Cycling in the National Capital Region

[Uhuniau]

Originally Posted by YOWetal

Road diets are the scourage of transportation and mostly not democratic in how they are implemented in Ontario at least.

How are they a scourge, and how are they not democratic?

[YOWetal]

Originally Posted by Uhuniau

How are they a scourge, and how are they not democratic?

They slow down cars and busses. I thought you were one of the biggest critics of Beechwood? They are done at the staff level and are called complete street not reducing lanes of traffic for a reason. It's clear the vast majority of the city is against these restrictions that cause them delays. This was a major successful attack on McKenney by Sutcliffe and really she never recovered from it. Not because of the $250 million pledged to Bike lanes but many people see the result as a decrease in value not increase.

[zzptichka]

Originally Posted by YOWetal

Road diets are the scourage of transportation and mostly not democratic in how they are implemented in Ontario at least.

Take Carling Avenue. In some places, there is absolutely zero reason for it to be 3-lane wide. 2 lanes with a bike lane and a tram on the median is how it should be.

What would be undemocratic and completely backwards is banning something like this outright with a provincial bill.

[YOWetal]

Originally Posted by zzptichka

Take Carling Avenue. In some places, there is absolutely zero reason for it to be 3-lane wide. 2 lanes with a bike lane and a tram on the median is how it should be.

What would be undemocratic and completely backwards is banning something like this outright with a provincial bill.

It for sure is a blunt instrument but the backhanded war on the car is not what people want so elected politicians are taking the actions they can.

[zzptichka]

Ah good ole war on cars. Let's ban bus lanes too while we are at it. Sure, blunt instrument, but when at war, you gotta do what you gotta do.

[Uhuniau]

Originally Posted by YOWetal

They slow down cars and busses. I thought you were one of the biggest critics of Beechwood? They are done at the staff level and are called complete street not reducing lanes of traffic for a reason. It's clear the vast majority of the city is against these restrictions that cause them delays. This was a major successful attack on McKenney by Sutcliffe and really she never recovered from it. Not because of the $250 million pledged to Bike lanes but many people see the result as a decrease in value not increase.

The fact that there are some bad "road diet" situations doesn't make them a "scourge" overall. I'm all for bike lanes and other "road diet" measures where there's lots of room in the right of way to do so, and where they don't constitute another piecemeal degradation of bus transit on urban main streets.

Beechwood was driven by the two councillors on either side of the avenue at the time, albeit with no meaningful consultation with bus transit users. It was implemented by staff.

[YOWetal]

Originally Posted by Uhuniau

The fact that there are some bad "road diet" situations doesn't make them a "scourge" overall. I'm all for bike lanes and other "road diet" measures where there's lots of room in the right of way to do so, and where they don't constitute another piecemeal degradation of bus transit on urban main streets.

Beechwood was driven by the two councillors on either side of the avenue at the time, albeit with no meaningful consultation with bus transit users. It was implemented by staff.

Road diet implies purposefully restricting traffic. I wouldn't characterize taking a lane out of Carling as a road deit though yes this law would have adverse effects.

Yes the two councilors who have the local power were making a decision that had citywide impacts. Now Beechwood probably shouldn't be a Stroad but it is a major connector and as you've pointed out is the only route busses can use in the area.

Allowing cheap parking. Building more and more houses further and further from the city and adding imediments isn't going to reduce car commuting it just causes chaos.

[phil235]

Originally Posted by YOWetal

It's clear the vast majority of the city is against these restrictions that cause them delays.

"Vast majority" might be a bit of an overstatement. As for whether it is democratic, that really depends on who you include in the constituency. The majority of suburban car commuters passing through might be all for putting a highway through urban neighbourhoods to make it easier for them to get to work. Should the views of commuters who pass through twice a day on weekdays really trump the views of the people who live in those neighbourhoods?

That said, I'm not sure good urban design and "democracy" necessarily have a lot of overlap.

[lrt's friend]

Road diets and building new highways are not the same thing.

We have to understand that road diets need to provide an alternative otherwise we just keep creating more congestion, and eventually people just stay away.

