Cycling in the National Capital Region

[roger1818]

Originally Posted by YOWetal

30km on all city roads is beyond silly. Residential side streets yes but too many are busy commuter routes to even get any headway on these.

Agreed. I was being facetious when suggesting that.

Originally Posted by acottawa

I think part of the problem is “what happened” is rarely released, which makes it hard for drivers or cyclists to learn any lessons from these tragedies.

The details are often withheld to not make people blame the victim. Unfortunately the end result is well meaning parents end up putting their children in harms way by encouraging them to perform the dangerous practice of riding on the sidewalk. I don't know if that was the case this time, but I wouldn't be surprised as sidewalk cycling has become an epidemic in this city.

Originally Posted by eltodesukane

Pedestrians or cyclists have no choice but to go across the ramp,
at this or many other such locations.

Yet there are no road markings to show where pedestrians or cyclists should be crossing to make their behaviour more predictable. Predictability is key for safety.

[TransitZilla]

Originally Posted by YOWetal

Again we don’t know maybe he jumped off the sidewalk in front of the car.

Maybe they did. That's not the point.

The point is that this is a disaster of a design that increases the likelihood of serious collisions involving pedestrians and cyclists.

The point of Vision Zero is to design roads so that mistakes (on either party's part) don't end up being fatal.

[lrt's friend]

Originally Posted by bradnixon

Maybe they did. That's not the point.

The point is that this is a disaster of a design that increases the likelihood of serious collisions involving pedestrians and cyclists.

The point of Vision Zero is to design roads so that mistakes (on either party's part) don't end up being fatal.

Part of the problem is that MTO designs overpasses and interchanges for autos only. This was built when the 174 was still under provincial jurisdiction.

You can see similar problems at the Innes/417 interchange, which was built as if this was in the countryside with no forethought that this was going to be eventually absorbed into the city. If you go to that interchange, there is not even sidewalks to get you across, let alone cycling lanes.

I have seen comments before, that the MTO still designs interchanges with minimal or no consideration for pedestrians or cyclists.

[zzptichka]

Are there any good examples for ramp design for such interchanges?
How would you make it safer for people crossing? Raised crossing? Zebra with crossover flashing lights? Straighter angles?

[TransitZilla]

Originally Posted by lrt's friend

Part of the problem is that MTO designs overpasses and interchanges for autos only. This was built when the 174 was still under provincial jurisdiction.

You can see similar problems at the Innes/417 interchange, which was built as if this was in the countryside with no forethought that this was going to be eventually absorbed into the city. If you go to that interchange, there is not even sidewalks to get you across, let alone cycling lanes.

I have seen comments before, that the MTO still designs interchanges with minimal or no consideration for pedestrians or cyclists.

Agree, MTO are dinosaurs on this. Funny that you mention Innes/417; this interchange is under construction now for rehabilitation. During the consultation phase I commented that the cycling facilities are non-existent; they replied that no facilities were needed because it's not a cycling route.

They are slowly evolving for some situations. For example the city and MTO did a study for cycling facilities over the Maitland overpass: https://documents.ottawa.ca/sites/default/files/Maitland_EA_POH_Boards_bil_FINAL.pdf.

BUT, look at the concept design on slide 9. See how at the ramp all the way at the right (the NB to EB ramp) there is no green cross-ride / crosswalk across the roadway? That's because the MTO wouldn't allow a crosswalk there, because it would require vehicles to yield, which would apparently cause unacceptable traffic impacts. To me that is completely ridiculous.

I see comments online saying that the city should re-paint the cross-walk markings at Jeanne d'Arc where the accident occurred. Well guess what? There never were any crosswalk markings because it is not an official crosswalk. Pedestrians and cyclists are left to fend for themselves.

Good thing is MTO doesn't own the 174 anymore so they city can re-configure the interchanges in Orleans as they wish.

