[Moncton] Active Transportation

[riverviewer]

Originally Posted by Vorkuta

...and this is why I generally ride on the street. I'm too fast for foot traffic (that won't stay right) and I'm too slow for cars (I'm @ 30kph on the street, generally) but I do what I can to stay visible out there.

As a pedestrian who likes to walk beside my wife, I ask cyclists to please use your bell when approaching so we have a chance to decide who will follow the other before tripping over ourselves to get out of your way.

[SomeLad]

I agree maybe they're being crybabies for not wanting to share a path with pedestrians, but adding a separate bike lane on the bridge is something that is a lot easier to do when you're first building a bridge rather than adding later. I also don't know how wide this path is, but I know every time I use the path on the Westmoreland Street bridge I wish it was wider, or there was a separate path. It just helps keep everyone safer (especially when there are people wearing earbuds out walking/running).

[OliverD]

Originally Posted by MonctonRad

There was something on CBC Radio today about local cyclists in Moncton being displeased with the new Petitcodiac River Bridge.

Even though things will be considerably better than before, with a broad sidewalk, separated from road traffic via a concrete barrier, the lobbyists are upset that they will have the share this sidewalk with pedestrians. Apparently, they think they deserved their own dedicated bicycle lane(s).

According to the spokesperson, they feel that pedestrians can be just as unpredictable, inconsiderate and vicious to the innocent cyclists as the evil motorists are, and would rather not interact with the pedestrians on the sidewalk, despite the fact that the sidewalk is seven feet wide.

There isn't anything on CBC.ca about this yet, but it may show up within the next day or so.

Your disdain for cyclists is alarming. Perhaps you should seek professional help.

[MonctonRad]

Originally Posted by OliverD

Your disdain for cyclists is alarming. Perhaps you should seek professional help.

I don't have disdain for cyclists. If you see my other posts on this active transportation thread, they have mostly been supportive.

Cyclists however have their place, and it isn't on a busy stroad like Mountain Road. If at all possible, fully separated bicycle pathways are the ideal solution, and thankfully in Moncton we have a fair number of these. These pathways however are generally shared with pedestrians, and cyclists should treat pedestrians during any interactions with courtesy and respect.

The dynamics of any bicycle/pedestrian interaction are similar in many ways to a car/bicycle interaction. In a car/bicycle collision, the car wins - every time. In a bicycle/pedestrian collision, the bicycle wins - every time. The onus therefore is upon the bicyclist to give way to the pedestrian whenever a potential collision seems imminent. Bicyclists are not "special" and do not get a free pass.

As for the new bridge in question, the walkway on the bridge is quite wide, and given the expectation of low pedestrian usage (beyond hikers getting from the Riverview trail system to the Moncton trail system), there should not be any congestion, and bicyclists should be able to use the walkway with relative impunity (most of the time).

The main issue for bicyclists and pedestrians is how the bridge walkway will connect to the trail systems on either side. I gather this still has not been fully decided.

[JHikka]

Originally Posted by SomeLad

It just helps keep everyone safer (especially when there are people wearing earbuds out walking/running).

Between people wearing audio devices, groups walking two/three/four wide, facing oncoming pedestrians, and just a slew of other things that people do on foot, it's too unpredictable to know what they're doing to keep pace. If you're leisurely biking around like BlackYear is doing it's probably fine, but if you're cycling with a purpose to go somewhere, whether it's work or otherwise, it's a major pain and very unsafe.

Constructing the bridge without the intention of including bike lanes on the roadway is a major design oversight, IMO, if that's indeed the case.

[Nashe]

Originally Posted by riverviewer

As a pedestrian who likes to walk beside my wife, I ask cyclists to please use your bell when approaching so we have a chance to decide who will follow the other before tripping over ourselves to get out of your way.

And I appreciate it! It's not a quiet bell, but I'd say it's heard 1/3 of the time, whereupon people often leap in a mix of directions (not helpful) You can often ring (to tell people you are coming up on them) and they assume the bell means "GET OUT OF MY WAY" when they don't have to move at all. Makes for some good glares.

