Cycling in the National Capital Region

[J.OT13]

Originally Posted by lrt's friend

I think this is more nuanced about bikeways on urban streets. When there are only 4 available lanes, you can't have everything.

We want wider sidewalks, cycle tracks, bus lanes and some room for traffic. This is not possible in a 4 lane scenario.

At some point, we have to prioritize. In some cases, we have been placing transit at the bottom of the heap. This is not a good thing. I have argued that when there is a grid street pattern and only 4 lanes available, cycle tracks should be one block over.

When your urban street includes retail and is also an arterial, your priorities need to be pedestrians, transit and general traffic. When there is not enough space, cycling should be nearby. On-street parking is the lowest priority, by far.

Almost all of Ottawa's urban arterials in centretown and other urban neighbourhoods are only 4 lanes wide and this creates a major challenge to satisfy everybody.

Montreal Road in Vanier has been one of the biggest challenges. Urban, retail, arterial, only 4 lanes available and the lack of a grid street layout.

Old Ottawa has greatly outgrown its available infrastructure. But we also want much more intensification too. I am not sure how this is sustainable in the long term without going underground.

I agree that on Montreal Road, we should have given priority to transit over bikes. Ultimately, I would have wanted transit underground on Montreal Road, giving space to bikes. The City chose bikes, transit be damned.

Albert-Slater were a very important part of the bike network, connecting bike lanes from Richmond/Scott/Albert to the University of Ottawa, but that can't happen now until Doug's law is removed. The O'Connor bike lanes end at Laurier, but we're now unable to complete the small section up to Wellington. Lyon, Kent and Metcalfe are ridiculously wide; I've only ever seen moderate traffic on Kent between Laurier and Wellington, they could stand losing one or two lanes but again, adding bike lanes is no longer possible.

[lrt's friend]

Originally Posted by J.OT13

I agree that on Montreal Road, we should have given priority to transit over bikes. Ultimately, I would have wanted transit underground on Montreal Road, giving space to bikes. The City chose bikes, transit be damned.

Albert-Slater were a very important part of the bike network, connecting bike lanes from Richmond/Scott/Albert to the University of Ottawa, but that can't happen now until Doug's law is removed. The O'Connor bike lanes end at Laurier, but we're now unable to complete the small section up to Wellington. Lyon, Kent and Metcalfe are ridiculously wide; I've only ever seen moderate traffic on Kent between Laurier and Wellington, they could stand losing one or two lanes but again, adding bike lanes is no longer possible.

Don't a lot of those streets have on-street parking in off-peak hours. Would Doug's law apply in those cases?

[skyscraperaccount]

Originally Posted by lrt's friend

Don't a lot of those streets have on-street parking in off-peak hours. Would Doug's law apply in those cases?

Pretty sure it doesn't prevent some line painting up and over those cars...make sure you have good shocks on your bike.

[Richard Eade]

Is the rule really that there is no way to change a car-lane into a bike-lane? Or is it that there needs to be a good enough case that the Minister will approve the conversion? I thought that it was the latter.

[J.OT13]

Originally Posted by lrt's friend

Don't a lot of those streets have on-street parking in off-peak hours. Would Doug's law apply in those cases?

Originally Posted by Richard Eade

Is the rule really that there is no way to change a car-lane into a bike-lane? Or is it that there needs to be a good enough case that the Minister will approve the conversion? I thought that it was the latter.

I think if at any time a lane is used for cars, or buses, you can't convert it or appeal the law. You're s.o.l.

If someone knows for sure, please feel free to share.

[phil235]

Originally Posted by J.OT13

I think if at any time a lane is used for cars, or buses, you can't convert it or appeal the law. You're s.o.l.

If someone knows for sure, please feel free to share.

There is a provision in the law (below) that allows municipalities to get Ministerial approval for a new bike lane, so that is a possibility. It's kind of consistent with Doug's goal of being mayor of every city in the province.

In terms of where it would apply, it is applicable to any "marked lanes available for travel". My reading is that it would include the parking lanes on streets like Kent, as the parking lanes are marked lanes and are open for travel at peak periods. I think that would be in contrast to streets with parking bays that do not provide through lanes and are always used for parking, like stretches of Wellington, but not sure that has been tested.

