Reduced vehicle lanes for bike lanes on New St. approved, Guelph Ln to Walkers
New Street, existing lane configuration
New Street is going on a “road diet.” City council voted 6-1 July 18 to reduce traffic lanes from four to two, and add on-road bike lanes on both sides of New Street between Guelph Line and Walkers Line. The bike lanes will be “buffered” with 0.5 m of paint. The space would provide opportunity later on to add planters, curbs or other hard separators between the bike lanes and traffic lanes.
A centre turn lane will be added in the middle of the road.
The road diet will commence as part of the planned reconstruction of this section of New Street. The remarking of the road is expected to be complete in September. The cost of $210,000 is provided from savings achieved through the tender of the road work.
New St proposed “road diet” with bike lanes, centre turn lane.
Staff will report back on the performance of the pilot project prior to the top layer of asphalt being placed on this section of New Street, expected in 2017.
Given current traffic volumes on New Street, staff anticipate this alternative will not significantly impact traffic operations. The introduction of a two-way left-turn lane may serve to reduce conflicts and potentially reduce the risk of rear-end collisions.
Evaluation of the pilot project and determination of its success will be dependent upon a traffic operations review which will examine average travel time for all modes, collision experience and utilization of the cycling facilities. If deemed unsuccessful, the ‘road diet’ alternative can be converted to other identified alternatives without significant costing implications. Transportation staff will monitor the trial road diet and report back in Spring 2017 prior to the planned resurfacing of this section of roadway.
Other options explored by staff to increase cycling infrastructure on New Street included a road widening (cost $1.4 million) and adding a bicycle path in the boulevard on both sides of the street, beside the existing sidewalk (cost: $4.9 million). Staff advised that the boulevard bike path presents funding challenges both in terms of securing the funds and limiting the city’s ability to invest in other cycling infrastructure projects.
Read the Staff Report
My Take: I supported the trial road diet, though none of the alternatives was ideal. We will have an opportunity to assess the impact of the road diet on both cycling and driving, and down the road potentially add infrastructure in the buffered area to separate cyclists and vehicles.
Vancouver bike lane, separated from cars, pedestrians with greenspace.
The best cycling option is an on-road bike lane that is separated from cars by beautification measures (trees, planters or green landscaping). Separation-through-beautification makes cycling safer for riders of all ages, and makes the cycling experience more pleasant. An on-road lane allows cyclists to go through intersections with the lights, cross side streets without stopping, and avoid collisions with pedestrians. These were all issues identified by cyclists with the existing Centennial Bike Path. These same issues would exist with the boulevard bicycle path alternative. Plus, the $4.9m cost was unjustified, given that cyclists who want to ride off-road in the boulevard already have the option of riding on sidewalks in Burlington (with the exception of the downtown).
July 26, 2016 @ 1:36 pm
Shelly, I agree that it’s counter-intuitive. Surely two lanes are better than one. But the results in other cities have shown that sometimes the road diet does reduce delays and make things flow better. I’m not necessarily saying that will happen here. Maybe it will be a little better, maybe a little worse, maybe not much difference at all. We won’t know until we try.
Second, nobody is arguing against synchronized traffic lights. I’m just pointing out that Hamilton’s one-way streets aren’t a fair comparison unless you want to convert New Street to four-lanes one-way.
July 25, 2016 @ 6:07 pm
Marianne, thanks for supporting this pilot. To those concerned about congestion, I’d say this: let’s give it some time and see what happens. And not just a day or a week (there will be an adjustment period) but a few months. This sort of lane reconfiguration has worked well in dozens of other cities, sometimes even making traffic flow better – not to mention reducing crashes and making the street safer for everyone. I’m optimistic it will work well here as well. But if it doesn’t, we can put it back the way it was, and at least we can say we’ve given it a shot.
July 25, 2016 @ 9:21 pm
James, I’m interested in knowing which ‘dozen of other cities’ you are referring to….i find it hard to believe that chopping away lanes on ‘major’ throughways makes for better traffic flow. Why not visit Hamilton is see how quickly you can get from one end of the city to another, using 4 lanes with synchronized lights…..it’s been working there sucessfully for years and years, all to avoid gridlock/congestion, keeping drivers happy knowing that traffic is constantly moving, helping to avoid crashes and promoting safe streets. We’ve already reduced our downtown core to ‘one lane’ roads in each direction, adding 40km speed limits with many ‘calming’ areas on roads…why not keep our major throughways as is, with 2 lanes in each direction, to keep cars moving freely throughout our city – that’s what drivers expect in our city, not congestion or any further gridlock.
