Cycling on the sidewalk once again hot topic in Maple Ridge

I appreciate being being given the opportunity to write columns about cycling for the Maple Ridge News, but I wish my columns didn't have to be edited. I usually prefer my original version. Problem is, they're usually too long.

Below is the original version of my latest column in The News "Make sidewalks, streets safe":

Maple Ridge's new Active Transportation Advisory Committee is looking for a solution to the cycling-on-the-sidewalk problem in our downtown, a frequently recurring topic of discussion among council members for years already. At its March meeting, Ineke Boekhorst of the BIA, Don Mitchell of the Seniors Society, as well as a a lady who owns a business on 224th Street, all told the committee that elderly people are often afraid to walk on the sidewalks, as inconsiderate and rude people on bikes could easily knock them off their feet, with serious consequences.

Evidence is anecdotal in nature as there has been an absence of hard data, but nevertheless I agree it's a problem that needs to be addressed. 

The fear alone of being hit by a person on a bike will keep seniors from going out for a walk to exercise or do some errands. They should feel safe to do so.

The problem is by no means unique to Maple Ridge, even though our city distinguishes itself from everywhere else in B.C. by having a by-law that allows cycling on sidewalks anywhere in town. New Westminster allows cycling on certain sidewalks only. 

Our by-law dates from 2009. When an open house was held at the time to gather input from residents about the proposed new by-law, Brock MacDonald, the then Director of By-laws, told me that the reason for the change to allow cycling on the sidewalk was that the By-laws department was getting too many complaints from people in residential neighbourhoods who wanted them to issue fines to their neighbours for allowing their kids to ride their bikes on the sidewalks. They were tired of having to deal with these complaints. I agree. Kids should be able to ride their bikes on the sidewalks if the roads are too dangerous due to speeding cars. 

In the downtown, it's rarely kids biking on the sidewalk. You'll see basically two different varieties of adults on bikes. The "bike bandit" types mostly wear hoodies or baseball caps, and they're commonly suspected of riding stolen bicycles. Again, anecdotally, anyone who crosses their path when they're zigzagging at high speeds around obstacles on our sidewalks, risks losing life and limbs. They don't give a hoot about by-laws.

And then we have the so-called "legitimate" people on bikes, of which I consider myself one.  As far as I've seen they're mostly very considerate. They slow down for pedestrians and politely use their bells, which people walking would be able to hear if only they didn't plug their ears with headsets to listen to loud music. These "legitimates" mostly wear helmets too. Somehow some people feel that if a person on a bike does not wear a helmet, he or she is automatically considered guilty as charged, whatever the charge. 

So why are people on bikes on the sidewalk in the first place?

The answer is plain and simple: they fear for their lives, having to share the road with speeding cars and inconsiderate and rude drivers! 

If people can't safely ride on the road, either they'll ride on the sidewalk - by-law or no by-law - or they won't ride at all. You can't argue with fear. I'd personally rather get a fine than be killed.

Bicycles are obviously not welcome on Lougheed and Dewdney. 

There are some designated east-west bike routes. All have been designed to accommodate car traffic, but discourage through traffic, with stop signs at every intersection. Perhaps not surprisingly, stop signs discourage cycle traffic even more, as frequent stop-and-go's waste a lot of precious energy and are time consuming. Helpful drivers who stop and wave people on bikes through actually unintentionally make crossing intersections more hazardous for cyclists as driver behaviour becomes less predictable.

The purpose of these designated bike routes is mostly to keep cyclists out of the way of cars on the arterials so they don't have to slow down. 

But wait, we want them to slow down!

That's the other problem that the Active Transportation Committee wants to find a solution to: speeding throughout the town core. It's one that's not easily solved. 30 km/h signs are not going to do it, as drivers will continue to drive at the speed that feels safe to them, even if it doesn't feel safe to others.

Maple Ridge Director of Engineering David Pollock says "road design is key". But the 'improved' design hasn't worked so well on Lougheed so far. Speed is pretty hard to control on an arterial if you have two lanes in each direction.  

The question that needs to be answered is: what do we want our downtown to be: a people-place - with streets that are inviting to young and old, with outdoor terraces, where people like to hang out - or a traffic sewer system? Right now, Dewdney and Lougheed are traffic sewers, the purpose of which is to accommodate the fast and efficient movement of cars on our streets.  

Fact is, people on bikes don't feel safe on some of our roadways and pedestrians don't feel safe on our sidewalks. You wouldn't want to sit down on a sidewalk bench along Lougheed Highway unless you need to. You can barely have a conversation walking along Dewdney or Lougheed without yelling at the other person. 

The ATAC committee first wants to focus on 224th Street, where speeds are already lower than most. It'll be a good start. Hopefully before long other roads will follow and we'll slowly but surely see our downtown transformed into a more people-friendly place.  Eventually, as the town core further densifies, all streets should be designed to accommodate all road users and make everyone, including people on bikes, feel welcome and safe. 

The cycling-on-the-sidewalk problem cannot be solved without solving the issues of speeding and cyclist safety. After all, you really can't argue with fear.

529 Garage: free bike registry

Have you heard about 529 Garage? It's a free bike registry that can help the RCMP recover your bike in case it gets stolen.

You can register your bike on-line at www.project529.com, or at one of several registration events that Ridge Meadows RCMP will be holding in the next few weeks.

Read more...

Art Studio Bike Tour, May 8, 2016

Updated April 28:

On Mother's Day, Sunday May 8, we'll do another tour by bike of art studios in Maple Ridge during the annual Art Studio Tour. The Art Studio Tour is on the whole weekend. For details, see the Art Studio Tour website.

It's a lot of fun doing a tour by bike, as it adds an element of adventure, and it's cool doing it with a group of like-minded people, but if you wish you can do it on your own as well. We can send you a map on request and you can print it out yourself.

We're offering a flat route, quite similar to the one we did last year, and a hillier route, with studios that we haven't visited before. The hillier route is a great option for those who wish to get some additional health benefits from pedaling up some hills. I hope to do the hilly one myself this year. Who wants to join me??

