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!

128th Ave. widening

An Open House was held on January 28 about the widening of 128th Ave./Abernathy corridor.
You can find more info about the project here. Click on the link on the City's info page to view the display boards that were used at the Open House.

Our HUB committee provided the following recommendations to the City:

Rather than separating the 1% fast and fearless cyclists from the other 59-or-so% that are not quite as fast and confident, and letting the latter share a multi-use path with pedestrians with dogs and strollers, it's pedestrians and cyclists that should be separated from eachother. 

HUB's solution:

Instead of MUP and 1.5 wide shoulder on north side:

• Eliminate the 1.5 meter shoulder along the roadway on the north side, while maintaining the shoulder on the south side. 
• Reduce the width of the pedestrian pathway to 2 meters. 
• Reduce the buffer on the north side by 0.5 meter. 
• Add a bi-directional, 3 meter wide bike path, accommodating the 1% going west, as well as the 59-or-so% less confident cyclists going in both directions.
• Provide a clear separation between the pedestrian and the cycling paths (e.g. low curb, or green coloured asphalt for bike path).
• Design intersection at 216th (and 224th) in a way that the cyclist + pedestrian crossing is highly visible to turning motorists (bike crossing painted green), and provide signage to indicate bi-directional nature of the bike path.  
• Provide cyclist lights, synchronized east-west with traffic lights for cars.

Rationale: 

• Cyclists and cyclists mix better than cyclists and pedestrians.   
• Maintaining the 1.5 meter shoulder on the south side allows fast and fearless cyclists to use that option when traveling in easterly direction, reducing the higher likelihood for these fast traveling cyclists to be hit by a turning motorist if they were to be traveling in the "wrong" direction on the north side of the road.
• The 59% of cyclists who would cycle more if conditions were more favorable, are more likely to do so if they're given a status more equitable to that of other road users - i.e. by being given their own path - and if they don't need to stop at every intersection and thus keep their momentum, just like any other wheeled road users (this is even more important for non-motorized ones!).  

Other recommendations/comments:

• Driveway crossings should be painted green to discourage cars from blocking the path while waiting for a gap in traffic. Driveway crossings could also be raised through the driveway to provide further indication that cyclists have right of way. 
• Care should be given to provide wide enough gaps between any bollards, with straight lines at intersections, as much as possible. One bollard at either side of each driveway, in the middle of the path, should be sufficient. If at some point in time it is determined that bollards are required on either side of the path at each driveway, these bollards should be placed on the outside of the path, not on the path (as was done on the Lougheed Highway MUP. These make the path feel much narrower).
• Shoulder on south side seems to disappear just east of Golden Ears Cheesecrafters? Needs to continue all the way to 224th.
• Users of the MUP going westbound should get a warning at the dike access point just west of Laity, that the MUP ends at 210th Street.
• Cyclist crossing on the south side at Laity should be painted green (on the design panel it looks like a pedestrian crossing, which would mean that cyclists have to dismount to cross).
• The use of concrete barriers would be good along some of the sections of the MUP where the buffer is narrow, to provide better separation from cars. No barriers should be placed close to driveways/intersections, to ensure good visibility. Any barriers should not be placed on the MUP, but beside it.
• Need a pedestrian crossing at Blackstock, with push button activated lights.
• Use tight turn radii to make cars slow down when they turn!
• Please ensure surface water drainage on the north side of 128th Ave. doesn't impact the pathways.

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.

Column Maple Ridge News: Bike centre makes it easy to ride

My latest column in the Maple Ridge News of Jan. 31, 2015 is about Vancouver General Hospital's Cycling Centre.

Here's the unedited version with some photos (the link to the actual column is added below):

I often wonder why health authorities and cities are not more actively working together to encourage and promote active transportation, since the benefits of active transportation, both to individuals and to society as a whole, are overwhelmingly clear.

Where cities provide safe and convenient alternatives to the car,  individuals tend to be healthier and happier. That means huge savings to the health care system. More people walking and biking leads to lower health care costs both through a reduction in diseases related to a sedentary lifestyle and through a reduction in car crashes resulting in severe injury or death. Physically active employees also tend to be more productive employees.