I ride up/down Vaughn Harvey every day. I'd much rather be on that thin bike-lane than on a mixed use path. Riverfront trail, for example, is well suited to very-early morning commutes, but at lunch isn't great for anything but leisurely weaving in and out of the walkers. Just my opinion.

And if you are cycling for exercise, 15km/hr is not gonna cut it.

And trust me, nothing makes me angrier than seeing a fellow cyclist behaving poorly... usually going the wrong way in traffic or on sidewalks, or cutting across traffic without signalling intent, etc. Makes it bad for all of us.

[OliverD]

Originally Posted by MonctonRad

I don't have disdain for cyclists. If you see my other posts on this active transportation thread, they have mostly been supportive.

Cyclists however have their place, and it isn't on a busy stroad like Mountain Road. If at all possible, fully separated bicycle pathways are the ideal solution, and thankfully in Moncton we have a fair number of these. These pathways however are generally shared with pedestrians, and cyclists should treat pedestrians during any interactions with courtesy and respect.

The dynamics of any bicycle/pedestrian interaction are similar in many ways to a car/bicycle interaction. In a car/bicycle collision, the car wins - every time. In a bicycle/pedestrian collision, the bicycle wins - every time. The onus therefore is upon the bicyclist to give way to the pedestrian whenever a potential collision seems imminent. Bicyclists are not "special" and do not get a free pass.

Since you acknowledge that the two interactions are similar (and I agree), why is it more appropriate for cyclists to share infrastructure with pedestrians rather than with cars? Doesn't that simply move the onus onto the driver to be careful around the cyclist?

Originally Posted by JHikka

Between people wearing audio devices, groups walking two/three/four wide, facing oncoming pedestrians, and just a slew of other things that people do on foot, it's too unpredictable to know what they're doing to keep pace. If you're leisurely biking around like BlackYear is doing it's probably fine, but if you're cycling with a purpose to go somewhere, whether it's work or otherwise, it's a major pain and very unsafe.

And this is largely why cyclists are not allowed on sidewalks. There are effectively no rules about how pedestrians need to behave while on a sidewalk which makes their behaviour extremely unpredictable and makes the combination of cyclists and pedestrians dangerous. This extends to shared trails, where the only real expectation is that they keep to the right although even this is not always followed.

[MonctonRad]

Originally Posted by OliverD

Since you acknowledge that the two interactions are similar (and I agree), why is it more appropriate for cyclists to share infrastructure with pedestrians rather than with cars? Doesn't that simply move the onus onto the driver to be careful around the cyclist?

Bicyclists belong on pathways because the consequences of a car/bicycle interaction are likely to be more serious than a bicycle/pedestrian interaction.

In a bicycle/pedestrian interaction, the bicyclist would win, but the consequence for the pedestrian would likely be cuts and bruises, or perhaps a broken ankle. In a car/bicycle interaction, the consequence for the bicyclist would be more serious, including major long bone fractures, neurological injury or death. Moving bicyclists onto pathways is the lesser of two evils.

And, yes, the automobile driver should be careful around bicyclists, and I always try to give them a wide berth, or slow down to pass them when it is safe, but sometimes on a multilane stroad with heavy traffic, that can be very difficult to do.

[JHikka]

Originally Posted by MonctonRad

Bicyclists belong on pathways because the consequences of a car/bicycle interaction are likely to be more serious than a bicycle/pedestrian interaction.

If that's the case then it's a simple case of redesigning the road to make motorists slow down and drive with more caution for their surroundings.

Originally Posted by MonctonRad

In a bicycle/pedestrian interaction, the bicyclist would win, but the consequence for the pedestrian would likely be cuts and bruises, or perhaps a broken ankle.

An unfair result for both cyclists and pedestrians, as both can be injured in collsions.

Originally Posted by MonctonRad

In a car/bicycle interaction, the consequence for the bicyclist would be more serious, including major long bone fractures, neurological injury or death. Moving bicyclists onto pathways is the lesser of two evils.

In all of these scenarios motorists are the ones without risk of injury. It seems unfair to place the burdens on others for the convenience of automobile traffic when there are solutions that can be found that can keep everyone safe.