We will be riding in groups of  9 people or less.

We need to be prepared volunteer-wise, as each group needs at least one, but preferably two volunteers to guide the group. That's why we ask people to register ahead of time, so we know how many volunteers we're going to need. We may have to cap the number of participants if we can't get enough volunteers. We can possibly also hand out maps at the start of the ride, so those who wish to do so, can do the tour on their own.

Start time for each route is 10 am. Please arrive 10 minutes early to sign a waiver.

We'll probably finish some time between 3 and 4 pm, so bring enough water and some lunch. Several studios will be offering snacks and drinks.

The flat route will start from the Bandstand at Memorial Peace Park. The hillier one will start from Starbucks at 240th Street and Dewdney Trunk Road. If you're planning to do either route by yourself, you can of course start anywhere you like along the route. Another good place to start route #2 from would be Kanaka Creek Coffee on 102nd Ave.

Contact Barry (nobell@telus.net) to register. Please specify which ride you would like to do.

If you would like to go at your own pace, please contact Jackie (jchow23708@yahoo.ca) to obtain a map with artist list.

Please note that HUB volunteers do not assume any responsibility for the safety of participants. If you decide to participate with any of our rides, you do so entirely at your own risk. Please obey traffic rules and regulations during the ride.

For these rides, we do not encourage participation of kids under 16 years of age on their own bikes. We're ok with kids in trailers (flat route only!), but again, parents are entirely responsible for the safety of their own children.


You can find the maps below.


Route #1 (flat, about 12 kms):

The artists on route #1:

#11: Kat Wahamaa - Port Haney Artist in Residence - shinyb.ca

11630 - 224 Street, Maple Ridge

#7: Kerry McLaren - Red Dog Studio - kclay.ca

Donnae Bell - donnae.ca

21536 River Road, Maple Ridge

#8: Diane Wooldridge - The Mud Room / Creations By Sisters

Barb Barringer - Spiritbear Designs / Creations by Sisters

21652 121 Ave., Maple Ridge

#9: Kristin Krimmel - kristinkrimmel.com

12343 - 216 St., Maple Ridge

#15: Craig Speirs - facebook: Whispering Wind, Wind Dancers 

Diane Speirs - facebook: Alouette Mountain Studio

23386 - 124 Ave., Maple Ridge

#14: Rebecca Fisher - Maple Ridge Artist in Residence - divasniche.ca

12178-227 Street

And this is route #2, the hilly one (about 16 kms):

List of artists for route #2:

#19:  Alexandra Lanzarotta - LXandraJewellery
11019 - 237 Street, Maple Ridge

#23: Brigitta Schneitter - Brigitta's pottery

Andres Schneiter - Maple Art

Bill Hartley - Brickyard Productions

Mike Stewart - Mike Stewart

24705 - 108 Ave.

#22: Fiona McQuillan - Westcoast Elements, 
facebook: Metal Mantra Jewelry

24985 - 112 Ave.

#21: Mark Tigges - pottery

11614-246 Street

#20: Elizabeth Hancock - Holly Tree Studio

12122 - 244 Street, Maple Ridge

Column: Traffic laws need to catch up

My latest column:

Not only are our roads designed for cars, our traffic laws are written for cars, and bikes are more like a fleeting afterthought.

Cyclists have the same rights and responsibilities as drivers, but this principle ignores some big differences that are not reflected in traditional road design, nor in the B.C. Motor Vehicle Act.

Read more...

Column: "Water theme for Earth Day", and: MRBERT!

My column in the Maple Ridge News of April 10, 2015 is about our 4th annual Cycle Recycle and about the launch of MRBERT:

"At the upcoming Earth Day event on April 18, HUB is going to have lots of bikes to give away! We saved some bikes from the Recycle Depot, and we've also had quite a few donations from individuals this year, especially of kid's bikes. So thank you to Ridge Meadows Recycling Society and all those who donated their bikes! They've all been cleaned already, and one of our committee members is presently hard at work doing some needed repairs.

Read more...

Note that we've made a change of plans with regard to the Cycle Recycle. Since we have over 20 bikes to give away, we decided to have two draws instead of one. The first one will be at 11:30 am by Ross Davies of KEEPS, the second one at 1:30 pm by Queen Elsa (Frozen).

Some of MRBERT's members: John, Dave and Alex

Referendum: Hold your nose, vote 'yes'

Below is the unedited version of my latest column in the Maple Ridge News. It's about the Referendum, of course.

Any day now you'll find the referendum ballot in your mail box and you'll finally have your say. Now before you angrily mark a "no" on your ballot, please reflect on what it is that you're voting on.

I must admit, I'm just as mad as anyone else who doesn't agree with the way this whole thing has been set up. But I do feel that the only right thing to do for Metro Vancouver - including Pitt Meadows and Maple Ridge - is to seriously start investing in transit, walking and cycling to work towards a better, more sustainable transportation system that works for all, and a more livable region for future generations. Therefore I can only vote 'yes', while cursing under my breath.

There's no space provided for comments, unfortunately. We're not being asked if we're okay with the excessive salaries of Translink executives, or if we have a problem with the governance structure of Translink (set up by the provincial government by the way).

Maybe you want to vote 'no' because you feel that there's not enough in it for Maple Ridge or Pitt Meadows, another very valid concern. Or you just don't trust Translink to deliver on its promises.

They're not enquiring if perhaps we're angry about the cost over-runs and continuing delays of the Compass Card (a system mandated by the provincial government by the way), or if we're upset at all with the provincial government for putting us in this position.

There are many possible reasons why people might consider voting 'no'.

It is totally understandable that Mayor Read intends to vote 'no'. As a mayor, she has the responsibility but lacks the authority. The flawed governance structure of Translink will need to be addressed.