Sometimes, the health authorities get it. Last Summer, hubbie Ivan (chair of our HUB committee) and I were given a private tour of Vancouver General Hospital's brand new, state-of-the-art Cycling Center. Our guide was Arthur Orsini, VGH's Active Transportation Facilitator. The Cycling Centre, which offers secure bike parking for hospital employees, is the brain child of VGH's HR Manager Kevin MacDuff, who also joined us.

VGH's state-of-the-art Cycling Centre

After extensive consultation with cycling employees, the old laundry building was converted into a bike parking area with space for 182 bikes. A significant amount of thought and effort went into designing, equiping as well as marketing the facility.

Arthur and the bike lockers

The Cycling Center offers showers, and lockers that are well ventilated, so that wet rain gear is dry by the end of the employee's shift. Bike tools, bike stands and pumps are available for needed maintenance or repairs. For those leaving the Cycling Center late at night, a monitor by the door helps to make sure that no creeps are waiting right outside the door.

The monitor by the door offers extra security for cyclists leaving late at night

Some finishing touches have proven to be quite popular. Any cyclist knows how handy it is to have some tissue at hand after a ride, especially on a cold day. A box of Kleenex is strategically positioned by the door. The bike lock storage rack is useful too; you don't need to carry a heavy lock back and forth between home and work.

Free monthly workshops are held for employees, such as a Streetwise Cycling Course and various bike mechanics workshops by HUB, bike yoga, as well as bike festivals and social gatherings. Arthur mentioned that one doctor who participated with the mechanics workshop afterwards proudly mentioned to him that she had successfully changed her tube.

Arthur plans to start with a buddy program this Spring, which partners a beginning cyclist with a more experienced one living in the same area, to help build some confidence and learn routes.

The low membership fees are flexible and cover the maintenance and operation of the facility. 

The Center now has over 180 members. Actual usage goes up and down, mainly depending on weather conditions. Last summer, 55 members were using the facility on a daily basis. The majority of hospital employees are female, which is reflected in the majority of users being women. We spoke with several of  them.

Melanie, who bikes from UBC to the hospital, loves the Cycling Center. She said she used the outdoor bike cage before, but didn't feel it was all that safe. Sometimes bikes got stolen from it. She had to pay for a membership to the gym to take a shower. She said the lockers in the new facility are great, because by the time you've finished your shift, your bike outfit is all dry and ready to go. It's also nice to be able to leave all your stuff overnight.

Elinor, a nurse, loves the feeling of community at the Cycling Center. She has a coordinating function, and hers is more of a desk job, so the exercise that her 20-minute commute provides is very welcome.

Elinor, ready for and looking forward to her trip home

Meilan, a business analyst admin, lives by Stanley Park. She appreciates the convenience of being able to change into her work clothes at the facility. She started biking, three times a week, soon after the Cycling Center opened. She used to only bike in the winter because of lack of shower facilities.

As companies and health authorities clue in to the many benefits of catering to and even pampering cyclists, hopefully more end-of-trip facilities such as the VGH Cycling Center will start popping up.

The link to the column: 

• http://www.mapleridgenews.com/lifestyles/290265141.html

Update development proposal 20738 123 Avenue; 2013-041-RZ

This proposal is on the agenda for tomorrow's Council of the Whole meeting. The developer proposes to let less confident cyclists use the sidewalk as a solution to the dangerously narrow road, instead of widening of the road as a condition of this development application, which is what HUB would like to see happen.

I just sent the following e-mail to Mayor and Council:

Our HUB committee does not agree with the suggestion of the developer to officially designate the sidewalk as a multi-use facility for pedestrians and somewhat less "strong and fearless" cyclists. Even if some cyclists prefer to use the sidewalk in this area, many cyclists would rather avoid the sidewalk. But the narrow road does present significant challenges and should be widened as well as traffic-calmed.