Minister approval for bicycle lanes required

195.3 (1) In the circumstances described in subsection (2), a prescribed municipality does not have the power to construct, install or mark a bicycle lane on a highway or part of a highway under its jurisdiction and control unless the design for the bicycle lane has been approved by the Minister and, in considering whether to give such approval, the Minister may require information from the municipality including traffic information relating to the design for the bicycle lane and the highway.

(2) Subsection (1) applies if the design for the bicycle lane would reduce the number of marked lanes available for travel by motor vehicle traffic along any portion of or on either side of the highway where the bicycle lane is to be located.

[J.OT13]

Originally Posted by phil235

There is a provision in the law (below) that allows municipalities to get Ministerial approval for a new bike lane, so that is a possibility. It's kind of consistent with Doug's goal of being mayor of every city in the province.

In terms of where it would apply, it is applicable to any "marked lanes available for travel". My reading is that it would include the parking lanes on streets like Kent, as the parking lanes are marked lanes and are open for travel at peak periods. I think that would be in contrast to streets with parking bays that do not provide through lanes and are always used for parking, like stretches of Wellington, but not sure that has been tested.

Minister approval for bicycle lanes required

195.3 (1) In the circumstances described in subsection (2), a prescribed municipality does not have the power to construct, install or mark a bicycle lane on a highway or part of a highway under its jurisdiction and control unless the design for the bicycle lane has been approved by the Minister and, in considering whether to give such approval, the Minister may require information from the municipality including traffic information relating to the design for the bicycle lane and the highway.

(2) Subsection (1) applies if the design for the bicycle lane would reduce the number of marked lanes available for travel by motor vehicle traffic along any portion of or on either side of the highway where the bicycle lane is to be located.

Talk about a waste of Provincial resources to have to approve bike lanes in municipalities.

It's good that there is a way to request an exception, but I highly doubt the Sutcliffe administration would ever bother asking permission to build new bike lanes.

[phil235]

Originally Posted by J.OT13

Talk about a waste of Provincial resources to have to approve bike lanes in municipalities.

It's good that there is a way to request an exception, but I highly doubt the Sutcliffe administration would ever bother asking permission to build new bike lanes.

You are probably right, though I have some faint hope that they might pursue cases where the lanes have already been built on portions of a street and they are reconstructing stretches that are the missing link. I'm thinking O'Connor from Laurier to Wellington and the middle sections of Albert and Slater. In both cases there should be a really good argument that converting a lane would do almost nothing to traffic flow even at rush hour, and leaving a gap in the middle section of downtown when you have invested in lanes on both sides is bordering on ridiculous.

[Richard Eade]

From the Ontario Government’s Website:
https://ero.ontario.ca/notice/019-9266

The Ministry of Transportation decided on the third reading of the Bill 212, Reducing Gridlock, Saving You Time Act, 2024 on November 25, 2024, to proceed with the proposal to implement a framework for bike lanes that require removal of a traffic lane.

The legislative amendment will require prescribed municipalities to seek provincial approval to allow for the implementation of new bicycle lanes (“bike lanes”) that require the removal of an existing lane of traffic. Approval will be based on a set of specified criteria, to be set out in guidance and/or regulation.

The amendments additionally provide the province with the authority to require prescribed municipalities to submit information about existing bike lanes on municipal roads where a vehicle lane was removed. Based on the outcome of the review, a decision could be made by the province to require the reconfiguration or removal of the bike lane and its return to a lane of vehicle traffic.

The legislative amendments also enable the province to remove the Bloor Street, Yonge Street, and University Avenue bike lanes in the city of Toronto, and restore them to a motor vehicle traffic lane.
. . .

So, although the media and other fear-mongers claim that it is IMPOSSIBLE to add cycling facilities, the reality is that the requirement is to have the Province look at a proposed addition and verify that the new cycling facilities is an overall benefit, and not an impediment to good general transportation. The intent is to try to prevent changes made purely due to zealousness and not good planning principles.