Judging from the discussions I hear and read, a lot of people don't seem to know what the actual question is. So here it is once again:

"Do you support a one half percentage point (0.5%) increase in the provincial sales tax in Metro Vancouver, dedicated to the Mayors' Transportation and Transit Plan, with independent audits and public reporting?"

What it basically comes down to, is that with our vote we will be giving a message as to the direction that we want the region as a whole to take. How do we want to live?

Consider the likely consequences of a ‘no’ vote. No level of government would have any appetite to touch this subject in the next 5 to 10 years at a minimum. The proposed infrastructure improvements will be put on hold, while more people and cars move to the region and communities continue to sprawl out adding more traffic to the already congested arteries. We can continue to complain about the inefficient bureauracies, and, as some of us would have it, get to kick out a bunch of inefficient bureaucrats, only to replace them with another bunch of inefficient bureaucrats. In the end, everyone who moves will lose.

A 'yes' vote means that we're all going to contribute to the promised improvements by paying more taxes. More people will be able to choose transit, cycling or walking more often. It will also mean less congestion than without the improvements. Everyone who moves will win, but some (sometimes a lot) more than others.

If we vote yes, Translink promises that we will finally be getting our long awaited B-line bus in three to five years, and there will be expansion of service to Albion and Silver Valley. We'll get increased West Coast Express service. Improved transit will help support and encourage the needed densification in our downtown and along transportation corridors. Improved transit elsewhere in Metro Vancouver also helps drivers who need to commute farther afield by relieving the congestion there.

With a 'yes' vote, the investments in cycling by Translink are going to increase from the current $1.55 million (less than $1 per resident, or about 0.1% of Translink's annual spending) to $12 million a year, which will put the region on track to implement the Regional Cycling Strategy within the 20-year time frame.

Cycling improvements in Maple Ridge will consist of various cycling projects listed in the Maple Ridge Transportation Plan, approved by the previous Council (and hopefully to be amended by the present one).

What will be, will be. The BC government has chosen to hold this extremely risky referendum, downloading the responsibility for what happens on us voters by giving us a choice of two options neither of which we can agree with.

 

It is extremely difficult to ask someone to boil down a complex set of questions to a simple yes or no answer. Does the good outweigh the bad? Amidst the opposing voices against Translink and taxation in general, all of which are legitimate, the transportation vision for the region gets buried. Hopefully, we will separate the ‘what’ (transportation improvements) from the ‘who’ (Translink governance). Voting yes would at least settle the ‘what’ so the region can move forward with the vision while different governments and the voters can then tackle the issue of Translink governance. Voting no, on the other hand, puts both the ‘what’ and ‘who’ in a deep freeze, guaranteeing more of the same plus more congestion to boot.

The lesser of two evils tells me to hold my nose and vote yes.

By Jackie Chow, member of the Maple Ridge-Pitt Meadows chapter of HUB, with contributions from Ivan Chow, Chair.

Column: Elephant feet allow cyclists to keep riding

Here is the unedited version of my column that appeared today in the Maple Ridge News:

At several  locations in Maple Ridge and Pitt Meadows some new pavement markings called "elephant feet" have appeared in recent years.  I suspect that few  people know what they mean. The markings are confusing, and so is the name. Sometimes they're called "crossbike crossings", which makes their purpose somewhat clearer.

Elephant feet in front of Maple Ridge Secondary School

Normally, when cyclists ride on an off-road multi-use path, or a sidewalk - as is allowed in Maple Ridge according to the City's website - cyclists are required to dismount when crossing at a pedestrian crossing. When the crossing has elephant feet markings, they don't need to.

 

The markings can be placed either on each side of a pedestrian crossing - in which case the crossing is shared with pedestrians - or on one side of it - so that pedestrians and cyclists each have their own crossing.

In Maple Ridge, shared pedestrian/cyclist crossings can be found along 122nd Ave. and Mountainview Crescent (at Maple Ridge Secondary School), along Abernathy Way between 224th and 232nd Streets, and you'll see them in Pitt Meadows when crossing Kennedy Road near Ferry Slip Road close to the Pitt River Bridge. The one in Pitt Meadows is painted green which helps provide clarity that this is a cyclist crossing.

Elephant feet are used for the convenience of cyclists. Having to get off your bike at every intersection is very  inconvenient and discourages people from biking. Imagine having to get out of your car at every intersection and having to push it across!

All road users need to be aware of safety issues with these types of crossings. Most car/bike collisions occur at intersections, and the danger increases when cyclists do not bike on the road. Drivers don't expect cyclists to enter an intersection from a sidewalk or off-road path. Often drivers also under-estimate the speed of a cyclist. Both drivers and cyclists need to slow down, and look out for other traffic nearing the intersection and potentially crossing their path, whether going straight or turning.

All the elephant crossings in Maple Ridge and Pitt Meadows are along bi-directional multi-use paths, which means that drivers need to be extra cautious and look out for cyclists coming from both directions. Of course the same goes for drivers entering or exiting driveways that cross a multi-use path.

Maple Ridge also has its first "bike boxes", on Laity at the Lougheed intersection. A bike box is a painted green space on the road with a white bicycle symbol inside it. They allow cyclists to position themselves ahead of cars at an intersection. They are meant to reduce collisions between right-turning cars and cyclists going straight, and it also makes it easier for cyclists to make left turns. They also increase visibility of cyclists. What I like about them too is that you don't have to wait behind a car, breathing in its exhaust fumes.

Bike box on Laity

Motorists should of course stop behind the bike box. It's safest for cyclists going south on Laity to continue riding in the middle of the lane once past the intersection until they pass the narrowest section of roadway, so they don't get squeezed against the curb when a car passes too close.

Drivers, please be aware that cyclists riding in the middle of the lane most often do so to stay safe, so your patience and courtesy would be much appreciated. Please help cyclists get home safe and sound!