July 26, 2016 @ 7:01 am
Elaine, your scepticism is well founded. While there MAY be a case for using bicycles as a mode of transportation in a “big-city” environment (although I’m not convinced), there is NO SUCH CASE in Burlington. The cycling agenda–using OUR tax dollars, has fraudulently been presented as a transportation issue. In reality, the agenda is driven by a bunch of hobbyists–primarily on weekends who would like an east-west velodrome.
When evaluating public policy, economists use the concept of a cost-benefit analysis. Apparently this concept is unknown to the mayor and councillors. The cycling lanes create few benefits except for a tiny minority of the population while imposing significant costs on the large commuter population in this town through inconvenience, congestion, and higher taxes. These lanes on New Street will be a duplication of the Pier to Nowhere—another monument to fiscal irresponsibility and mismanagement at City Hall.
July 26, 2016 @ 10:06 am
It’s actually pretty simple. Right now, a car waiting to make a left turn onto a side street or a driveway has to wait in the through-traffic lane blocking traffic. With this change, we’re gaining a centre left turn lane, so those left turning cars will be out of the way and not blocking through traffic. This may improve flow.
Hamilton’s one-way streets aren’t a fair comparison to New Street. It’s easy to synchronize traffic lights when traffic is only going one way. But how many thriving businesses do you see along those one-way sections of Main and King? Those streets work well to quickly move cars from one end of the city to the other, but they do nothing to support the neighbourhoods they pass through.
July 26, 2016 @ 12:23 pm
James: Two points to make on your clarification about potential improvement to traffic flow by reducing through lanes:
1)Two through lanes has higher capacity for traffic than one single lane plus centre turn lane. There’s no way around the math. Currently we have flow in two lanes subject to turning traffic some of the time – not all the time, whereas the pilot reduces flow to one lane all the time.
2)Synchronized traffic lights always make sense for traffic flow, emissions and speed limit compliance, since drivers must obey limits to continue to proceed through greens. Agree that Hamilton’s downtown situation is different by virtue of the one-way streets and business impacts but doesn’t take away from the value of synchronization in Burlington.
Just as an example, try to drive on Guelph Line between New St. and Mainway any time of the day or evening and see whether you can make it through more than 30% of the 10 traffic signals on that short stretch without sitting at a red light. Waste of time and emissions.
If council’s objective were preserving traffic flow vs. pandering, synchronized traffic signals and centre turn lanes, where feasible without “diet”, would be on the agenda.
July 24, 2016 @ 11:21 pm
Wow – the war on drivers continues in Burlington. Vocal special interest groups win again. It’s disturbing how all the euphemisms for road restrictions have become so overtly driver-hostile. Traffic “calming” and road “diet” terminology certainly have negative connotations. What’s next in this driver shaming trend?
Let’s face the facts that the economy and productivity relies on traffic flowing at a reasonable pace and biking to work or non-work (errands, events) is not practical for most residents. City Council needs to get its collective head out of the sand.
July 25, 2016 @ 8:17 am
Actually Shelley, getting “their heads out of the sand” is no longer a viable option. The entire group–councillors and the mayor, need to be replaced. Not a leader among the group, only politicians.
July 25, 2016 @ 1:47 pm
True Phil – especially Mr. Goldring. This whole bike lane utopia was resuscitated at the mayor’s behest after being scoped out of the New St. project from what I understand. He’s one of the four, or is it five, bicycle commuters in town. Moreover, he lives with convenient access the fully functional (and safely separated) Centennial bikepath from beside his house at Nelson Park right to City Hall . It’s a pretty straight route. This is an expensive legacy of his leadership that I’ll certainly remember next election.
July 25, 2016 @ 9:09 am
Totally agree!! That council needs to give their heads a shake….Burlington South is becoming harder to get around as it is – one lanes already exit on our major thruways (Walkers/Guelph Line south of New, Lakeshore), as well as lack of traffic light control for ease of braking, more and more calming curbs put up in a pinch in neighborhoods….where does it end?
There is little regard given to drivers to maintain optimum traffic flow in our city. Instead, let’s promote more car idling with more stop/go….waiting behind buses and plow trucks in winter on major thruways, basically allowing more congestion….all for the comfort and benefit of a few cyclists who feel the need to have their space on the roads.
Why not make better use of the existing bike paths that stretch for miles in our city for cyclists and plan and maintain our roads accordingly?
July 25, 2016 @ 2:13 pm
Not sure if you know this Elaine, but the current New St./Drury Lane reconstruction project includes installing traffic “calming” bumps all along Drury Lane and adding another all-way emission-increasing stop sign. None of this insanity calms me down personally.
