Impact of Cycling Infrastructure on Transit

[Uhuniau]

Originally Posted by OCCheetos

https://twitter.com/JimWatsonOttawa/...25758596677632

The Holland Ave. detour will be changed.

Oh gosh what a surprise - yet again, it's transit service that gets downgraded to shut the bike lobby up.

[Lakeofthewood]

Originally Posted by Uhuniau

Oh gosh what a surprise - yet again, it's transit service that gets downgraded to shut the bike lobby up.

Really? I'm with you on most things regarding transit vs cyclists, but did you see the configuration for cyclists? It was an accident waiting to happen.

If anything, it seems like they removed the bus lane in favour of maintaining some on-street parking, which is a trade-off that is made all too frequently in this city.

[Urbanarchit]

Originally Posted by Lakeofthewood

Really? I'm with you on most things regarding transit vs cyclists, but did you see the configuration for cyclists? It was an accident waiting to happen.

If anything, it seems like they removed the bus lane in favour of maintaining some on-street parking, which is a trade-off that is made all too frequently in this city.

Especially because public transit won't be negatively affected by a bike lane on Holland. The "bus lane" is only a small, non-parking section directly under the Queensway. The only buses are 86 and 176 that use it with any frequency, and they're no frequent enough that this would cause any major disruption to transit users (not to mention this is only for 2 years while the Harmer Overpass is replaced).

This is good news for the City and for cyclists and drivers concerned with safety.

[Uhuniau]

Originally Posted by Lakeofthewood

Really? I'm with you on most things regarding transit vs cyclists, but did you see the configuration for cyclists? It was an accident waiting to happen.

Yup.

If anything, it seems like they removed the bus lane in favour of maintaining some on-street parking, which is a trade-off that is made all too frequently in this city.

Yup.

But I am getting really frigging sick of transit being placed third, at best, in the transportation hierarchy whenever this city does something to its roads.

It has been constant for the past three years, especially on major streets in the old City of Ottawa and along main streets.

Why does transit constantly have to be downgraded to make room for cycling infrastructure?

[Uhuniau]

Originally Posted by Urbanarchit

The only buses are 86 and 176 that use it with any frequency, and they're no frequent enough that this would cause any major disruption to transit users (not to mention this is only for 2 years while the Harmer Overpass is replaced).

This is good news for the City and for cyclists and drivers concerned with safety.

Just like it was "only" the 6, 7, and 19 that were impacted on Beechwood; it's "only" the 12 that's impacted with the Montreal Road disaster; it's "only" the 14 and 5 on Elgin.

Those "only"s start to accumulate after a while. We are building an LRT system to whisk people downtown from their outer residential suburbs in 25 minutes, while the bus-only transit system that the urban part of town depends on, and will continue to depend on for a century while we build more suburban LRT lines, now regularly takes an hour to deliver passengers from one part of the core to another.

[Urbanarchit]

Originally Posted by Uhuniau

Just like it was "only" the 6, 7, and 19 that were impacted on Beechwood; it's "only" the 12 that's impacted with the Montreal Road disaster; it's "only" the 14 and 5 on Elgin.

Those "only"s start to accumulate after a while. We are building an LRT system to whisk people downtown from their outer residential suburbs in 25 minutes, while the bus-only transit system that the urban part of town depends on, and will continue to depend on for a century while we build more suburban LRT lines, now regularly takes an hour to deliver passengers from one part of the core to another.

And this is the fault of cyclists, how? Cycling barely gets any funding in this city. We barely get any infrastructure for cycling (we don't even get proper modal share funding), and only after people have to fight vociferously to get a few meters of an incomplete bike lane. I do agree that the City is failing to create a proper transit system as they always prioritize cars over everyone else. But this is not the fault of cyclists, and cyclists are still accommodated last and with some of the worst compromises the City could plan.

You complain because, on occasion where the City had bus routes, the City has included some bike lanes. These two things can easily co-exist, but the solution isn't to avoid bike lanes if there's also a bus route on a dangerous or high-volume/ destination street.

