Baseline Rd. Bus Rapid Transit (BRT) Project | Proposed

[SkeggsEggs]

Originally Posted by Richard Eade

I expect that about $45M would add enough width between the existing sidewalks (i.e., no property acquisition needed)

they don't really need to do much acquisition in this segment in the first place, aside from the cemetery and 2380 and 2370 baseline it would mainly be slivers of peoples front yards

[Richard Eade]

Absolutely, ‘Sharrows’ do not make a cyclist SAFE. Very little does. That is why they are considered ‘Vulnerable Road Users’.

The question is: Do ‘Sharrows’ improve safety – even a little bit – over a cyclist riding in mixed traffic on the same road, if it was unmarked?

It is possible that they are a detriment. That they lull the rider into thinking that there is increased safety because vehicle drivers have been reminded that they need to share the road. It is also possible that ‘Sharrows’ do, indeed, reduce the incidents of vehicle – bike interactions. But this is a discussion that belongs in the Cycling thread.

I have simply pointed out that there are roads all over the city where cyclists share a lane with mixed traffic – including lanes where the City has specifically marked the lanes as shared, by adding ‘Sharrows’. My contention is that if the City is OK with random drivers and cyclists sharing a lane, that the City should be comfortable with its professional, specifically-trained, drivers sharing an extra wide lane with an occasional cyclist.

Would sharing an extra wide bus lane with cyclists make the riders SAFE? Of course not. Does a painted line demarcating a peripheral bike lane make a cyclist SAFE? Of course not, as the tragedy on March Road several years back showed us. Does adding ‘Flex-poles’ between the traffic and the bike lane make a cyclist SAFE? Of course not, since the poles simply flex out of the way if a vehicle tries to cross the line. Does a half-height curb delineating a segregated Cycle Track make a cyclist SAFE? Of course not, as we have heard from instances when a vehicle has jumped even a full-height curb to wreak havoc.

Full ‘Jersey Barriers’ between the vehicle lanes and a segregated Cycle Track could offer enhanced safety – but you should probably add and extra wall on top of that to handle any flying hazards.

There are practical limits to what is done to make things safer. I would suggest, from years of experience riding along Baseline Road, that having bikes within a lane that carries mixed traffic is one of the least safe environments for cyclists. Putting them in an extra wide lane that they share with professional drivers, to me, sounds a lot safer.

And just to reiterate my view: Baseline Road should provide relative safety for cyclists who choose to use it; but it should not be reconfigured (at elevated cost and disruption to the surroundings) to become a ‘Complete Street’ that will claim to make it a ‘Family Friendly’ cycling corridor.

[Kitchissippi]

Originally Posted by Richard Eade

And just to reiterate my view: Baseline Road should provide relative safety for cyclists who choose to use it; but it should not be reconfigured (at elevated cost and disruption to the surroundings) to become a ‘Complete Street’ that will claim to make it a ‘Family Friendly’ cycling corridor.

I'm not sure why you keep going on about how complete streets are an exorbitant cost when facts show that they don't cost that much more and often even cheaper than on-road bike lanes. Bike tracks don't require much subgrade because they are not subjected to heavy loads. In many cases a complete street will add significant value to adjacent properties — Scott Street is a great example, the houses along there have increased in value and desirability after implementation. The same will likely happen on Baseline.

[Richard Eade]

I guess that what shocks me the most about your comment is that it implied that there is little difference between Baseline Road and Scott Street.

Scott Street:

• One lane of traffic in each direction with some segments of bus lane on one side, and some with a central turn-lane;
• Relatively light traffic;
• Relatively few laneways, on one side of the road only;
• An excellent opportunity for adding Cycle Tracks to BOTH sides of the roadway – which, of course, the City skimped on.

This roadway was narrowed from what it was in the past, resulting in a finished road width, including central turn-lane, sidewalk, and Cycle Track of about 16.5m (55 feet), measured on Google Maps near Gilchrist.

Baseline Road:

• The ultimate configuration will be two traffic lanes plus bus lanes per direction and Cycle Tracks and sidewalks;
• Heavy traffic;
• Lots of laneways on both sides of the road;
• A ‘Complete Street’ can not be constructed in the existing RoW – requiring additional property.

