Abandonment Issues on the 76 Avenue and 106 Street Bike Lanes
After riding down the 97 Street bike lane I was pretty excited to try out the other new lanes the city’s built this year. So with love in my heart I set out on yet another cool late summer night to see what the new lanes have to offer.
Above is a diagram of each street, with a legend showing what type of lane arrangement each letter corresponds to. Letters A–E are for dedicated bike lanes, and letters F–J are where sharrows are present. Red lines indicate that parking is prohibited on that side of the street.
What they don’t really show you above is that in those little gaps between letters, your ass is on its own. In short, the bike lane goes away, abandoning you right where you need it most, like congested intersections where a dedicated space for bicycles would be most useful.
What exactly am I talking about?
Let’s say you’re heading south on 106 Street starting at Saskatchewan Drive. Everything is fine, you have a pretty new bike lane all to yourself. Then as you approach Whyte Avenue, the bike lane ends, and you’re forced to merge into traffic in order to cross Whyte. Then just after Whyte there’s another bike lane, for all of half a block, and then you’re once again forced into traffic at 81 Avenue. See the pic to the right. Seriously?
The thing is, this happens all the time on both roads. Because of some existing obstacle, there isn’t enough room for normal traffic lanes and a bike lane, so bikes are just told to go back into traffic lanes. In the case of the picture to the right, obviously there are large trees that can’t be moved. But wouldn’t is just be better to have plain old sharrows instead? Most commuting cyclists know that it’s dangerous to weave in and out of parked cars, and holding a straight line is preferred. Yet the city is pretty much asking us to weave in and out of traffic here. It basically invites drivers to whizz past while they can so they don’t have to wait for slower cyclists.
In the example above, the trees can’t be moved. Okay fine. But look at the example to the left on 76 Avenue looking west at 112 Street. That concrete protrusion exists on both sides of the road and acts to narrow the road near the pedestrian crossing. It’s called traffic calming, and the point is to get drivers to slow down by making the road narrower. But now it’s interfering with the bike lane and creating a potentially unsafe situation. It should be gone.
When I posted about the 97 Street bike lane, commenter Chris C said that the awful bumpy spots in Hazeldean were scheduled for replacement within a couple years. I assumed as much, but it doesn’t matter, because the city is announcing and opening up new infrastructure that isn’t actually ready. It’s the same deal here.
I was going to make an analogy about how there would be an uproar if the city opened up Anthony Henday Drive and it wasn’t ready, but that’s actually what happened. People have been dealing with construction delays as intersections are finished. Even the beloved LRT expansion had problems initially, like the comically long delays at the 51 Avenue crossing. So I guess these are just more of the same growing pains. I hope the city takes my criticism in the constructive spirit it was intended, and fixes these problems to makes these new routes great.
And now for some other points in picture form
Here the sharrow is placed properly to show that cyclists should not be riding in the door zone. Great! If you’re not familiar, the “door zone” is the name for the area within about one meter of a parked car where a careless driver may open their door into the path of a cyclist without warning. If a cyclist collides with an open door it can be very serious, as doors are hard, pointy, and stationary.
Not great! This is precisely where you shouldn’t be riding your bike.
Here’s 76 Avenue looking east towards Calgary Trail. Cyclists, taxis, and buses have always been allowed to turn left onto the northbound bus lane that runs counter to Calgary Trail. Okay, so how is a cyclist to do this? The correct answer is to merge out of the bike lane into the traffic lane, and turn left from the traffic lane. But how many cyclists, especially new ones, don’t know that it’s allowable to ride outside the bike lane? Will they try to turn left from the bike lane? That’s a good way to get run over.
Also at 76 & Calgary Trail: You are a motorized ice cream truck. Why are you in the bike lane?
The best for last, 76 Avenue at Gateway Boulevard. No indication about what to do here. More importantly, why would a cyclist want to head northbound on Gateway instead of the dedicated bus/bike lane on Calgary Trail? The bike lane just ends here, as if to say, “Okay, have fun! Hope your life insurance is paid up!”
