[Saint John] Uptown Thread

[adamuptownsj]

I'm on the PAC agenda! Siding variance- don't worry, it looks cool. Otherwise almost nothing on the agenda.

https://saintjohn.ca/en/city-hall/council-and-committees/minutes-agendas-and-records

[cdnguys]

Originally Posted by adamuptownsj

I'm on the PAC agenda! Siding variance- don't worry, it looks cool. Otherwise almost nothing on the agenda.

https://saintjohn.ca/en/city-hall/council-and-committees/minutes-agendas-and-records

Congrats on project. I immediately thought it was that urban industrial feel with the windows like the old Simms factory or retrofitted industrial buildings in Boston. Such a great infill project.

[adamuptownsj]

Originally Posted by cdnguys

Congrats on project. I immediately thought it was that urban industrial feel with the windows like the old Simms factory or retrofitted industrial buildings in Boston. Such a great infill project.

The design is indeed inspired by Simms pre-stucco- unfortunately R values and costs of curtain windows require metal panels instead. We'll probably go with casement windows. But the look gets across. It's L-shaped so it's really only monolithic from Brunswick and Crown. Design subject to alteration of course.

[adamuptownsj]

Activity behind the old St. John the Baptist church on Broadview, where a 39-unit affordable build is going up. Test digging, it looks like. I'm fairly confident on this one happening ASAP or in the spring. Asimakos doesn't strike me as a frivolous guy.

[DyAm00394]

Progress update picture of the Market Slip redevelopment. Work is moving along pretty well, completion is still on track for the end of this year.
Also, they are currently working on the Harbour Passage extension along the seawall in the Fundy Quay area.

[sailor734]

Article in the TJ saying the rebuild of Charlotte St will go ahead spring 2024. Not sure what to think about this. In some ways it seems like a lot of $$ for I'm not sure how much actual benefit.

One feature is the elimination of parking on one side to create a bike lane. Once again I'm of two minds on this. If I thought it would see a lot of use....great but if usage of other recently created bike lanes around SJ are any indication it may turn out to be a lot of time, effort and money spent to serve a tiny handful of occasional users.

[darkharbour]

Originally Posted by sailor734

Article in the TJ saying the rebuild of Charlotte St will go ahead spring 2024. Not sure what to think about this. In some ways it seems like a lot of $$ for I'm not sure how much actual benefit.

One feature is the elimination of parking on one side to create a bike lane. Once again I'm of two minds on this. If I thought it would see a lot of use....great but if usage of other recently created bike lanes around SJ are any indication it may turn out to be a lot of time, effort and money spent to serve a tiny handful of occasional users.

Bike lanes are all about growing the network of available options. If you build one bike lane somewhere, of course you won’t see it used a lot because it doesn’t link anywhere. The more places you can feel comfortable biking, the more people will adopt it.

I was out the other evening running with my dog and saw more bikes than cars on the roads around the North End and Mount Pleasant, if we’re only sticking to anecdotal evidence

[adamuptownsj]

Originally Posted by darkharbour

Bike lanes are all about growing the network of available options. If you build one bike lane somewhere, of course you won’t see it used a lot because it doesn’t link anywhere. The more places you can feel comfortable biking, the more people will adopt it.

I was out the other evening running with my dog and saw more bikes than cars on the roads around the North End and Mount Pleasant, if we’re only sticking to anecdotal evidence

How does Charlotte need a bike lane? Traffic moves at a crawl long it. It's one way for half its length. Argue for Water St or something.

Plus 70% of more of the 'urban cyclists' in town are 'dehoused persons of drug usage' who bike against traffic, on sidewalks, ignore signage, etc. You think they're using lanes for their stolen bikes?

[bridgeoftea]

Originally Posted by adamuptownsj

How does Charlotte need a bike lane? Traffic moves at a crawl long it. It's one way for half its length. Argue for Water St or something.

Plus 70% of more of the 'urban cyclists' in town are 'dehoused persons of drug usage' who bike against traffic, on sidewalks, ignore signage, etc. You think they're using lanes for their stolen bikes?

If they are going to focus on bike lines, I think they should start branching out where they have from University Avenue.

I would avoid any on Somerset past the Shell. As who wants to peddle bike up those hills haha. If anything, having them along Milledge to Adelaide avenue would be an easier route.

Plus I'm sure I saw the viaduct bridge had plans for bike lanes in it.

[adamuptownsj]

Yeah: the uptown grid is slow enough it does not need a single bike lane. If they must be built, keep them to overbuilt arterials.

