Advocacy & Safety - Talked to my town manager re: road design.

Hi. Here's a wee story.

My town is planning to re-build the in-town section of a highway that runs right along one edge of our town. There was a public open house last evening with drawings of the plans, and city personnel to talk to.

The current highway is undivided through town, has 2 lanes in each direction (N&S). There are shoulders (nice ones) as you approach town, but they disappear once you are in town proper. A cyclist MUST take a lane since there is NO room to allow safe passing if you don't. Most of this section is posted 50km/hr (30MPH), so autos are supposed to be driving quite slowly. There are no curbs, so where there is shoulder, a cyclis can pull over and let faster moving traffic pass.

The plan is to divide some sections of the North and South bound now, and to place curbs on the road. There will be NO shoulders through town at all. Escape from a motorist squeezing a cyclist out of the lane, will now involve jumping a curb, and then perhaps hitting a new chain link fence.

I asked the town manager if any consideration for cyclists had gone into the planning. his response was to say "I don't think cyclists would be confortable on that road, so we've not planned for bike traffic." I explained that I felt he was incorrect with this opinion, and that bikes are a viable alternative transportation that should be considered when planning all roads.

He then pointed at the plan and what will be a MUP along one side of the road. This MUP will have 9 street crossings, and dissapear entirely for a section of 2 or three blocks. I told him, no cyclist would be planning to dismount 9 or 10 times just to get across our small town, and asked him what were we supposed to do for the blocks where the MUP is missing?

He asked me what I thought of the plans as a motorist. I said it seems OK for motorists. I got the distinct feeling I was being dismissed summarily at this point.

Oh well, I filled in the paper forms too, so they will go to whatever commitee is planning on ignoring them as well. I gave them my email address. Wonder if I'll ever hear from them?

The town manager has got to consider those who are visually and/or hearing impaired who may not be able to see/hear cyclists from far away, so it's better to be in the road. That is, unless the sidewalks are are very wide -- probably 1.25 to 1.5 times the width of a car.

If there are more cyclists in the sidewalk, then those who are visually impaired (including me) may find it embarrassing to not be prepared to move to the right of the sidewalk to let incoming cyclists through. Plus, if there are more cyclists coming through, then a visually impaired may have to either walk or stop until it's clear for them to walk. In other words, there are pedestrians who feel much more comfortable walking in the center of the sidewalk, including me, but unless the sidewalk is very wide enough for pedestrians and cyclists to use the sidewalk comfortably.

Hi. Here's a wee story.

My town is planning to re-build the in-town section of a highway that runs right along one edge of our town. There was a public open house last evening with drawings of the plans, and city personnel to talk to.

The current highway is undivided through town, has 2 lanes in each direction (N&S). There are shoulders (nice ones) as you approach town, but they disappear once you are in town proper. A cyclist MUST take a lane since there is NO room to allow safe passing if you don't. Most of this section is posted 50km/hr (30MPH), so autos are supposed to be driving quite slowly. There are no curbs, so where there is shoulder, a cyclis can pull over and let faster moving traffic pass.

The plan is to divide some sections of the North and South bound now, and to place curbs on the road. There will be NO shoulders through town at all. Escape from a motorist squeezing a cyclist out of the lane, will now involve jumping a curb, and then perhaps hitting a new chain link fence.

I asked the town manager if any consideration for cyclists had gone into the planning. his response was to say "I don't think cyclists would be confortable on that road, so we've not planned for bike traffic." I explained that I felt he was incorrect with this opinion, and that bikes are a viable alternative transportation that should be considered when planning all roads.

He then pointed at the plan and what will be a MUP along one side of the road. This MUP will have 9 street crossings, and dissapear entirely for a section of 2 or three blocks. I told him, no cyclist would be planning to dismount 9 or 10 times just to get across our small town, and asked him what were we supposed to do for the blocks where the MUP is missing?

He asked me what I thought of the plans as a motorist. I said it seems OK for motorists. I got the distinct feeling I was being dismissed summarily at this point.

Oh well, I filled in the paper forms too, so they will go to whatever commitee is planning on ignoring them as well. I gave them my email address. Wonder if I'll ever hear from them?


