Cycling in the National Capital Region

[LRTeverywhere]

Originally Posted by YOWetal

Or just remove them and give pedestrians the chance to cross anyway. Especially annoying at long lights where you get no walk signal unless you press so a compliant person has to wait two lights for no reason. We slow down cars for less important reason so let's save money and do away with them when we move intersections.

Definetely agree with giving pedestrian cross signals automatically, however there is a secondary purpose to the buttons in providing audible signals on push for the blind, could make that automatic too, but would still need a speaker nearby

[lrt's friend]

We drive around the city regularly, not paying attention to details. Last Sunday, I drove to Riverside South to meet a friend. Around 10 years ago, Limebank Road was converted from a very narrow country road to a modern Boulevard to accomodate the growing population. What I observed was what other things were built. A lovely MUP was also built on the west side going south from Hunt Club complete with bridges over creeks. There were no bikes and you could see the disuse by the condition of the trail. What was strange is that this was built for several kms and then suddenly ended at Leitrim Road in the middle of the Greenbelt although the Limebank project continued beyond Earl Armstrong. Beyond Leitrim, the MUP becomes a sidewalk (for who?). Was this some sort of cost saving measure, to build part of the route as a MUP and part as a sidewalk? Why bother with a MUP if it doesn't go to where people live? I see a pattern here of building disjointed cycling infrastructure to make cycling not viable even after spending piles of money.

[zzptichka]

Originally Posted by lrt's friend

We drive around the city regularly, not paying attention to details. Last Sunday, I drove to Riverside South to meet a friend. Around 10 years ago, Limebank Road was converted from a very narrow country road to a modern Boulevard to accomodate the growing population. What I observed was what other things were built. A lovely MUP was also built on the west side going south from Hunt Club complete with bridges over creeks. There were no bikes and you could see the disuse by the condition of the trail. What was strange is that this was built for several kms and then suddenly ended at Leitrim Road in the middle of the Greenbelt although the Limebank project continued beyond Earl Armstrong. Beyond Leitrim, the MUP becomes a sidewalk (for who?). Was this some sort of cost saving measure, to build part of the route as a MUP and part as a sidewalk? Why bother with a MUP if it doesn't go to where people live? I see a pattern here of building disjointed cycling infrastructure to make cycling not viable even after spending piles of money.

Every "modern boulevard" must have a path for pedestrians. The city decided to do a little trick and instead of building a concrete sidewalk, built a cheaper asphalt MUP next to it. They most likely took that money from the cycling budget instead of the general road budget, robbing carless taxpayer once again by spending cycling budget anywhere but where it would've actually been useful.

Bonus points: building a MUP instead of a sidewalk also helps save on winter maintenance because by default you don't have to plow it.

Congrats on getting your "modern boulevard" built at the expense of the cycling budget I guess.

[Kitchissippi]

Originally Posted by lrt's friend

We drive around the city regularly, not paying attention to details. Last Sunday, I drove to Riverside South to meet a friend. Around 10 years ago, Limebank Road was converted from a very narrow country road to a modern Boulevard to accomodate the growing population. What I observed was what other things were built. A lovely MUP was also built on the west side going south from Hunt Club complete with bridges over creeks. There were no bikes and you could see the disuse by the condition of the trail. What was strange is that this was built for several kms and then suddenly ended at Leitrim Road in the middle of the Greenbelt although the Limebank project continued beyond Earl Armstrong. Beyond Leitrim, the MUP becomes a sidewalk (for who?). Was this some sort of cost saving measure, to build part of the route as a MUP and part as a sidewalk? Why bother with a MUP if it doesn't go to where people live? I see a pattern here of building disjointed cycling infrastructure to make cycling not viable even after spending piles of money.

What you are seeing there is part of a grand plan called the Greenbelt Pathway which is supposed to stretch from Shirleys Bay in the west to Green's Creek in the east. I've seen it change in scope over the years depending on who is in charge at the NCC. There are many missing links.