River Road barriers / E-mail to City of Maple Ridge

Our HUB committee just sent the following e-mail to the Maple Ridge Engineering Department (David Pollock)
(cc'd to Mayor Read and Councilors Speirs and Duncan)

Hi David,

We at HUB were unaware that neighbourhood consultation on traffic calming for River Road had taken place in November 2014, until someone posted some photos on our HUB Maple Ridge Pitt Meadows facebook group of the barriers that have been put up recently along River Road. Someone else just today noticed the display boards from the neighbourhood consultation that are posted on the Maple Ridge website.

As you know, River Road is being used as a fast commuter route by cyclists. Safety for cyclists has long been a concern though, with few cyclists other than the "strong and fearless" being brave enough to use this route. Safety for cyclists has now become an even greater concern, as the barriers have caused some drivers to exhibit an even more aggressive behaviour towards cyclists. 

As you know, the nearest east-west long-distance commuter route is Lougheed Highway, which is even more dangerous. The next one up, the Selkirk route, is unsuitable as a fast commuter route due to the many stop signs. Dewdney, the next closest east-west route, is even more dangerous than both River Road and Lougheed. It is unreasonable to expect cyclists to ride as far north as the 121- or 123 bikeway to find a safer commuter bike route (distance at 216th: 1 km to 121 route, 1.3 km to 123 route; at 207 St 1.6 km; at 224th 1.1 km to 121 route and 1.8 km to the 123 route , with a very steep hill). For this reason, it is important that cyclists' concerns are considered with regard to any traffic calming measures on River Road.

We would like to request the Engineering Department to immediately take the following measures all along River Road:

• put up Share the Road signs
• paint sharrows

These are the absolute minimum requirements to - marginally - improve safety for cyclists on River Road.

River Road was clearly designed to be a low speed, low volume residential road. Too many drivers are choosing River Road to avoid the traffic lights on Lougheed. To reduce rat-running, and to reduce the present traffic volumes that are not appropriate for this type of street, we would like the City to consider allowing left and right turns only at 216th or Laity Street, except for bicycles, through the use of bike-permeable diverters.

It is important for cyclists to have a fine grained network with lower traffic speeds that can be shared with cars, whereas drivers should be offered a coarse grained network of arterials for higher speed driving. It's important to preserve - and where possible improve - the few east-west routes cyclists have, in order to offer cyclists as well as pedestrians a truly multi-modal transportation network. 

With kind regards,

Jackie Chow

HUB Cycling

Maple Ridge/Pitt Meadows Chapter

Here are some photos of the barriers that were installed:

Open House road improvements 203rd Street: Feb. 17

The long-awaited Open House for improvements on 203rd Street (Dewdney to Golden Ears Way) is imminent: mark it on your calendars for Tues. Feb. 17, 4 - 8 pm. I've been told we'll see some innovative road design here, new for Maple Ridge. Click here for more info.

HUB Maple Ridge Pitt Meadows meeting dates in 2015

Here are our meeting dates for 2015. We meet on the second Thursday of each month.

Location: Maple Ridge Library, Alouette Room (note that the location of the January meeting has changed. We will not be able to use the Alouette Room that evening, and will be somewhere in the open space area upstairs, most likely on the side of the library entrance.

Time: 6:45 pm - 8:45 pm.

Jan. 8 (see above) 

Feb. 12

Mar 12

Apr. 9

May 14

June 11

July 9

Aug. 13

Sept. 10

Oct. 8

Nov. 12 Note: Alouette room probably not available for this date. Look for us in the open space area upstairs in the library.

The meeting on Dec. 10 will be canceled.

Cycling: Emissions still increasing in Canada, world

When I write for the Maple Ridge News, often my columns are longer than allowed, so sometimes they're pretty heavily edited. The good thing about a blog is that I can write whatever and however long I want.

So here is the original version of my November article:

The IPCC (Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change) has recently published its fifth report, which sends a very dire warning to the world, including Maple Ridge. We're on track to severely and irreversibly impact the global climate and the natural world around us, endangering survival of many plant and animal species, including ourselves.

We're already seeing more heat waves, droughts, more severe rainfall and floodings. The report further warns that food security is at risk, and we'll likely see more wars as a consequence of poverty and economic shock. Some pretty alarming stuff.

Developing countries are most vulnerable to climate change, while developed and wealthier countries like Canada are among the worst carbon emitters; we don't have a particularly good reputation in the rest of the world when it comes to doing our share to reduce emissions.

Not only in Canada, but also world-wide, emissions are still going up.

UN Secretary General Ban Ki-moon says: "Leaders have to act now. Time is not on our side."

On the positive side, the report, which has been contributed to by thousands of scientists, states that it's economically affordable to take action.

Unfortunately, both at the federal and the provincial level the powers that be are single-mindedly focused on exploiting the tar sands in Alberta and LNG in BC, with little regard for the resulting rise in emissions and other environmentally damaging consequences. Are we crazy? Shouldn't we, instead of just ramping up production of non-renewables, focus our efforts on rapidly expanding alternative energy sources, while aiming to gradually phase out the use of fossil fuels where possible?

What's happening at the local level?

In 2010, all members of the previous Council in Maple Ridge, five of which are still representing our interests now, unanimously and ambitiously endorsed a target of 33 percent reduction in corporate and community emissions from 2007 levels by 2020. At the time Council felt we were doing pretty good already and little further action was required;  all the policies that were already in place at the time were thought to help us achieve the target.

I saw on Maple Ridge's old website last year that our community emissions had increased by 12% between 2007 and 2010. However, the new website now shows a reduction of 3% by 2010. Interesting. Apparently data and methodologies used are continually updated. All of a sudden we're looking much better!  Somehow, I doubt that our emissions would have gone down when our population increased by about 5 percent or almost 4,000 people during that time. Unless these and more people perhaps all found local jobs, drove EVs, walked or biked to work, school and shopping, and moved into empty basements in existing homes.

When Council discussed the 20-year Transportation Plan at the Council meeting on October 28, Councillor Masse did not get a response from the rest of a rather unambitious council when expressing his deep concerns - not for the first time - about Greenhouse Gas emissions and obviously wanting to do more through a well-thought out Transportation Plan which would cut down emissions from automobiles. Since the source of 57 percent of our community emissions is on-road transportation, it makes a lot of sense to look for ways to achieve reductions there.