I'd raise hell about the MUP. At 30mph with 4 lanes it'd be fine with no special accommodations for bicycles. I'd have no problem riding that right in the middle of the right hand lane! The bike path would make me uncomfortable simply because it invites motorists to tell me to use it as they drive by.


The curbs are probably going in along with storm sewers: Don't fight those, better drainage helps everyone.

Thanks for sharing your point of view Grayson. I suspect the MUP will be the same width (maybe 2m) as most of the town's MUPs.

Does anyone think writing a followup letter to maybe the planning commission, and or members of council is a good idea?

I'd raise hell about the MUP. At 30mph with 4 lanes it'd be fine with no special accommodations for bicycles. I'd have no problem riding that right in the middle of the right hand lane! The bike path would make me uncomfortable simply because it invites motorists to tell me to use it as they drive by.


The curbs are probably going in along with storm sewers: Don't fight those, better drainage helps everyone.

Some sections of the road are currently 70km (around 45mph) speed limit. I don't know if there are plans to drop it all to 50km. I should ask someone.

I'm fine on a 30MPH road in the middle of the lane too, but you're right about the path and motorists yelling at me to use it.

Thing is, we also need good ways for pedestrians to get around. Currently there is no way to walk from business to business either.

I don't understand the problem. I actually prefer the road you are describing. If the road has two non-shareable lanes in each direction, just take the lane and let cars pass in the other lane.

I'm just mostly concerned that the town took no consideration for cyclists into the planning process. If the manager had replied... "Yes we considered a few ideas, and felt that the road would be best used by cyclists taking the lane", then I'd feel better.

When I take the lane on this road, I've had motorists stay behind me honking the horn, even when the other lane is free of traffic, in fact the auto on my ass is the only car to be seen going my direction.

Demand Sharrow marks be placed in the RH lane.

Thanks for sharing your point of view Grayson. I suspect the MUP will be the same width (maybe 2m) as most of the town's MUPs.

Does anyone think writing a followup letter to maybe the planning commission, and or members of council is a good idea?

Yes, point out that shoulders will work fine for cyclists, that cyclists will be delaying motor traffic less, and that shoulders provide places for service vehicles and breakdowns. Do not emphasize the cyclist stuff. Heap on all the advantages for motorists. Make it sound as if this is just the thing for autos. Mention eliminating delays for motorists.

What will happen is that they will listen as long as you make them believe that everything you are talking about is a benefit for cars and drivers. As soon as you mention bicycles... their attention span is gone. I have seen this at several local planning meetings and it is amazing at how well it works and how it works. People have approved wonderful things if they think it helps cars and drivers. (Have seen both MUP tunnels and wide shoulders passed by folks that didn't give a sh|t for cyclists.)

Put the pressure on (get rid of that terrible MUP) and push for wide curb lanes and shoulders... "for the cars." Good luck.

Suggest you contact Questions@tc.gc.ca and enquire about Canadian Highway Design regulations, describing the local proposals.

Demand Sharrow marks be placed in the RH lane.

Even better, get them to put up a bunch of these
http://www.diycycling.com/images/baufl250x300.png

Without seeing a pic of the road, why can't they just put a bike lane on each side if there is room for an MUP?

Thing is, we also need good ways for pedestrians to get around. Currently there is no way to walk from business to business either.


Small towns always ignore pedestrians because they don't have enough people to have motor vehicle congestion.

Which, to me, is really stupid because most of them are small enough that you only need a car to leave town. But, since probably 90% of the residents work in the nearby city they all need a car anyway...

Even better, get them to put up a bunch of these
http://www.diycycling.com/images/baufl250x300.png

He'd have to verify that that's true in his province in Canada.

Even better, get them to put up a bunch of these
http://www.diycycling.com/images/baufl250x300.png

even better, just make a bunch yourself and put them up!

Small towns always ignore pedestrians because they don't have enough people to have motor vehicle congestion.

Which, to me, is really stupid because most of them are small enough that you only need a car to leave town. But, since probably 90% of the residents work in the nearby city they all need a car anyway...

That's a very accurate assessment of my town.