In that area, there is supposed to be a MUP bridge built over the Black Rapids dam across the Rideau River. This would connect Limebank to the portion of the path that's already built all the way to Woodroffe. Eastward, a pathway is planned parallel Leitrim Road to connect with the existing pathway at Albion, which already goes across Pine Grove all the way to Russell road by the 417.

How this pathway will go across Mer Bleue to Green's Creek is still undefined, I've seen plans take it from behind Blackburn Hamlet through the ravine and toward Ramsayville Road. In the west, I've seen a version go from Jack Pine Trail to the Log Farm, across the existing bridge across the 416 (built at great cost just to access the Log Farm), then through the agriculture lands to Woodroffe. Sadly there are so many stakeholders that present a lot of red tape. There's Parks Canada, the Airport Authority, Agriculture Canada, to name a few, that keep this from happening sooner.

The beauty of the Greenbelt Pathway when it is finished is that it will connect all the rural rail trails together: the T'Railway to Stittsville/Carleton Place (which connects to trails to Smith Falls/Kingston, and Pembroke/Mattawa); the Osgoode Trail that could connect to Kemptville; and the Prescott-Russell Trail that goes all the way to the Quebec border to Rigaud.

[lrt's friend]

Originally Posted by zzptichka

Every "modern boulevard" must have a path for pedestrians. The city decided to do a little trick and instead of building a concrete sidewalk, built a cheaper asphalt MUP next to it. They most likely took that money from the cycling budget instead of the general road budget, robbing carless taxpayer once again by spending cycling budget anywhere but where it would've actually been useful.

Bonus points: building a MUP instead of a sidewalk also helps save on winter maintenance because by default you don't have to plow it.

Congrats on getting your "modern boulevard" built at the expense of the cycling budget I guess.

Just remember that the Limebank expansion was the consolation when we decided to cancel LRT in 2006. This is what the taxpayers wanted.

Everything is half-*ssed in this city and that includes cycling infrastructure. When we do this, the end result is that most people use a car.

[Kitchissippi]

Originally Posted by lrt's friend

Just remember that the Limebank expansion was the consolation when we decided to cancel LRT in 2006. This is what the taxpayers wanted.

Everything is half-*ssed in this city and that includes cycling infrastructure. When we do this, the end result is that most people use a car.

Consolation? Seriously, do you think Riverside South could be built up for a population that could support an LRT line without widening Limebank? The best any suburb could do is a 30% modal share for transit, maybe 35% if you're super optimistic with Euro-tinted glasses. What would the rest do?

[Richard Eade]

My thoughts about the Province wanting to monitor bike lane installations:

The Province says that it is not opposed to bike lanes, but that those lanes should be put along secondary roads. Their opinion is that replacing traffic lanes of the main throughfares with bike lanes can lead to increased traffic congestion; which can be measured as a decrease in mobility (which results in a decrease in productivity). In Toronto, the Congestion Task Force estimates that the lost productivity due to traffic congestion (on ALL roads, not just those where bike lanes have replaced traffic lanes) costs about $11 Billion annually, within that city alone.

Mobility has always been a driver of prosperity. The faster and more easily people can move around, the more options there are. And options are important. Whether it is a store being able to draw in more customers from a larger catchment area, to workers being able to travel further to a higher-paying job, increased mobility is beneficial.

When mobility is limited, then choices are limited. The problem is; people like to have choices. They want to be able to easily travel to a Costco to get cheaper stuff. The operative word there is ‘travel’. Costco, for example, minimizes its cost by building on cheaper land out in the suburbs and relies on large volumes of shoppers to enable it to keep prices low. This business model requires most customers to travel to the store from a very large catchment area. Customers need to be able to choose to travel to the Costco for Costco to sell $0.49/lb bananas. If that travel is difficult, then the hassle will not be worth the cost saving.

