Why I supported the New St lane change, and how your input makes a difference
I’ve heard from many residents upset about the lane narrowing on New Street for bike lanes, and asking why I supported the pilot project. Here’s My Take – but know that I am listening to all the feedback and if the project proves a nightmare for drivers without increasing cycling, I’ll be voting to change it back.
Please continue to share your feedback with me.
You can learn more about the project and submit comments directly to the city on the webpage dedicated to the New Street road narrowing.
My Take: We’ve been going around and around on the issue of bike lanes, and it was time to put it to the test and collect some data on whether bike lanes increase cycling, and the impact on drivers. This pilot will allow us to collect this data, and inform decisions not just on New Street but any street in Burlington. This is not going to be the last time that road diets will be proposed. Better we understand its impact before we add more.
Further, I could not defend the expense of up to $5 million for the alternative being proposed of a bike path beside the New Street sidewalk (supported by the mayor and Councillor Sharman). This path would require ripping up the existing sidewalk to put down two new sidewalks – a waste of taxpayers money and infrastructure. Residents can already ride on existing sidewalks in Burlington.
Residents have asked why we’d impact up to 20,000 drivers daily for 60 cyclists, even if the latter number goes up. It’s a great point, and one I will consider in my decision-making. Generally, I try to make decisions based on the greatest benefit for the greatest number.
I also believe we should be investing in transit before cycling, because of the distances people travel, weather, and mobility issues for some of our residents. If we’re going to invest substantial dollars in alternative-to-car transportation, I would prioritize transit first.
Burlington Cycling C0mmittee:
The city has a number of citizen advisory committees that provide advice to council, including a Cycling Committee. Their meetings are public as are agendas and minutes. A resident suggested adding the link so you could find out more (thanks for the suggestion).
Here’s the link:
http://www.burlington.ca/en/your-city/burlington-cycling-committee.asp
October 14, 2016 @ 10:25 am
Speaking of council “ticking the boxes” and then going off to lunch (refer to David Fenton’s October 10th reply following Jim Feilders’s October 7th comment), did anyone at the city actually think about and plan for the fact that more than one road construction project would immediately tear up stretches of New right along where the new lane restrictions were put in place, rendering the bike lanes non-functional anyway and adding further to driver misery? Only a bike rider with a death wish would ride along New St. near Guelph during the current construction.
The new eastbound bike lane was torn up almost from day 1 of the “diet” for several weeks in the General Brock/Pinecove area and now a significant stretch of westbound is totally dug up and restricted from Dynes to Guelph rendering both bike lanes unusable most of the day – looks like this will be the case until the snow flies. What a waste of money to endlessly paint, patch and repaint. Even if the cost is buried in some other road construction project vs. the pilot, it’s still money out of property owners’ pockets and for what? Other than ticking the boxes, it’s hard to see the objective of this pilot being achieved – including collecting meaningful statistics on bike usage especially on weekdays.
October 13, 2016 @ 5:37 pm
Allowing cyclists to use sidewalks is very dangerous to pedestrians and should not be allowed (except for young children). Walking is also good for the environment and health (providing you don’t get run down by a cyclist). I don’t know of any other cities that allow cyclists on narrow sidewalks.
October 8, 2016 @ 3:38 pm
I have just read a few articles in todays “Daily Mail” newspaper (U.K.) that London has already done what Burlington is trying to do albeit on a much grander scale separate bike paths, lane reduction, bike lanes, the results are traffic gridlock & empty bike paths. Also another interesting article that some small towns & villages in the U.K. are going to ban all “Lycra Louts” from streets citing danger to pedestrians & various other unsocial behaviour from these people.
You really didn’t have to do a trial for New St, all you had to do was look at another major city with the same loony liberal councillors and you could have saved yourself some money.
Meanwhile as a recently retired long term resident of downtown Burlington, I find it increasingly dangerous to go for a walk, as all these “Lycra Louts” (I like the term) are running amok on downtown sidewalks.
And a straw poll conducted by me (all ages & types) are of the same opinion, so it can’t just be me.