[phil235]

Originally Posted by lrt's friend

Part of the problem is that MTO designs overpasses and interchanges for autos only. This was built when the 174 was still under provincial jurisdiction.

.

I have seen comments before, that the MTO still designs interchanges with minimal or no consideration for pedestrians or cyclists.

Clearly the design is inappropriate for an interchange in the city that is clearly going to be used by cyclists and pedestrians. People don't understand who has the right of way in those circumstances. To me, the car is using the ramp to turn onto another road and the cyclists/pedestrians are continuing straight, so they should have the right of way. That said, experience tells me that a large proportion of drivers don't see it that way. I actually don't know the rule in those circumstances.

It's pretty clear from the driver's comments to the press (a bad idea for so many reasons) that the kids were biking along the sidewalk and simply continued across the ramp. There is nothing impeding the vision of drivers there for a long stretch, so in my view it is pretty careless of any motorist not to be ready to stop when they see kids on bikes, regardless of right of way.

[TransitZilla]

Originally Posted by phil235

It's pretty clear from the driver's comments to the press (a bad idea for so many reasons) that the kids were biking along the sidewalk and simply continued across the ramp. There is nothing impeding the vision of drivers there for a long stretch, so in my view it is pretty careless of any motorist not to be ready to stop when they see kids on bikes, regardless of right of way.

Agreed.

[eltodesukane]

Originally Posted by zzptichka

Are there any good examples for ramp design for such interchanges?
How would you make it safer for people crossing? Raised crossing? Zebra with crossover flashing lights? Straighter angles?

On Taschereau Blvd. in Brossard, they built a tunnel.
But pedestrians complain it's a long and scary walk, going through a secluded tunnel which can be unsafe at times. Many pedestrians choose not to use it.
https://www.google.ca/maps/@45.4638277,-73.4662483,19.13z?hl=en

[Multi-modal]

Originally Posted by phil235

It's pretty clear from the driver's comments to the press (a bad idea for so many reasons) that the kids were biking along the sidewalk and simply continued across the ramp. There is nothing impeding the vision of drivers there for a long stretch, so in my view it is pretty careless of any motorist not to be ready to stop when they see kids on bikes, regardless of right of way.

What's more, his story indicated that two of the kid's friends passed in front of his car before he hit the third. This tells to me he had at least some time to brake, and if he had slowed down upon seeing the kids on the sidewalk approaching the ramp he might have been able to stop in time.

But honestly, I don't blame the driver. I blame the design, and not just the ramp (obviously unsafe) but also the whole design of Orleans, which encourages (some might say forces) a 79year old to drive from his home onto the highway to go get some food in the evening. Maybe he loves driving and wants to drive, but realistically as you get older your reaction time decreases and vision worsens. In a well-designed city that guy would have had other options, but in north Orleans he does not - and that lead to a child dying and this man's life being ruined for a moment of inattention.

[phil235]

Originally Posted by Multi-modal

But honestly, I don't blame the driver. I blame the design, and not just the ramp (obviously unsafe) but also the whole design of Orleans - that encourages (some might say forces) a 79year old to drive from his home onto the highway to go get some food in the evening. Maybe he loves driving and wants to drive, but lets be honest as you get older your reaction time decreases and vision worsens. In a well-designed city that guy would have had other options, but in north Orleans he does not - and that lead to a child dying and this man's life being ruined for a moment of inattention.

Absolutely - design is the biggest factor here, as it should limit the likelihood/consequences of mistakes. Still, when I'm walking with my kids on residential streets, I see enough people blow by us or turn within a few feet that it really irks me. I'm not sure that fits the description of momentary inattention or a mistake. And most seem to be members of demographics that should know better.

[eltodesukane]

z

[Kitchissippi]

I'm thinking maybe this could be an interesting place to try out a modified diverging diamond interchange with the LRT station in the middle.



The signals would control opposing traffic and right side on- and off-ramps while left side ones are free-flowing.