Plus this would obliterate the informal two-side parking for the farmer's market.

We should not build a single bike lane without an impact study. The University Avenue one is almost entirely empty, barring the occasional jogger or motor scooter. Two lanes eliminated and nothing gained. There's like ten 'cycling advocates' in town who get funding to reconfigure infrastructure other people use. Require data. No other kind of infrastructure gets built without knowing roughly how much use it will get. 'If you build it they will come" is poor urban planning and has yet to actually work... remember the temporary Main bike lanes a few years ago? Totally deserted all the time.

[bridgeoftea]

Originally Posted by adamuptownsj

Yeah: the uptown grid is slow enough it does not need a single bike lane. If they must be built, keep them to overbuilt arterials.

Plus this would obliterate the informal two-side parking for the farmer's market.

We should not build a single bike lane without an impact study. The University Avenue one is almost entirely empty, barring the occasional jogger or motor scooter. Two lanes eliminated and nothing gained. There's like ten 'cycling advocates' in town who get funding to reconfigure infrastructure other people use. Require data. No other kind of infrastructure gets built without knowing roughly how much use it will get. 'If you build it they will come" is poor urban planning and has yet to actually work... remember the temporary Main bike lanes a few years ago? Totally deserted all the time.

I guess it becomes the chicken and the egg scenario. Saint John isn't very cyclist friendly. Definitely not optimized for pedestrians outside uptown. And transit is starting to get better.

I personally would love to see a continuation of dense walkable neighborhoods extending outside of uptown but that seems a distance in the future. Hopefully with the ever increasing population we can build to match and not be as car centric.

Makes me really sad to find out that uptown had a big tram network that was ripped up in the 60s to make room for cars

[sailor734]

I'd have no problem with public money for bike lanes if I thought it was being spent to satisfy an unfilled need and to cater to a significant portion of city taxpayers. My problem is I'm not convinced that's the case.

[sailor734]

Originally Posted by adamuptownsj

Yeah: the uptown grid is slow enough it does not need a single bike lane. If they must be built, keep them to overbuilt arterials.

Plus this would obliterate the informal two-side parking for the farmer's market.

We should not build a single bike lane without an impact study. The University Avenue one is almost entirely empty, barring the occasional jogger or motor scooter. Two lanes eliminated and nothing gained. There's like ten 'cycling advocates' in town who get funding to reconfigure infrastructure other people use. Require data. No other kind of infrastructure gets built without knowing roughly how much use it will get. 'If you build it they will come" is poor urban planning and has yet to actually work... remember the temporary Main bike lanes a few years ago? Totally deserted all the time.

Agreed! I'd want to see the studies showing existing demand and projected usage before moving forward and any bike lanes. "build it and they will come" is best left as a movie line

[Uptowngal]

My opinion is that uptown Saint John is incredibly walkable and we should be setting it up so that essentially people can bike uptown, park their bike, and walk from there. Then we really just need the exterior corridor streets done (water street and broad street). We also really need secure bike parking if the vision is for people to get uptown by bike.

Then the focus should be to connect uptown to surrounding neighbourhoods.
- Chesley Drive including the reversing falls bridge and simms corner - to connect uptown to west
- Crown street to connect uptown to rockwood
- Either rothesay ave or courtney bay causeway to connect uptown to east

If I had a third choice uptown to add bike lanes, it would be union street.

This is just based on my own experience/what I would love to see as a cyclist who lives and works uptown,

[adamuptownsj]

Originally Posted by Uptowngal

My opinion is that uptown Saint John is incredibly walkable and we should be setting it up so that essentially people can bike uptown, park their bike, and walk from there. Then we really just need the exterior corridor streets done (water street and broad street). We also really need secure bike parking if the vision is for people to get uptown by bike.

Then the focus should be to connect uptown to surrounding neighbourhoods.
- Chesley Drive including the reversing falls bridge and simms corner - to connect uptown to west
- Crown street to connect uptown to rockwood
- Either rothesay ave or courtney bay causeway to connect uptown to east

If I had a third choice uptown to add bike lanes, it would be union street.

This is just based on my own experience/what I would love to see as a cyclist who lives and works uptown,

Welcome to the forum.

My thoughts on these vary. Chesley is simply not needed. Douglas Ave runs parallel to it, and is much more cyclist-friendly. No need to squeeze another arterial down to two lanes. Completing Harbour Passage's connection to the West Side over the bridge should kill a couple birds with one stone. SJ should be 'voluntelling' Ocean Steel to sponsor the last ~900 meters.