If the Costco doesn’t get enough customers, it will close. But, since people still have to eat, they will turn to more local stores and buy fewer $0.79/lb bananas. And they will likely not buy as much other stuff at local stores, since that stuff will be priced too high to make it worth the expenditure. Local stores will likely get an economic boost, but it will be less that what used to go to the Costco. The higher local prices will be a disincentive to buy things. (Induced Spending is just as real as Induced Traffic.)

When traffic lanes on primary roads are removed, for any reason, and congestion increases, people are dissuaded from traveling. Their choices are reduced. If the lane reduction is due to a temporary reason, such as construction, then people are often willing to make temporary adjustments. If the reason for the increased congestion is a permanent instalment of bike lanes, then people might make permanent changes, if they have that option. Those changes can have a negative effect on the economy – as Toronto’s Congestion Task Force found.

Iincreased congestion is not only costly to individuals, as they waste time sitting in traffic. It is costly because of the decrease in activities taking place. If the Costco closes, there are fewer jobs available. There are fewer goods being brought in. There is less spending in the economy. Traffic congestion has a much greater penalty than just adding 15 minutes to one person’s commute.

I actually agree with the Province on this. Vehicle lanes were added to roadways to try to handle the planned number of desired trips. However, traffic on main roads often grows to exceed the planned volume. Since the capacity of main roads is not always sufficient, as is, converting traffic lanes to bike lanes makes little sense unless you can guarantee that more people will leave their cars for bikes than presently drive the lane being converted.

Primary roads are busy and a hostile place for cyclists. These roads are often referred to as ‘Traffic Sewers’ because they are so ‘unfriendly’. Primary roads were designed as larger roads (more lanes) because they were supposed to attract more vehicle to use them, instead of overloading smaller, secondary roads. We have seen what happens to any road near the 417 when the Queensway is closed. And imagine where a huge portion of the 401 traffic would need to go if it were not there to handle the traffic volume that it does.

[Kitchissippi]

The province should not be micromanaging cities this way. They should not be passing laws on matters they have no expertise in. MTO only does traffic studies for their highways, cities do their own for their roads. Next the province is going to want to have a say on what streets can or can’t be pedestrianized. Doug Ford should stay in his lane. The issues in Toronto are different from the issues in Ottawa. Let local governments decide what is appropriate for their situation.

Go to New York City and Paris. They’ve managed to reduce car lanes and put bike infrastructure everywhere without detriment to the economy, in fact even improving it along with the quality of urban life.

I find it particularly ridiculous that Ford is willing to entertain the idea of a $60-billion tunnel under the 401 to increase the highway’s capacity when for that amount you could probably dig subways under every one of Toronto’s main arterials to address the issue better.

[bartlebooth]

Originally Posted by Richard Eade

My thoughts about the Province wanting to monitor bike lane installations:

The Province says that it is not opposed to bike lanes, but that those lanes should be put along secondary roads. Their opinion is that replacing traffic lanes of the main throughfares with bike lanes can lead to increased traffic congestion; which can be measured as a decrease in mobility (which results in a decrease in productivity). In Toronto, the Congestion Task Force estimates that the lost productivity due to traffic congestion (on ALL roads, not just those where bike lanes have replaced traffic lanes) costs about $11 Billion annually, within that city alone.

Mobility has always been a driver of prosperity. The faster and more easily people can move around, the more options there are. And options are important. Whether it is a store being able to draw in more customers from a larger catchment area, to workers being able to travel further to a higher-paying job, increased mobility is beneficial.

When mobility is limited, then choices are limited. The problem is; people like to have choices. They want to be able to easily travel to a Costco to get cheaper stuff. The operative word there is ‘travel’. Costco, for example, minimizes its cost by building on cheaper land out in the suburbs and relies on large volumes of shoppers to enable it to keep prices low. This business model requires most customers to travel to the store from a very large catchment area. Customers need to be able to choose to travel to the Costco for Costco to sell $0.49/lb bananas. If that travel is difficult, then the hassle will not be worth the cost saving.