October 7, 2016 @ 10:42 am
We have two issues here; cycling and cars. We need to get people out of cars. This can be done by converting the cycle lanes to transit lanes. Part of the problem is QEW traffic taking local streets and causing congestion. Transit lanes will provide service for our residents and discourage the long distance commuter. For the cyclist, I agree that this section of New Street has a sufficient alternative in the Centennial Path. For other locations, off road tracks can be built much cheaper. Take a look at Rebecca Street in Oakville. It has one paved path on the south side only and didn’t require replacing an existing sidewalk.
October 10, 2016 @ 10:59 am
I agree, that more thought is needed as to what we are trying to accomplish here. rather than council just ticking boxes (thats that done….lunch anyone) we live in the land of the car because of the distances we travel, we also manufacture cars in Ontario. The places we live in are designed around cars, Im sure that most of us (except car enthusiasts) would dearly love to be rid of our cars, but we need them. to tackle this issue a better transit experience is needed, not those large empty buses I see lumbering around Burlington (another box ticked) but maybe smaller & more of them. Maybe look at getting people out walking more on the weekends (look at the Pokemon phenomenon) The Cyclist lobby are in fact monopolizing the agenda but is it not the fact that all cyclists are not the same, kids with bikes, pensioners on trikes, classic bikes with baskets on the front (with a bell) this category of cyclists are in no hurry, just out enjoying themselves, then the others, teenagers on bikes who can’t afford a car yet but try to speed everywhere, people who work locally beetling along on some kind of mountain bike, then there are the Lycra louts these individuals with full race ready machines & aerodynamic suits (they think armour) who blow through Red lights, ride on sidewalks & shared paths with great disregard to anyone else & when together ride in a peloton formation at maximum speed, where are they going in such a hurry? have a look on U-Tube at cyclists with helmet cams although very entertaining it is rather telling how entitled these people think they are.
October 6, 2016 @ 9:37 am
I am on New Street daily and have seen very few bikers using the new lanes. I like your idea of spending more on transit instead.
October 4, 2016 @ 2:18 pm
I travel this section of road 4 or 5 times a week finally saw my first cyclist on this “diet” stretch of road and guess what – he was riding on the sidewalk. A total waste of money doing this exercise.
October 4, 2016 @ 8:53 am
As an attempt at cycling infrastructure, this road diet is a bad joke. Lanes separated from car and bus traffic would be much better. The city seems to be trying to push people away from driving cars by making it harder to drive, but not spending money on better transit or actual cycling infrastructure, or better pedestrian infrastructure. It just seems like the most half-assed strategy in the world.
October 3, 2016 @ 8:11 pm
Hi — on Sept 23 I was driving along the newly configured New Street around 11:30 am. I observed three cyclists. They were not riding as a group and all three were riding on the sidewalk (??)
October 3, 2016 @ 5:50 pm
I have yet to see a cyclist on New Street.
October 3, 2016 @ 9:43 pm
Maybe we need an Amber alert for the missing cyclists on New Street – n’est pas?
October 3, 2016 @ 1:52 pm
The New Street diet is for whos’ benefit. All I hear each and everyday is people complaining about the negative impact on traffic – which actually has a greater negative environmental impact than the postive impact of cyclist – although they are everywhere except New Street! I also question the totality of the traffic impact on major arteries such as Plains, Fairview, Drury Lane, Lakeshore – need I continue. Lastly, I would like to see the evaluation metrics for hte New Street Diet – the baseline and ongoing metrics…
October 3, 2016 @ 10:27 am
Bad idea, a lot of drivers have difficulty using a centre turn lane properly, so in effect you’ve lost more that the two vehicle lanes.
Also, traffic is dynamic, it will shift to other East/West routes in search of shorter travel times, so be wary of reports that show minimal impact on traffic, it simply moves elsewhere!
October 2, 2016 @ 9:21 pm
First, the “road diet” plan was a waste of money! I am a cyclist and I thought this “trial” was a joke when I heard about it. How could it POSSIBLY encourage more cycle traffic? Really?
