Cycling Master Plan

[Jon Dalton]

Originally Posted by bigguy1231

Actually when I was a kid back in the 70's, there were alot more bikes on the roads than I see now. We rode everywhere in the city. Nowadays, kids just don't seem to ride bikes as much. But then again back when I was a kid parents wouldn't drive kids all over the place.

The pervasiveness of car culture that you just referenced is due to the effects of autocentric planning on two consecutive generations. Given that a whole generation will pass before the cycling plan is completed, we are making this decision for our children and grandchildren more so than ourselves. They will grow up with parents who are more conscious of the environmental and health hazards of driving, which are already far more mainstream than even 10 years ago. If they also grow up with infrastructure that provides a high level of safety both real and percieved, they will ride earlier, more often, and further into their adolescence. Maybe the car will be less of a rite of passage for the next generation. I got my license as soon as I woke up on my 16th birthday and sold many of my belongings (including bikes) to buy my first car. Maybe our kids will be saving their money for faster bikes.

[adam]

Maybe the next generation can work and live in the same city.

[SteelTown]

So what you think Council will do? Ditch the funding plan, over 10 years, over 20 years, or over even longer period of time?

I'm of course hoping the fastest possible, 10 years.

[markbarbera]

Well, it did take this city 40 years to get the RHVP finished. We're not exactly known for fast-tracking initiatives.

[bigguy1231]

Originally Posted by Jon Dalton

The pervasiveness of car culture that you just referenced is due to the effects of autocentric planning on two consecutive generations. Given that a whole generation will pass before the cycling plan is completed, we are making this decision for our children and grandchildren more so than ourselves. They will grow up with parents who are more conscious of the environmental and health hazards of driving, which are already far more mainstream than even 10 years ago. If they also grow up with infrastructure that provides a high level of safety both real and percieved, they will ride earlier, more often, and further into their adolescence. Maybe the car will be less of a rite of passage for the next generation. I got my license as soon as I woke up on my 16th birthday and sold many of my belongings (including bikes) to buy my first car. Maybe our kids will be saving their money for faster bikes.

The car culture is still here and we are still planning for the expansion of that system. The difference nowadays is that in addition to that we are also adding alternatives like bike lanes and paths. Although I don't believe the 2 will ever be equal in the eyes of most, cars will always win out, there is room to expand bike lanes for those who wish to use that mode of transport. I am of the opinion though that we should try as much as possible to keep the 2 seperate. My rational is mostly for reasons of safety, a 2000 pound car is always going to win the battle between it and a cyclist.

As for your statement about getting your license being a right of passage, I tend to agree. I had my license a week after my 16th birthday. My first year of driving my insurance cost $79. To all you youngsters reading this that was for the year not per month. Nowadays it cost me more than that per month. The reason that it is no longer as important to get your license is purely economics. Young people just cannot afford the ridiculous insurance costs. If not for that it would still be a rite of passage. Even with the high costs, there is still a majority who get thier licenses before they hit thier 19th birthday. The rest rely on those with licenses to get them around.

[SteelTown]

Cycling plan gets votes, but cash? No so fast

June 25, 2009
Nicole Macintyre
The Hamilton Spectator
http://www.thespec.com/News/Local/article/589075

They came on two wheels, helmets in place, to remind council that not every Hamiltonian wants to drive to work.

About 20 cyclists attended last night's council meeting to encourage the city to approve and fund its new cycling master plan.

Councillors unanimously backed the plan without debate, but referred any funding commitments to the budget process.

It will take $51.5 million to implement the integrated cycling network on city streets, a cost of $2.5 million a year if it was completed over 20 years.

Staff recommended the city only commit $1.25 million a year and focus on urban bike lanes.

The investment, which would be staged over numerous years, would more than quadruple the city's designated bike lanes to 566 kilometres.

However, several councillors have expressed concern about the size of the investment, questioning if the bike lanes would be used enough to justify the cost.

They want to consider the expense in relation to the city's other financial demands.

Randy Kay of Transportation for Liveable Communities Hamilton wants the city to fast-track the plan. The yearly price tag, he argued, is affordable and offers the city a cheap way to improve its image.

"Hamilton is moving in the right direction, keep going. Don't be left behind," he said.

"People want choices in their transportation."

In a letter to council, cyclist Brendan Simons said he's lived in several cities, but finds Hamilton the most "hostile to cyclists."

"No matter which roads I take, I have to contend with cars and trucks whizzing by my elbow at 70 plus kilometres per hour," Simons wrote.

Kay said local cyclists intend to follow the plan to next year's budget process.

"We're hoping this is just the start of a campaign to see this through."

[bigguy1231]

If cyclist really want these lanes they better get more than 20 people to show up at these meetings.

As I have tried to explain in earlier posts on this issue, you have to show the politicians there is a demand for these lanes. A whole 20 people does not constitute demand.

They may have approved the idea in principle, but getting the funding will be almost impossible once it goes to the budget process. It will end up on the bottom end of the priority list.