Councillor Masse suggested to then look at amending the adopted target in the future, and the Transportation Plan was subsequently endorsed. Can kicked further down the road.

In 2007, with the adoption of the District's Sustainability Action Plan, the development of a community energy plan (CEP) was recommended.  This was officially added to our OCP as a "will explore" item. Now, seven years later, despite stronger calls for action from the scientific community as well as common folks around the world, and the alarming report just released by the IPCC, we still don't have a plan.

According to Laura Benson, Manager of Sustainability and Corporate Planning with the City, despite not having a CEP the city has worked on things like densification in the Town Core near transit and services, attracting high value local jobs and installing EV charging stations, which should definitely help.

But when it comes to planning for a truly multi-modal transportation network that will help convince more of us to choose alternative modes, safely - which will lead to lower emissions - in my view the present Transportation Plan lacks vision, and Council clearly lacks a sense of urgency.

It's great that there are some nice big ticket, multi-use items in the Plan, but we clearly need a more ambitious council, to lead us on a path to become a more modern, more livable, equitable and sustainable city to help future generations to better weather the coming storms.

The next four years should be interesting. We'll definitely see some new faces, hopefully new, creative ideas and strong, forward-thinking leadership on Council.

One thing is clear. Once the election is over, we'll start talking again about all-ages-all-abilities bike lanes!

  

Cost of suburban sprawl / questions to candidates

Another questionnaire was sent out to Maple Ridge candidates, this one being about the cost of suburban sprawl. For more information and links to the questionnaire and responses received, click here.

Municipal election 2014: Vote to Bike!

HUB asked candidates across Metro Vancouver two questions related to cycling. Both Maple Ridge (69%) and Pitt Meadows (92%) had high response rates compared to other Metro Vancouver municipalities.

The first question was specific to each community:

In the case of Maple Ridge:
"Do you agree that it's absolutely critical that we start to apply the principles of Smart Growth not only in the Town Core, but within the urban boundary, so that we can build a healthier, more sustainable community where people are much less car-dependent?"

Pitt Meadows:
"Do you agree that we need to more to facilitate alternative modes of transportation - transit, walking and cycling, as per the Pedestrian and Cycling Master Plan - to help prevent future gridlock in our communities and that 'all ages and abilities' cycling is part of the solution?"

The second question was the same for all municipalities:

"Would you vote in favour of infrastructure investments that close the gaps in the municipal and regional cycling network so it is well connected and allows people to travel safely by bicycle?"

Check out the responses from candidates here.

School trustee responses are in too, but will be published later this week.

Transportation Plan endorsed by Council just before election

The Transportation Plan was endorsed unanimously by Council tonight, although Coun. Bell and Coun. Masse had some concerns and were - in vain - looking for support to delay the endorsement. Thank you, Coun. Bell and Coun. Masse. Here's the link to the Council meeting. The discussion on the Transportation Plan starts at about 3:49.

In my opinion public consultation has been absolutely minimal, with just two open houses for the general public, one pretty much unannounced at the Farmers Market, the other at municipal hall. The District also did an on-line survey.

The consultant (Urban Systems) presented to the Bicycle Advisory Committee a year and a half ago, and  HUB committee members had a meeting with Engineering. With the help of 20 volunteers HUB also helped do an assessment of the entire cycling network in Maple Ridge and Pitt Meadows with recommendations for improvements. Our committee provided detailed input in May 2013 as well. This all happened long before the actual document was quietly put on-line several months ago.

A few days ago I sent the following e-mail to Council:

HUB Maple Ridge/Pitt Meadows comments re final Strategic Transportation Plan

1. Public consultation inadequate

The 2014 Strategic Transportation Plan is not just an update, but a rewrite of the 2004 Plan. The draft Plan was posted on-line several months ago, but this was not publicly advertised in any way by the District (now City) as should be normal practice for any policy document during the public consultation stage as part of a transparent and open process. The two open houses, the survey and the consultation with the Bicycle Advisory Committee all took place before the actual document was put on-line without any fanfare.

This policy document is a very important one, at such a very critical time in our history - because of 

• rapid population growth, 
• global economic instability, 
• significant climate change concerns, 
• increasing congestion and decreasing livability due to our continued focus on cars as preferred mode of transportation, 
• continuing development patterns (sprawl) outside the Town Core that favour the use of cars, 
• the certainty of rising financial, environmental- and geopolitical costs of our oil addiction and our continued wasteful use of it for transportation purposes,
• the harmful effect of our continued reliance on cars on our health, which puts a huge burden on our health care system.

Furthermore, there's a significant on-going shift among the younger generations, who increasingly prefer alternative modes of getting around, including transit and cycling, for various reasons. Walkable/bikeable neighbourhoods are also "in" also among older generations. In order to attract millennials as well as the jobs that are needed to employ them locally, and to offer the quality of life that these types of neighbourhoods can offer to all residents, more effort needs to be made to cater to their needs and wishes.

Therefore this document deserves scrutiny by residents of Maple Ridge. 

2. HUB input 

As you may remember, HUB provided extensive input in May 2013.  

