Tomorrow is the second annual Bike to Work Day in Winnipeg, and in honour of that I’m going to provide a suggestion to the City on how it could add four kilometres of dedicated bike lanes by the end of the day for next to nothing.
There’s a two-kilometre stretch of Berry Street that runs between Silver and Saskatchewan that’s currently signed as a bike route. Presumably it’s a good alternative to Route 90 for students going up to RRC or staff at businesses in the airport (or should that be CentrePort?) area.
I’ve had the opportunity to drive this stretch several times recently, and I don’t have a clue how many lanes of traffic are supposed to be in place. The road itself is quite wide, easily fitting three cars across. But because there’s no lines painted anywhere, no one actually knows where they’re supposed to drive. So in some places you have cars driving two abreast headed south, while in other places they’re driving two abreast headed north. It’s confusing to say the least.
Traffic volumes aren’t really that high in this area (even with current construction on Route 90), and a two-lane road would probably be sufficient. So I’m thinking there’s an opportunity for the City to make use of the extra pavement and create dedicated bike lanes in either direction. There would still be plenty of room for two extra-wide traffic lanes, drivers would actually know where they’re supposed to drive, and the City could claim a small victory on the active transportation front.
The only potential conflict I see is at the southern end of this stretch, where there’s on-street parking allowed on one side of the street for a single block. However, there’s lots of other on-street options available in the immediate vicinity.
Total cost to implement this plan? A couple of cans of paint and a few hours of someone’s time to paint the lines. So what’s that add up to, $500? On a per-kilometre basis, that’s the cheapest bike path that’s going to be created in Winnipeg this year.
Any other easy scores like this out there?
Filed under: winnipeg blog | Tagged: bike to work day winnipeg, City of Winnipeg
This is more than a $500 idea, but lay down more paths that run along railroad tracks. Railroad tracks tend to converge downtown and have few intersections. This is ideal for a bike path.
For example, you could make a path from Island Lakes/Royalwood, through Niakwa Place and Windsor Park, all the way to Marion along the railroad tracks. Eyeballing this on Google Maps, this is 8km, with only 6 intersections at residential streets and 2 intersections at major roads.
Why do you need a bike lane there? If the road is already plenty wide for a car to comfortably pass a bike I’d say put the money to better use elsewhere.
I like the idea of active transport on existing streets. why not identify streets that run parallel to ‘major’ car routes and just drop the speed limit on it to 35kph?
Example 1. Kinsgway is relatively traffic free, ideal for cyclists who’d otherwise drive down Academy.
Example 2: Eugenie (in St B) is parallel to Marion and empties on to St Mary’s rd where the diamond lanes begin heading Northbound. Granted, it’s more difficult to enter this st from St Mary’s rd, but dismounting and crossing St Mary’s rd on foot takes only 1 or 2 minutes and crossing those 6 lanes of traffic, it’s worthwhile.
For someone living on one of these streets, I appreciate that being limited to 35kph to park in front f your own home might be frustrating, but if you plan your driving route home, it’s only 35kph for the 1/2 block or so that you’re driving car these ‘reduced speed’ streets… and that’d add what…. 30 seconds to your commute.
I think we should still go after dedicated bike paths, but in the meantime; wouldn’t this be a great way of helping encourage cycling along routes where speed is reduced and all normal traffic laws are followed?
@Cycling Guy – You’re right that the road is plenty wide for bikes and vehicles, but the psychological effect of having the marked bike lane there will help encourage more casual cyclists to ride. Yes, it’s only paint, but people seem to think it will protect them.
Second, this would actually improve the driving experience, whereas the current lack of any lane markings is confusing and potentially dangerous.
There would be a fairly minimal cost involved, whether it’s $500 or $2,000. And from a political perspective, it’s an easy way to claim you’ve added 4 km of bike lanes. Find a few more places like this around town and you could probably get that up to 20 or 30 km for a minimal cost.
I think the extra wide roads are there to facilitate left-hand turns off Berry. I used to drive that stretch every day and only some people had figured that out. My suspicions were confirmed one day when the lanes were painted in such a way that people could see it. In any event, the extra width is only needed at the intersection, leaving lots of space for bike paths.
Also, people, I think what policyfrog is saying in the big picture, is that with a little innovation, you can use what is already there and make small inprovements right now instead of year long consultations for mega-projects that the public won’t see for years and years.