There is no business destination between Guelph and Walkers line, so it’s no wonder this stretch was chosen (so no complaints from businesses). So, if a resident was going to bike in stead of drive, there is no where to go to in this stretch of road anyways. So this leave the cyclist fighting traffic and narrow lanes at the the opposite ends! I would love to know which individual decided that this was a good idea and would encourage cyclists?
For me, there is no way that I would ever ride New Street before the road diet or after! Those silly bike lanes do absolutely nothing! Third, HAVE YOU SEEN THE CONDITION OF THE ROAD! It’s bad enough for cards, let along a bike. So another reason why you would not see “more bike traffic” on this stretch of New Street.
People out there need to understand the difference between recreation cycling and cycling as a means of form of transportation. Till this distinction is made, then banter will continue back and forth about the “recreational bike trail”.
What is the ultimate goal? Getting away from economic and politically motivated decisions concerning development of our cities and focusing more on environmental and social needs of our city! We need to get out of our cars, we need to focus on sustainable forms of transportation and development. We need to start working and living in the same area. We need to create a reason for people to want to work and live in the same city!
Back to the Road Diet; Failure from the beginning. I am sad to see hundreds of thousands of dollars wasted on such a project.
My next question is, what was the intended purpose of the Road Diet? I can’t see it? Hmmm… maybe it was set up in the beginning to be a failure just to get approval from citizens to keep the road as it is. Just a thought.
If the city truly wanted to do a “test”, all of New Street would have been done. Then let’s see who is encouraged to cycle!
I want to see New Street widened! There is room… and some parts a few poles need to be moved and then proper bike lanes put in place, along with two lanes of traffic both ways AND a turning lane if possible! Continue right through into Oakville then you would really see things start to happen!
DO IT ONCE AND DO IT RIGHT!!!!!
October 2, 2016 @ 12:36 pm
Why can’t we have a coherent cycling plan that allows cyclist to travel East, West and North without having to fight it out with heavy traffic?
We need a safe way to travel North of the QEW on a road that does not have access ramps.
Also a safe way to get from Lakeshore Road to Northshore Blvd. ie cycling lanes on QEW underpass.
Travelling West of Brant St is actually very good as other writers have noted.
October 4, 2016 @ 8:44 am
A cyclist/pedestrian bridge across the train tracks at Cumberland would be nice too. Lots of people work along Harvester; it would be nice to be able to walk across the tracks (safely) to grab lunch.
October 2, 2016 @ 8:14 am
We have a bile path just north of New Street that goes all the way to Burloak. We don’t need one on New Street. I live on Rothesay Place and it now takes 20 mins longer to go to Guelph Line – if you can make a right turn. You cannot make a left turn – traffic is too heavy now down to one lane. Take 2 lanes and bring them into one lane and you automatically get a backup – it doesn’t take rocket science to see this. Look at the 403 coming into the westbound QEW. I rest my case. Traffic is heavy on New Street and we need our lanes back. Thanks
October 1, 2016 @ 5:24 pm
Who can possibly be surprised that removing a lane on new street would create traffic chaos. Either have bus service or bike lanes, both don’t make sense. I hope council will realize the huge mistake that has been made, admit it, correct it and move on.
October 1, 2016 @ 3:24 pm
Simple arithmetic defeats the bike-lane idea. Bike lanes are usable (and used) maybe 1% or 2% of the time, and zero percent in winter or inclement weather. Pilot projects are utter;y unnecessary. We won’t find out anything we couldn’t learn by standing by a bike lane on a pleasant day and counting the users. Multiply your result by any number you like – 100, say – and you still don’t have justification for choking off a busy street.
Frank Gue
October 1, 2016 @ 1:52 pm
As I previously have said on several occasions I am opposed to cycle lanes in general and feel that council is conducting a war on motorists also creating a dangerous situation for cyclists. Roads were built to certain safety standards which are being trimmed with cycle paths. As a former cyclist I am amazed at the risks taken by cyclists on our roads. Council has spent thousands of our tax dollars to provide a limited few use these lanes in good weather. Even while at risk they have no insurance coverage and no regulations on the condition of the cycles such as brakes,lighting and bell. Be aware that the “temporary arrangement on New St.” is in fact a foot in the door. By all means promote off road paths – not on.