Some of the key issues/recommendations mentioned in our input but not addressed in the Transportation Plan include:

• "The District should set cycling goals. HUB's suggestions include: 4% cycling mode share in 2020; increased number of women and children cycling, etc."  
• "Cycling routes should be on streets with destinations, and frequent stop signs preventing cycling ease should be avoided." It is HUB's position that the Town Core multi-modal Transportation Plan, established in 2004, should be open for review as part of the rewrite of the Transportation Plan. We need to determine whether the plan has led to any increase in cycling by all ages and abilities (see previous point), and if a change in direction might be needed to achieve our goals. Baseline counts should be done, from which progress can be measured. 
• Setting maximum speed limits throughout the Town Core of 30 km/h, which will not only make the roadways safer for cycling, but will improve overall livability significantly;
• Making Lougheed part of the cycling network in the Town Core. 
• Improved infrastructure around schools should go hand in hand with cycling education through all elementary schools.
• Putting in place a Complete Streets by-law (requires consideration of the needs of all road users when new streets are built, which is especially important for a rapidly growing community like Maple Ridge). There is no reason why we cannot use such a policy to ensure that proper cycling infrastructure is provided in all new development, where appropriate, so that we don't need to spend more later. Cycling facilities can also be included when existing roads are upgraded.
• "Depending on the cost involved and other competing priorities, we support in principle the proposal by the Alouette Valley Association and the Silver Valley Neighbourhood Association for a recreational roadway on 132nd Ave.". Now that the first section of path has been completed, HUB strongly urges Council and staff to consult with cyclists - HUB could be of assistance - to determine whether with the present road configuration and path surface all types of cyclists are adequately accommodated, or certain improvements/changes are required before spending a further $3 million out of the cycling budget to complete the path.   
• "All arterials within the urban boundary should have separated bike paths where feasible. If not, they should have at least bike lanes on both sides. This includes the arterials on the east side of Maple Ridge, which presently show shoulders as planned "cycling infrastructure". In situations where parking is allowed on the shoulder, this can create dangerous situations for cyclists and pedestrians when having to swerve onto the traffic lane in order to pass a parked car. Cyclists also risk being “doored”, which can result in serious injury or death." The risk of bike lanes between parked cars and moving cars without a proper buffer can not be over-estimated. Accidents caused by inattentive drivers are often very difficult to avoid for cyclists in these circumstances and these types of facilities generally don't appeal to any types of cyclists and actually may provide a false sense of safety to inexperienced cyclists.
• Separated bike facilities along Lougheed east of town core to Albion. For many people in Albion this is the only direct connection when cycling to or from the Town Core and beyond. The actual speeds east of the Town Core are often significantly over the posted speed limit (at times double the speed limit or even more). Enforcement is rather infrequent and does not seem to make a difference due to the road design which encourages speeding.   
• "Bike lanes along 240th south of Dewdney should be completed all the way to Lougheed, preferably separated south of 104th to accommodate cycling to Albion Elementary School. A proper buffer needs to be provided where parking is allowed."
• In view of the higher density of lower Albion, the increasing traffic on 102nd Ave. east of 240th and the presence of some neighbourhood commercial development, bike lanes should be provided. Shoulders often allow parking, and this poses dangers for cyclists, having to swerve into the path of moving cars and the possibility of being “doored”. Once more commercial development takes place in Albion, this will provide a nearby destination for shopping trips by bike and 102nd Street will need to be safe for cycling.

3. Further comments regarding contents of actual Plan

Key points: 

1. The bulk of (long-term) spending for cycling as proposed in the Transportation Plan seems to be shoulders along rural roads. Much of this type of infrastructure will be used by road cyclists as well as local residents on foot and on horseback, and sometimes parking, so these are multi-use (not just cycling) facilities. According to the consultant, investments in walking should be made where we can get the biggest bang for the buck. The same should be said for cycling: the primary focus should be on areas where the biggest gains can be made, which is where people of all ages and abilities can use their bikes for short trips (to school, shopping, errands, etc.). The focus should be on all ages all abilities ( AAA) infrastructure. A complete AAA network has the most potential to lead to more cycling.
2. Under "Strategic Transportation Goals" (page 2): Affordable Transportation System:  "Provide transportation infrastructure and services in a cost-effective and efficient manner that makes best use of existing facilities and projected resources. This will include maximizing opportunities to make beneficial investments, improving existing infrastructure, and prioritizing transit."  Walking and cycling should also be prioritized, since transit is not a door-to-door transportation mode and many people who use transit will need to/can walk or bike to complete either end of their journey.
3. Under Goal #2: Transportation Choice: 2.1 Integrate Travel  Modes: "Plan for the integration and balance for all modes on most urban streets within the city." The word 'balanced' is sometimes used to argue that further investment in cycling is not justified, since most people drive. It is HUB's position that there is a significant imbalance because of 1. the existing gaps in our cycling network, 2.  the types of infrastructure provided that are not always considered safe for all ages and abilities, and cars generally get direct, convenient, fast, comfortable and safer routes, whereas cyclists often get indirect, inconvenient, slow, less comfortable and in certain ways not necessarily safer routes.

Further to the previous comment, HUB is of the opinion that a "level of service" (LOS) measurement should apply not only to cars, but to pedestrians and cyclists as well, since the goal is to "Provide for safe, convenient and accessible movement of people, goods and services throughout the District.", so not just for cars. 

HUB would like to see Council to show its commitment to fully integrate walking and cycling in our transportation system by instructing staff to start work on a detailed Active Transportation Plan, in recognition of the fact that walking and cycling can bring many benefits to our community, as listed in the comments HUB provided to Council in May 2013 (also attached to e-mail for your convenience). 

HUB would like to see the input received from residents added as appendix to the plan. Residents need to know whether or not their input has been considered. Through HUB, 20 volunteers have assisted the District (/City) with a thorough assessment of the cycling network in Maple Ridge and Pitt Meadows in 2011. Neither this, nor the extensive written input by HUB, was mentioned in the Plan, and it is unclear whether or not any of the input has been used for the Transportation Plan. 

The continued focus on cars as the prioritized mode of transportation means ever increasing need for parking. There's a significant cost of providing this additional parking to businesses, the municipality and thus tax payers and consumers. Therefore a parking strategy should be an integrated part of the Transportation Plan. 

The joint Bicycle Advisory Committee had its last meeting in June 2013, after which it was no longer operational due to Pitt Meadows starting its own Active Transportation Advisory Committee. The remaining Maple Ridge contingent was consequently no longer able to continue its work of providing input and recommendations to Council and staff. BAC members have therefore only been able to view the materials displayed at the open houses, but have not been able to scrutinize the actual Plan and provide further input. HUB urges Council to wait with adoption of the STP until the future Transportation Advisory Committee has had an opportunity to review and comment on it. We haven't had an adopted Transportation Plan for 10 years, so we can wait a few more months.