If the Costco doesn’t get enough customers, it will close. But, since people still have to eat, they will turn to more local stores and buy fewer $0.79/lb bananas. And they will likely not buy as much other stuff at local stores, since that stuff will be priced too high to make it worth the expenditure. Local stores will likely get an economic boost, but it will be less that what used to go to the Costco. The higher local prices will be a disincentive to buy things. (Induced Spending is just as real as Induced Traffic.)

When traffic lanes on primary roads are removed, for any reason, and congestion increases, people are dissuaded from traveling. Their choices are reduced. If the lane reduction is due to a temporary reason, such as construction, then people are often willing to make temporary adjustments. If the reason for the increased congestion is a permanent instalment of bike lanes, then people might make permanent changes, if they have that option. Those changes can have a negative effect on the economy – as Toronto’s Congestion Task Force found.

Iincreased congestion is not only costly to individuals, as they waste time sitting in traffic. It is costly because of the decrease in activities taking place. If the Costco closes, there are fewer jobs available. There are fewer goods being brought in. There is less spending in the economy. Traffic congestion has a much greater penalty than just adding 15 minutes to one person’s commute.

I actually agree with the Province on this. Vehicle lanes were added to roadways to try to handle the planned number of desired trips. However, traffic on main roads often grows to exceed the planned volume. Since the capacity of main roads is not always sufficient, as is, converting traffic lanes to bike lanes makes little sense unless you can guarantee that more people will leave their cars for bikes than presently drive the lane being converted.

Primary roads are busy and a hostile place for cyclists. These roads are often referred to as ‘Traffic Sewers’ because they are so ‘unfriendly’. Primary roads were designed as larger roads (more lanes) because they were supposed to attract more vehicle to use them, instead of overloading smaller, secondary roads. We have seen what happens to any road near the 417 when the Queensway is closed. And imagine where a huge portion of the 401 traffic would need to go if it were not there to handle the traffic volume that it does.

I find this post very confusing. How does forcing everyone to drive increase mobility and choice? If I can't realistically choose a mode of mobility other than car to move from point a to b, aren't I less free? The average CDN spends $16K annually on their car. How does forcing me to pay $16K per year to move around the place I live make me free and increase my choices in life? So I can drive to Costco to save $8-10 a year on bananas?

[YOWetal]

Originally Posted by bartlebooth

I find this post very confusing. How does forcing everyone to drive increase mobility and choice? If I can't realistically choose a mode of mobility other than car to move from point a to b, aren't I less free? average CDN spends $16K annually on their car[/URL]. How does forcing me to pay $16K per year to move around the place I live make me free and increase my choices in life? So I can drive to Costco to save $8-10 a year on bananas?

Road infrastructure isn't about getting to Costco it is about affordable SFH housing. Induced demand is mostly new people getting housing and commuting.

[Richard Eade]

Originally Posted by bartlebooth

I find this post very confusing. How does forcing everyone to drive increase mobility and choice? If I can't realistically choose a mode of mobility other than car to move from point a to b, aren't I less free? The average CDN spends $16K annually on their car. How does forcing me to pay $16K per year to move around the place I live make me free and increase my choices in life? So I can drive to Costco to save $8-10 a year on bananas?

I fear that your confusion might come from you trying to read something into my text that was not intended. Everyone reads articles with their own bias and interprets what they read through their own ‘lens’.

In this case, I have not said that I am in favour of “forcing everyone to drive” at all. There should be viable options other than driving, and these must include public transit, and active modes of transportation.

I am supportive of the Province trying to facilitate transportation for all modes – including cars and trucks. Recently, there has been a huge amount spent by the Province, trying to improve public transit. The Province is also working on ways to improve motor vehicle transportation, with new roads and interchanges, and adding lanes to existing roads. Should the Province put money into improving/adding cycling infrastructure? My opinion is Yes.