Originally Posted by MonctonRad

And, yes, the automobile driver should be careful around bicyclists, and I always try to give them a wide berth, or slow down to pass them when it is safe, but sometimes on a multilane stroad with heavy traffic, that can be very difficult to do.

Then it's not designed well enough for all modes of transportation.

[MonctonRad]

Do you know any well designed stroads? I would like examples.

[Sunnybrae]

I have seen many times cyclists having to go around joggers using bike lanes because they don't want to run on uneven sidewalks. Not safe for cyclist or jogger, but I see it all the time.

[Monctoncore]

I understand that there is and probably always will be a deep divide over how pedestrians/vehicles/ bicyclists interact and the discussion is important. We will all agree or disagree on how it can be solved, but let’s keep it civil and debate the issues at hand. I think this also goes to how we refer to bicyclists as well, we should not attack those who chose to travel via bicycle, their safety is just as important as those who are walking or driving.

So please let’s not not say someone needs to seek help because they disagree with us, and let’s also not attack those who choose to use their bicycle as their mode of transportation.

[JHikka]

Originally Posted by MonctonRad

Do you know any well designed stroads? I would like examples.

This is an incredibly simple design on the Prince Edward Viaduct which connects Danforth Avenue and Bloor Street. I bike it everyday, and although cars whizz by at 60kph it's pretty safe all things considered. Cyclists are separated from motorists, and the bike lane separates pedestrians from motorists. They've been adding concrete curbs in between the cycle and road lanes for increased protection in the last few weeks (similar to Danforth below).


Since i'm on the subject, here's the transformation of Danforth from 2018 versus 2021. Bike lane added, throughlane/street parking removed on one side.





On University Avenue, a three lane avenue was switched to two, with an added bike lane and streetparking retained. This bike lane is separated from moving cars entirely - far safer than riding with traffic.

University Avenue, 2016


University Avenue, 2021


All fairly easy and attainable, IMO.

Originally Posted by Sunnybrae

I have seen many times cyclists having to go around joggers using bike lanes because they don't want to run on uneven sidewalks. Not safe for cyclist or jogger, but I see it all the time.

Some joggers also like running along roads rather than sidewalks because they're a flat surface which, uh, is a choice...

[MonctonRad]

They're doing some of this stuff on the peninsula in Halifax too, which is leading to some, uh, "interesting" discussions in the Halifax active transportation thread.

This is fine as long as there is room to accomplish this. Using Mountain Road as an example (again), it is a relatively narrow four lane stroad with no on street parking. There is really no potential for widening this road, so any move to add bike lanes would only result in reducing the number of traffic lanes on the road.

I know your response to this would be "good!!!", but Mountain Road is congested as it is during rush hours and any reduction in travel lanes would only result in increasing congestion and unhappy voters. It is a non starter.

Again, your response would be "well, if there is increasing congestion, then this would only provide impetus to getting people to use public transit." Again, this would be fine except public transit in Moncton is pretty lousy, and would be very expensive to fix. I see no easy solutions to improving the situation in the short term.

In the long term, downtown density will improve, and there should be fewer commuters, but this will take considerable time.

In the meantime, Moncton does have active transportation options with out trail network, and I think this should be optimized first. The Northwest Trail (for example) should be widened (there is room to do so), paved, and divided into lanes to keep pedestrians and cyclists apart. The most serious point of conflict along the trail is where it crosses Berry Mills Road. I would be in favour of building a flyover active transportation bridge over the roadway to maximize bicycle and pedestrian flow.

I am not against active transportation. I just want to find practical solutions which are not overly disruptive.

[JHikka]

Originally Posted by MonctonRad

They're doing some of this stuff on the peninsula in Halifax too, which is leading to some, uh, "interesting" discussions in the Halifax active transportation thread.

With all due respect there are some, uh, interesting characters on the Halifax subforum. I wouldn't put too much weight into their opinions, frankly.

Originally Posted by MonctonRad

This is fine as long as there is room to accomplish this. Using Mountain Road as an example (again), it is a relatively narrow four lane stroad with no on street parking. There is really no potential for widening this road, so any move to add bike lanes would only result in reducing the number of traffic lanes on the road.

