience they’ve gotten somewhat less dangerous. But it also took the death of a cyclist on Laurier for the city to make design tweaks — like, for crying out loud, putting warning signs for drivers where drivers can see them — that city staff had already recommended and that regular users of the lanes knew were needed.

We can design these conflicts out of our cities. We know how. We were going to do it and we chose not to. We’ve seen what can happen. If somebody gets hit on Holland, neither the city nor the mayor will have any excuse.

dreevely@postmedia.com

[Reecemartin]

[Deleted]

[AndyMEng]

Ottawa has an insane sign problem. Driving or biking down major roads, the sheer quantity of signs is purely perplexing. Road sign clutter is becoming a major issue, causing both bikers and drivers to miss the important points.

This is in Edmonton, but I can picture more than a few intersections where an appropriate amount of signs was drop-kicked out the window. I've been to the 'sign shop' at the City, and I can say these guys LOVE their work ;)

I counted close to 40 road signs at O'Connor and Isabella. You're telling me that as a driver I'm supposed to absorb all of that information in the 3 seconds I pass under the highway and make the turn? Under the blanket of confusion, I see drivers turn on the 'bike' green light ALL THE TIME.

Which brings me to another gripe. Bike green lights are too high, too large, and too bright. Other municipalities put bike lights right down low, at the same height or lower than the pedestrian light, and not frikkin' green.

Anyways, Sign Clutter Diet. Needed soon.

https://i.cbc.ca/1.4693417.1528242503!/fileImage/httpImage/image.jpg_gen/derivatives/original_780/signs-2.jpghttps://i.cbc.ca/1.4693417.1528242503!/fileImage/httpImage/image.jpg_gen/derivatives/original_780/signs-2.jpg

Reevely weighs in...

https://ottawacitizen.com/news/local-news/reevely-as-bad-as-the-holland-avenue-bike-detour-was-on-paper-its-worse-in-real-life

[Aylmer]

Question: Does Ottawa have Bike-Share yet?

VeloGO is back this year with new dockless bikes which are actually half-decent. You download the app, scan the QR code on the bike you want to unlock, and it uses bluetooth to unlock it.
The bikes are less clunky than before, the app works alright (although sometimes it shows bikes which are now gone, which is frustrating). There's not a huge number of bikes, so it's not reliably available depending where you are. There's also a conspicuous lack of them in the downtown core - you have to walk out to the canal to find the nearest racks.

But for $10/mo, even if you only take it a few times instead of the bus, you end up saving time and money. Especially since biking is often much faster than bussing (or even driving) if you're going, say, from Downtown to the Glebe or the Market to uOttawa.


For it to be truly useful, they need to add 'docks' downtown and multiply the number of bikes. Once you can reliably find a bike within a 5-minute walk of anywhere in central Ottawa/Hull at any hour, it'll become a real option for moving around.

[qprcanada]

Poor road design leads to sign clutter. If urban roads were designed to limit speeds and had safe spaces for cyclists excessive signage would not be required.

Ottawa has an insane sign problem. Driving or biking down major roads, the sheer quantity of signs is purely perplexing. Road sign clutter is becoming a major issue, causing both bikers and drivers to miss the important points.

This is in Edmonton, but I can picture more than a few intersections where an appropriate amount of signs was drop-kicked out the window. I've been to the 'sign shop' at the City, and I can say these guys LOVE their work ;)

I counted close to 40 road signs at O'Connor and Isabella. You're telling me that as a driver I'm supposed to absorb all of that information in the 3 seconds I pass under the highway and make the turn? Under the blanket of confusion, I see drivers turn on the 'bike' green light ALL THE TIME.

Which brings me to another gripe. Bike green lights are too high, too large, and too bright. Other municipalities put bike lights right down low, at the same height or lower than the pedestrian light, and not frikkin' green.

Anyways, Sign Clutter Diet. Needed soon.

https://i.cbc.ca/1.4693417.1528242503!/fileImage/httpImage/image.jpg_gen/derivatives/original_780/signs-2.jpghttps://i.cbc.ca/1.4693417.1528242503!/fileImage/httpImage/image.jpg_gen/derivatives/original_780/signs-2.jpg

[Catenary]

Ottawa has an insane sign problem. Driving or biking down major roads, the sheer quantity of signs is purely perplexing. Road sign clutter is becoming a major issue, causing both bikers and drivers to miss the important points.

This is in Edmonton, but I can picture more than a few intersections where an appropriate amount of signs was drop-kicked out the window. I've been to the 'sign shop' at the City, and I can say these guys LOVE their work ;)

I counted close to 40 road signs at O'Connor and Isabella. You're telling me that as a driver I'm supposed to absorb all of that information in the 3 seconds I pass under the highway and make the turn? Under the blanket of confusion, I see drivers turn on the 'bike' green light ALL THE TIME.

