New bike lane being built at 19th St NW. Seems like the pole is here to stay and the bike lane is narrowed and winding, probably to decrease speed approaching the intersection, which is a good design choice.
I don’t think the pole is for a flashing beacon. Asked the project team previously and they said a permanent beacon will be built where it is now, and they do not plan to even paint a crossing anywhere else.
The rationale being: “The intent of painting only one of the connections is to encourage users to utilize the crossing that has the flashing beacon as much as possible. While the other crosswalks are open for use, the most ideal crossing would be the NW-SE with the flashing beacon.”
I’d argue installing two beacons so people can cross where they want and I’m sure the outcome with only one crossing won’t be kids crossing in the “open but not encouraged for use” crossing.
New bike lane being built at 19th St NW. Seems like the pole is here to stay and the bike lane is narrowed and winding, probably to decrease speed approaching the intersection, which is a good design choice.
I don’t think the pole is for a flashing beacon. Asked the project team previously and they said a permanent beacon will be built where it is now, and they do not plan to even paint a crossing anywhere else.
The rationale being: “The intent of painting only one of the connections is to encourage users to utilize the crossing that has the flashing beacon as much as possible. While the other crosswalks are open for use, the most ideal crossing would be the NW-SE with the flashing beacon.”
I’d argue installing two beacons so people can cross where they want and I’m sure the outcome with only one crossing won’t be kids crossing in the “open but not encouraged for use” crossing. View attachment 693225View attachment 693228
That's an interesting one...it looks like the wheeling lane just kinda starts/ends there? With nothing on the southbound side? Does it at least go all the way up to 5 Ave?
Here's what it was before:
I think they made the right call moving the RRFB up to the yycburg corner, but I strongly disagree with not keeping the other crosswalk painted. We shouldn't be conditioning drivers to expect pedestrians will only exist if the bright lights are flashing...RRFBs are also just good pedestrian signs on their own and drivers should be alert before they flash.
One might argue that there's little reason on paper to expect peds to use the now formerly painted crosswalk, but it's been that way for years. I have at least 2 common crossings I use where the RRFBs are on the wrong side and the paint suggests I should cross three streets instead of one (which would also expose me to A-pillar blindspots for left turns).
They definitely need to paint the N-S crosswalks on both sides
That's an interesting one...it looks like the wheeling lane just kinda starts/ends there? With nothing on the southbound side? Does it at least go all the way up to 5 Ave?
I think they made the right call moving the RRFB up to the yycburg corner, but I strongly disagree with not keeping the other crosswalk painted. We shouldn't be conditioning drivers to expect pedestrians will only exist if the bright lights are flashing...RRFBs are also just good pedestrian signs on their own and drivers should be alert before they flash.
One might argue that there's little reason on paper to expect peds to use the now formerly painted crosswalk, but it's been that way for years. I have at least 2 common crossings I use where the RRFBs are on the wrong side and the paint suggests I should cross three streets instead of one (which would also expose me to A-pillar blindspots for left turns).
They definitely need to paint the N-S crosswalks on both sides
They're rebuilding the whole stretch of 19th between Kensington and 5th/6th. They only finished the NE side so far. I also agree the crossing they have the beacon is the best one, as it is the most convenient connection between the disjointed 2nd Ave. I just don't agree, same as you, that not painting the other crosswalks will somehow encourage the use of the flashing beacon rather than resulting in unsafe crossing, and drivers thinking pedestrians are not "supposed" to be there. We saw in the Airdrie incident how entitled some drivers are. The raised intersection and overall narrowing of the street are very positive changes though, especially as more retail opens on 19th.
I wondered if there was a project page. Positive step overall, but plenty to nitpick.
I think these wheeling lane designs try to be thoroughfares to cover distance and also serve as 'last meters' access to destinations, but they end up doing neither very well at all.
I'd hate to ride those SB passenger-door-zone lanes at anything higher than jogging speed. Which is fine, until we remember that we're not Denmark and most trips are a lot longer than 5 blocks. If I'm not stopping on 19th St, then I'm definitely just sticking with 21st St (fairly low traffic, connects to Memorial overpass, only 1 extra stop sign compared to 19th). So it's great that we already have a pretty efficient road here for riding fast (though a few speed cushions and traffic circles would make it even better).
As for destination access, being down at street level with a vertical curb makes it a lot less useful if you're in a wheelchair/mobility scooter, towing a bike trailer, riding a heavy cargo bike, etc. It's usually not the end of the world, just more annoying than it has to be. Meanwhile, the useful sidewalk space remains constrained - like this bottleneck from this very recent build which will remain the same width despite this project (although a curb cutout will help closer to the corner).
