🚀 go-pugleaf

richard@mindlink.bc.ca (Richard Hennick) writes:
>I still think it would be a simple matter to post the plain ASCII text of
>the minutes to the newsgroup, so I can read them as plain text

Well I don't know if these are the minutes, but here is the latest
entry on the website:

http://www.iceonline.com/home/roberb7/WWW/advoca11.html

VBC Advocacy Journal

Published by the Vancouver Bicycle Club Advocacy Committee - November
1995

Advocacy Committee Meeting

Wednesday, November 8, at 6:30 p.m. in Room 104 of the Sport BC
Building (1367 West Broadway).


The current membership of the Advocacy Committee is:

Bob Broughton roberb7@iceonline.com 
Colin Brander colin_brander@mindlink.bc.ca 
Helen Warn helen_warn@mindlink.bc.ca 
Roy Smyth roy_smyth@mindlink.bc.ca 
Barry Bogart barry_bogart@mindlink.bc.ca

This issue was edited by Bob Broughton.

Pitt River Bridge Project

In order to make travel more convenient for ever-increasing numbers of
single-occupancy commuting motorists, the BC Ministry of
Transportation and Highways (MoTH) intends to implement a counterflow
scheme on the Pitt River Bridge which will provide three westbound
lanes in the morning and three eastbound lanes in the evening.

This counterflow project will make cycling in both directions more
intimidating and potentially dangerous at all times, including
weekends when it is a popular route for recreational and sport
cyclists. This bridge is the only way to and from Vancouver on the
north side of the Fraser; there is no alternate route, so it is of
crucial importance for cyclists.

Under the counterflow scheme, plastic pickets will be permanently
installed between the two lanes on each bridge structure, preventing
motorists from changing lanes and encouraging them to drive in the
space which is currently usable by cyclists.

The eastbound curb lane is already too narrow for comfortable cycling,
so after the counterflow project goes in, cyclists will have to take
the centre of the lane until they are across the full width of the
bridge. This will cause considerably more delay and frustration to
eastbound motorists than at present, especially on weekday mornings
when only the one eastbound lane is available.

Westbound cyclists on the bridge will also find themselves being
passed with much less clearance than before. Those who want to turn
left onto the Mary Hill Bypass will face an additional danger.  The
plastic pickets are sturdy enough that a cyclist who hits one will be
likely to fall in the middle of the roadway. So cyclists will not be
able to choose the safest time to smoothly change lanes, as they can
at present. Instead, they will have to manoeuvre between the pickets,
or wait until the very last moment and then cut sharply across both of
the through lanes, or stop at the intersection and jaywalk.

MoTH's Proposal for Accommodating Cyclists

Eastbound cyclists who choose not to use the roadway would turn right
before reaching the Wild Duck Inn, and follow a new pathway south to
Holland Avenue. From there they would ride around the back of the Inn
on existing local roads, to reach a new paved path along the top of
the Pitt River dike. Then, having already ridden three sides of a
square, cyclists would ride under both spans of the bridge, and around
a very steep uphill 270-degree turn to the sidewalk on the north span,
where they may have to stop and dismount.

The sidewalk is just 1.5 metres wide, except where projecting concrete
pedestals reduce it to 1.2 metres. For comparison, MoTH's own design
standards for a bike path on a structure specify a minimum width of
2.0 metres for one-way paths, and 3.0 metres for two-way paths. The
handrail on the river side is 1.1 metres high, well below the MoTH
standard of 1.4 metres and below a mounted cyclist's centre of
gravity.

Because this sidewalk is so narrow, cyclists may be required to walk
the full length of the bridge structure (about 400 metres). Even if
they ride, they may have to stop if there is a pedestrian or cyclist
coming in the opposite direction.

From the east side of the bridge, a new two-way bike path would take
cyclists to the intersection with Old Dewdney Trunk Road, which is
being relocated to about 1 km. east of the bridge.  Eastbound cyclists
on Highway 7 will then have to stop and perhaps dismount yet again,
press the pedestrian crosswalk button, and wait to cross back to the
right side of the highway.

