By Staff
December 26th, 2016
BURLINGTON, ON
It has come to this:
On Dec 24, 2016, at 11:06 AM, philip waggett wrote:
Mr. Goldring & Mr. Dennison,
Back in August, I commented that the data collection along New Street was a “sham”, this was not a “test” but a fait accompli in which the bike lanes were now permanent. In fact two comments from the recent minutes of the Cycling Committee support this view.
In October, the Cycling Committee minutes reported “…Phase Two will look at the possibility of physcial separation of the bike lanes and car lanes…”; in November, the minutes reported, “Report that New Street will be going next fall”. Both of these comments indicate that the Cycling Committee believe that the New Street Bike Lanes are a permanent fixture–despite the widespread opposition of thousands of residents!!!!!
Further, the October minutes of this special interest lobby group reveal that $1800 of valuable taxpayers money was approved to buy “free(?) giveaways” at the inspire burlington event in November. The giveaways apparently promoted that “cycling is delightful”.
Why are valuable taxpayers resources being used for this purpose?
At 7:14 am Christmas Day Ward 4 city Councillor |Jack Dennison wrote
Phil
We will get input from Dan Ozimkovic traffic engineering when he returns from Christmas break. He has the details.
The new street bike lanes are absolutely not a done deal, it will depend on if there is a reduction in accidents in that stretch and not a significant increase in travel times, all of which will be reported on.
Phil, Merry Christmas and Happy New year to you and yours
Jack
Our hope is that Jack was up at that hour with those that matter in his life. The bike lanes on New Street can just wait until the New Year,
Lets not make this just about bikes, Road re-configeration (aka Road Diet) can work, a 2010 Seattle DOT, before and after survey on one project showed:
Top end speeders down by 80% (those traveling 10 mph over limit)
Collisions reduced (total by 14% injury based collisions down by 33%)
Pedestrian Crossings safer (Px collisions down by 80%)
Bicycle volume up 35% (over three year measurement period)
Motor vehicle traffic not diverted
Peak hour capacity maintained
The question is, which of the above are we measuring,all,some? If New St was about more than bike lanes maybe more people would buy in.
the only way to make sure we stop more of this nonsense comes next election when we have the chance to throw out those who care not what the majority wants. Until then we are stuck with what we eroneously elected last time round.
Pepper…as citizens and council members very well know, Phillip Waggett is one citizen on a mission to spread negativity towards cycling and the Cycling Committee. He does not represent the views of the majority of citizens. He has continued to attempt to frame the members of this citizens’ committee as a lobby group. That is not what we do.
I would like to clear up some misconceptions in his reading of the Cycling Committee’s minutes that are important for your readers to understand.
1. The comment about looking at the possibility of physical separation…it has been a consistent position of mine that the addition of physical protection is necessary if we hope to achieve the City’s goals of impacting the modal split on arterial roads like New Street (where nearly all the destinations are). It’s folly to expect more than a handful of people to ride their bikes beside 60-80kph traffic with just paint to protect them.
In the October meeting, Dan (the city’s transportation dep’t representative) responded to my question about protection for the lanes on New Street, saying that it will be looked into at a later date. That’s what is meant by “Phase 2”. Part of this requires that Transportation & Engineering look at how cities that have put in protected lanes have dealt with impacts to issues such as snow removal, sanitation and transit operations.
2. “Report regarding New Street will be going next fall with
data that has been collected and comments received.”
This means the report will be going next fall to Council. It is Council that must make the decision on what to do with the configuration of New Street. They will make this decision informed by data from Staff’s report. Our “interest” is in collecting all the data necessary to make an informed decision. We will advise Council based on that data.
We as a committee have been consistent on this point – the decision must be based on data, not feelings or fears or politics. Councillor Dennison is absolutely right in saying that these lanes are not a done deal, and I support his position that the number of accidents and impact on travel times for motorists are key criteria that need to be considered. Good on Jack responding to his constituents within 24 hours – even on Christmas!