Crossing the bridge, we should have a multi-use Harbour Passage extension on the south side and perhaps pedestrian activated lights on the both ends. Eliminate the north side sidewalk so traffic can fit comfortably. Cut a proper multi use path along the north and west edges of Wolastoq Park to the planned roundabout.

Crown is getting a road diet anyway, so you'll get bike lanes there. From Union to Haymarket, at least.

I don't think it's worthwhile to approach anything on the east side with bike lanes in mind at all. These are the most heavily trafficked roads in the whole city. Rothesay is lined with car-oriented businesses and their driveways, and doesn't even have room for a turning lane. The causeway is functionally a mini highway.

Drivers have had extremely little input on decisions that affect many times more of than than cyclists, and making these streets 'bike friendly' for almost no cyclists would rightfully piss people off. The total lack of bike traffic on University has not gone unnoticed by commuters.

Why is the bike lane proposal always 'shrink busy roads' and never 'add a multi-use path on the shoulder?' That would probably go over better, and would not require reducing service for the majority of road-users.

[Uptowngal]

Thank you for the warm welcome

I will agree with you that Chesley drive isn't necessary as long as the road diet on Main gets finished up to Douglass ave. The issue now is that it is hard to get up to Douglass. I would also be OK with the harbour passage extension, although I currently avoid cycling on it as road cyclists would technically be "speeding" on a pedestrian path like that.

The bridge is the main thorn in my side. As a cyclist you either have to jump up on the side walk, which is technically illegal and definitely unsafe, or go way out into traffic to ensure that no one tries to pass you on the bridge since it is so narrow - which is obviously extremely aggravating to motorists. The city has been unclear which approach cyclists should take (act like a pedestrian or act like a car), so as a motorist you have no idea what the cyclist will do...which makes it even less safe for everyone.

I'm happy to hear about crown! I bike this road all the time and cars are moving fast - this is really good news.

East side I will also agree with you. I cut across the causeway to bike redhead road, but that is primarily recreational cycling and the priority for bike lanes should be commuters.

There is data available through strava where cyclists can mark the routes they are taking for fun/training vs what they are using as a commuter route. I hope that the city is consulting this type of data as they are making these decisions.

[darkharbour]

Originally Posted by adamuptownsj

Welcome to the forum.

My thoughts on these vary. Chesley is simply not needed. Douglas Ave runs parallel to it, and is much more cyclist-friendly. No need to squeeze another arterial down to two lanes. Completing Harbour Passage's connection to the West Side over the bridge should kill a couple birds with one stone. SJ should be 'voluntelling' Ocean Steel to sponsor the last ~900 meters.

Crossing the bridge, we should have a multi-use Harbour Passage extension on the south side and perhaps pedestrian activated lights on the both ends. Eliminate the north side sidewalk so traffic can fit comfortably. Cut a proper multi use path along the north and west edges of Wolastoq Park to the planned roundabout.

Crown is getting a road diet anyway, so you'll get bike lanes there. From Union to Haymarket, at least.

I don't think it's worthwhile to approach anything on the east side with bike lanes in mind at all. These are the most heavily trafficked roads in the whole city. Rothesay is lined with car-oriented businesses and their driveways, and doesn't even have room for a turning lane. The causeway is functionally a mini highway.

Drivers have had extremely little input on decisions that affect many times more of than than cyclists, and making these streets 'bike friendly' for almost no cyclists would rightfully piss people off. The total lack of bike traffic on University has not gone unnoticed by commuters.

Why is the bike lane proposal always 'shrink busy roads' and never 'add a multi-use path on the shoulder?' That would probably go over better, and would not require reducing service for the majority of road-users.

Wouldn't the counterpoint be that if it is the area with the highest intensity car traffic, that it is the most in need of better pedestrian and cycling infrastructure?

In terms of cycle-friendly topography, the East is by far the best part of the city, the grade from Courtenay Bay to McAllister Place is less than 1% for over 5 to 6 km.

[adamuptownsj]

It would be a terrible idea to take the busiest four lane road in the city and cut it to three because someone may theoretically want to bike down it. Transportation policy should not be beholden to the least used transportation method's advocates. There is not a busy road that cycling advocates would not advocate to be handed to them, to go 99% unused.

Mandate a study that shows current cyclist usage of streets before a dollar is allocated. If you can't find 100 trips on any single day over a week (to choose a random number) no bike lane for you. Pedestrians and cars both need frequent usage of an area to get improvements done to it. Cyclists can be ignored if they live in a realm of sunny projections and hypotheticals and behavioral studies from Amsterdam or something.