[Jon Dalton]

Burlington spends proportionately twice the amount of money on cycling as is being reccommended to council. How many cylists flooded their city hall during council meetings? This is about changing the culture here, one that is not unique to Hamilton, and has been measurably changed in other cities. One thing is clear, there is absolutely no future for a declining postindustrial city that fails to change its image. I think most of our councillors understand that.

[astroblaster]

There's an existing cycling advocacy group in Hamilton, isn't there?
I haven't really heard much about them, can anyone link me or put me in contact with them?

[ryan_mcgreal]

Originally Posted by astroblaster

There's an existing cycling advocacy group in Hamilton, isn't there?

Well, there's the Hamilton Cycling Committee, a citizens' advisory committee to the city on cycling issues. I haven't studied the group very closely, but I've heard that they're very restrained and 'domesticated' in their advocacy, focusing mainly on safety.

There's also something called the Hamilton Cycling Club - I don't know anything about them.

Of course, there's always Transportation for Liveable Communities, a project of OPIRG McMaster. Their mandate is multi-modal transportation, but they have a heavy emphasis on cycling.

[highwater]

It was Transportation for Liveable Cities that was at the Council meeting taking names for their email list to keep people abreast of the budget process. They'd be your best bet.

[SteelTown]

Breaking News.....A cyclist got hit and dragged at York Boulevard (complete with bike lanes).

[SteelTown]

1 cyclist dead, 1 driver dead and possible another died as well.

[Greg A.]

And another cyclist came within 5" of being dead. Me.

I was riding in the bike lane in the opposite direction to the cyclist that was killed. The SUV that hit him veered out of control after dragging his bike for 100m, hit 2 other cars and then crashed and came to a stop. I was somehow in the middle of the 3 smashed cars as they flew down the road and literally dodged the 2 other cars by a few feet, and the SUV by 5".

Not a happy day for me. And I will give serious thought to continuing my commute by bike.

Greg.

[SteelTown]

Glad you are safe.

I think the City messed up with the bike lanes on York. In the past you had two lanes heading towards Burlington and one lane going to 403. Now if you stay on the right lane heading towards Burlington you'll end up on 403. I've seen many drivers make a quick turn to the left to escape the 403 on ramp. Twice a car nearly hit me with this situation.

[bigguy1231]

Originally Posted by Greg A.

And another cyclist came within 5" of being dead. Me.

I was riding in the bike lane in the opposite direction to the cyclist that was killed. The SUV that hit him veered out of control after dragging his bike for 100m, hit 2 other cars and then crashed and came to a stop. I was somehow in the middle of the 3 smashed cars as they flew down the road and literally dodged the 2 other cars by a few feet, and the SUV by 5".

Not a happy day for me. And I will give serious thought to continuing my commute by bike.

Greg.

Wow, glad you are safe. Now go out and buy a lottery ticket.


This is one of the reasons I am not convinced that bike lanes should be on busy roads. Cyclists just don't have a chance. I know this was just a freak occurance but it would make me think if I was a cyclist.

The report I heard, said the driver of the SUV who hit the cyclist may have been impaired.

[highwater]

Three confirmed dead. The driver of the SUV was not impaired according to police, but may have gone into diabetic shock. A horrible tragedy. Glad you're safe, Greg.

http://thespec.com/News/BreakingNews/article/590326

[adam]

Originally Posted by bigguy1231

This is one of the reasons I am not convinced that bike lanes should be on busy roads. Cyclists just don't have a chance.

This is the worst logic ever. More died in vehicles than on bikes in this accident and yet you see this as a reason to ban bikes? Are the deaths in the cars just an accepted price of doing business on the road? I don't understand how an accident that killed 1 cyclist and 2 occupants of a car can be a reason to ban bicycles. Please explain.

[bigguy1231]

Originally Posted by adam

This is the worst logic ever. More died in vehicles than on bikes in this accident and yet you see this as a reason to ban bikes? Are the deaths in the cars just an accepted price of doing business on the road? I don't understand how an accident that killed 1 cyclist and 2 occupants of a car can be a reason to ban bicycles. Please explain.

Where did I say ban bikes? Get off your high horse. Read what I actually said and read some of my previous posts regarding the issue. Some people, like you have no sense of reality, like it or not cars and bicycles just don't mix well, bike lanes or not. I realize this was just a freak accident and stated that. It was a tragedy any way you look at it.

[adam]

Originally Posted by bigguy1231

Where did I say ban bikes? Get off your high horse. Read what I actually said and read some of my previous posts regarding the issue. Some people, like you have no sense of reality, like it or not cars and bicycles just don't mix well, bike lanes or not. I realize this was just a freak accident and stated that. It was a tragedy any way you look at it.

There are only a couple ways to get to Burlington from Hamilton - one is the highway, the other is York Blvd. Take away the bike lane on York Blvd. and you are effectively banning bikes from traveling from Hamilton to Burlington and vice versa unless they ride in traffic - which will be enough to stop the majority of the cyclists currently using those lanes. Banning was a strong word, you are right - but it was close.

ps - my sense of reality? I cycle along York Blvd. regularly, believe me, this is reality.