Maple Ridge is one of perhaps only a handful of cities that has the dubious distinction to allow cycling on the sidewalk. I've heard that New Westminster allows cycling on the sidewalk only on some streets. I don't know of any others that do. Pedestrians and cyclists are generally not a good mix in urban areas. On urban streets with frequent pedestrian traffic, even if only during certain times of the day (e.g. on streets with schools), providing shared facilities for cyclists and pedestrians is not a good idea. It's also important to look ahead. In areas where densification and increased traffic is expected in the future, and on school routes, we should not mix cyclists and pedestrians on sidewalks.  

Dave Rush, an avid cyclist, who served as a member of the Bicycle Advisory Committee for quite a few years, and also acted as its Chair, and is one of the original founders and continues to be a member of our local HUB committee, provided this comment: "I ride through the 123 dip at least 10x per week and it is not for the faint of heart. It is just a matter of time before there is a head-on collision from a car going around a cyclist or a serious injury to a cyclist. There was a near fatal accident involving a scooter here about 2 years ago.
How the cycling issue is dealt with will be an excellent indicator of MR's desire to make it a cycling friendly community. Dave Rush"

Paul Scanlon, another experienced cyclist who has also sat on the BAC for several years and is presently still listed as a member, was one of the two people who did the assessment rides for this area in 2011, which was a joint effort of HUB Maple Ridge/Pitt Meadows and the Bicycle Advisory Committee:"I believe you are talking about the hollow area on 123Ave that crosses the bush area at the bottom of the hill.  I agree that that area is a very hairy area to ride and already makes me nervous every time I ride it due to cars going by too fast and too close. Paul"

Our HUB Committee Chair, Ivan Chow: "Engineering at City Hall needs to take leadership in putting in proper infrastructure for cycling when there is an opportunity and not take the easy way out by just telling the cyclists to go on the sidewalk, in the process creating another set of conflicts with pedestrians and resulting in more calls for getting cyclists off the sidewalks".

Another one of our members, Tracey Eide, commented that it was her understanding that this Council wants to do away with sidewalk cycling and that Mayor Reid would be in favour of a Complete Streets program and that the rest of Council will be with her on that.

I would like to comment myself on the multi-use sidewalk along 122nd Ave (by Maple Ridge Secondary School), as I suspect that the intention of the Engineering Department to "redesign" 123 Ave. will probably lead to a similar design. When I bike along 122nd Ave., I hardly ever use the "multi-use" sidewalk. It slows you down significantly, since you really need to slow down and pay more attention at every intersection where you cross, as well as driveways, especially when you're going in the "wrong" direction (which is legal by the way where cycling on the sidewalk is allowed). When pedestrians walk in front of you, they never walk on the side, but always in the middle. If there are several people walking together, they'll block the entire width of the sidewalk. I find it more convenient and pleasant to ride on the road, which is faster, you can ride in a straighter line, you don't bother pedestrians and they don't bother you, and it's easier for drivers to see you. I might ride on the sidewalk and slow down to a crawl as needed to deal with all the pedestrian traffic during school start and finish times when the car traffic on the road is very busy. I consider myself an "enthused and confident" cyclist, to a point. I still don't feel that comfortable among cars driven by impatient parents picking up or dropping off kids at school. At any other time of the day, though, I ride on the road. 

"Accommodating" cyclists should be more about truly accommodatingcyclists than just about getting cyclists out of the way of cars. The goal should be to increase cycling participation. The main reasons why people choose to bike in successful cycling cities are that it's fast, convenient and safe. There's nothing fast and convenient about cycling on the sidewalk. Pedestrians don't like us to be there either. There are also significant concerns about safety at intersections and driveways (as I mentioned above), since drivers generally do not expect cyclists on the sidewalk, especially going in the wrong direction. People will bike on the sidewalk if they have to out of concern for their safety, but many will probably choose to drive or be driven instead if they are able to make that choice.

As to the feasibility of moving the sidewalk and widening the road: according to Dave Rush, who is a civil engineer, this is quite doable. He estimates the cost should be about $300,000.

Unfortunately I only had less than two days to consult with other cyclists, and I've only been able to get feedback from some on our committee, and I believe some people provided feedback directly to you as a result of a post on facebook which was 'seen' by 19 people as of time of sending this e-mail.