Cy Mills
October 1, 2016 @ 10:25 am
With density increasing in the downtown core of Burlington with high-rises The road diet on New street makes little sense. With gridlock during rush hour, its bad for the environment with cars idling and spewing out toxic fumes for the sake of very few cyclists. Also as we have seen when there is a problem on the QEW Burlington turns into a nightmare and the road diet just aggravates the situation further. As winter approaches and the snow starts to fly this section of new Street will become even worse.
October 1, 2016 @ 9:39 am
It is beginning a nightmare to drive across Burlington. We have more and larger condo developments being introduced which will bring lots more drivers. I firmly believe that because of the amount of traffic problems, when people see an open road, they tend to drive faster and more dangerously to make up time lost stuck in traffic and get where they are going. To avoid New Street, lots of people are diverting to Lakeshore Road which has become a log jam from 5 pm to 7 pm most evenings. Burlington is a beautiful city with lots of advantages and bike paths, do we really have to water this down through this obsession with putting bike paths on every road? This issue is a real bone of contention and detracts attention from any other good things achieved by Council.
October 1, 2016 @ 7:39 am
I have seen a total of two cyclists use these bicycle lanes since the inception. Turning left onto Woodview Road at rush hour means some kind soul has to stop short of the street to allow me to do this since they are stopping from the light at Cumberland since it is red. That is over a block of single lane of cars! I am doing this while the cyclists are using the bicycle path as usual. It is so much safer and pleasant than using New street. What an inconvenience and waste of money.
October 1, 2016 @ 6:45 am
I’ve never seen such public interest in any project before. It seems we are very passionate about the rights of our automobiles.
October 1, 2016 @ 9:47 am
All of this hoopla over bicycle lanes all over Burlington is a crock. What about pedestrians? I live in the Brant /Fairview area I walk down Brant Street or Fairview street which both have clearly marked bike lanes yet I find myself dodging cyclists on the sidewalk. or cyclists that don’t know what a red light or stop sign means. It would seem to me that the rights of cyclists are put above the rights of the common pedestrian.
October 1, 2016 @ 9:59 am
A “right” we pay dearly for. Cost of the automobile, maintenance, insurance, gas and licencing fees, Is it too much to expect to be able to get from point A to B in a safe, timely fashion. What I have experienced with this road diet is more aggressive driving, a long line of idling cars which hardly seems a green initiative and cyclists yes, most on the sidewalk. A repeat of the fiasco of the reconfiguration downtown.
September 30, 2016 @ 11:49 pm
It’s not a matter of “if” this becomes a traffic nightmare. We certainly don’t need a year’s worth of data to confirm the nightmare we’ve experienced in the first 45 days. Bumper to bumper stopped traffic from Guelph to Walker’s Line both morning and night. Impossible to get a break in traffic to turn onto New from side streets. Impossible to turn north onto Walkers from the eastbound lanes in the late afternoon due to stopped westbound traffic blocking the intersection.
Even at 6:30pm yesterday, we were stuck in stopped traffic in the westbound lane as far back as Woodview and when we tried to zigzag home to our home south of New using Rexway and Woodward – well out of our way north – unfortunately everyone seemed to have the same idea and the secondary streets were just as jammed. What a disaster. What about the idling cars and emissions?
Great job Mayor Rick – hope you’re enjoying your green delegation boondoggle in Europe, tweeting the virtues of bike culture and car sharing all the way. I hope we can give you the reality check you need at next election. This is Canada. Burlington is a suburb – it’s not Toronto or Copenhagen or Apeldoorn or Malmo. Stop pandering to the minority and wasting our tax dollars.
September 30, 2016 @ 11:49 pm
I agree absolutely with all the negative comments on the New Street “diet”. The only comment I can make in addition is that I haven’t seen ANY bikes on the road and I’ve driven on New St. throughout the day. The CAR traffic has become a real pain and someone has really blown the planning and research part of this endeavour.. PLEASE, let’s call it quits and use the money on something that the MAJORITY of Burlington’s citizens need.