[zzptichka]

Funny, the "vast majority" hates speed cameras because we shouldn't punish people for using roads that were designed for speed, but rather build them in such a way so speeding is not possible.

But when we actually do that, suddenly it's a "war on cars"

[phil235]

Originally Posted by lrt's friend

Road diets and building new highways are not the same thing.

We have to understand that road diets need to provide an alternative otherwise we just keep creating more congestion, and eventually people just stay away.

I was taking the "democracy" argument to the extreme with the highway comment. Major arterials designed to move big volumes of cars as quickly as possible have a similar impact on neighbourhoods. And I would suggest that the people who use them two times a day are going to be much more in favour of those kinds of roads than those who actually live beside them.

Obviously balance is the key, but suggesting that the big fast road model is more democratic is a bit disingenuous. I don't want suburban commuters having the biggest say in how our cities are designed.

[YOWetal]

Originally Posted by phil235

I was taking the "democracy" argument to the extreme with the highway comment. Major arterials designed to move big volumes of cars as quickly as possible have a similar impact on neighbourhoods. And I would suggest that the people who use them two times a day are going to be much more in favour of those kinds of roads than those who actually live beside them.

Obviously balance is the key, but suggesting that the big fast road model is more democratic is a bit disingenuous. I don't want suburban commuters having the biggest say in how our cities are designed.

I think your analogy was good. If we let everyone live in suburbs we shouldn't be surprised they vote for making their life easier. I personally hate the suburbs, live downtown and wish it was more urban but that's not the choice the vast vast majority make. This is a country where people think it borders on child abuse to have kids in an apartment as a middle class person. If you want a yard for an affordable price you need even highways that cut through and certainly need stroads connecting the highways we have. People voting for Ford's car tax rebate and buck a beer are getting what they want.

[OCCheetos]

Originally Posted by lrt's friend

Road diets and building new highways are not the same thing.

We have to understand that road diets need to provide an alternative otherwise we just keep creating more congestion, and eventually people just stay away.

I like the implication that nobody outside of a car matters.

People don't stay away. Cars do.

[rocketphish]

Ontario's bike lane debate: 'Sure winner' in suburbs or 'blitzkrieg' on good planning?
Ottawa's Transportation Master Plan, to be completed next year, envisions that by 2046 more than half of all travel in the city will be by active transportation, public transit or by carpooling.

Blair Crawford, Ottawa Citizen
Published Sep 21, 2024 • Last updated 5 hours ago • 4 minute read

The Ontario government’s plan to prioritize cars over bikes will undercut Ottawa’s new Transportation Master Plan and the province’s own work to make housing more affordable, Kitchissippi Ward Coun. Jeff Leiper says.

The provincial Conservatives under Premier Doug Ford are reportedly planning to make it illegal for municipalities to install bike lanes if that means blocking existing car lanes. The proposal is part of the government’s “Reducing Gridlock and Saving You Time Act” to be introduced in October, according to a report Friday by CBC.
Article content

“I hope when people who are supporting these kinds of policies think about their kids and their grandkids and the kinds of cities they want them to be able to live in,” Leiper said.

“This isn’t a battleground in the non-existent war on cars. It’s a blitzkrieg on planning for affordable cities.”

<more>

https://ottawacitizen.com/news/local-new...n-suburbs-or-blitzkrieg-on-good-planning

[YOWetal]

Originally Posted by rocketphish

Ontario's bike lane debate: 'Sure winner' in suburbs or 'blitzkrieg' on good planning?
Ottawa's Transportation Master Plan, to be completed next year, envisions that by 2046 more than half of all travel in the city will be by active transportation, public transit or by carpooling.

Blair Crawford, Ottawa Citizen
Published Sep 21, 2024 • Last updated 5 hours ago • 4 minute read

The Ontario government’s plan to prioritize cars over bikes will undercut Ottawa’s new Transportation Master Plan and the province’s own work to make housing more affordable, Kitchissippi Ward Coun. Jeff Leiper says.