One might argue that the point of wheeling lanes is to separate pedestrians and wheels, which is fair. But if the wheeling lane can only be used safely at jogging speeds, do we really need to separate, or can we figure out how to keep those wheeling speeds down while staying on the same level as peds? Which might sometimes mean a cyclist needs to ring their bell if a couple strolling hand in hand daydreams their way into the wheeling lane. But it also means a fast walker could pass that same couple easily. Or two double strollers could pass each other on the bottleneck above. Or a bike can more easily go the 'wrong way' to get from the Canada Post box to the bike rack at the far right of the picture.
West District does this set up very well (but of course they started from a much wider ROW). The NB side here also looks to do this well (and in this case the full 5 blocks isn't to bad because there's only 1 cross street). The expectation should be that you don't really want to use 'last meters' style wheeling lanes for more than 2-3 blocks. Which means having good alternatives as 'bike boulevards/highways' running nearby.
I wondered if there was a project page. Positive step overall, but plenty to nitpick.
I think these wheeling lane designs try to be thoroughfares to cover distance and also serve as 'last meters' access to destinations, but they end up doing neither very well at all.
I'd hate to ride those SB passenger-door-zone lanes at anything higher than jogging speed. Which is fine, until we remember that we're not Denmark and most trips are a lot longer than 5 blocks. If I'm not stopping on 19th St, then I'm definitely just sticking with 21st St (fairly low traffic, connects to Memorial overpass, only 1 extra stop sign compared to 19th). So it's great that we already have a pretty efficient road here for riding fast (though a few speed cushions and traffic circles would make it even better).
As for destination access, being down at street level with a vertical curb makes it a lot less useful if you're in a wheelchair/mobility scooter, towing a bike trailer, riding a heavy cargo bike, etc. It's usually not the end of the world, just more annoying than it has to be. Meanwhile, the useful sidewalk space remains constrained - like this bottleneck from this very recent build which will remain the same width despite this project (although a curb cutout will help closer to the corner).
One might argue that the point of wheeling lanes is to separate pedestrians and wheels, which is fair. But if the wheeling lane can only be used safely at jogging speeds, do we really need to separate, or can we figure out how to keep those wheeling speeds down while staying on the same level as peds? Which might sometimes mean a cyclist needs to ring their bell if a couple strolling hand in hand daydreams their way into the wheeling lane. But it also means a fast walker could pass that same couple easily. Or two double strollers could pass each other on the bottleneck above. Or a bike can more easily go the 'wrong way' to get from the Canada Post box to the bike rack at the far right of the picture.
West District does this set up very well (but of course they started from a much wider ROW). The NB side here also looks to do this well (and in this case the full 5 blocks isn't to bad because there's only 1 cross street). The expectation should be that you don't really want to use 'last meters' style wheeling lanes for more than 2-3 blocks. Which means having good alternatives as 'bike boulevards/highways' running nearby.
That's a really detailed and thoughtful response. The community provided feedback to have the wheeling lane on a different road, but the city wanted it on 19th. And I believe part of the rationale is in the winter, bike lanes are municipal responsibility to clear, keeping access to 19th, while 21st, there would be no snow clearing in the winter.
The sidewalks are being meaningfully widened as part of this project. The sidewalk you have pictured above, will extend further out, because they're expanding the street eastward, by taking back some of the city ROW that used to be used as the resident's front yard. A by product of the project is the also the elimination of legacy sidewalk ramps for garages. The new sidewalks are flat, with only the outer edge sloped, as opposed to the fully sloped sidewalk. This makes a huge difference walking, especially in the winter.
Lastly, part of this is to eventually grade separate the 5th/6th bike lane, and create lanes on Kensington. They've already removed the Kensington vehicle lane with temporary measures, so just need the funding for a bike lane. Taken together, there will be a path on Kensington, 19th, 5th/6th, 9a Street, 2nd/7th Ave Sunnyside (under construction) to connect the Sunnyside/Hillhurst/West Hillhurst communities
Lastly, part of this is to eventually grade separate the 5th/6th bike lane, and create lanes on Kensington. They've already removed the Kensington vehicle lane with temporary measures, so just need the funding for a bike lane. Taken together, there will be a path on Kensington, 19th, 5th/6th, 9a Street, 2nd/7th Ave Sunnyside (under construction) to connect the Sunnyside/Hillhurst/West Hillhurst communities
I think Kensington Rd is more likely to be some form of bus lane than bike lane (perhaps a bus lane where bikes are permitted like in Inglewood; which I know the paint isn't infrastructure crowd don't love, but I think can actually be decent).