Because of the long wait for the lights to change at this
intersection, it is likely that some cyclists would instead ride
straight along the shoulder of the highway, eastbound on the wrong
side of the road, where they will pose a hazard to legal westbound
cyclists. Other cyclists heading east on Old Dewdney Trunk Road will
also be tempted to ignore the lights and bear left at the
intersection, again riding on the shoulder on the wrong side of the
road. These are typical and predictable problems associated with
two-way bike paths at intersections.

Westbound cyclists who choose to follow the MoTH route along the dike
to the Mary Hill Bypass will find that at the end of Holland Avenue
they are expected to stop and dismount, and cross six lanes of heavy
traffic on the Bypass in an uncontrolled crosswalk.

Once again, because of the possible long wait to cross here, it is
likely that some cyclists would instead ride south along the
northbound shoulder of the Bypass to get to the lights at Kingsway
Avenue, thus endangering legal northbound cyclists.

Further Problems

The MoTH plan presents still another risk to the personal safety of
cyclists. On the Port Coquitlam side the proposed route uses dead-end
streets through an industrial area, and passes underneath the bridge
structures where visibility is limited and there is no access at all
other than by the trail itself.  Solitary cyclists (especially women)
using this route will be vulnerable to physical harassment or assault.

Maintenance issues are another cause for concern. At present, the
sidewalk on the north span is consistently strewn with large
quantities of broken glass, and there is no reason to believe that it
will be better maintained in future..

How does this project stack up against MoTH's Interim Cycling Policy?

MoTH believes that this circuitous off-road route fulfills their
obligation to accommodate cyclists "on all new or upgraded highways"
(Interim Cycling Policy, December 1992).

Their excuse for directing cyclists in both directions onto the
dangerously inadequate sidewalk on the north span is that the
counterflow project does not involve any structural changes to the
bridge itself, and so they are not obliged to follow any of the
standards which would apply to new construction.

The Minister has stated that this project was developed "with the
needs of cyclists in mind", and the Project Manager claims that the
scheme "provides a cost effective alternate for the majority of
users."

But it now appears that at the time those statements were made, the
Ministry did not know how many cyclists were using the existing
bridge, what kind of cyclists they were, or where those cyclists were
coming from or going to. Therefore, they could not possibly have known
the cyclists' needs or how to meet them.

Cyclists will almost certainly continue to ride on the roadway on the
bridge, even when the Counterflow Project has made it more difficult
and dangerous for them to do so. Cyclists are just as interested as
other commuters in reaching their destination in the shortest possible
time, and because they are human-powered they especially wish to
minimize the number of stops. They will not consider taking a slow and
circuitous off-road route, especially one which repeatedly requires
them to stop and act as pedestrians.

So what would meet the needs of cyclists?

Some major improvements could be made at the Pitt River Bridge which
would benefit cyclists and pedestrians too.

The first improvement would be a sidewalk/bike path (one way for
cyclists) added to the outside of the south bridge structure, so that
eastbound cyclists have a simple, safe and direct way to cross the
bridge without conflict with other traffic.

(MoTH claim that they investigated adding a path to the outside of the
south structure, and decided that the estimated cost of up to $800,000
was excessive for the number of expected users. This represents just 7
percent of the total project budget of $12 million, and as noted
above, MoTH made that decision before they had counted the cyclists
using the bridge.)

The existing sidewalk on the north span could be upgraded by adding a
new handrail of a safe height, which would be fastened to the outside
edge of the bridge rather than to the deck, thus increasing the
useable width of the sidewalk and making it more acceptable as a
one-way bike path for those cyclists who choose to use it instead of
the roadway.

The other significant improvement would be a crosswalk with a
push-button-controlled signal on the west side of the Lougheed
Highway/Mary Hill Bypass intersection, eliminating both the long
detour and the potential for delays at the Holland Avenue
intersection. This signal would be synchronized with the existing
traffic lights, so the only Highway traffic affected would be the two
westbound lanes, which currently face a permanent green arrow.

The reason given for not installing this light is that there would be
so many cyclists using it that it would cause excessive delay to the
westbound traffic.

So, when the Ministry needs arbitrary excuses for its failure to
accommodate cyclists, first they claim that there are not enough
cyclists, and then they claim that there are too many!

Richard Hennick 

-- 
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
J. Harrison@cs.ubc.ca                      http://www.cs.ubc.ca/spider/harrison
Graduate Motto: Free-time with guilt.      ftp://ftp.cs.ubc.ca/pub/local/quotes