[DyAm00394]

A new Global News NB article on the sugar refinery redevelopment plans.

"Former Saint John sugar refinery site getting second life with green space development

The City of Saint John is set to revitalize the former Lantic Sugar site as part of an extension of Harbour Passage, which comes with a price tag of $10.4 million.

The former sugar refinery is deemed not suitable for residential or commercial development and requires mitigation efforts before the public can access the area due to sea level rise and storm surge.

About three hectares of the site will need to be raised to avoid storm surges in future weather events.

Ian Fogan, the City of Saint John’s commissioner of utilities and infrastructure, said the project is multi-purpose, but adds the site has been a challenge to develop.

“It is a contaminated site,” he said.

Fogan explained some remediation has been done, but it wouldn’t be suitable for anything but a green space. Approximately $6.2 million will be paid for by the city. The remaining $4.2 million is intended to come from the federal Disaster Mitigation and Adaptation Fund.

“(There are) two pieces. One is to raise the site above sea vulnerability level and in doing so you’re also sealing over the contaminants that are in the site,” he said in an interview Tuesday. “But raising it and by capping it, you’re now creating a space that is safe for people to go on.”

The old sugar refinery was a large industrial building abutting the ocean. Old photos from the provincial archives show a sea wall being built and replaced. It began operation in 1915 and was demolished in 2004.

The project will have a stormwater sewer component to help the municipality improve its ability to drain large quantities of rain and stormwater.
“We’re looking to increase the capacity all around the central peninsula but part of that plan is to create a new stormwater system through that site with a new outfall,” he said.

ACAP Saint John said the resiliency and improvement to the waterfront is essential not only for the safety of inland residents but also for businesses and industry using the port.

Sea level rise and storm surge are among the biggest issues coastal communities are facing.

“As we continue to develop the waterfront, it’s something we need to keep in mind,” said Roxanne MacKinnon, ACAP Saint John’s executive director. “We need to keep in mind higher water levels that we will see into the future.”

Researchers estimate that by 2100, the sea will rise, through increased earth temperature and melting ice caps, by about one metre, MacKinnon explained. She said there is likely to be some variation in the number.

MacKinnon said storm surge also has to be taken into consideration — especially with the rise of the water levels.

“When we have a higher regular ocean level than we’re used to in Atlantic Canada and pile on a storm surge on top of that … there is an even bigger potential impact to our land base,” she said.

Each piece of fortification makes the harbour, and those who use it, safer, she explained.

“It’s just basically going to be necessary for if you want to ensure that the land is going to be useable for the next 100 years, we kind of have to prepare those things.”

Any development of the waterfront is good news for Envision Saint John, which deals with the growth and propensity of the greater Saint John region.

Jeff Cyr of the organization said just a few years ago there was very little usable waterfront space, but this city has moved quickly to improve it.

“Now, we’re going to have an enhanced boardwalk. We’re going to have an enhanced Fundy Quay site. There are further extensions of Harbour Passage,” he said. “This is just an addition to the mix of what is going to become a world-class waterfront.”

He said there are admittedly challenges when it comes to climate change and mitigation, but the work being undertaken will make a difference.

“It’s infrastructure that needs to happen and it’s probably also infrastructure that down the road will likely pay for itself as the waterfront continues to develop,” he said.

Meanwhile, Fogan said the continued resiliency and fortification of the waterfront is like a jig-saw puzzle, going piece by piece until it can meet the expectations of a fierce and ever-changing climate.

The city awaits word on its application with the federal government under the Disaster Mitigation and Adaptation Fund.

https://globalnews.ca/news/9928419/sugar-refinery-site-saint-john-new-brunswick/

[EnvisionSaintJohn]

Originally Posted by adamuptownsj

How does Charlotte need a bike lane? Traffic moves at a crawl long it. It's one way for half its length. Argue for Water St or something.

Plus 70% of more of the 'urban cyclists' in town are 'dehoused persons of drug usage' who bike against traffic, on sidewalks, ignore signage, etc. You think they're using lanes for their stolen bikes?

got a source for that 70% figure? I'd say most of the people riding bikes in Saint John are rich ppl from KV on $2000+ mountain bikes.

"Citi bike" like rentals would work well for Saint John, especially for the cruise ships visitors. We don't need 1000 pickup/drop off locations like Toronto has, but we could probably aim for 10 strategically placed around the city.

Saint John would greatly benefit from better bike paths, especially in city centre/city centre adjacent areas... especially along the harbour passage.