You shouldn't be looking at this as an exercise in potentially widening roads. Find me a city that's widening roads in the 2020s and i'll show you a city that's merely exacerbating their traffic and gridlock issues. If Mountain Road is ever to be more than a substandard drivethrough it will need a road diet at some point, and that's likely to come in the way of creating more options for transport so that it can support more community-aimed businesses and residents. That means moving away from 60kph drivethrough motorists to more bus users, bike users, and pedestrians. Otherwise Mountain Road will simply remain a poorly activated suburban drivethrough for people who live elsewhere.

It is not sustainable to line Mountain Road with hundred-unit apartment buildings, each with two hundred parking spots, and expecting traffic on the throughfare to simply not exist.

Originally Posted by MonctonRad

I know your response to this would be "good!!!", but Mountain Road is congested as it is during rush hours and any reduction in travel lanes would only result in increasing congestion and unhappy voters. It is a non starter.

If there's too much traffic then it means there's room for active and alternative modes of transport to take shape. You can only squeeze so many cars into Downtown Moncton and, spoiler alert, as the downtown grows this will only become more difficult as parking spots are reduced.

Instead of simply looking at the situation through a lens of 'there's too much traffic as is!', look into reasons why there's traffic. Where are people living? Where are they going? Are these trips necessary? People will change their plans if things like traffic or roads are changed or reduced.

Originally Posted by MonctonRad

Again, your response would be "well, if there is increasing congestion, then this would only provide impetus to getting people to use public transit." Again, this would be fine except public transit in Moncton is pretty lousy, and would be very expensive to fix. I see no easy solutions to improving the situation in the short term.

Very small-town thinking. Investing funding into city transit is the easiest and most cost effective way at not only dealing with traffic but with encouraging economic activity within your city. Transit in Moncton is lousy because there's no desire for it on council from, frankly, people like you and other motorists, and hence ridership is lousy because the service is lousy. Kingston has done wonders at improving their city transit by way of simplifying routes and increasing frequencies. Give people a service they can actually rely upon and they'll use it. 'Too expensive' is not a valid excuse when it's a public service that allows people to get to work, to medical appointments, etc.

Originally Posted by MonctonRad

In the long term, downtown density will improve, and there should be fewer commuters, but this will take considerable time.

How does a downtown grow whilst simulatenously seeing fewer commuters?

How do you think people will be commuting into the downtown in the future? On eight lane Vaughan Harveys and Mountain Roads? Where will all of these people park?

Originally Posted by MonctonRad

I am not against active transportation. I just want to find practical solutions which are not overly disruptive.

You just don't want bikes on the road because it might disrupt your grocery run in your car. I get it.

Part of any city growing and becoming larger is dealing with the fact that your commute by car will become slower and more congested. It's absolutely not reasonable to expect your commutes to be the same if the number of people around you increases. There are other people using roads around you in many different ways, and speaking down to them as if they're below you isn't going to do you any favours now or into the future of an ever-diversifying city.

Is Moncton a city for all people or is it only a city for people with cars?

[Franco401]

Originally Posted by MonctonRad

Do you know any well designed stroads? I would like examples.

There are no good stroads. What does exist is normal roads and streets with wide sidewalks, bike lanes and appropriate vehicular facilities for the traffic volume. Mountain Road keeps getting brought up, but that is a relic of a time when traffic engineers had fewer tools at their disposal and thought more lanes would solve all problems, plus a rappelé expanding city letting its grid extend around what was once a rural highway. It has a tiny ROW and should not be used as a measuring stick for anything.

[MonctonRad]

Originally Posted by JHikka

You just don't want bikes on the road because it might disrupt your grocery run in your car. I get it.

Part of any city growing and becoming larger is dealing with the fact that your commute by car will become slower and more congested. It's absolutely not reasonable to expect your commutes to be the same if the number of people around you increases. There are other people using roads around you in many different ways, and speaking down to them as if they're below you isn't going to do you any favours now or into the future of an ever-diversifying city.

