As someone with a background in civil engineering and city planning, I can tell you that these professionals do a lot of great work in Winnipeg and Manitoba. But I’ll be the first to admit that there is a lot of room for improvement, especially when it comes to accommodating cyclists, pedestrians, and other active transportation (AT) users. For many decades, our infrastructure was designed almost exclusively for cars. We’ve finally turned a corner where we are talking about redesigning our city for people using multiple modes of transportation. Last summer’s reconstruction of a stretch of Pembina Highway included Winnipeg’s first buffered bike lanes. However, it will take a while to catch up after previous inaction. Here are seven common pitfalls that planners and engineers need to avoid to help make active transportation in the city more enjoyable and safer for everyone:
1. “Fixing” a problem with signage
When an infrastructure deficiency is identified, the quickest and easiest way to “fix” it is by putting up signs that tell people how to get around the problem. Like a sign telling cyclists and motorists to “Share the Road” without providing an actual bike lane. Unfortunately, many temporary “solutions” like this end up being far too permanent and are quickly lost in the clutter of signs along the road.
The issue with relying on a sign is that it doesn’t make the road any physically safer. It also relies on people seeing the sign and reacting to it rather than intuitively knowing what to do from physical clues. Signage is an important component of transportation infrastructure, but it is meant to complement physical infrastructure, not provide a second-rate replacement.
2. Cycling infrastructure that doesn’t connect
When cycling or walking to a destination, it is very frustrating when the path or bike lane you are riding on suddenly stops with no obvious way to continue on your journey other than having to compete with cars on a busy street. A cyclist coming along the new multi-use path along the Transitway through the Fort Rouge Yards faces dangerous choke points navigating the Osborne Underpass or Jubilee Underpass at either end. Good infrastructure is less effective when it’s not part of a wider network.
3. Gaps bridged by desire line tracks
When a pathway or sidewalk ends abruptly as in the previous point, many people just keep going, wearing their own path across the grass. This is known as a “desire line” and should be an indication to planners that infrastructure is needed at that location. Just because people are making do without a path does not mean that the status quo is good enough. People in a wheelchair or with limited mobility can’t safely travel along a bumpy trail. It’s often downright impassable in winter. Desire lines are peoples’ way of telling engineers where to build a path next!
4. Suburban development with access from busy streets
Many suburban developments have only one or two entrances, and these access points are all located along busy arterials. Sometimes this is the case for an entire neighbourhood, such as Harbourview South, Island Lakes, or Whyte Ridge. Without getting into the numerous planning concerns of this style of development, how can cyclists travel to these places safely if they are competing with 80 km/h traffic? Trails like the Bishop Grandin Greenway are a good start to provide active transportation links between previously disconnected areas. However, an even better strategy is to incorporate active transportation infrastructure into a new community from the start and provide safe connections directly to existing routes. Adding paths after the fact can result in numerous and awkwardly designed crossing points, increasing the possibility for conflict with vehicles.
5. AT as an afterthought at major intersections
Locations that prioritize vehicular thru traffic while inconveniencing cyclists speak to which mode of transportation is really given priority in Winnipeg. The Bishop Grandin Greenway mentioned above crosses many major intersections. At these locations, cyclists are supposed to dismount and walk across as pedestrians. Some do, while others ride straight across. These crossings are the narrowest part of the whole trail and there is not much room to accommodate both pedestrians and cyclists. Perhaps the worst example of this is the awkward crossing of Pembina Highway and University Crescent where multiple modes and vehicles are all crammed together in a major intersection. Cyclists and pedestrians have the most convoluted route to navigate, and it is neither direct nor intuitive what path they should take. When presented with barriers like these at major intersections, many cyclists choose not to venture outside of their immediate neighbourhood.
6. Failure to accommodate AT during construction
Fixing up buildings, roadways, and other infrastructure is a good thing for Winnipeg. The resulting disruption to our travel patterns during construction is seen as short-term pain for long-term gain. Most projects set up temporary detours or alternate routes for drivers. Unfortunately, cyclists are not always given the same consideration. The construction of a new condo on Assiniboine Avenue will result in the cycle track on that street being closed until 2015! Cyclists have to awkwardly transition into vehicle lanes that are not wide enough to share, resulting in significant potential for conflict with cars. This is arguably the most-travelled bicycle route in the entire city. Imagine the outcry if the vehicle lanes were the ones closed off for two years!
7. Infrastructure that invites speed
As a driver, cyclist, or pedestrian, nothing is worse than being surprised and confused by an unusual situation. One of the cardinal rules of transportation engineering is to build roads where people intuitively know how fast they should travel and are well aware of their surroundings at that speed. Most drivers feel comfortable at 100 km/h on a prairie highway but naturally slow down on a narrow windy road whether or not there is a speed limit sign specifically telling them to do so.
This is why the most effective way of calming vehicle traffic in our neighbourhoods is to design our residential streets for slow traffic. Wide streets invite drivers to travel faster. When properly designed, curb bump-outs, speed humps, and traffic circles can slow cars while allowing bikes to flow. This helps to create an environment where cars naturally travel at a speed that allows them to coexist safely with cyclists, pedestrians, and children playing. These approaches are far more effective than simply putting up another sign!
Read the earlier installments in our “7 mistakes” series here:
7 things drivers may misunderstand about people on bikes
7 mistakes that people riding bikes make and how to correct them
There is a broken hyperlink for “7 things drivers may misunderstand about people on bikes”. Interesting read, I’m from Detroit and much of this applies to our area as well.