Cities are ‘Creatures of the Province’, and as such, the Province delegates powers to the Municipality governments. If the Province doesn’t think that those powers are being used properly, it can reclaim them, or add an oversite level. In the case of bike lanes, the Province felt, in its opinion, that some previously added bike infrastructure was a detriment of the overall economy. The Province lost faith that municipalities were making the best decisions for the whole of the provincial economy. Specifically, the Province estimated that the reductions in vehicle mobility caused by certain bike-lane conversions in Toronto was costing the provincial economy about $11B annually.

I do not believe that the Ministry of Transportation is against ALL cycling infrastructure. But, when it comes to the economy of the province, the government wants to ensure that adding new cycling infrastructure does not causes more negatives than positives.

[phil235]

Originally Posted by Richard Eade

From the Ontario Government’s Website:
https://ero.ontario.ca/notice/019-9266


So, although the media and other fear-mongers claim that it is IMPOSSIBLE to add cycling facilities, the reality is that the requirement is to have the Province look at a proposed addition and verify that the new cycling facilities is an overall benefit, and not an impediment to good general transportation. The intent is to try to prevent changes made purely due to zealousness and not good planning principles.

Cities are ‘Creatures of the Province’, and as such, the Province delegates powers to the Municipality governments. If the Province doesn’t think that those powers are being used properly, it can reclaim them, or add an oversite level. In the case of bike lanes, the Province felt, in its opinion, that some previously added bike infrastructure was a detriment of the overall economy. The Province lost faith that municipalities were making the best decisions for the whole of the provincial economy. Specifically, the Province estimated that the reductions in vehicle mobility caused by certain bike-lane conversions in Toronto was costing the provincial economy about $11B annually.

I do not believe that the Ministry of Transportation is against ALL cycling infrastructure. But, when it comes to the economy of the province, the government wants to ensure that adding new cycling infrastructure does not causes more negatives than positives.

That is certainly an optimistic take.

This legislation allows the provincial level to second-guess municipal decisions on a case by case basis. How the province could possibly be better placed to make decisions on purely local matters like bike lanes is very unclear. Further, legislation that requires municipalities to do all the work to justify and design a bike lane project with no certainty as to whether it is going to be approved is already putting a huge damper on the expansion of bike infrastructure. Municipalities do not want to commit their resources on the hope and prayer that they will get approved. And note that the legislation does not even put any parameters on the Minister's discretion, so there is absolutely nothing preventing arbitrary decisions being made, particularly by someone with no familiarity with local conditions and no accountability to local voters.

As for the Ministry of Transportation being open to cycling infrastructure, what exactly gives you that idea? The Ministry is essentially an operator of highways and has zero responsibility for local roads. If you have ever dealt with them in trying to get highway infrastructure adapted to the urban context, I don't think you would have any faith in their ability to assess local cycling infrastructure.

In short, it is terrible legislation, runs completely counter to the democratic principle of decisions of primarily local impact being made locally (that $11B figure is pure political nonsense by the way, and not a number that would stand up to even slight scrutiny), and will put Ontario far behind most other jurisdictions in terms of balanced infrastructure. Virtually every other developed country is expanding active transportation infrastructure, and we are literally ripping it out thanks to other provisions of this legislation.

For a more detailed critique of the legislation, which drew worldwide attention for its backwardness, have a look at this video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KgFCQ7jEZxI

(And for context, I'm not even a cycling activist. I mostly walk or bus to work and this legislation upsets me to this degree for its wrong-headedness.)

[urbanforest]

Originally Posted by Richard Eade

The intent is to try to prevent changes made purely due to zealousness and not good planning principles.

Surely you are talking about Doug Ford and Prabmeet Sarkaria’s personal and ideological objection to cycling, right? Naivety like this must be how Ford has managed to win three majority governments.

[Uhuniau]

Originally Posted by lrt's friend

At some point, we have to prioritize. In some cases, we have been placing transit at the bottom of the heap. This is not a good thing. I have argued that when there is a grid street pattern and only 4 lanes available, cycle tracks should be one block over.