Thank you for your consideration of our comments.

Column The News: Cycling: Develop with two wheel transportation in mind

My latest column in The News is about the development proposals on Brown Ave (for a highrise) in downtown Maple Ridge along the 121 bike route, and the proposal for 21 homes along the 123 bike route at McKenney Creek in west Maple Ridge. Here is the unedited version:

Barely two weeks after Maple Ridge Council's inaugural meeting, Mayor Read and her team had some discussions that gave us a pretty good indication that our new Council intends to get more serious about cycling.

On the agendas for the Public Hearing and Council meeting of December 9 was a development proposal for an 18-storey tower on Brown Ave. in the town core. This proposal is part of a plan for a number of highrises, all along Brown Ave., north of Dewdney. This is a real game changer for our town. There are already 3 other towers in the pipeline, two of which are also on Brown Ave., and the third will be right around the corner from the other three on Dewdney and Edge, all built on a large podium with a commercial component and multiple floors of under- and above ground parking.

In another five years or so, it is expected that another development of five more highrises will move forward, also along Brown, but on the west side of 224th.

So we're going from a quiet single family home neighbourhood to highrises. You can imagine the kind of traffic we're going to see on Brown Ave.

Brown is one of two designated bike routes that help cyclists get to and through the town core. So far the car traffic on Brown hasn't been very busy, and sharing the road with cars hasn't been a problem.

It's clear that going from low to very high density will have a significant impact on car traffic. Proper cycling facilities will have to be included in the road design, so that cyclists can continue to safely navigate the roads.

According to the present plan, space is provided for parking on either side and one car lane in each direction. Cyclists will have to "take the lane" (ride in the middle) to avoid getting "doored" by someone opening a car door in their path. That means they'll have no choice but to get in the way of cars. Drivers won't be too happy about that.

Many cyclists will end up having to ride on the sidewalk. Neither pedestrians nor cyclists are going to be happy about that.

Wayne Bissky, the developer of this property, a 25-year resident of Maple Ridge, has a very strong desire to help Maple Ridge become less reliant on cars, and to make it more feasible to get around on foot and by bike. He says that if the standards for Brown Ave. included bike lanes, that's what he would have planned to build.  The Multi-modal Transportation Plan for the towncore, the cycling component of which has not been reviewed as part of the new 2014 Transportation Plan, does not call for bike lanes.

Council took a strong position that a solution will have to be found. It's so refreshing to see this Council take cyclists' concerns seriously. It's in the interest of anybody who drives, bikes or walks in and around town to make safe cycling part of the plan.

Another development proposal that concerns cyclists is on 123 Ave., at 207 Street. A 21 single family home development is proposed to be built between two tributaries of McKenney Creek.

Cycling along this narrow stretch of 123 Ave. is rather daunting, with cars speeding by and some giving cyclists very little space. According to the City's road standards it is considered "substandard", and the City can ask the developer to widen it as a condition of the development. At the public hearing, significant concerns were raised by residents of the area about the impact this development will have on the fish bearing creeks and the forested land, due to significantly reduced setbacks, as well as a potentially dangerous intersection being added to an already dangerous stretch of 123 Ave. Council asked staff to come up with possible solutions.

I'll be watching with great interest what happens with these two proposals. I think we just may be on a path to better cycling in the future.

See also my recent posts about the Brown Ave. proposal and the 123 Ave. proposal.

Development along 123 bike route: cyclists don't matter, again?

At the Council meeting on Nov 25 (starts at about 57 minute mark), the following development application was discussed by (outgoing) Council: 2013-041-RZ, 20738 123 Avenue. This is on the 123 bike route.

I sent the following e-mail to Council:

"At the Development Information Meeting on Dec. 11, 2013, one of the concerns raised [by Dave Rush, HUB MR/PM committee member] was:

"3. The existing 123 Avenue is narrow along the development site, which results in speeding and is a concern for cyclists."

This concern was (not) addressed in the staff report as follows:

"3. The Engineering Department is in support of maintaining the existing road right-of-way width on 123 Avenue although it is less that the standard for a collector road. A Development Variance Permit is required. The narrower road right-of-way is to reduce the impact on McKenney Creek, which has two tributaries that cross 123 Avenue in this location."