Thanks Scott! It is fixed and thanks for reading! Not planning for multiple modes of transportation is a common problem across North America. But we’re working on it. 🙂
Another point in a similar vein: snow-clearing activities must change to support cycling infrastructure.
As an example, I tried to ride the new Pembina Buffered Bike Lanes several times last winter. When snow was cleared, many of the approaches were missed and completely impassible to a bicycle. When snowfall was light enough to have little effect on vehicle traffic, cars and busses had piled up a huge mass of slush in the bike lanes, making them difficult or dangerous.
These lanes also demonstrate the “recreational use” mindset – they close a four-block gap for casual cyclists making use of residential streets, but I can see little reason for a Pembina-Highway bicycle commuter to make use of them.
Of course the biggest mistake planners make is not ensuring legitimate and fair public consultation takes place first. On Assiniboine Avenue this failure – excoriated by the City Auditor – resulted in cramming bike lanes where they create insanely dangerous conditions for residents and drivers as well as cyclists. There should never have been a bike lane placed there at all based on international safety standards. Berry Street is not far behind when it comes to stupid placement as well as uglifying the neighborhood.
I am surprised that you did not mention the insane engineers who made standing in a bus stop dangerous for pedestrians getting off and on buses along stretches of Pembina Hwy.
The bike path around the stop does not take into consideration the fact that the reason why the bus is stopped there is because people are getting off and on the bus. It plunges the bike, often at high speed, into their midst.
At the point where the transit user gets off the bus, there is no warning to watch out for bicycles or even a clear line to mark the boundaries of the the cycling lane.
There is no way for a transit user to leave a bus shelter without stepping into the bicycle lane.
The bus island is too small to accommodate a situation where a number of people are getting off and on, or where a ramp has to come down to load a wheel chair.
The natural motion of the transit user at the bus stop is not taken into consideration. Transit users will signal to the driver that they wish to board the bus by stepping forward toward the curb. If they see that the bus is not the one they want, they will step back, often stepping backwards to indicate that they don’t want that bus, or they will step back if they see that people are getting off the bus. This will put them into the cycling lane. If they wait for a bus in the lane furthest from the street, the bus will not stop for them.
Were transit users consulted? Hitting a pedestrian can’t be fun for a cyclist either.
Great blog post. It certainly covers a few of my pet peeves. If I could add two more serious deficiencies to the list:
* The Harrow street painted ‘bike lane’ ends abruptly at Pembina Highway providing no other option that to continue on to the underpass competing with vehicles (many of whom are trying to exit off Pembina to Jubilee). Inexcusable really.
* Waverly’s piecemeal AT path ends at Chevrier and provides no connection to the Bishop Grandin AT pathway. Every day I and dozens of others ride along a 24 inch wide curb and unpaved shoulder. Dangerous, but marginally less dangerous than mingling with traffic on Waverly.
Very good obesrvations. We live in Harbour View (see #4 above) and if we want to cycle for leisure, we either go around the neighbourhood time and again OR we have to exit and cross Lagimodière OR cycle down an unpaved Peguis to the Transcona Trail bicycle path.
As for visiting our daughters off Plessis, we must cycle down Grassie, between ditches just off the shoulder and racing cars.
Sherlock Maps show a future ‘Angela St’ connecting Harbour View and Kildonan Meadows. However, expansion of Harbour View makes us wonder where Angela would be located.
Seems we live in a ‘Gated community’ like so many others in Winnipeg.
I’d add another mistake to the list: A major city road artery which provides a shoulder to bike on; however, the shoulder is gravel. For example, where Waverly street turns into Bison Drive the street speed is 80km. The street is so bumpy and rough that it’s nearly unrideable. But a cyclist is forced to ride on the street while traffic is attempting to go 80km or more due to the shoulder not being paved.
Great article with lots of salient points. I don’t understand why designers assume that when I am riding a bike, I am doing so for recreation? I am not. I want to live in a city where I can get around every day by bicycle – to appointments, work, grocery stores, and the mall. Instead it is assumed I only want to cycle through deserted green fields for recreation. On the contrary – I want to go where the action is, and I want to get there by bike. And don’t even get me started about the Graham Avenue transit mall that asks Rapid Transit buses and cyclists to share the road. . .
Excellent point about Graham Avenue. Just because buses are not cars and bikes are not cars does not mean that they can comfortably share a diamond lane. It’s pretty obvious who loses out in a bike-bus collision.
“designers assume that when I am riding a bike, I am doing so for recreation?” – This could have been a great 8th mistake planners make for the article.
+1 for the comment “designers assume that when I am riding a bike, I am doing so for recreation”
I spent a week getting around Ottawa/Gatineau by bike earlier this spring. It was an eye opener as to how a Canadian city builds a functional bike trail system that’s used by thousands of recreational cyclists, commuters, tourists, and serious roadies each and every day.
Interesting similar piece on Tree Hugger: http://www.treehugger.com/bikes/war-cyclists-gets-cranked-notch-toronto.html
My pet peeve is highway style turn offs in city traffic. At Portage and Broadway for example, two lanes of cars turn off at speed, while cyclists go straight. As a cyclist whichever lane you are in invites trouble as cars swerve to pass.
Any time a cyclist going straight is to the right of a (right-) turning car, there is potential for a serious conflict. This is the same reason why cyclists should not put their foot up on the curb at a red light, since a car may squeeze in beside them. Instead, take the full lane at an intersection.