Eilene Scholes
September 30, 2016 @ 11:06 pm
I don’t think you will find anyone who uses this road either as a cyclist or a car driver who supports the new lane changes. I understand why people want cycle friendly areas but I find that all the roads that have them can’t support them. Our traffic issues are becoming more intense and with the addition of more high density condos and apartments it is more dangerous on the road for cyclists.
Everywhere else in the world that I have travelled, cyclists have dedicated lanes that don’t impede traffic flow.
New street was a mistake and I feel it should be reversed as soon as possible.
Janice Slaunwhite
September 30, 2016 @ 4:30 pm
I’m keeping a random photographic record (dated, timed) of the bicycle traffic on New St. City transportation has told me that residents will have access to THE RAW DATA they have gathered on New Street. The random photos will allow me to audit the City’s data on cyclist use. Of course, should the City decide to NOT release the raw data but a summary instead, they will now have to explain what they are hiding. BACK TO NEW STREET. I rarely see a cyclist on New Street–several on the sidewalk (mostly students) and the most BY FAR CROSSING NEW STREET on the Centennial Pathway (mostly seniors & families). The City has indicated that these two–sidewalks & crossing will not be included.
Overall, Marianne, I am seriously opposed to this waste of taxpayer group to benefit a special interest group–one funded and sponsored by the City–which has disproportionate lobbying advantage of local residents who are mostly presented wihich a “fait accompli” but who bear the negative consequences.
MY TAKE: it’s time to clean house at City Hall.
September 30, 2016 @ 4:25 pm
The reviews of the OP and Master Transportation plan prioritize movement in the city in the following order: pedestrians, bikes, transit/buses/freight, and coming last is cars. This is all part of the Grow Bold intensification policy the city seems to be adopting, despite the traffic nightmares reality, and car dependency we live in.
My take on this is that it’s BS. Just imaginary words to rationalize the growth policy, but without a real plan to deal with the transportation. We are told in Ward 1 that we will just have to walk or bike, or take the bus, because we can’t keep building roads
People commenting here say they see few bikes despite the New St remake to provide. But if the city policy is to be anything but BS, then provision has to be made as integral, somewhere.
I see few pedestrians on the growth strip of Plains Rd – there has been no increase, and the city does not take surveys to see what’s happening. We have no idea of a baseline number to start from, so more BS and no plan.
I agree that Transit needs a big improvement and more money, but we are way behind getting the split needed, and where’s the plan again to get there? More of the BS rationalization to grow bold, with no plan for the real needs that go with it.
The fact is the city was designed around the car, along with the economy and social form. You can’t just say this will change with new paper and pencil utterings from the city hall.
So, if the new policies on transportation are to have any credibility as anywhere near possible and not entirely BS rationalizations for the real estate motives and dealing that’s going on every day, then we need concrete, visible plans and actions to show us how we are getting there as we move ahead.
IN Ward 1 we are told we are doing this for the next generation, for the future, which I think is more BS. The problems are now. The growth plans are now. The statements about walking, biking, and busing are a paper reality, with no substance in a plan – what is the city going to do? – and no more BS.
September 30, 2016 @ 3:13 pm
My take on the New Street “Diet” is that it is a complete waste of tax payers money. I live just south of New Street so travel along it frequently. At this point I would say I have probably seen about 5 or 6 bicycles in the lanes and (correct me if I am wrong) I have not seen the Mayor or any of the councillors riding in it. There is a perfectly bike path along New Street that I believe runs from Burloak to either Torrance or Martha Street so why the duplication. Please let New Street fatten up again and get rid of the traffic jams.
October 2, 2016 @ 4:12 pm
Sandra,
I have cycled in the bike lanes, and I saw Jack Dennison out cycling them also. Can’t speak for the others. I will say I prefer the quiet and beauty of the bike path and even the side streets to hot, noisy, busy New, with little shade.
October 2, 2016 @ 5:24 pm
I do understand your preference. I live in the area and am directly impacted by the New St. fiasco. The large majority of the cyclists I see are families and seniors who cycle along Spruce and on the bike path; very, very few on New Street.