The sidewalks are being meaningfully widened as part of this project. The sidewalk you have pictured above, will extend further out, because they're expanding the street eastward, by taking back some of the city ROW that used to be used as the resident's front yard. A by product of the project is the also the elimination of legacy sidewalk ramps for garages. The new sidewalks are flat, with only the outer edge sloped, as opposed to the fully sloped sidewalk. This makes a huge difference walking, especially in the winter.
I don't think those sidewalk widths are changing; its the residential blocks further north say 'widen sidewalk 2.00m', but for the image I posted its 'Ex. Sidewalk 1.70-4.70m'
The narrowest bottleneck is probably 1 block north (Ex. sidewalk 1.50-5.00m) because of the black pipe fence below.
The example I posted is just a bit funny because it's a brand new build and the elevated 'patio' that causes the problem appears to be quite useless. In any event, it will all still feel wider because there won't be cars right up to the curb with protruding mirrors.
That's a really detailed and thoughtful response. The community provided feedback to have the wheeling lane on a different road, but the city wanted it on 19th. And I believe part of the rationale is in the winter, bike lanes are municipal responsibility to clear, keeping access to 19th, while 21st, there would be no snow clearing in the winter.
My idea is actually to avoid building costly*/controversial wheeling lanes, but rather make simple modifications to create entire 'wheeling streets'...that can still accommodate local vehicle traffic. I'll go so far as to say that fully protected bike lanes should be a measure of last resort, rather than 'The Ideal' to aspire to. There's a lot to unpack from that statement; the first step to a good bike network is still fully protected lanes in the highest traffic areas. But building upon that, I think there is room to achieve a lot more benefit for a lot less time/cost/engagement/political will.
Obviously this challenges a lot of the current thinking. Riding in any kind of mixed-traffic is currently considered too scary and inaccessible, which is usually totally justified. But we don't do a great job of evaluating the context and frequency of vehicle conflicts...we can present impressive data by comparing Busy Street w/o bike lanes to Busy Street w/ bike lanes, but I'd argue we need to look at Busy Street w/ bike lanes vs. Quiet Wheeling Street. For a ~900 meter stretch like this 19 St project, that probably looks something like:
Dozens of vehicles, high likelihood of pedestrian crossing(s), protected most of the block but exposed at intersections, possible door zones, narrow space to pass or be passed by other cyclists. And most importantly poor visibility because you're riding at the curb; but the physical infrastructure should help alert drivers to potential for cyclists
vs.
0-3 vehicles, minimal visual distractions, wide ROW to pass or be passed by other users (or even vehicles if you wish), traffic calming and visual reminders for motorists, you can ride in the most visible place
There's still plenty of room for things to go wrong in either example, but I think the latter is a lot closer to 5A than the former. But you might have to navigate one more block to your final destination
To flesh out exactly what I'd want the street to look like:
21 St NW is already pretty close to what I'm describing. I'd nit pick that it is already so efficient that it has slightly too much traffic at peak times (likely more now if people try to avoid a slightly slower19th), and it's not ideal near Kensington Rd with a bunch of weird driveways. To make it closer to perfect you change it so motorists won't want to use it for more than 2 blocks:
1. put in a diverter at 2nd or 3rd Ave (bikes can go straight but cars have to turn right)
2. reverse stop sign at 4 ave (or make traffic circle)
3. add RRFB crossing at 5 Ave.
4. additional speed humps, traffic circles, speed limit to 30 & no passing allowed
Even more ideal would be to use 20th St NW, because it is just one block from the vibrant street, and already starting from a 'local traffic only' situation. But it involves more work:
1. put in a diverter at 2nd or 3rd Ave (bikes can go straight but cars have to turn right)
2. reverse or change to traffic circles at four intersections that currently have stop signs
3. add RRFB crossing at 5 Ave.
4. add RRFB crossing at Kensington Rd
5. additional speed humps, traffic circles, speed limit to 30 & no passing allowed
6. wayfinding to/from memorial overpass (it's more natural to use 21 St)
Anyways, a bit of a long digression - I've been ruminating on this for a while so it's got to vomit it out in type. I feel like the 'bike lane battles' are a lot harder and less productive than they need to be. Local residents typically love traffic calming (at least once they experience it)...so let's build lots of traffic calming that serves cyclists without necessarily promoting it as 'bike infrastructure'. Of course therein lies the challenge of promoting it, especially to new/prospective users, but I'm also not sure the 'construction controversy' phase is the best marketing, either.