But that doesn’t mean that I support taking traffic lanes from busy, primary, roads to give the space to cyclists. A lot of the area of a city is dedicated to roadways. There are many options for adding bike lanes to roads that will not negatively affect the busiest roads. To deliberately impede traffic along a main corridor is poor planning. Since cities exist under the Province, the Province is ultimately the body responsible for a city’s planning. Indeed, a city’s master plans for future development must be regularly submitted to the Province for approval. Like a parent – child relationship, the Province gives the City a fair amount of autonomy, but, just as when a child starts to go astray the parent needs to step in, there are times when the Province needs to step in.

I believe that more safe, COMPLETE, cycling infrastructure is needed in Ottawa. However, I feel that the pendulum has swung too far in one direction. The City seems to be choosing cycling infrastructure to the detriment of a smooth-running city. The thinking appears to be that cars have historically had too much of the road surface so there needs to be a more equitable redistribution of every road, regardless of its function. That any road rebuild must result in a ‘Complete Street’. To me, this is as radical as the 1950s thinking that every road should be a multi-lane highway with full interchanges between roads to enable fast car movements.

I do believe that there needs to be big roads for moving a lot of vehicles regionally, just as I believe that there needs to be safe, complete, cycling infrastructure, and effective public transit corridors. The trick is that it all needs to be properly planned and placed appropriately.

[bartlebooth]

Originally Posted by Richard Eade

I fear that your confusion might come from you trying to read something into my text that was not intended...

You're advocating for provincial legislation that intends to limit how municipalities build their roadways, particularly when it comes to cycling infrastructure. You believe that cars should have priority on major roadways because the alternative will mean that people can't move efficiently, quickly, etc. You believe that, as a society, we've gone too far in attempting to promote and support alternative modes of transportation (you yourself said that the use of complete streets as a planning mechanism is "radical").

Given all of that, I'm not sure how I could have framed your position any other way. You may not intend to suggest or believe that limiting mobility options on roadways is the equivalent of forcing people to drive but I fundamentally disagree. Without viable mobility alternatives (ones that are easily accessible and connect people directly to the places they frequent), there is only one choice.

[lrt's friend]

The issue is removing car lanes on arterials which were designed to move traffic and public transport. The question is whether this produces a net overall loss in mobility. Active transportation is great but has limits regarding demographics and distance and also it can be placed on quieter residential streets whereas that will not work for traffic and public transit easily

I question how easily we can reduce traffic with an active transportation alternative. Even inducing a switch to public transit requires a substantial investment and wise planning. It is much easier to encourage a switch to cars as demonstrated by post pandemic Ottawa

[hwy418]

Originally Posted by lrt's friend

The issue is removing car lanes on arterials which were designed to move traffic and public transport. The question is whether this produces a net overall loss in mobility. Active transportation is great but has limits regarding demographics and distance and also it can be placed on quieter residential streets whereas that will not work for traffic and public transit easily

I question how easily we can reduce traffic with an active transportation alternative. Even inducing a switch to public transit requires a substantial investment and wise planning. It is much easier to encourage a switch to cars as demonstrated by post pandemic Ottawa

Agree - not every road needs to be a complete street! The City seems to have a fetish on transforming every road into a complete street and do it in a piecemeal fashion. No thanks!

[Richard Eade]

Originally Posted by bartlebooth

You're advocating for provincial legislation that intends to limit how municipalities build their roadways, particularly when it comes to cycling infrastructure. You believe that cars should have priority on major roadways because the alternative will mean that people can't move efficiently, quickly, etc. You believe that, as a society, we've gone too far in attempting to promote and support alternative modes of transportation (you yourself said that the use of complete streets as a planning mechanism is "radical").

Given all of that, I'm not sure how I could have framed your position any other way. You may not intend to suggest or believe that limiting mobility options on roadways is the equivalent of forcing people to drive but I fundamentally disagree. Without viable mobility alternatives (ones that are easily accessible and connect people directly to the places they frequent), there is only one choice.

Thank you for providing an excellent example. Once a person has made up their mind about something, they view everything about it through a lens that distorts things into what agrees with their pre-determined narrative.