They attempt to push us off of secondary routes with these driver-deterrent measures. Notice how many downtown core secondary streets – not tertiary streets – have recently been reduced to 40km speed limits entirely – not just in school zones anymore (e.g. Caroline, Woodward west of Guelph). At the same time, they are increasing gridlock by reducing vehicle capacity on the few main routes we have through south Burlington. Illogical and hostile to drivers.
July 23, 2016 @ 9:39 pm
It seems there are way more people playing Pokemon Go than there are cycling to work. I say forget the bike lanes on the road, let them use the sidewalks or the actual bike path or ride on the side of the road like the seven people who use it do now, and instead make some Pokemon Go lanes for those folks who are doing that.
Maybe we could also leave some room for the cars of the people who are actually needing the roads 12 months a year to get through town? Please tell me the city didn’t measure the current traffic for this brilliant idea recently considering New Street is ripped up after Guelph Line and there are considerably fewer people on it right now, all the way down. I can’t imagine how this will work with fewer lanes to drive in at rush hour.
July 23, 2016 @ 7:32 am
It looks like the four guys who cycle to work have dictated how the majority will have to live. Special interest groups are turning Burlington into Toronto.
July 23, 2016 @ 12:16 am
Why the fixation on so many bike lanes on so many roads when we have a perfectly good BIKE PATH paralleling New Street which I never see a whole lot of bike riders using either? Why not put the money towards bridging Bronte Creek at Upper Middle, instead? That would solve some traffic issues and save plenty of people a lot of time.
July 25, 2016 @ 8:44 am
Exactly – and what about bridging Harvester/Wyecroft by the Burloak PowerCentre over the creek to Wyecroft at Bronte Rd. I thought this was in the plan several years back. Drivers need help getting from point A to point B, not more ill-conceived plans to pander to the vocal minority and frustrate the tax-paying majority.
July 22, 2016 @ 9:31 pm
It looks like we are bent on killing businesses in Roseland Plaza and across. Well, that’s what is happening now and we are wondering why people can’t get good jobs in town…
July 22, 2016 @ 11:45 pm
Good observation, Yuri. I’m already moving my prescriptions out of Roseland. It will be a “no go” zone
along with downtown. If this City wants to continue its “war on the car” to pander to a shrill lobby of hobbyists who at best represent 3% of the population, the City can accept the collateral damage that goes with it. This City’s motto, “the needs of the few outweigh the needs of the many”.
July 22, 2016 @ 9:08 pm
How will the traffic merge from 4 lanes to two if New Street remains four lanes between Walkers and Appleby. Another reconfiguration that will add more road rage as I see it. A good example is the reconfiguration in downtown Burlington. Four lanes to two, back to four. Drivers roaring up the inside lane to cut off the drivers in the middle through traffic lane.
July 22, 2016 @ 1:15 pm
What are the metrics staff and council will be looking at to deem this a success or failure? Such a short stretch and short time frame won’t adequately gauge the usage by bikes but it will give staff an idea of the impact to cars.
Long term I’d love to see New Street become more of a tertiary/multi-use road with Fairview and Harvester being the primary East – West thoroughfare and Lakeshore the secondary.option.
July 24, 2016 @ 7:57 am
Metrics? What metrics? The September, 2017 report has already been written–this City should release it now and be done with the charade. Earlier this year, the mayor released a study of bicycle and traffic use on New Street–it consisted of two “cherry-picked” days in May, 2015. This was a study?????? When I questioned this dubious statistics(?), the mayor didn’t even reply. To quote Harry Truman (apologies to Benjamin Disraeli), there are three kinds of lies, “lies, damn lies, and statistics”.
July 22, 2016 @ 12:30 pm
I trust that the evaluation of accommodation for bicycle traffic along this cross-town artery will include a report on the cyclists’ observance of the same rules (and courtesies) of the road that motorists are expected to follow.
July 22, 2016 @ 9:03 am
The idea of doing this as a trial is a good one, as it will give time to show whether concerns about congestion and poor driving behaviour (ie. not respecting the separation lines) are legitimate. One concern I have is the fact that New Street is a bus route, and that an increase in congestion on this corridor will have negative impact on bus reliability and being able to make transfer connections when the 10 is late. Doing this as a trial will give us a chance to see if such things will actually happen.
July 21, 2016 @ 9:39 pm
I was previously in favor of the blvd option from west of Guelph line all the way to Burloak, but at the time was unaware of the $4.9 million cost for this whole strip of road. This road diet trial only goes to Walkers, so there is a difference in the options scope, but still, the cost of $4.9 M for all of it is still too much I agree.
Anyways, the appeal of a bike highway all the way to Burloak is there for sure, and something to think about.