I bike not just because it's enjoyable, but because public transit sucks in this city. It sucks, not because of cyclists, as cycling has not contributed to it in anyway (there are hardly any bike routes that take me where I need to go). It sucks because the City cares only for cars and people with cars, including all those who live in the suburbs and who believe they should be prioritized on the off-chance they venture downtown. The City cut routes or made buses smaller while making it more expensive. It's the City that doesn't care to prioritize transit so that it's actually reliable and comfortable (like Japan figured out how to make it). But any inch given to cyclists is not the cyclists screwing over transit users, as cyclists are far less accommodated and funded by the City. Sometimes though, routes where there are buses also need bike lanes.

[Catenary]

Originally Posted by Uhuniau

Why does transit constantly have to be downgraded to make room for cycling infrastructure?

Of course it's easy to forget the times where cycling plans were thrown out to improve or facilitate transit service. Lyon, where the consulted-on plan was changed to remove cycling facilities, or Somerset East, where additional facilities are limited by route 16. In that situation, the street is almost certainly used by more cyclists than transit users.

[lrt's friend]

The reality is that while we need improved bike infrastructure, for the vast majority, cycling is at best an 8 month transport mode. Every other transport mode is for 12 months of the year.

All spending comes from the same fixed taxpayer pot. So what is spent on one mode, removes money from another mode. So, we can't completely divorce transit funding from cycle route funding. It is always a matter of spending priorities whether it goes to roads for cars, cycling, transit or pedestrians. The end result, there is never money available when I complain about a missing block of sidewalk on Bank Street no less, even if it means having to take your life in your hands in winter when the road shoulder can disappear. At the moment, cycling has generally been receiving increased funding. It is telling when some cycling funding has a detrimental effect on key transit service.

[zzptichka]

Originally Posted by lrt's friend

The reality is that while we need improved bike infrastructure, for the vast majority, cycling is at best an 8 month transport mode. Every other transport mode is for 12 months of the year.

All spending comes from the same fixed taxpayer pot. So what is spent on one mode, removes money from another mode. So, we can't completely divorce transit funding from cycle route funding. It is always a matter of spending priorities whether it goes to roads for cars, cycling, transit or pedestrians. The end result, there is never money available when I complain about a missing block of sidewalk on Bank Street no less, even if it means having to take your life in your hands in winter when the road shoulder can disappear. At the moment, cycling has generally been receiving increased funding. It is telling when some cycling funding has a detrimental effect on key transit service.

Bit of a false equivalence here. No one is cutting or re-routing bus routes in favor of cycling. Not having a bike lane, on the other hand, means no physical way for most people to navigate the street on a bicycle, which is a legit transportation mode to get around in the city.

[lrt's friend]

Originally Posted by zzptichka

Bit of a false equivalence here. No one is cutting or re-routing bus routes in favor of cycling. Not having a bike lane, on the other hand, means no physical way for most people to navigate the street on a bicycle, which is a legit transportation mode to get around in the city.

cutting transit? No. Slowing Down transit? Yes. Bicycles do not have to be given priority on every street, when there is limited space. A parallel street that is reasonably close by should be good enough. I realize that in some cases, there are no alternatives.


I fully agree that there needs to be a cycling priority network throughout the city that is connected.

[PHrenetic]

Originally Posted by lrt's friend

cutting transit? No. Slowing Down transit? Yes. Bicycles do not have to be given priority on every street, when there is limited space. A parallel street that is reasonably close by should be good enough. I realize that in some cases, there are no alternatives.


I fully agree that there needs to be a cycling priority network throughout the city that is connected.

Good Day.

...which is where one perfect example is that the new E/W segment scheduled for MacArthur --should-- be on Donald, a lower car-volume road easily rebuilt to fully-segregated bicycle lanes, to --properly-- intersect with the Adawe crossing to Somerset at the west end, and crosses St.Laurent to Cummings easily at the east end. MacArthur is, IMHO, a horrible choice, and having to get dumped out onto St.Laurent (unless that is where you want) is equally horrible.

NoJoy!

[Uhuniau]

Originally Posted by Urbanarchit

And this is the fault of cyclists, how?

Bus stops, including connecting stops, were removed on Beechwood to make room for cycle lanes and tracks.

The plans for dedicated transit lanes along Montreal Road were scrapped in order to make room for bike lanes and tracks.

Bus stops were moved and removed on Main Street to make room for cycle tracks, which have the added benefit of creating physical conflict zones with transit passengers.

Similar geometry was adopted on St. Patrick for some reason.