Maybe if I refer to each of your statements individually, I can clear things up a bit:

You're advocating for provincial legislation that intends to limit how municipalities build their roadways, particularly when it comes to cycling infrastructure.

Well, sort of. I’m saying that I agree with the Province’s view that removing traffic lanes on a busy primary street to replace them with bike lanes may not be the best option. And, I am saying that, in my opinion, the City of Ottawa has not been doing a good job of planning where cycling infrastructure goes. Thus, I support the Province’s choice to review where the City puts bike lanes. Notice that the Province is saying that any CONVERSION of traffic lanes ON PRIMARY STREETS must be approved through a Provincial review. If the City can justify the change, then it will be approved. I am hoping that this additional vetting will make the City think twice about why it wants to do something. If it doesn’t think that a plan can be justified to the Province, then maybe, just maybe, the City should question itself about whether it is the best plan.

So, you are correct in that the Provincial legislation MIGHT “limit how municipalities build their roadways, particularly when it comes to cycling infrastructure” – but it MIGHT NOT. It will depend on whether the City presents a well planned section of cycling infrastructure that there are good arguments in favour of.

Something to also note about the proposed legislation; as far as I have read, it is only applicable when traffic lanes are being removed from primary roadways so that bike lanes can take their place. (Although I hope that the legislation is broad enough to cover things like removing a traffic lane and grassing it over for a year before replacing the grass with cycle tracks; or so that it catches an attempt to remove a lane from a busy primary road to create a sidewalk. Any permanent constriction of busy primary roadway must be thoroughly justified.) Right now, my understanding is that if a city wants to add additional width to a road to include bike lanes, then they are free to do so. Thus, yes, there may be limits on how municipalities build their roadways, but I doubt that it will be overly restrictive, in reality.

You believe that cars should have priority on major roadways because the alternative will mean that people can't move efficiently, quickly, etc.

This one you got mostly correct. Priority, Yes; Exclusivity, not necessarily. I’m also fine with motorcycles, buses, and trucks using those “major roadways”. And, depending on what your definition of “major roadways” is, I think even active modes might be allowed. (The Trans-Canada Highway is a pretty major road, and I’ve cycled along its 1-foot strip outside the line.) I also believe that there should be routes that are dedicated to active modes of transportation. (I love the 'Rail Trails'. They encourage a LOT more cyclists and walkers than the Trans-Canada does.) Those active routes could be divided further, with a subset specifically for wheeled devices (bikes, scooters, etc.), and another for pedestrians only (mobility devices exempt, of course). I am in favour of segregation of the modes where it makes good planning sense. I don’t think that there should be bikes and scooters on crowded sidewalks. I don’t think that there should be cars on MUPs. And I don’t think that there should be bikes, scooters, or pedestrians on the Queensway. (Thank goodness that the Province didn’t try to impose a ‘Complete Street’ template on the 417 when it was rebuilding it. That is proof enough for me that the Province should vet the City’s plans for busy primary roads.)

There are, of course, lots of lessor roads where there should be sharing among the various transportation modes.

I’m breaking your next statement into two pieces.

You believe that, as a society, we've gone too far in attempting to promote and support alternative modes of transportation

Hmmm. . . Where to start with this one. I guess at its main premise – which is wrong. I am not against SAFE and COMPLETE active transportation infrastructure. I even tried to point out a way to get much more of a safer cycling corridor parallel to Baseline, at a lower cost – which would leave additional money to complete other ‘missing links’. I have stated that I feel that the Province and Feds should be providing capital to help build cycling facilities. My beef is certainly not that we have gone too far promoting and supporting alternative modes of transportation. It is that there is no solid planning being done to ensure that what is being done makes good planning sense. This is a segway into the second part of your statement:

you yourself said that the use of complete streets as a planning mechanism is "radical"

Again, that lens of yours is distorting what I said. It is not that ‘Complete Streets’ are automatically BAD. It is simply that the City appears to have adopted the idea that if they rebuild a street – any street – it must become a ‘Complete Street’; complete with lanes for pedestrians (sidewalks), cyclists (and other wheeled ‘active’ transportation devices), and traffic. There is also the option to add transit lanes, but those seem to be less imperative than bike lanes. Merriam-Webster gives me this definition for Radical: associated with political views, practices, and policies of extreme change. Just as the 1950s road designers had the radical goal of building unimpeded throughways to speed cars to their destinations within cities, I think that the goal of creating ‘Complete Streets’ everywhere is also a radical idea. It represents an extreme change from current conditions.