I appreciate that the reason for not widening 123 Ave. in this location is to reduce the impact on McKenney Creek. However, the substandard width means significant safety issues for cyclists (of all ages and abilities), especially as car traffic increases significantly in the coming years.

I would like to point out that 123 Ave. is not only a major corridor for car traffic, but it is also one of the few east-west corridors for cyclists. It is, in fact, the only east-west bike route north of Lougheed between Skillen and 206th Streets and as such cannot reasonably be avoided. The only other east-west neighbourhood bikeway is the 117th route south of Lougheed.

Here's the description of a neighbourhood bikeway (from the Maple Ridge Transportation Plan):

[....see http://mapleridge.ca/DocumentCenter/View/3768, page 80/81.]

123 Ave. is not a local street, so actually it's not really a "neighbourhood bikeway". It's a major collector road (according to the Transportation Plan), so it is a "shared use lane". Traffic calming can not be used to slow traffic. As explained above, a "shared use lane" should be minimum 4.3 metres wide. The lane presently is too narrow for a shared use lane (I believe it's about 3.3 metres) - definitely too narrow for a car/truck to safely pass within the lane. That means that the safest thing for cyclists to do would be to "take the lane"  ride in the middle of the lane), to ensure that drivers can only pass by moving into the oncoming lane.

There are some problems with taking the lane:

• a cyclist may or may not be allowed to do this (although ICBC and certified cycling instructors all over North America teach cyclists to take the lane in this situation, as to the legality of it the MVA is actually rather vague in this respect. Local RCMP officers may not allow it. I know at least one officer doesn't...I may actually get fined for it myself, as well as for "impeding traffic" if I decide to pursue a recent complaint against the driver of a tow truck who dangerously cut me off. This could very well happen to other cyclists here if the road width is not adequately increased); 
• cyclists may or may not be required to take the lane in this case to ensure their own safety (again, the Motor Vehicle Act is not conclusive here, but I know a judge in one case decided that a cyclist was at fault for NOT taking the lane to ensure his own safety); .....in other words: the cyclist can be found at fault in either case.
• It is also a practice that many cyclists will not feel comfortable doing on a road like 123 Ave.
• It is also a practice which tends to infuriate some drivers, possibly resulting in road rage and at least terrified cyclists, and potentially catastrophic consequences.

East-west traffic is expected to increase by 100% in west Maple Ridge over the next 20 years, and with that, potential conflict between cyclists and drivers will increase. We're not just planning for the present, we're planning for the future.

I believe it's important to adhere to the minimum road width of 4.3 metres in this case, to ensure adequate safety for cyclists and to reduce the very real potential for road rage."

Note that Coun. Bell and Coun. Masse brought up some of my concerns during the meeting. Coun. Bell asked about the actual impact that widening the road would have on the creek.

I think the development itself, the impact of the 21 homes, the road, parking and driveways that will be built as part of this development between the two creeks is way bigger than the widening of the road.

During this same meeting, Council approved a development of 91 1-acre luxury homes on pristine land with various creeks running through it north of Dewdney at 269th Street . Coun. Bell voted against. Why no concern from the rest of council about the impact on the environment in this case, and widening a short stretch of road to ensure the safety of cyclists cannot be done?

Staff report on this development application, dated November 17, 2014, can be found attached to the Council agenda of November 25 on page 190.

Update: Link for public hearing Dec. 9: http://media.mapleridge.ca/Mediasite/Play/c894c473caeb49e8a6fad89f111397251d.

Several comments were received by Council from cyclists. Presentation by city planner Chuck Goddard starts at 32:00. Speakers comments start at 38:00.

Council meeting was right after public hearing on Dec. 9: 

http://media.mapleridge.ca/Mediasite/Play/a4a96c3f5dfe4d15ac421f6ebc8489d51d.
123 Ave. starts at 20:00. I'm really happy that Council is listening to cyclists' concerns! We'll have to wait and see what staff will bring back to council in January.