Which brings me to another gripe. Bike green lights are too high, too large, and too bright. Other municipalities put bike lights right down low, at the same height or lower than the pedestrian light, and not frikkin' green.

Anyways, Sign Clutter Diet. Needed soon.

https://i.cbc.ca/1.4693417.1528242503!/fileImage/httpImage/image.jpg_gen/derivatives/original_780/signs-2.jpghttps://i.cbc.ca/1.4693417.1528242503!/fileImage/httpImage/image.jpg_gen/derivatives/original_780/signs-2.jpg

As bad as traffic services can be some times, they're really well aware of the issues at Isabella and O'Connor. The bike lights are literally shaped like bicycles, small and black, and while the initial confusion is gone, there are still people who see green and go, just like any left turn light. The bike lights are also as low as they can be, I have asked in the past and they're limited by the provincial rules and guidelines.

[jimmyjones]

As bad as traffic services can be some times, they're really well aware of the issues at Isabella and O'Connor. The bike lights are literally shaped like bicycles, small and black, and while the initial confusion is gone, there are still people who see green and go, just like any left turn light. The bike lights are also as low as they can be, I have asked in the past and they're limited by the provincial rules and guidelines.

As someone who bikes through that intersection all the time and has almost been hit a few times... I get it. They have two bike lights, and the rightmost one should be removed as it's too far over and looks like it could be a traffic light. I get that it's shaped like a bike, but people aren't conditioned to look at the silhouette of a light, just the color.

[JHikka]

As someone who bikes through that intersection all the time and has almost been hit a few times... I get it. They have two bike lights, and the rightmost one should be removed as it's too far over and looks like it could be a traffic light. I get that it's shaped like a bike, but people aren't conditioned to look at the silhouette of a light, just the color.

Indeed. I'm not conditioned to seeing bike lights and assume they're traffic lights. Caught me out a few times when driving.

[roger1818]

Indeed. I'm not conditioned to seeing bike lights and assume they're traffic lights. Caught me out a few times when driving.

I wonder if a sign beside the signal with a green circle around a bicycle and a red slash through a car would help the confusion?

[jimmyjones]

I wonder if a sign beside the signal with a green circle around a bicycle and a red slash through a car would help the confusion?

I think it would just add to the mess. There are too many signs there (https://www.google.com/maps/@45.4099969,-75.6889398,3a,75y,148.36h,80.93t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1slvDkXLoV0Yi3rf-xeORbRg!2e0!7i13312!8i6656) to begin with! Someone hitting an intersection for the first time only has so much time to look at all the signs being presented.

[TransitZilla]

As bad as traffic services can be some times, they're really well aware of the issues at Isabella and O'Connor. The bike lights are literally shaped like bicycles, small and black, and while the initial confusion is gone, there are still people who see green and go, just like any left turn light. The bike lights are also as low as they can be, I have asked in the past and they're limited by the provincial rules and guidelines.

It would probably be better if the bike traffic lights were on the near side of the intersection, but that is probably against MTO regulations...

[Catenary]

It would probably be better if the bike traffic lights were on the near side of the intersection, but that is probably against MTO regulations...

It is.

[AndyMEng]

I wonder if a sign beside the signal with a green circle around a bicycle and a red slash through a car would help the confusion?

Lol, just what we need, another sign!

Why can't the bike signal and walk signal be one-in-the-same? Why do we need SIX distinct traffic lights for a one-way (bike two-way) intersection?? Especially given that people walk and bike on the same signal timing? Why oh why.

https://encrypted-tbn0.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcSuLXMoiIv1Dr_oG0QNpumLwOBMP0stg1lCysKEAC_nWwpHkaC0wg

Is this so hard to reproduce? Why do they have to be up high? Bikers have a great field of vision.

[AndyMEng]

I think it would just add to the mess. There are too many signs there (https://www.google.com/maps/@45.4099969,-75.6889398,3a,75y,148.36h,80.93t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1slvDkXLoV0Yi3rf-xeORbRg!2e0!7i13312!8i6656) to begin with! Someone hitting an intersection for the first time only has so much time to look at all the signs being presented.

I count 48 distinct signs at that intersection (Not including pavement markings). So you're telling me that everyone reads and understands these in the 4 seconds they pass under the highway, before moving through the intersection? NO, they glance and see the colour red or green and travel on, or stop.

And the lights being the shapes of bicycles is a terrible idea. When it's night, the light just looks like a blob to me, and I have 20/20 vision. Whoever came up with that design was REALLY overthinking it. The white line of the OC Transpo 'go' signals was the best fake-green design, I think. (Thinking Bronson and Heron intersection).