Is Moncton a city for all people or is it only a city for people with cars?

It's not just disrupting my grocery run or slowing my commute into work that concerns me.

I am also concerned about safety both for motorists and for cyclists. As I have stated previously, Moncton has the advantage of a fairly interconnected existing trail system which can be improved to the cyclists (and pedestrians) advantage. Why not go this route first if this makes sense. The Northwest trail makes a beeline for downtown directly from the northwest end. Our mayor, Dawn Arnold, religiously uses this trail to bicycle to work at city hall every day. I know - I have seen her using the trail with my own eyes, and she regularly posts photos of flowers and wildlife she has seen along the way on her Facebook page. This trail is far removed from the road network (for the most part), is safe, quiet and relaxing. Why not maximize this route for it's potential rather than diverting bicycle traffic to a congested, noisy and dangerous road with multiple intersections and points of conflict. Moncton has the luxury of considering something like this. Many cities do not, but Moncton does. A few investments like the active transportation flyover over Berry Mills Road that I have proposed would result in a bicycle freeway directly into the downtown of the city, and this would leave Mountain Road to it's own devices. What's wrong with that? It sounds like a win-win to me.

[JHikka]

The problem with a separated trail system is that it only serves a specific niche person - people commuting from one end to the other, or to random bits in between. Bike lanes are added to main streets and throughfares because people are often making quick, consistent stops along the way. What's the point in a trail network if it only takes you to work and back but you still need a car to get groceries or visit your doctor? Building active transportation in a city means that it should give people the option to live without a car or not, not to simply offer alternatives for people who already own cars. Essentially, a trail system is fine, but it needs to be supported by a consistent bike network connecting to it. The canal in Ottawa is a good example of this, or the Don Valley trails in Toronto.

Part of the reason why the streets you're referring too are too congested and noisy and dangerous is because there's too many cars expecting to go at too high of a speed for what they're travelling on. Lower the number of cars in a given space (reducing lanes), better design roadways (bike lanes, roundabouts, intersections), and you'll see an improved, safer space for all.

Your line of thinking is that roadways are too dangerous for cyclists because combining them with cars would be dangerous, but you're skipping over the part where cars make things more dangerous for everyone in general. If you want people to live in your central core neighbourhoods then they're not going to want to live on five lane avenues with cars racing down them. Road diets are required for urban spaces.

[OliverD]

Originally Posted by MonctonRad

This is fine as long as there is room to accomplish this. Using Mountain Road as an example (again), it is a relatively narrow four lane stroad with no on street parking. There is really no potential for widening this road, so any move to add bike lanes would only result in reducing the number of traffic lanes on the road.

I know your response to this would be "good!!!", but Mountain Road is congested as it is during rush hours and any reduction in travel lanes would only result in increasing congestion and unhappy voters. It is a non starter.

Just as adding lanes has been shown to induce demand rather than reduce traffic problems, removing them has shown the opposite – traffic drops and the predicted gridlock never materializes.

Typically speaking the combination of a two lane road plus a centre turning lane has about the same capacity as a four land road. So there's certainly opportunities to strategically reconfigure lanes without reducing roadway capacity.

[MonctonRad]

Originally Posted by OliverD

Just as adding lanes has been shown to induce demand rather than reduce traffic problems, removing them has shown the opposite – traffic drops and the predicted gridlock never materializes.

Typically speaking the combination of a two lane road plus a centre turning lane has about the same capacity as a four land road. So there's certainly opportunities to strategically reconfigure lanes without reducing roadway capacity.

I appreciate road diets, and they have been accomplished successfully on a couple of streets in Moncton already (Shediac Road, Salisbury Road), but, they do not work well on all roads, and I think Mountain Road would be one of them. I think any politician who suggested such a thing would be run out of town on a rail.

Sorry, but politics is the science of the possible, and an astute politician will only attempt what he /she knows can be accomplished. This is not one of those things, at least at the time being.

I think a case could be made for giving Mountain Road east of Vaughan Harvey/MacBeath a bit of a haircut, but the west end of Mountain Road is probably untouchable.