Time and time again, on traditional main streets in Ottawa, the laudable goal of adding space for cyclists is coming at the expense of transit service.

I do agree that the City is failing to create a proper transit system as they always prioritize cars over everyone else. But this is not the fault of cyclists, and cyclists are still accommodated last and with some of the worst compromises the City could plan.

In the examples I cite above, cyclists are being accommodated ahead of transit users and transit vehicles, and, in numerous instances, the overall quality and functionality of main-street transit service is degraded as a result.

When push comes to shove, in this term of council, it's been transit that has been downgraded on every single urban mainstreet project, even if the cyclists aren't getting everything they want.

You complain because, on occasion where the City had bus routes, the City has included some bike lanes.

No, I complain that the city has included bike lanes at the cost of bus stops, bus shelters, and bus-to-bus connections.

These two things can easily co-exist, but the solution isn't to avoid bike lanes if there's also a bus route on a dangerous or high-volume/ destination street.

If it's a destination street, then the cost of adding bike infrastructure should not be at the cost of degrading transit service, but for some reason, the cycle lobby can never bring themselves to admit that that is what is happening.

And it is.

Sometimes though, routes where there are buses also need bike lanes.

Yup. I'd still like to know why that justifies removing shelters, stops, and connections all over the older urban part of the city, though.

[Uhuniau]

Originally Posted by Catenary

Of course it's easy to forget the times where cycling plans were thrown out to improve or facilitate transit service. Lyon, where the consulted-on plan was changed to remove cycling facilities, or Somerset East, where additional facilities are limited by route 16. In that situation, the street is almost certainly used by more cyclists than transit users.

And yet it still requires transit service, so that's a thing.

There are some more sanctimonious members of the cycling lobby in this town who want buses off the streets entirely. This is not conducive to building a non-auto transportation balance.

[Uhuniau]

Originally Posted by zzptichka

Bit of a false equivalence here. No one is cutting or re-routing bus routes in favor of cycling. Not having a bike lane, on the other hand, means no physical way for most people to navigate the street on a bicycle, which is a legit transportation mode to get around in the city.

Routes, no.

Stops, yes.

Bus lanes, yes.

Shelters, yes.

Connections, yes.

[m0nkyman]

Originally Posted by Uhuniau

Why does transit constantly have to be downgraded to make room for cycling infrastructure?

Because they absolutely refuse to downgrade parking

[zzptichka]

Originally Posted by Uhuniau

And yet it still requires transit service, so that's a thing.

There are some more sanctimonious members of the cycling lobby in this town who want buses off the streets entirely. This is not conducive to building a non-auto transportation balance.

What is this "cycling lobby" you keep talking about, and why do they keep failing so hard at their job that we still have a single half-assed segregated route through downtown?

[Marshsparrow]

The more cyclists on the roads = less cars - so I'm all for more bike infrastructure to connect the entire city and to make it safer for cyclists, pedestrians and drivers - its really a win-win-win. The Holland concept however was not well thought out and an accident / death in the making - not good planning or execution - we can do better.

[silvergate]

Originally Posted by Marshsparrow

The more cyclists on the roads = less cars - so I'm all for more bike infrastructure to connect the entire city and to make it safer for cyclists, pedestrians and drivers - its really a win-win-win. The Holland concept however was not well thought out and an accident / death in the making - not good planning or execution - we can do better.

Or less transit users, and no change in the amount of cars on the road.

[acottawa]

Originally Posted by Marshsparrow

The more cyclists on the roads = less cars - so I'm all for more bike infrastructure to connect the entire city and to make it safer for cyclists, pedestrians and drivers - its really a win-win-win. The Holland concept however was not well thought out and an accident / death in the making - not good planning or execution - we can do better.

The problem with that logic is that the vast majority of cyclists in this city are of the fair weather variety. In the winter, or even if the weather is bad most of those cyclist are back on roads or on transit.

[zzptichka]

Originally Posted by acottawa

The problem with that logic is that the vast majority of cyclists in this city are of the fair weather variety. In the winter, or even if the weather is bad most of those cyclist are back on roads or on transit.

Fair weather cyclists are the first allies of transit advocates. When they can't bike they either ride the bus, or they drive but look forward to dropping the car if bus/rail becomes convenient.
For year-round drivers, on the other hand, it would take whole lot more to leave the comfort zone of their car and start riding bus.