[OTownandDown]

I count 48 distinct signs at that intersection (Not including pavement markings). So you're telling me that everyone reads and understands these in the 4 seconds they pass under the highway, before moving through the intersection? NO, they glance and see the colour red or green and travel on, or stop.

And the lights being the shapes of bicycles is a terrible idea. When it's night, the light just looks like a blob to me, and I have 20/20 vision. Whoever came up with that design was REALLY overthinking it. The white line of the OC Transpo 'go' signals was the best fake-green design, I think. (Thinking Bronson and Heron intersection).

I did a 'false start' driving through this intersection last night in the rain. Yes, the bike looks like just a green light, especially through a wet windshield. It would be 100x better if the 2nd light was simply removed, leaving just one bike light attached to the pole above the pedestrian signal.

[TransitZilla]

https://encrypted-tbn0.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcSuLXMoiIv1Dr_oG0QNpumLwOBMP0stg1lCysKEAC_nWwpHkaC0wg

Is this so hard to reproduce?

I agree that this is a far superior setup.

But apparently it is impossible to reproduce (see Catenary's indication above that it is against MTO regulations).

[zzptichka]

Richmond @ Holy Acres has this traffic light for bikes with polarized green light or something. Basically it can be seen only if you are looking at it directly. Something like that but in a smaller form factor could work for O'Connor.

https://i.imgur.com/WkO36Fh.jpg

[dougvdh]

Richmond @ Holy Acres has this traffic light for bikes with polarized green light or something. Basically it can be seen only if you are looking at it directly. Something like that but in a smaller form factor could work for O'Connor.

https://i.imgur.com/WkO36Fh.jpg

We've got those at the east end of MacKenzie King Bridge. And drivers still go when they turn green. It's almost like what really needs to happen is for drivers to start being a bit more attentive.

https://www.google.ca/maps/@45.4248612,-75.6879706,3a,75y,54.57h,80.24t/data=!3m5!1e1!3m3!1sXR_gJen5fqnGoyLDN_inlg!2e0!6s%2F%2Fgeo3.ggpht.com%2Fcbk%3Fpanoid%3DXR_gJen5fqnGoyLDN_inlg%26output%3Dthumbnail%26cb_client%3Dmaps_sv.tactile.gps%26thumb%3D2%26w%3D203%26h%3D100%26yaw%3D88.533646%26pitch%3D0%26thumbfov%3D100

[Kitchissippi]

I think it was only in the last few years that the MTO approved the bike-image lights. IMO part of the problem is they install them like a regular traffic lights — maybe mount them bit lower and/or colour the housing differently, matching the bright lime green used for bike street markings instead of yellow.

[roger1818]

I think it was only in the last few years that the MTO approved the bike-image lights. IMO part of the problem is they install them like a regular traffic lights — maybe mount them bit lower and/or colour the housing differently, matching the bright lime green used for bike street markings instead of yellow.

Or make them the size and shape of a pedestrian crossing signal, but with a bicycle signal rather than a hand and walking person.

[Catenary]

I think it was only in the last few years that the MTO approved the bike-image lights. IMO part of the problem is they install them like a regular traffic lights — maybe mount them bit lower and/or colour the housing differently, matching the bright lime green used for bike street markings instead of yellow.

The bike lights at O'Connor/Isabella are lower than the traffic lights for the motor vehicle lanes, and are black with no backboard instead of yellow. They're all 8" lamps too, not 12-8-12 or 12-8-8.

To answer some other questions, the bike lights have a minimum height so they can be seen from a distance and maintain clearances below them, and two signal heads are required for redundancy in case of failure.

We have similar situations in hundreds of locations in Ontario, with left turn signals to the left of the straight through signals, and people figure that out with only the occasional false start. O'Connor seems to be people being stupid.

[TransitZilla]

We have similar situations in hundreds of locations in Ontario, with left turn signals to the left of the straight through signals, and people figure that out with only the occasional false start. O'Connor seems to be people being stupid.

This isn't quite the same though. Southbound cyclists on O'Connor heading straight through are located to the left of the traffic lanes, so their straight through signals are located to the left of cars' left turn signals.

I can kind of understand a driver who is unfamiliar with the intersection waiting for their left-turn green, seeing a green light *on their left* and thinking that it is OK to go.

[jimmyjones]

The bike lights at O'Connor/Isabella are lower than the traffic lights for the motor vehicle lanes, and are black with no backboard instead of yellow. They're all 8" lamps too, not 12-8-12 or 12-8-8.

To answer some other questions, the bike lights have a minimum height so they can be seen from a distance and maintain clearances below them, and two signal heads are required for redundancy in case of failure.

We have similar situations in hundreds of locations in Ontario, with left turn signals to the left of the straight through signals, and people figure that out with only the occasional false start. O'Connor seems to be people being stupid.