Is the idea behind ‘Complete Streets’ as a planning mechanism BAD? Yes, and No. For me, it is simply laziness. It tries to make a ‘cookie-cutter’ plan. It is good in that the planners SHOULD be forced to think about how the roadway is to be used and how the various modes of transportation can be accommodated. It should be able to lead to the conclusion that it is not benificial to include all modes. That is the GOOD part. What it has become is an idealized template that must be imposed onto road corridors. This does not demand that the designer think about which modes should be included, based on sound planning.

I support Laurier having bike lanes. I expect that Albert and Slater will also NEED bike lanes added so that they can become ‘Complete Streets’. That is a mistake, in my view. Albert and Slater is the main couplet for traffic through the core; leave it for motor vehicles and keep bikes safely a block away.

I’ll bring up Baseline again because I think it makes a loud statement about how silly things have gotten with ‘Complete Streets’. A couple of the comments against having a continuous bike corridor north of Baseline brought up the need for expropriation as their argument. Yes, the routing I pointed out would require 4 properties. I wonder how that compares to the land that will be expropriated/bought along that section of Baseline so that all of the ‘Complete Street’ lanes can be added? And how much will the value of all those homes fall as the sidewalk is moved so close to the house that a car can no longer be parked in the driveway? How much money and time would be saved if the only thing being added along Baseline was a couple of bus lanes (and the occasional platform) into the median? I expect that the existing sidewalks could even stay, in most areas, if there were no cycle tracks being added.

But, alas, the City will be rebuilding Baseline Road, therefore, it MUST become a ‘Complete Street’ whether it makes good planning sense or not – and damn the expense.

I don’t think that I need to go any further through your reasoning. I’ll leave it as an exercise for you to try to come up with another way that you could have framed my position. I’m hoping that, if you have read this entire post, you can come up with an alternative.

[Multi-modal]

Originally Posted by lrt's friend

The issue is removing car lanes on arterials which were designed to move traffic and public transport. The question is whether this produces a net overall loss in mobility. Active transportation is great but has limits regarding demographics and distance and also it can be placed on quieter residential streets whereas that will not work for traffic and public transit easily

I question how easily we can reduce traffic with an active transportation alternative. Even inducing a switch to public transit requires a substantial investment and wise planning. It is much easier to encourage a switch to cars as demonstrated by post pandemic Ottawa

Your skepticism that active transportation can replace auto trips is refuted by many Cities across the world where active transportation makes up a significant percentage of travel.

Active transportation includes walking trips, but I'm going to set that aside for-now because I think everyone understand the utility of walking trips - especially in dense urban areas.

For cycling, even in Ottawa, the last O-D survey had 4% (double what it was in the 2011 O-D survey) of all trips City-wide being made by cycling, while just over 8% were made by transit. Yes, these numbers were influenced by the pandemic to a degree, but they are still true. Should we then say that 4% is barely anything and we should stop investing, that it doesn't significantly reduce traffic? What if it increases over the next 5-10 years to 6% or 7% - a totally realistic growth estimate. Is that still too small? If it is too small, then why invest in transit?

No, 4% is significant-enough, and growing. Every % point matters when you are trying to chip away at auto dependency. For some corridors, "secondary roads" may be more appealing than primary roads. But primary roads still need to accommodate cyclists, so they don't pose barriers to many trips, and so that the start and end legs to/from destinations don't "spoil" the appeal of entire cycling trip.