The finished roadway, including sidewalks and Cycle Tracks will be about 33 metres (108 feet) wide in the straight-aways – wider where multiple turn-lanes must be added near intersections.

Just for reference, the 417 over Clyde, which has already been widened to the ultimate 4 lanes per direction, is about 40 metres (131 feet) from sound-wall to sound-wall.

The second point that you seemed to have missed is that, in order to build the full width of the proposed ‘Complete Street’ along Baseline, property will need to be expropriated. Even if that is ‘only a sliver’ from each adjacent property, there are a lot of properties. If the Cycle Tracks were not being added, then that property would not be needed. Therefore, in the case of Baseline Road, adding Cycle Tracks (i.e., making it a ‘Complete Street’) likely will not wind up being less expensive than bike lanes.

You talk in the general about ‘Complete Streets’ adding value to adjacent properties. I don’t doubt that that can be true. I think that Scott should have been a more complete ‘Complete Street’, with Cycle Tracks on BOTH sides, for higher-speed cyclists. The sidewalk on the north side of that ‘Complete Street’ I have no issue deleting, since there is a MUP running through the greenspace beside – which should have been kept for pedestrians and low-speed cyclists.

Where they make sense, ‘Complete Streets’ are fine. I just don’t think that it makes sense to configure Baseline as a ‘Complete Street’.

In the near-term, Baseline BRT Phase 1 should be adjusted to add extra-wide transit lanes on each side of the road, between Greenbank and Constellation. Those extra-wide transit lanes should also be available to cyclists. For a modest cost, this will provide faster transit and increase the safety of cyclists (who currently have to ride directly in mixed traffic).

[Kitchissippi]

Scott street used to be a 4-lane road with no buffer between the sidewalks and the car lanes. Minus the grass median it wasn't that different from the western parts of Baseline Road. The difference in solution was taking away the car lanes instead of using up adjacent properties. Scott street is far more confortable to walk in today with the bike tracks creating space away from traffic.

It is pointless to put BRT on Baseline without improving pedestrian and cycling infrastructure. People have to walk to the BRT stations, and in the future if this induces TOD along the corridor that encourages people to live car-free, it should be convenient for the residents to use a bike for trips that are a kilometre or two instead of using transit. This is designing for the future, not for what the road is today.

[Psychedelic Sailor]

Originally Posted by Richard Eade

I guess that what shocks me the most about your comment is that it implied that there is little difference between Baseline Road and Scott Street.

Scott Street:

• One lane of traffic in each direction with some segments of bus lane on one side, and some with a central turn-lane;
• Relatively light traffic;
• Relatively few laneways, on one side of the road only;
• An excellent opportunity for adding Cycle Tracks to BOTH sides of the roadway – which, of course, the City skimped on.

This roadway was narrowed from what it was in the past, resulting in a finished road width, including central turn-lane, sidewalk, and Cycle Track of about 16.5m (55 feet), measured on Google Maps near Gilchrist.

Baseline Road:

• The ultimate configuration will be two traffic lanes plus bus lanes per direction and Cycle Tracks and sidewalks;
• Heavy traffic;
• Lots of laneways on both sides of the road;
• A ‘Complete Street’ can not be constructed in the existing RoW – requiring additional property.

The finished roadway, including sidewalks and Cycle Tracks will be about 33 metres (108 feet) wide in the straight-aways – wider where multiple turn-lanes must be added near intersections.

Just for reference, the 417 over Clyde, which has already been widened to the ultimate 4 lanes per direction, is about 40 metres (131 feet) from sound-wall to sound-wall.

The second point that you seemed to have missed is that, in order to build the full width of the proposed ‘Complete Street’ along Baseline, property will need to be expropriated. Even if that is ‘only a sliver’ from each adjacent property, there are a lot of properties. If the Cycle Tracks were not being added, then that property would not be needed. Therefore, in the case of Baseline Road, adding Cycle Tracks (i.e., making it a ‘Complete Street’) likely will not wind up being less expensive than bike lanes.