I don't think anyone has been conditioned to look at the height and or color of the housing of a traffic light to the point of it being unconscious - maybe I'm alone on that one?

What's the rational for bike signals needing to be higher than walk lights, but lower than car lights? Why is redundancy for these signals more important vs redundant walk signals, or stop signs? I get the argument for traffic lights with the lanes taking more horizontal space, but for a bike lane?

It would be very interesting to see if any eye tracking studies have been done on this sort of thing. This sort of system may work when there is little no no other signage in the area. This particular intersection (https://www.google.com/maps/@45.4099969,-75.6889398,3a,75y,145.6h,84.39t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1slvDkXLoV0Yi3rf-xeORbRg!2e0!7i13312!8i6656)has enough signs that there is no way you're going to catch them all the first time you hit this intersection.

You seem to argue that drivers should just be paying more attention and I get that. But that's doesn't preclude reducing the cognitive load of drivers via more efficient and intuitive signage.

[OCCheetos]

I don't think anyone has been conditioned to look at the height and or color of the housing of a traffic light to the point of it being unconscious - maybe I'm alone on that one?

What's the rational for bike signals needing to be higher than walk lights, but lower than car lights? Why is redundancy for these signals more important vs redundant walk signals, or stop signs? I get the argument for traffic lights with the lanes taking more horizontal space, but for a bike lane?

It would be very interesting to see if any eye tracking studies have been done on this sort of thing. This sort of system may work when there is little no no other signage in the area. This particular intersection (https://www.google.com/maps/@45.4099969,-75.6889398,3a,75y,145.6h,84.39t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1slvDkXLoV0Yi3rf-xeORbRg!2e0!7i13312!8i6656)has enough signs that there is no way you're going to catch them all the first time you hit this intersection.

You seem to argue that drivers should just be paying more attention and I get that. But that's doesn't preclude reducing the cognitive load of drivers via more efficient and intuitive signage.

If I were to guess, I'd guess it's because bikes are legally considered road vehicles and not just an extension of pedestrians.

[roger1818]

If I were to guess, I'd guess it's because bikes are legally considered road vehicles and not just an extension of pedestrians.

That’s a valid point. According to the highway and traffic act, bicycles are vehicles but pedestrians are not

O’Conner is a special case since it has the bike lane left of the vehicles, which adds to the confusion. The rules are based on the assumption that the bike lane is on the right.

[eltodesukane]

I think it would just add to the mess. There are too many signs there (https://www.google.com/maps/@45.4099969,-75.6889398,3a,75y,148.36h,80.93t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1slvDkXLoV0Yi3rf-xeORbRg!2e0!7i13312!8i6656) to begin with! Someone hitting an intersection for the first time only has so much time to look at all the signs being presented.

Ok, let's go backward! (O'Connor & Isabella)
https://i.imgur.com/UmVdLTH.png

[Catenary]

I don't think anyone has been conditioned to look at the height and or color of the housing of a traffic light to the point of it being unconscious - maybe I'm alone on that one?

What's the rational for bike signals needing to be higher than walk lights, but lower than car lights? Why is redundancy for these signals more important vs redundant walk signals, or stop signs? I get the argument for traffic lights with the lanes taking more horizontal space, but for a bike lane?

It would be very interesting to see if any eye tracking studies have been done on this sort of thing. This sort of system may work when there is little no no other signage in the area. This particular intersection (https://www.google.com/maps/@45.4099969,-75.6889398,3a,75y,145.6h,84.39t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1slvDkXLoV0Yi3rf-xeORbRg!2e0!7i13312!8i6656)has enough signs that there is no way you're going to catch them all the first time you hit this intersection.

You seem to argue that drivers should just be paying more attention and I get that. But that's doesn't preclude reducing the cognitive load of drivers via more efficient and intuitive signage.

With regard to the signs, there does seem to be a bit of a death spiral. When one sign is ignored, tendency is to install an additional sign to reinforce the rule. That makes the whole picture less clear, and is why there are multiple no straight, no right, and no right on red signs present.

It does mean that if you only read a small number of the signs, you will get the key information, as most of them are repeats.

The height rationale is because they follow the rules for vehicle traffic signals, not pedestrian traffic signals, as others have noted. Stop signs are far more reliable than signalized intersections. Pedestrian signals have a natural redundancy with the car signals, stemming from a time when there were no pedestrian signals at all. Similarly, the redundancy isn't required when signal head failure won't compromise safety, like the advance bike signals on Laurier, or the advance stop signal on Bronson SB at Holmwood.

[OCCheetos]

https://twitter.com/JimWatsonOttawa/status/1022525758596677632

The Holland Ave. detour will be changed.