I think Kensington Rd is more likely to be some form of bus lane than bike lane (perhaps a bus lane where bikes are permitted like in Inglewood; which I know the paint isn't infrastructure crowd don't love, but I think can actually be decent).
I don't think those sidewalk widths are changing; its the residential blocks further north say 'widen sidewalk 2.00m', but for the image I posted its 'Ex. Sidewalk 1.70-4.70m'
The narrowest bottleneck is probably 1 block north (Ex. sidewalk 1.50-5.00m) because of the black pipe fence below.
The example I posted is just a bit funny because it's a brand new build and the elevated 'patio' that causes the problem appears to be quite useless. In any event, it will all still feel wider because there won't be cars right up to the curb with protruding mirrors.
My idea is actually to avoid building costly*/controversial wheeling lanes, but rather make simple modifications to create entire 'wheeling streets'...that can still accommodate local vehicle traffic. I'll go so far as to say that fully protected bike lanes should be a measure of last resort, rather than 'The Ideal' to aspire to. There's a lot to unpack from that statement; the first step to a good bike network is still fully protected lanes in the highest traffic areas. But building upon that, I think there is room to achieve a lot more benefit for a lot less time/cost/engagement/political will.
Obviously this challenges a lot of the current thinking. Riding in any kind of mixed-traffic is currently considered too scary and inaccessible, which is usually totally justified. But we don't do a great job of evaluating the context and frequency of vehicle conflicts...we can present impressive data by comparing Busy Street w/o bike lanes to Busy Street w/ bike lanes, but I'd argue we need to look at Busy Street w/ bike lanes vs. Quiet Wheeling Street. For a ~900 meter stretch like this 19 St project, that probably looks something like:
Dozens of vehicles, high likelihood of pedestrian crossing(s), protected most of the block but exposed at intersections, possible door zones, narrow space to pass or be passed by other cyclists. And most importantly poor visibility because you're riding at the curb; but the physical infrastructure should help alert drivers to potential for cyclists
vs.
0-3 vehicles, minimal visual distractions, wide ROW to pass or be passed by other users (or even vehicles if you wish), traffic calming and visual reminders for motorists, you can ride in the most visible place
There's still plenty of room for things to go wrong in either example, but I think the latter is a lot closer to 5A than the former. But you might have to navigate one more block to your final destination
To flesh out exactly what I'd want the street to look like:
21 St NW is already pretty close to what I'm describing. I'd nit pick that it is already so efficient that it has slightly too much traffic at peak times (likely more now if people try to avoid a slightly slower19th), and it's not ideal near Kensington Rd with a bunch of weird driveways. To make it closer to perfect you change it so motorists won't want to use it for more than 2 blocks:
1. put in a diverter at 2nd or 3rd Ave (bikes can go straight but cars have to turn right)
2. reverse stop sign at 4 ave (or make traffic circle)
3. add RRFB crossing at 5 Ave.
4. additional speed humps, traffic circles, speed limit to 30 & no passing allowed
Even more ideal would be to use 20th St NW, because it is just one block from the vibrant street, and already starting from a 'local traffic only' situation. But it involves more work:
1. put in a diverter at 2nd or 3rd Ave (bikes can go straight but cars have to turn right)
2. reverse or change to traffic circles at four intersections that currently have stop signs
3. add RRFB crossing at 5 Ave.
4. add RRFB crossing at Kensington Rd
5. additional speed humps, traffic circles, speed limit to 30 & no passing allowed
6. wayfinding to/from memorial overpass (it's more natural to use 21 St)
Anyways, a bit of a long digression - I've been ruminating on this for a while so it's got to vomit it out in type. I feel like the 'bike lane battles' are a lot harder and less productive than they need to be. Local residents typically love traffic calming (at least once they experience it)...so let's build lots of traffic calming that serves cyclists without necessarily promoting it as 'bike infrastructure'. Of course therein lies the challenge of promoting it, especially to new/prospective users, but I'm also not sure the 'construction controversy' phase is the best marketing, either.
I didn’t notice the ex. sidewalk, but I guess that part isn’t being expanded, which is unfortunate. I think most of the time people would bike on a side street, especially in the summer. I think for busy streets like 17th, what the city did of having bike lanes nearby and off of 17th is a good decision, despite people compaling it’s “car-centric”. But 19th isn’t that busy that having mode share isn’t really a significant issue. And narrowing the driving lane, and in general making the area busier, reduces speeds and make it safer for pedestrians.