This is pretty settled in transportation planning circles. It's a real harm of the provincial legislation that it is re-opening an issue that doesn't need to be re-litigated.

[Acajack]

In other news I keep pushing down the lower threshold temperature I am willing to go out for a bike ride in.

[Richard Eade]

Yes, between 2011’s and 2022’s O-D survey cycling as a mode of transport increased from 1.9% to 3.9%; and walking increased from 10.7% to 14.2% share of trips. However, what you failed to bring to light is that between 2011’s and 2022’s surveys public transit’s share dropped from 14.2% to 8.5%. Given that driving increased from 53.4 to 54.2, it seems most likely that the increase in walkers and cyclists came from the decrease in transit users.

I encourage all to read the June 5, 2024 Transportation Trends Report. It also mentions that things are continuing to evolve. Since the O-D Survey is supposed to happen every 5 years, or so, it will be interesting to see the 2027 results. By then most of the LRT extensions should be running and most people will be back working in offices (my prediction).

[Lakeofthewood]

Originally Posted by Richard Eade

Yes, between 2011’s and 2022’s O-D survey cycling as a mode of transport increased from 1.9% to 3.9%; and walking increased from 10.7% to 14.2% share of trips. However, what you failed to bring to light is that between 2011’s and 2022’s surveys public transit’s share dropped from 14.2% to 8.5%. Given that driving increased from 53.4 to 54.2, it seems most likely that the increase in walkers and cyclists came from the decrease in transit users.

I encourage all to read the June 5, 2024 Transportation Trends Report. It also mentions that things are continuing to evolve. Since the O-D Survey is supposed to happen every 5 years, or so, it will be interesting to see the 2027 results. By then most of the LRT extensions should be running and most people will be back working in offices (my prediction).

Generally when there is a shift away from transit trips, it is to auto trips and not to active modes, as both auto and transit trips tend to be longer.

I can't speak specifically to the walking trips, but the cycling trips are definitely due to an increase in protected cycling infrastructure in the city. One of the recent reports from the City (may have been associated with the new TMP) speaks to this, and makes the comparison of how many kms of protected infrastructure there is now versus in 2011.

[Sauvanto]

The issue is that cars are objectively an inefficient mode of mass transit. Cities should be prioritizing efficiency to move people in, out and around. If we really do care about our population's wellbeing, single vehicle occupancy in cities should be discouraged basically at all cost and we shouldn't be leaving city streets "for motorvehicles". If we really want to fix things, the province really shouldn't be promoting car travel in cities at all. I'm open to you providing worldwide numbers or statistics showing how moving people primarily by cars is more efficient than active modes and transit.

I personally used to think major throughways and wide arterials were necessary, but I now find it hard to argue for knowing all of this:
- wider roads induce demand for more cars and create more traffic. Less cars means less people who don't want to drive on the road, leaving more room for people who have to drive
- cars induce sprawl, which is bad for the housing crisis and businesses and overall quality of life
- cars drastically affect the air quality of a city, electric or not they still generate brake dust and other cancerous particles
- car infrastructure such as wide arterials and highways are very expensive per user to maintain rather than smaller bike lanes and transit
- arterials and highways separate communities leading to more isolated groups, less walkability and limited opportunities
- arterials and highways take up a massive footprint which reduces the amount of taxable land and income for a city
- lower walking and biking scores result poorer population health, increasing obesity and the strain on our health system
- wider roads lead to higher vehicle speeds leading to more deadly crashes, no wonder mortality rates in automobile crashes is so much worst in Canda/US than in other developed countries
- car dependency puts a strain on most people's finances, forcing them to purchase a massive depreciating asset

and probably some more things that I forgot...

I won't argue against the fact that rural highways and roads in smaller cities may be beneficial for trucking and the movement of goods, giving more freedom to rural citizens who otherwise might be stranded, but there just isn't a single number backing any argument for "more cars" in cities. There just isn't a single study that I've seen that has shown that places like Toronto or Ottawa have "gone too far" when it comes to transit and active transportation