September 30, 2016 @ 3:10 pm
One thing that is kind of weird about this trial is the choice of location. I don’t really expect a huge impact difference in cycling on that particular stretch, due to the proximity of the bike path. If this were Walkers-to-Appleby, or Appleby-to-Burloak, where the distance from New St. to the path is much greater, that would make more sense to me as a location for a trial such as this. At Burloak, if you want to use the trail, you have to go all the way up to the train tracks. At Appleby, it’s almost at Fairview. If you’re planning on going to, say, Appleby Village at Appleby and New St to run a few errands, this is a significant detour for a human-powered vehicle. But at Guelph line…. the trail actually crosses New St close to there. At Walkers, it’s not very far to/from the trail at all. As a cyclist, I would choose the trail over the road there.
In short, I fear that the results of this trial will show little improvement in cycling uptick on that particular stretch of New St, and that you guys on council will just go “well, that’s it, I guess nobody wants to cycle on New St” and give up on cycling infrastructure on New St entirely.
That said, if it’s a matter where we have to choose between good transit and good bike infrastructure, I guess I would have to agree with you that transit should have the priority. It’s a shame to have to frame this that way though, as the city’s official plan claims to prioritize both things. Being a transit user means having a pedestrian component, and can also have a biking component if the situation is friendly enough to encourage riding your bike to a location to grab a bus.
September 30, 2016 @ 2:34 pm
I have driven New St. in both directions at least a dozen return trips between Guelph Line and Walkers Line in the last 2 weeks. In those thrips I have seen a total of 8 cyclists of whom only 2 have used the bicycle lanes. All others have used the sidewalk. I noticed that students exclusively use the sidewalk as they tend to be on their cycles while friends walk beside them. As an east-west route, the serious cyclists use Lakeshore, not New Street. As winter approaches and the weather deteriorates, even fewer cyclists can be expected to use New Street and the loss of traffic lanes will contribute to even further traffic snarls as New Street takes overloads form other blocked east-west arteries. I have to say that I am not happy with with the waste of over $200,000. to accommodate so few cyclists, it seems many of whom will use the sidewalk regardless. I’m sure that cost does not include the cost of reverting to a 4 lane artery.
September 30, 2016 @ 3:02 pm
I fully agree… and I have to wonder what kind of investigation was done to find out the cycling volume along New Street before this was implemented. I am not, however, in favour of any cycling on Lakeshore… it is just too narrow and is, in my opinion, an accident waiting to happen… The paved trail is an excellent alternative…
October 2, 2016 @ 4:15 pm
Ian, Good points. To clarify, the cost does include returning the lanes to 4. There is still a top layer of asphalt to be poured next year, and lanes will need to be repainted at that time to whichever configuration council decides. The cost was for repainting the road now for the test.
September 30, 2016 @ 2:09 pm
My take?
It should have never been approved!
It has created a very dangerous situation and should be reversed as soon as possible!
September 30, 2016 @ 1:47 pm
Hi Marianne, I respect your views and opinions.. You’ve been a voice for the residents.. many times, the lone voice. But perhaps you didn’t know how much of a traffic problem this could cause.
I’m avid biker (road bike that is). And I live on New and Guelph line. I ride my bike and my mountain bike often. But I also drive on New st. And the traffic has become completely ridiculous. The worst part about choosing New st is that we have a paved trail just north of New st that runs from Guelph line to Burloak.. and another paved trail just south of New st from Guelph line to Downtown.
Maybe the city could have chosen a road that didn’t have paved bike paths nearby.? I would vote to dismantle and forget the 1 year experiment.. It’s already a huge issue.. just ask the residents that live there..
thank you
Steve
September 30, 2016 @ 2:32 pm
I agree with Steve. The paved trail was what I was referring to in my post. Much safer and more fun for cyclists !
September 30, 2016 @ 1:06 pm
I rarely see cyclists on New Street or anywhere in downtown Burlington, for that matter. The cycle/walking path that travels east/west should be used instead. Even putting a “bike path” on New Street, as has been done, is dangerous for the cyclists (and drivers) as cyclists are way too close to traffic. The alternative being proposed of a bike path beside the New Street sidewalk may be expensive, but if we REALLY want to support a cycling culture, safety should be of the utmost concern and this is a much safer option