[Ottawa Champ]

Looks like there was a crosswalk marked at the location of the crash but it faded away while the other road markings were repainted. No guarantee that the crash wouldn't have happened with the crosswalk there but perhaps the driver would have had a visual queue to slowdown/look out for people on the sidewalk if the crosswalk paint was there.

https://twitter.com/BikeOttawa/status/1154738207398998016?s=20

[Multi-modal]

Originally Posted by Kitchissippi

I'm thinking maybe this could be an interesting place to try out a modified diverging diamond interchange with the LRT station in the middle.



The signals would control opposing traffic and right side on- and off-ramps while left side ones are free-flowing.

YEEEESSS!! I wanted them to do this at Montreal Road too. The advantage of doing this at LRT stations is that because of the crossover bus doors align such that they can drop off passengers onto the large median, which means you can have one central core of elevators and escalators in a nice large space in the centre of the overpass.

[CityTech]

That's a really cool design. Very pedestrian and cyclist friendly, and pretty good for traffic flow too, as nobody ever needs to turn left at those traffic lights, allowing for a reduced number of phases. It even takes up less room.

Downside would be the need for 2 bridges.

[Aylmer]

Originally Posted by CityTech

That's a really cool design. Very pedestrian and cyclist friendly

Wait, how? Isn't the whole design predicated on free-flowing cars with minimal signalling. Whereas crossing the diverging diamond interchange requires you to cross 4 conflict points (2 of which are the more dangerous free-flow types) a diamond interchange has only has you crossing two conflict points, all of them signalized. A half cloverleaf only has one conflict point per side. From where I'm standing, the diverging diamond is a far more dangerous option.

EDIT: I see the concept's been modified somewhat so that it's not quite as free-flowing, reducing conflict points to 2. That's a definite improvement, but I don't know of any non-free flow examples of this interchange type.

[acottawa]

Originally Posted by Ottawa Champ

Looks like there was a crosswalk marked at the location of the crash but it faded away while the other road markings were repainted. No guarantee that the crash wouldn't have happened with the crosswalk there but perhaps the driver would have had a visual queue to slowdown/look out for people on the sidewalk if the crosswalk paint was there.

https://twitter.com/BikeOttawa/status/1154738207398998016?s=20

If it happened the way the old man described it, I don’t think it would have helped much. Two white lines on the road do not affect the right of way.

The neighbourhood where I grew up had a similar on ramp nearby. As a kid it was always drilled into me that cars wouldn’t stop.

[lrt's friend]

Originally Posted by acottawa

If it happened the way the old man described it, I don’t think it would have helped much. Two white lines on the road do not affect the right of way.

The neighbourhood where I grew up had a similar on ramp nearby. As a kid it was always drilled into me that cars wouldn’t stop.

Lit up crosswalks with flashing lights might help, although there is no perfect solution. There will always be some conflict between cars and pedestrians and cyclists.

[Kitchissippi]

Originally Posted by Aylmer

Wait, how? Isn't the whole design predicated on free-flowing cars with minimal signalling. Whereas crossing the diverging diamond interchange requires you to cross 4 conflict points (2 of which are the more dangerous free-flow types) a diamond interchange has only has you crossing two conflict points, all of them signalized. A half cloverleaf only has one conflict point per side. From where I'm standing, the diverging diamond is a far more dangerous option.

EDIT: I see the concept's been modified somewhat so that it's not quite as free-flowing, reducing conflict points to 2. That's a definite improvement, but I don't know of any non-free flow examples of this interchange type.

The modification would have all right turns synchronized during the opposing traffic cycle. There would be zero conflict points if there were no right turns on a straight through green signal .

[acottawa]

Originally Posted by lrt's friend

Lit up crosswalks with flashing lights might help, although there is no perfect solution. There will always be some conflict between cars and pedestrians and cyclists.

That is true, but that is a completely different concept for the road, and may require redesigned ramps, since vehicles would be entering the ramp from a dead stop.