You talk in the general about ‘Complete Streets’ adding value to adjacent properties. I don’t doubt that that can be true. I think that Scott should have been a more complete ‘Complete Street’, with Cycle Tracks on BOTH sides, for higher-speed cyclists. The sidewalk on the north side of that ‘Complete Street’ I have no issue deleting, since there is a MUP running through the greenspace beside – which should have been kept for pedestrians and low-speed cyclists.

Where they make sense, ‘Complete Streets’ are fine. I just don’t think that it makes sense to configure Baseline as a ‘Complete Street’.

In the near-term, Baseline BRT Phase 1 should be adjusted to add extra-wide transit lanes on each side of the road, between Greenbank and Constellation. Those extra-wide transit lanes should also be available to cyclists. For a modest cost, this will provide faster transit and increase the safety of cyclists (who currently have to ride directly in mixed traffic).

Yes, let's put slow bicycles in the BRT lanes that will obstruct the flow of buses, brilliant.

[Richard Eade]

You do realize what the City’s Baseline BRT Phase 1 plan is, right?

The City’s plan is to leave the 800 metre stretch of Baseline, between McWatters and about St. John the Apostle Church as two lanes (per direction) of mixed traffic. Cars, trucks, buses, and “slow bicycles” will all share the two lanes. Thus, with the City’s Phase 1 plan, the “slow bicycles” will be obstructing the flow of buses – as well as cars and trucks obstructing the flow of buses.

Phase 1 of the Baseline BRT project does NOT create BRT along Baseline. It modifies the Baseline/Greenbank intersection to include short stretches of side bus lanes and extends the bike lanes (which exist west of Greenbank, through the intersection. Then the bus lanes and bike lanes stop, around McWatters. Phase 1 also redefines the third traffic lane, which already exists between St. John the Apostle Church and Constellation, as bus-only lanes. The stretch between McWatters and St. John the Apostle Church remains as two, mixed traffic, lanes per direction. This is how the roadway will remain until Phase 3 is complete.

Phase 3 of the Baseline BRT is the phase when the median BRT lanes are added west of Algonquin Station. And it isn’t scheduled to happen until after Phase 2 is done. Since the estimated cost for Phase 2, median BRT lanes from Billings Bridge to Algonquin Station, is now $360M (2024-dollars), I expect it will be decades before Phase 3 actually happens. Phase 3 didn’t even make it onto the TMP’s ‘Transit Priority’ list.

So, the choice really is this:

1. Follow the City’s Phase 1 plan and leave buses to be bogged down in mixed traffic, and leave cyclists in a very dangerous situation for (likely) decades to come; or
2. Spend more now to upgrade Phase 1 to include creating extra-wide outside lanes for buses (which cyclists would also be allowed to use) to remove the 800-metre long ‘pinch point’.

[Richard Eade]

It astounds me that some people’s take away to my suggestion of adding outside bus lanes (to alleviate a ‘Pinch Point’) and to allow bikes to use those lanes (to pull them out of the general traffic stream) is that the bikes will slow down the buses.

It is not that the buses will no longer get bogged down in the congestion of general traffic. It is not that cyclists will be safer, contending only with professional drivers.

Yes, the buses will need to deal with the odd cyclist in their lane. The buses, that come every 10-30 minutes leave an empty lane for most of the time. The number of cyclists who choose to ride along Baseline is relatively small.

But, hey, if it makes those people feel better, I’m fine with reducing the central median to 4-metres wide and dividing the metre to the bus/bikes. Between the existing sidewalks would be the following (about 27.5m width):

5.0m – Bus & Bike Lane
3.25m – General traffic Lane
3.25m – General traffic Lane
4.0m – Median or Left-turn Lane
3.25m – General traffic Lane
3.25m – General traffic Lane
5.0m – Bus & Bike Lane

If a professional driver can’t maneuver a 2.6m-wide bus past a 0.6m-wide bike, with a metre of gap, within a 5m-wide lane they should not be driving a bus. Just for reference, the combination of the bus lane and the bike lane on Woodroffe is about 5 metres in width.

Maybe those people don’t realize that this suggestion is for a safer-for-cyclists and faster-for-transit TEMPORARY configuration – compared to the TEMPORARY configuration planned after the City’s Phase 1. When the City’s Phase 3 is finally constructed (likely decades from now), the median BRT lanes and Cycle Tracks will be constructed, as designed.