As always, let us know what you think in the comments, and tell us how your experiences with the bike lanes have been so far.
Thanks for this.
When I and a number of other cyclists raised exactly these points with the city and community groups, many community members told us we were “opposed to change,” “hostile to cyclists,” etc. Apparently pointing out flaws in the implementation is a big no-no.
Every point you mentioned was obvious before the paint was applied, and was explicitly outlined to the city and the communities. However, many many people cannot see these as problems, and only see the supposed safety benefits of riding behind a painted line.
This is imperfect application of an imperfect solution. Much much more is required, starting with major cycling education point for all system users. But painting lines on the road gets you points, so that’s all we’ll be seeing unless we continue to push – no matter what names we get called.
I’m really enjoying these posts! Thanks for continuing the series.
Those conflict points scare me. I’ve experienced lots of hostility and dangerous drivers when moving to the left to make left-hand turns. I see so much potential for cyclists getting hurt when it’s not clear to riders and drivers what is supposed to happen. I hope there’s a solution that can be worked out!
I worry this gives cyclists a false sense of security. I’m not a great cyclist, but I’m encouraged to bike more often because I know there are some dedicated lanes. But I know I would end up as that person looking out on Gateway Boulevard with very little idea of what to do next, slowly dismounting my bike and heading for the nearest sidewalk, more than likely become paste before I get there. Not responsible on my part for not knowing what to do, but not responsible on the city’s part for giving me the sense that I’m slightly protected by a dedicated lane, until I’m not anymore.
I also encountered the door zone problem on the 127st bike lane. I’m not sure how long that’s been there, but it definitely felt a little close to the cars.
Nice post, Mike. Your pictures tell the story well.
On a side note, truncated bike lanes are nothing new for Edmonton. Have you ever ridden east on 100 Avenue near the Victoria Promenade? That bike lane spits you out right into one-way, on-coming traffic. The only safe thing to do it to become a pedestrian, cross the street to ride on the sidewalk for 20 feet, and then cross Victoria Trail again at the lights. But I guess it’s a work in progress.
A twitter friend posted this last night & I thought it could inform some of the conversation around intersection conflict points. It’s a video explaining the design the Dutch use pretty frequently that adds a sort of bicycle roundabout to an existing intersection. The solution keeps cyclists out of danger when turning either left or right. http://ow.ly/6DhLP
The curb extensions are a traffic calming measure that narrow the road. They also ensure that pedestrians have a shorter trip from one side of the street to the other.
The curb extensions on 106 St don’t have to go. Maybe it’s the dedicated lanes that should be replaced with sharrows. And education/enforcement needs to be implemented for drivers AND cyclists so both groups understand the rules of the road.
[...] The Charrette is still keeping an eye on bike lanes. [...]
The same problem exists on 102 Ave. It’s a designated bike route, yet there are no bike lanes. From 116st to 124st the traffic is not terribly busy but again the curbs stick out so far, you have to merge in with traffic at intersections.
From 124St to 136St, they just repaved the road yet didn’t paint any bike lanes. And the bike lane disappears when you go across the two bridges. The first one – the one over Groat with the metal bridge isn’t bad as it’s easy to get onto the sidewalk (which is what the signs tell you to do) and the sidewalk is wide enough for bikes and peds to co-exist. The second one though – not a chance.
If you look at the newly created bike lanes in Callingwood along 69 Ave – very nice until you hit 170St or 178St – the bike lane just gradually merges into the curb and disappears. So what – cyclists are supposed just disappear then too?
The Charrette Photo Pool
The latest photos added to the Charrette Photo Pool:Want to add yours to the mix? Submit your best shots to the photo pool today!
The Charrette on Twitter
Upcoming Events
League Blogs
Edmonton Blogs
What We’ve Said
What You’ve Said
Tags
Recent Posts
Most Commented
Recent Comments