Thank you for considering our comments.

Coun. Bell brought up the fact that our HUB committee does not feel listened to. Mr. Pollock basically replied that a meeting with HUB members took place. Coun. Masse expressed his deep concerns about the District not meeting its commitment regarding Greenhouse Gas reductions (while some other Councillors were, rather disrespectfully and disturbingly, rolling their eyes), and felt that Council should look at perhaps setting a more realistic goal. None of our concerns were addressed.

It was said that things could still be changed during the implementation stage. That made me think about the open houses that were held before each stage of the renovations of Lougheed in the Town Core. When I asked if bike lanes could be included in the design, the answer was "no, because Lougheed is not part of the cycling network". That's why it would have been so important to get the plan right in the first place.

I must say, it seems rather futile to spend so much time trying to provide meaningful input.

The cost of sprawl: election issue?

Election time is upon us; much is at stake. Which will be the main issues on the table? We'll probably once again see the same old discussions about shopping, garbage, council and staff salaries, and our ever rising property taxes, none of which ever seem to get resolved to our satisfaction.

Metro Vancouver is facing significant challenges, as a region and as individual municipalities.

The experts are telling us we will see continued population growth for the next 30 years in Metro Vancouver, with the expected addition of a million more people and 600,000 more jobs. We'll have more than our fair share happening in Maple Ridge and to a lesser extent in Pitt Meadows. After that, population  growth is expected to level off.

That means that how we grow and develop our cities over the next 30 years will determine for a large part how we will live for the next few hundred years.

If Maple Ridge decides, with our present land use pattern and with our soon to be adopted Transportation Plan, that we will continue to allow a significant amount of hopscotch, sprawling, inefficient greenfield and largely residential development instead of opting for contiguous, more compact and mixed-use smart growth, then an ever increasing number of residents will be car-dependent for a very long time to come indeed. That's a scary thought!

The threat of the real possibility of a failing transit referendum next Spring means that we may not be able to look forward to any significant expansion of transit and increased spending on cycling to improve the balance of options we have in our area.

In Maple Ridge we're not doing much to reduce our community Greenhouse Gas Emissions, even though the majority of present Council members a few years ago committed our City to the goal of 33% reduction from 2007 levels by 2020.

There are so many other reasons why we need to get serious about getting people out of their cars and onto transit, and walking and biking for shorter trips. Growing smarter, more efficient, is one of the most important things we can do to help convince more people to look for options in the way they get around for at least some of their trips.

There's another urgent reason why we can't keep growing the way we do: the "Infrastructure Deficit".

It's a significant and complex problem, not unique to Maple Ridge, that past and present Council members have so far not wanted to address.

Mr. Gill, our diligent penny counter at the City of Maple Ridge, has tried to warn us earlier this year. The article 'For every 'burb built, Maple Ridge pays' by Phil Melnychuk in The News seemed to generate a lot of interest. I added my two cents about it in "We need to stop Suburban Sprawl"As explained, other communities that have done the math have realized they can save many millions of dollars and significantly reduce their infrastructure deficit by growing smarter.

Why is Council still not talking about this? Is it because their constituents are still not concerned?

I think they should be, so I would like to raise the issue again, hoping that the average voter will understand we have a variety of more important things to worry about than not having some big box shopping in our community, which seemed to be the main determinant of the outcome of our last municipal election.

What's the problem? Well, when a new development gets built, the developer builds the infrastructure within the development - roads, sewer, water - and also pays Development Cost Charges to the City to pay for some of the necessary upgrades of surrounding infrastructure that are impacted by the development. Sounds good, right?

Development cost charges are provincially legislated and can only be used for things like roads, water, sewer, drainage and parks, but not for things like a new fire hall or added police services and community halls.

If you've ever taken a look at where our tax money is spent, you'll know that RCMP and fire services together make up a whopping 40% of all municipal expenses. When we approve more development and another fire hall is needed, all tax payers, including existing ones, are paying for that. Every time we build a new fire hall, if we need additional police services or we need to expand our library, all tax payers are on the hook. The more spread out and disconnected the development patterns, the more these services cost per household.

The infrastructure that's paid for by the developer is handed over to the city as soon as it's built. So now it's ours. Nice, eh?

Maybe not quite so nice once you realize that about 80% of the cost of infrastructure is in the operational budget. In other words, all tax payers pay for about 80% of the cost of the infrastructure over its lifetime. So on the one hand, it's nice that we get this gift from the developer, but on the other hand, it's a gift that keeps on taking, from all of us tax payers.

So it's essential that the long-term cost of any development application is carefully considered, in the interest of existing tax payers, but also and especially future tax payers: our kids.

Right now, the infrastructure items that appear on the municipal books as "assets" are valued at over $1.5 billion. The maintenance cost as estimated in 2006, when we had about $1.3 billion worth of infrastructure, was about $30 million per year. Of course the cost of maintenance goes up over time as more infrastructure gets built and also the cost of material and labour goes up. Looks like these "assets" are more like "liabilities"!

So are we actually paying the required $30+ million per year to maintain these assets? No, not by a long shot. We have been spending roughly one tenth of that. The good news is that, since 2008, a 1% annual cumulative tax increase is being set aside to start dealing with this Infrastructure Deficit. If we keep raising our property taxes in this manner, by 2031 we should have cut our infrastructure deficit in half. That means, in the best case scenario, it's highly unlikely that most of us would see the problem resolved within our lifetime, but if we're principled enough, we can make a significant dent in it.

However, because of our low tolerance for ever increasing property taxes, Council already caved in and reduced this increase by half last year and it'll probably be at least a few more years before we should be back to being charged the full 1% increase. To make up for some of the difference until then, we're using some of the gaming revenues.

