I asked about the Overlander sidewalk at the AT Public meeting last night. I wondered if it was deliberately terrible to slow down cyclists. It was suggested it was just bad construction. As a note, the William Bennett bridge sidewalk between Kelowna/West Kelowna is just as bad but much longer ... and some engineering company proudly put up a sign to let everyone know they built it.
Anyway, nice to know it will be smoothed ... but it won't be wider.
First, don't put in an MUP where an existing painted bike lane already exists (e.g., Valleyview). Go with the 'quick build' option that city Councillors liked that use curb barriers. Aside from the cyclist/pedestrian issues, moving cyclists further from the street encourages drivers to make right hand turns across the paths of cyclists at every cross street (signs indicating cyclists have right-of-way are good but drivers don't notice them). An MUP makes every intersection more dangerous. Where ever there is currently a painted bike lane, we need curb edging (quick build). Usage will greatly increase.
Second, when you get to the stage where you might be ready to draw up blueprints, check with cyclists (e.g., Kamloops Cycling Coalition) about the details. We USE these streets everyday and know the details and hazards. A check at this stage could improve safety by an order of magnitude (e.g., McGill/Columbia intersection ... current plan fails to address a major hazard and barrier to use that could be fixed with 50m project extension to the Frontage road accessing Starbucks).
Third, the AT gap between the Notre Dame/Summit intersection and McGill is a major barrier for AT access from Upper Sahali/Aberdeen to TRU.
Fourth, think about access to shopping so that AT can be used for more than just commuting.
Fifth, the need for AT access between ValleyView and Dallas is huge. A cyclist was killed just a few years ago using the highway to bridge this gap but all cyclists and pedestrians have absolutely no choice but to use the highway shoulder. I use this when I cycle out east and don't recommend it for anyone without experience.
Sixth, don't build a new MUP where a parallel residential/quiet road is readily accessible. e.g., Fortune vs Shubert. Take advantage of adjacent residential/quiet roads. Just add traffic calming such as speed bumps or better yet one direction access on each block for vehicles (e.g., St. Paul/Nicola). Residents love one direction access as it reduces traffic on their streets and makes it a joy to cycle. Kids can even play on the streets ... and it has to be cheaper by far.
I have booked the Big Little Science Centre
Hi Trent,
when you say you used 'Let's Talk,' was that under the 'Ask a Question' option on the Active Transportation page? I don't see this there.
Anyone know what the bike parking is like at the Sandman?
Do we know anyone who uses the Valleyview corridor daily? We need that detail. I use it about once a month to head out east for a ride.
Trent, Bryce, did either of you attend a meeting since Xmas? I think it was just the one meeting that I attended and I don't recall any discussion on 'refinement.'
The final meeting of the engagement group did occur a couple of months ago (I attended). Basically the City brought the engagement group together over a year ago, led a group cheer, and then called everyone back when Staff had settled on a plan. The problem with the lack of genuine consultation seemed to be due to the departure of an energetic and very strong AT advocate on Transportation Staff. His loss led to Staff wandering aimlessly for a year. We are all frustrated. The plan isn't terrible but it doesn't address some real needs (e.g., access to shopping) and could have doubled in utility if they had consulted us on the details.
There is no question that the default for the City is the Multiuse Path. It would require direction from Council to shift that thinking and KCC has been asking about how we might do that. While the new Active Transportation Plan notes the quick build infrastructure, I don't see that being the primary build unless the City Staff discover a way to make it zero cost and zero impact on road lanes and parking. We are a very low priority. Having said all that, there are situations when I would take a MUP over the current infrastructure. As crazy as it seems to have a MUP with high pedestrians and possibly high cyclist use going to TRU along McGill, the current situation is going to get someone (me?) killed sooner or later. Sooo many close calls ...
I got this data from the literature but can't seem to find the reference. This also takes into account everything from expected life cycle to C02 emitted by the user (which is why walking does not come out so well). It is based on European average energy costs.
eScooter <10 gr CO2eppkm
eBike 14.8 gr CO2eppkm
regular bike 21 gr CO2eppkm
pedestrian 56 gr CO2eppkm
electric vehicle 90 gr CO2eppkm
bus 101 gr CO2eppkm
gas powered vehicle 200-266 gr CO2eppkm