Oh, god, so much this: if the "complete street" can't accommodate more dedicated cycle space without impacts on transit operations, and there's a one-block-over option for dedicated and well-protected parallel cycle access, move the damn cycle plan.

But the sanctimony that such a suggestion invokes is spectacular to watch in action.

Montreal Road in Vanier has been one of the biggest challenges. Urban, retail, arterial, only 4 lanes available and the lack of a grid street layout.

And cyclists who were given a very safe, dedicated parallel facility to bypass the bottleneck between the River and the Vanier Parkway are still sour about it, even though the Montreal Road cycle lanes and related facilities are incredibly under-used.

Old Ottawa has greatly outgrown its available infrastructure. But we also want much more intensification too. I am not sure how this is sustainable in the long term without going underground.

There is no true transit improvement available in the urban core without going underground, because we have already ruled out every other option: surface, elevated, and magical.

And since we are too cheap to go underground and build urban transit that serves urban Ottawa well, the only option left is effectively nothing other than token "tactical" improvements. The city won't even commit to improving access to sheltered stops.

[Uhuniau]

Originally Posted by Richard Eade

I do not believe that the Ministry of Transportation is against ALL cycling infrastructure.

Under the current government they are.

[hwy418]

Originally Posted by phil235

The Ministry is essentially an operator of highways and has zero responsibility for local roads.

They actually are the custodians of the Highway Traffic Act so they responsible for it all.

[phil235]

Originally Posted by hwy418

They actually are the custodians of the Highway Traffic Act so they responsible for it all.

Fair point, that was an overstatement to say that the MTO only operates highway infrastructure. They do have an overall policy role to play.

However, in terms of road infrastructure that they design and build, it is almost entirely highways. Correct me if I'm wrong, but I've seen virtually no evidence of practical expertise or involvement in urban road and cycling infrastructure projects.

[Richard Eade]

Does the Province not review and approve every provincial EA done? Many of those include roadway modifications. Don't mistake allowing municipalities leeway to do local planning for lack of involvement.

[phil235]

Originally Posted by Richard Eade

Does the Province not review and approve every provincial EA done? Many of those include roadway modifications. Don't mistake allowing municipalities leeway to do local planning for lack of involvement.

The MTO reviews every EA for a municipal infrastructure project? I could be wrong, but I don't think so.

Regardless, involvement in reviewing an EA is not remotely the same thing as having the expertise to fully plan and execute a local infrastructure project. I have only seen significant MTO involvement in Ottawa road projects were there is a direct connection to a highway, and it was not reassuring in terms of their competence in the area. Have you seen otherwise?

I'm not intending to diminish the expertise within the MTO as it is a big organization with lots of skill sets, but I really don't think that bike lane projects are in their wheelhouse. It is clearly not a focus under Ford. And even if they have that capacity, it doesn't change the fact that legislation specifically preventing municipal councils from approving local infrastructure that is clearly within their mandate is bad legislation.

[skyscraperaccount]

Step one - all non arterial roads become 25 kph
Step two - paint all non arterial roads green with bike logos
Step three - post signs every 3 feet reminding motorists that bicycles can legally take the lane

Profit.

[Kitchissippi]

So if the city wants to remove a traffic lane and turn it into a bus lane, would it also require permission? Doesn’t the Carling plan have stretches of shared bus a bike lanes?

[dougvdh]

Originally Posted by Uhuniau

. . .
And cyclists who were given a very safe, dedicated parallel facility to bypass the bottleneck between the River and the Vanier Parkway are still sour about it, even though the Montreal Road cycle lanes and related facilities are incredibly under-used. . . .

That parallel bypass behind the Tim's is okay going westbound, but it absolutely sucks going east bound since it adds a couple more traffic lights in less than 500m. Plus I think a lot of riders find that space behind Tim's to be unsafe.

The Montreal Road cycle tracks functionality still really suffers from that fact that they don't connect to anything meaningful (at least not in the sense of having the same LoS) at the east of St. Laurent either. So at the moment they exist as a bit of a dead end route.

I still use them fairly frequently but I'm not really that bothered by being dumped onto Montreal Road at St. Laurent. But I wouldn't send my kids down them. So I think the level of use comes down to the usefulness.