Berry is on the City’s wish list of bike routes, which means it will likely get bike lanes or sharrows:
http://www.winnipeg.ca/publicworks/MajorProjects/ActiveTransportation/ .
Actually, *a lot* of work by local cyclists has already gone into defining the proposed bike route system.
Arlington is the same way. You have 1.5 lanes going in one direction from Portage to Notre dame. Just dead space, except for at intersections.
Railroad tracks tend to converge downtown and have few intersections. This is ideal for a bike path.
You are right Jason. Without even discussing rail ROW’s the City isn’t close to being onboard for building the City of the future. Not one mention was made during the “get together” and Speak up Winnipeg prefers to discuss mundane issues like bikecarts as a potential to moving freight. ( Chinese would be amused )
Rail ROW’s have so much potential but , the City would prefer to sell those assets to condo developers ( dumb, dumb, dumb )
Jason, here’s something we could learn from and perhaps start thinking and discussing the issue at the very least
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/06/15/the-high-line-new-york-ra_n_215668.html
As far as the railway companies go, using existing lines to run bike paths along is a no go. It’s their land and they and their lawyers don’t want anyone near those lines, liability issues.
Sorry J, but you are misinformed.
http://www.mrta.mb.ca/Trails/wta/documents/1.7MdealfornewbikepathSept212006.pdf
But here are some missed opportunities to make use of rails for transportation
Now here’s a novel idea for the reuse of an old railway bridge. In Winnipeg, Manitoba, a unique housing proposal has been put forward which would construct condos on an old railway bridge over the Assiniboine River. The architect plans to build 20 to 24 units on the bridge, which was part of the former CN Oak Point line.
or
http://www.winnipegfreepress.com/local/city_studies_how_to_widen__kenaston_five_options_to_increase_capacity38687872.html
As you can see, there is ample opportunity to start making plans for the use of rails as transportation corridors. But, without serious discussion, we’ll lose the opportunity.
OPTION 5 – the best option for Kenaston
5. Utilize the former CN Rail line: Unlike the four other options, this plan does not call for expropriations along Kenaston Boulevard. Instead, the city would turn the existing Kenaston Boulevard into a one-way route for southbound traffic and also carve out space for a service road on the east side. Northbound traffic would head through River Heights 2.5 blocks to the east, along the former CN Rail line between Lockwood and Centennial streets. A bike-and-pedestrian path would sit immediately to the east. But condos under construction on this narrow strip of land would have to be torn down.
Talk about STUPID. That ROW was the City’s for the taking.
A completely self-serving suggestion: Salter Street north of Inkster is *supposed* to be a two-lane, but the surfeit of idiots who believe it is a four-lane indicates that there would be plenty of room for both north and south bike lanes, at the expense of street parking that occurs on near Leila/Partridge and irregularly further south. Follow this north and east at Armstrong or Templeton (wherever the controlled crosswalk is) and you would have a handy route to Kildonan Park. An east-west line on Seven Oaks or Enniskillen would connect this path to Seven Oaks Plaza on Main and help keep cyclists off of Jefferson.
South of Inkster, Salter could be limited to two lanes as far as Mountain without seriously affecting traffic, as there are few controlled intersections.
Mr. Nobody, no not misinformed at all, if anything I didn’t make myself clear I said “existing lines” i.e. lines that are still in use.
A quote from the first comment, “For example, you could make a path from Island Lakes/Royalwood, through Niakwa Place and Windsor Park, all the way to Marion along the railroad tracks.”
That is a line still in use so they won’t be able to use that line, check with the railway companies. What do you think the CN ‘Police’ do with most of their time, they chase people from railway property. An article in the paper a couple of months ago talked about them ramping up their presence to keep people from using existing lines as walking and riding paths and they specifically said it was because of liability issues. That is what I was referring to.
As for abandoned ROW’s by all means we shouldn’t let the opportunities go to waste and I agree the city letting people develop condos on them is a wasted opportunity.
Now that I have made myself clear allow me to suggest another thing, if we use an abandoned ROW we should build them in a way so scooters and low horsepower bikes have access to them to. If there is a chance to get them off of some of our higher speed roadways then we should.
Sorry for misreading your post jadams, yes I agree, rails that are being used will not allow anything close to them.
Abandoned ROWS should definitely be developed for any low emission vehicle, preferably , electric vehicles. These are very pprecious arteries and all efforts ( none right now ) should be made to begin a dialogue with the Feds, province and rail companies to come up with a plan to eventually divert rail traffic outside City / core limits