The provincial Conservatives under Premier Doug Ford are reportedly planning to make it illegal for municipalities to install bike lanes if that means blocking existing car lanes. The proposal is part of the government’s “Reducing Gridlock and Saving You Time Act” to be introduced in October, according to a report Friday by CBC.
Article content

“I hope when people who are supporting these kinds of policies think about their kids and their grandkids and the kinds of cities they want them to be able to live in,” Leiper said.

“This isn’t a battleground in the non-existent war on cars. It’s a blitzkrieg on planning for affordable cities.”

<more>

https://ottawacitizen.com/news/local-new...n-suburbs-or-blitzkrieg-on-good-planning

The idea bike lanes are going to make things more affordable is laughable. Every minute longer the commute from the exurbs is the less drive till you qualify areas that are available. There is a reason Houston has affordable housing. Partly zoning and development charges but also twice as many freeways as Toronto.

[lrt's friend]

Active transportation exceeding 50 percent is laughable. It seems we are in reverse pushing people into cars. We spend billions and have nothing to show for it.

[DTcrawler]

Originally Posted by YOWetal

The idea bike lanes are going to make things more affordable is laughable. Every minute longer the commute from the exurbs is the less drive till you qualify areas that are available. There is a reason Houston has affordable housing. Partly zoning and development charges but also twice as many freeways as Toronto.

There is also a reason Houston is a sh*thole with hellish all-day traffic.

[urbanforest]

Looks like we found Doug Ford’s target audience

[Lakeofthewood]

Instead of using theoretical future road diets as some sort of boogeyman, why don't we look at those that have been in place for some time to judge if they are successful projects or not?

Off the top of my head: Main Street, Beechwood Avenue, Rideau Street, Laurier Avenue, Queen Street, Bank Street Bridge, Montreal Road. Didn't include Churchill cause it was mainly parking lanes.

Of these projects, the only one that you regularly hear (reasonable) complaints about is Beechwood, and you could argue it was the most poorly built of them. Otherwise these are all a resounding success, and in some cases have completely transformed the nature of the street (Main Street, Queen Street, Rideau Street) for the better.

So let's not use some strawman argument about the negative impact of road diets when we have all these examples to pull from.

[Richard Eade]

My issue with taking motor vehicle lanes for bike lanes is not, necessarily, about the bike lanes. It is the concept in Ottawa that ALL roads must become ‘Complete Streets’.

Absolutely there should be wide sidewalks on pedestrian-busy streets – and they should take precedence over a car-lane AND OVER BIKE-LANES. If there is greater demand for more vulnerable travelers IN A SPECIFIC LOCATION, then they should be prioritized. The same goes for transit lanes (just as Albert and Slater used to be - and, arguably, still should be). There were no bike lanes along those two roads while they were transit-centric. (That is why the ‘pilot’ bike lanes were built on the less-busy Laurier.) The City needs to prioritize the street layout based on the needs of the street – not apply a city-wide ‘Complete Street’ directive.

As a concrete example, I think that Bank Street should have WIDE sidewalks (as wide as practical), bus priority (until the Bank Street Subway is built 😉), and single-lane traffic. There should be NO cycle lanes along Bank Street because it is too busy.

That said, there will need to be some TEMPORARY bike lanes across the Bank Street Bridge over the Rideau River – UNTIL a suitable MUP bridge can be built. Unfortunately, this will cause a temporary pinch-point, which will impede traffic - including buses.

The grid layout of the streets has saved (some of) the bike-laned streets from becoming disasters. Traffic was using other parallel routes more than the ones that were converted. Adding bike lanes to less busy streets is how it should be done – as long as the City also constructs the necessary connections across barriers. Just as there needs to be a Queensway to quickly and efficiently move a lot of vehicles from one area to another, there should be the same type of thing for bikes. There should be no need for bike lanes to be on the same street as cars if that street is a primary throughfare for cars, trucks, and buses.

The MUP that is being built along the O-Train line is an excellent example of a ‘Queensway’ for bikes. It truly segregates bikes and cars, and provides connectivity across barriers. More complete bike corridors should be built - not short segments of bike-lanes along 'Complete Streets'.