The question is, are tax payers going to tolerate these cumulative annual increases for the next 20+ years or so, and are the increases even keeping up with the infrastructure added during that time?

What happens if we don't put enough money aside to pay for maintenance and eventual replacement? Well, roads start to crumble, and bridges will start to collapse. We've seen that for example in Montreal, and many cities in the U.S. offer frightening examples.

Like Mr. Gill says: "pay me now, or pay me much more later". If we don't look after the infrastructure now, it's going to be much more costly to fix things when they start to crumble.

My take-aways from this:

• We need to start tackling the problem at the source: we need to stop inefficient, hopscotch sprawling development that makes more of us more car dependent and that we simply can't afford; 
• Our new Council will need to work with other BC municipalities, through the Union of BC Municipalities, to appeal to the Province for changes in the legislative framework of Development Cost Charges and property taxes, to ensure that new development pays for the full cost, and that smart development does not unfairly end up subsidizing new dumb development, of course recognizing that the unfairness in the way existing development is taxed cannot be simply undone from one day to the next.
• BC Municipalities can't tackle the problem on their own. Both the federal and provincial governments will need to share more of their tax revenues with municipalities as more responsibilities get downloaded by higher levels of government to municipalities. Municipalities need to band together through the UBCM to get reliable long-term funding from the province and the federal government to help pay for maintenance of the infrastructure that's the backbone of our cities and economy.

So this should give you some ideas as to questions you can ask your mayoral and council candidates!

Our meeting dates for the coming year

Good news! We're once again getting a free meeting room in the Maple Ridge Library from the District of Maple Ridge for the coming year! We're still getting the same room: the Alouette Room, which is upstairs.

We have one more meeting on the 3rd Thursday of the month in August, on the 21st. We'll be in Memorial Peace Park for this meeting for our annual "Pizza in the Park". So if anyone is thinking of joining us, please let me know ahead of time so I can make sure we have enough food and drink (my e-mail: jchow23708@yahoo.ca).

Starting in September we're back to the 2nd Thursday of the month, and our meeting schedule will be as follows:

Sept. 11
Oct. 9
Nov. 13
No regular meeting in December
No room available in January; meeting in open space area upstairs
Feb. 12
Mar 12
Apr. 9
May 14
June 11
July 9
Aug. 13

Time: 6:45 to 8:45 pm

Draft Transportation Plan

The draft Transportation Plan of the District of Maple Ridge can now be found on-line.

Open House June 26: Downtown Enhancement Project Phase 4

The District will hold an Open House on the Downtown Enhancement Project Phase 4 on Thursday, June 26, 4 pm to 8 pm at MR Municipal Hall, in the lobby area at the Dewdney Trunk Road entrance.

"This project will build on the earlier projects completed in 2011 and 2013 and support Council's goals for the revitalization of the Town Centre and add to the vibrancy of the area. The objectives of the Downtown Enhancement Projects include increasing the livability of the Town Centre, supporting business growth and encouraging future investment in the area, while enhancing the street experience for pedestrians and shoppers and the safety of road users." (note that cyclists are not mentioned here, even though Selkirk is a bike route). You can view the conceptual designs for both part 1 (Lougheed Highway from 224 Street to 226 Street) and part 2 (Selkirk Avenue from 225 Street to 226 Street) of this project.

Note that for the previous phases of this project, HUB requested bike lanes on Lougheed, since Lougheed has many shops, which are not only destinations for drivers, but also for cyclists. However, we were told that the traffic volumes are too high (some 26,000 cars per day), and since Lougheed Highway is not part of the cycling network (we feel it should be!), no improvements such as bike lanes were necessary for cycling there, and the widened sidewalks would "accommodate" both pedestrians and cyclists. It's obvious that there is a problem with designing for cycling on the sidewalk right in the town core, and Council recognizes that. That's why a review of the Highways and Traffic by-law where it allows cycling on the sidewalk was recommended in a recent staff report and will likely be done in the near future. Council will need to decide whether Lougheed should continue to be just a major traffic sewer, or a shopping street, and this decision should be reflected in whether the road will accommodate people (including both pedestrians AND cyclists) or just cars. Perhaps this could be a somewhat longer term vision: when the Haney Bypass gets widened to 4 lanes all the way to Kanaka Way, 2 car lanes on Lougheed in the Town Core could be re-allocated for buffered bike lanes, which would dramatically improve the shopping experience and vibrancy of Lougheed. Parking can be preserved, and possibly serve as a buffer between bikes and moving cars.

As to Selkirk, it takes more than just drawing a line on a map to make a street into a good bike route. Good bike routes have as few stop signs and (non priority) intersections as possible. Selkirk, as it is now, has many intersections with 2-way stop signs to navigate. The fact that traffic is increasing on the north south routes and will continue to do so in the future, further decreases the quality of this bike route. In my experience, many drivers stop for cyclists who are trying to cross even when they shouldn't stop. This makes it actually more dangerous to cross since other drivers may not stop and everything becomes more unpredictable and confusing.

Pedestrian access on this particular section of Selkirk is particularly poor. On the south-west side, at the intersection with 225th, there's some hydro and whatever else poles that completely obstruct the short section of sidewalk. Further east there is no sidewalk on the south side. On the north side, the sidewalk only runs part of the way going west.

Pedestrian access going from Haney Place Mall parking lot at Thrifty's to the Scotiabank shopping plaza v.v. is terrible and should be improved.

Here's the link to the multi-modal transportation network map for the Town Core.

Please consider attending the Open House and giving your input.

Column: Connected bike path a pleasant ride

Our latest column in the Maple Ridge News:

• posted Jun 12, 2014 

Some people have named the new multi-use path along Lougheed Highway the “Bike Path to Nowhere,” since they seem to think that it abruptly stops and there’s nowhere else for cyclists to go.

You may be surprised to know the path is actually the link that finally completed the 117th Avenue bike route and it does lead to several destinations.

Read more...