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:

Downtown Enhancement Project Phase 4 HUB comments

Our HUB committee sent the following comments to Engineering with regard to the planned "improvements" on Lougheed and Selkirk between 225th and 226th Streets.

Please find below the comments from the Maple Ridge/Pitt Meadows Chapter of HUB:

We're happy to finally see some much needed improvements for pedestrians along this stretch of Selkirk Ave.

Selkirk is a bike route. What does this mean? Is the District's goal just to get cyclists out of the way of cars (1)? Is the goal to provide a safe route for cyclists (2)? Is Selkirk supposed to be safe, convenient, fast, “all ages all abilities” (AAA) cycling infrastructure that leads to destinations (3)?

The first goal - if this is indeed the goal - is achieved for a good part with the planned changes. The car lanes on Lougheed will be less safe for cycling, since the curb lane is narrower. The result is that less cyclists will use Lougheed. It’s one of those measures that  may actually reduce cycling participation overall. It does not allow cyclists easy access to stores, plus it takes away the choice of a faster route for those who are less fast and furious than the small segment of super-athletes in our population. Reduced cycling participation is actually also not good for drivers, because the people who might prefer to bike will then also be in cars, which means more traffic congestion and more demands on existing parking.  

Cyclists are allowed to bike on the sidewalk, but we all know that some day, probably sooner rather than later, cycling on the sidewalk will be banned, as it is in most other communities. Before that happens, the District should actually work on improving cycling on all roads (not just those designated as cycling routes), especially those with destinations such as shops. Contrary to what Mr. Quinn stated during a Council meeting last year, the sidewalks will not be wide enough to “accommodate” cycling: trees, garbage cans, benches, sandwich boards etc. significantly narrow the available space.  Cyclists will get stuck behind pedestrians, and there will be conflicts, as we can see on the sections of Lougheed that have already been “improved”.

Translink (Helen Cook) is open for discussions on making Lougheed part of the cycling network. This could happen when widening of the Haney Bypass takes place. Buffered bike lanes would not only make getting around and shopping by bike more feasible for cyclists of all ages and abilities, it would reduce car speeds, and would dramatically improve the shopping experience for pedestrians. By maintaining the parking, access for cars is not reduced.

The second goal – to provide a safe route - is not necessarily achieved. Selkirk (and also other bike routes) has many 2-way stop signs. At every single intersection actually. Quite a few drivers tend to stop for cyclists to let them cross even if the car has the right of way. This can lead to very confusing, and sometimes dangerous, situations. The driver may get impatient when the cyclist hesitates, and the cyclist may feel pressured to go. Other drivers may or may not stop, and that is where dangerous situations occur.  Educating drivers may possibly help somewhat, but this will remain problematic.

Any other goals (3) that should be pursued to make cycling a more attractive option for people of all ages and abilities, such as convenience, speed and comfort are not addressed in this project.

As part of this project, perhaps a small traffic circle (button) could be considered at the intersection of Selkirk and 226th, which would eliminate the need for the 2-way stop. Eventually more buttons could be added along the bike route, making the route both faster, more convenient and safer for cyclists.

  

We understand that this project only involves “improvements” for this one block, and that it does not involve any improvements for cycling. This particular section of the bike route has many exits from parking lots on both sides (about 8 each in this one block). Each exit can potentially present a danger for cyclists when cars exit. Bike routes should preferably not be planned on routes with many parking lot exits (and v.v.: parking lot exits should preferably not be planned along cycling routes), which increases the potential for conflict with cars. This is something that should be kept in mind when the District-owned piece of land between 226th and 227th Streets is developed, as it should for any other development projects along bike routes.

Kind regards,

Jackie Chow

HUB: Your Cycling Connection

Maple Ridge/Pitt Meadows Chapter