3. The Cycling Committee has an annual budget of approximately $4,500, which has not increased for at least the 4 years that I’ve been part of this committee. Most of these funds are used to purchase giveaways for community events which we volunteer to attend to represent the city and talk to members of the community about cycling. The $1,800 for giveaways approved in November was part of this budget. The Inspire Burlington event was one of many that the Cycling Committee sets up a booth at. One of the questions asked of citizens attending this event was “What would make cycling in Burlington delightful?”
Most of the giveaways are handed out at the car free street festivals and other city events. There is a safety component also (most of the cost in this purchase was for bells to put on kids’ bikes, lights & reflective wristbands) which enables us to have conversations about safe cycling.
Maybe some would rather spend taxpayers’ money to promote more car traffic on the roads instead, but for me, it is absolutely clear that promoting cycling has a substantial payback – even if you only think about the impact on public health. And it’s much better for taxpayers if citizens can volunteer their time and talents instead of having to rely on paid resources.
When you don’t like the message, shoot the messenger. Ariens’ rationalizations and generalizations are almost laughable except he’s serious; after all, he is a true believer.
Let’s start clearing up some inaccuracies. I am not negative about cycling or cyclists; I see many seniors and families out participating in what for them is an enjoyable recreational activity. They do so responsibly. What I am negative about is the culture of righteous self-entitlement that permeates the zealots of the cycling fraternity. The hypocrisy of this group is awe-inspiring. They preach “share the road” but do they share it? Ever been stuck behind a gaggle of these zealots out on the road–they don’t share; they’re even violating the law when they do so! (And by the way, this behaviour is peculiar to Halton; when driving in the Yorkshire Dales I don’t experience this–the cyclists are really courteous). They preach the need for safety but do they obey the Highway Traffic Act? Rarely. They scream “give us a yard” but ever see one pull up beside a car at a stop sign; apparently the yard doesn’t apply. Their mantra:
“It’s all about me!”
Am I critical of the Cycling Committee? Absolutely. Despite Ariens’protestations, the Cycling Committee is an “advisory” group in name only.
In fact, they are a tax-funded, special interest lobby group. Like any other lobby group, they are well-organized, represent their own interest, and regularly (and persuasively) solicit support from the bureacrats and politicians at City Hall. Unlike other lobby groups who are self-funded, this one is funded by the very taxpayers whose interests are being marginalized. However, this is a political problem and one that will be dealt with in the next election.
Ariens is being disingenuous when he tries to spin the meaning of “Phase Two WILL…” The phrase is very clear–it is not contingent. The Cycling Committee expects that Phase Two WILL occur. This can not happen unless the decision has already been made to make the lane reductions permanent. And notice the data parameters that Committee and its disciple politicians have adopted–they are very narrow. Good public policy requires a full cost-benefit analysis. Of course, this won’t work with the New Street Lane Reductions. It is clear from the petition on change.org that the large majority of south Burlington residents are suffering the negative consequences of these lane reductions while few, if any cyclists, are benefitting from them.
Burlington residents should be very fearful of the precedent being established here. First, the lane reductions were being sold as a least-cost option but are they? If barriers are installed, the cost will rise substantially. (This reminds one very much of the Pier decision–few benefits but costs rise dramatically). Secondly, residents should be aware that if the lane reductions are made permanent, they will extend all the way to Burloak. As stupid as the lane reductions are, they make no sense if they just extend Guelph Line to Walker’s.
Ariens says that the decision will not involve politics. Really? Can you imagine, given the current uproar, what the chances of any member of council are at being re-elected if the lane reductions are extended the full length of New Street?
And lastly, Ariens notes that my views do not represent the majority of citizens. Care to put them to a referendum? We could reallocate some funds from the Rick Goldring World Tour to pay for it!
Philip…While it is true that some “members of the cycling fraternity” do behave poorly on the roads, and there can be a sort of pack mentality that reflects badly on cyclists in general, most people who ride bikes are no better or no worse than the users of other modes of transport. In fact they are many of the same people – our neighbours, friends and colleagues. Yes, I’ve been stuck behind groups of cyclists in North Burlington roads, but never for more than 20 seconds, and I just pull out into the oncoming lane when it is safe to pass and give them lots of room.
There’s a big difference between a moving vehicle passing an unprotected cyclist at 60+ km/h (being inches away from killing said cyclist), and a cyclist edging up beside a stopped motor vehicle (it may be annoying knowing you will have to pass said cyclist again, but it doesn’t threaten you in any way). Some empathy is helpful in making sure everyone gets where they are going safely.
One could say we are a lobby group, simply because the members have some degree of expertise and experience with cycling. One could also say that the Seniors advisory committee is a lobby group for seniors, or that the Heritage committee is a lobby group for our built heritage. That would be dismissive and wrong. These areas may be of “special interest”, but are important aspects in determining the future of our city and they affect everyone. I believe we are all better off when citizens with talents and knowledge have a voice and an ability to share it with decision-makers. As far as being tax-funded goes, everything we do depends on the efforts of our volunteer members, and on the City clerk and staff who help to co-ordinate our activities.
I don’t put that much stock in the phrasing of the minutes – my take from the meeting was that it was something the Transportation team were going to look at. Maybe I’m wrong and the City does have a “Phase 2” in mind where they test out some protective elements. But I assure you, no decisions have been made that the Cycling Committee is aware of, and Council will decide in fall. When it comes to protection there’s a wide range of possibilities – from the very inexpensive (e.g. parking curbs or plastic posts) to full-on concrete barriers with decorative flower arrangements. Most of these options would be much cheaper than the $5 million cited as the cost of cycle tracks from Guelph to Burloak. I believe that the cycle track option would cost more than that. When a cyclist is closer to the road, it’s much easier for a car driver to see them. When they are on the sidewalk, most of the time motorists are not expecting somebody coming at the speed of a bicycle. You have to slow the bikes down and put them in view of motorists turning onto an adjoining street or driveway. Getting this design right will be considerably more expensive than practically any option that reallocates the existing road space.
At the conclusion of the pilot, Council will make a decision about the future configuration of New Street. Staff’s recommendation back in July was for a 3 lane configuration for most of the road, with 4 lanes for the section between Wedgewood and Walkers (currently 5 lanes with a centre turn lane). The 4 lane section would have on road bike lanes crowded in – without a buffer. Drivers would have to squeeze into 1 lane at the pinch points. If that is the preferred option, it is in my opinion not worth the effort. Having a continuous 3 lane configuration for motorists all the way from Oakville to Downtown would be considerably safer and allow the buffer for the cycle lane to be continuous as well. If it can handle the traffic volumes with minimal disruption as in the Guelph – Walkers segment this would be optimal. I don’t know whether staff will stick with that recommendation or not.
Also I did not say that the decision will not involve politics. While I hope we can make a decision based solely on the costs and benefits, both short and long-term, it probably isn’t going to happen when you consider the need for politicians to get reelected in the short term. The road diet project is being used as a scapegoat for the wider issues we face in our transport network (when the QEW backs up, the extra lane just means the bottleneck in the PM peak occurs further down the line). Many of the complaints in the petition are legitimately concerned about this general issue and many fears have been proven to be overblown based on the data already collected such as the traffic volumes on Spruce & Rexway. Hopefully our intelligent citizens will be able to look at the measurements, come to their own conclusions and understand that this is not about punishing people who commute, it’s about giving everyone another option that they may not have had before – one that has worked well in many other cities across North America as well as Europe. It’s about making New Street a more pleasant place to be – to walk, to shop, to cross the street, much like the segment west of Guelph Line is. It’s about making it safer for all – reducing the high speeds that are common on this stretch will undoubtedly save lives. Joe’s comment below is an excellent one – it is important that this be about more than just bicycles. And we can’t expect the streets to be full of bicycles overnight. The change will be gradual as more and more places are connected to a network, and more and more residents see it as an option for some of their trips.
A reduction in accidents? Well of course there will be a reduction in accidents. People are going slower. So it’s a done deal.
For years researchers have been looking for the center of the universe.
Mr. Waggett will be very disappointed when he finds out it isn’t him.