Published on: April 22, 2015 Last Updated: April 22, 2015 2:37 PM EDT
The five-way intersection of Décarie and de Maisonneuve Blvds. is certainly a headscratcher.
It slopes, there is a train overpass, there are bike paths. Upper Lachine Rd. forks off at an odd angle.Add
in pedestrians from the nearby Vendôme métro, the surrounding
residential area and the McGill University Health Centre a few metres
away and it is arguably one of the most treacherous crossroads in
Montreal for anyone trying to navigate it on foot, aboard a vehicle and,
especially, by bike. And things will only get more complicated once
a short section of de Maisonneuve just west of the intersection is
opened to two-way traffic.
To be fair, the intersection no doubt poses a serious design quandary for even the most ingenious engineers.
But this is a puzzle Montreal is going to have to get a lot better
and a lot faster at solving, as cycling continues to grow in popularity
as a mode of transit. The current state of affairs is symptomatic of a
tendency of officials to pay lip service to the importance of
two-wheeled transport, but then fail to address some of the most
pressing problems, especially when it comes to safety.
Montreal has indeed made great strides in installing hundreds of
kilometres of bike paths, like the arteries on de Maisonneuve Blvd. and
Rachel St. It also has an ambitious plan to expand the network — but it
is already far behind in implementing it. Existing routes have become
victims of their own popularity. They are now so crowded that they
displace many avid cyclists onto parallel streets where there is no
protection. Worse, these long stretches dedicated to cycling often end abruptly, putting cyclists at risk.
Two examples are the path on St-Urbain St. that ends at the bottom of a
hill with little room for cyclists to turn onto President Kennedy Ave.,
or the dodgy design of a brand-new path on St-Laurent Blvd. from Mile
End into Rosemont.
These intersections are tough to configure so that everyone is
accommodated. But there seems to be a lack of willingness to find a
safe, common-sense solution for cyclists, especially if that means added
costs. The city also simply neglects to make room for cycling when it’s
not convenient, like on the grand new Robert Bourassa Blvd. or the
Rockland St. overpass.
Côte-des-Neiges-Notre-Dame-de-Grâce borough council is taking a
wait-and-see approach to adjusting the flow of traffic at de Maisonneuve
and Décarie. Officials want to see the impact of the opening of the new
superhospital over the coming year. This is understandable. But the
risk in waiting is that a bad accident occurs, one in which someone is
badly injured, or even killed.
This has been the tragic case with other areas known to
pose problems, such as the dark, narrow underpass on St-Denis St. where
cyclist Mathilde Blais was crushed under the wheels of a transport truck last summer. Already this year, only a few weeks into the cycling season, Vélo Québec is sounding the alarm about a series of cycling accidents that have left one dead and two seriously injured.
No one should have to die before safe, adequate cycling infrastructure is pushed up the city’s priority list.
Like many cities Montreal has its share of underpasses. The one pictured above gives motorists, cyclists and pedestrians safe access from one side to the other of a fairly busy rail line. The poor lighting and narrow passage, with no road shoulder for refuge make these underpasses dangerous for cyclists. Just last year a 33-year old woman was killed while biking through one.
Needless to say a solution was required. In an effort to keep cyclists out of harm's way, the city decided that they should share the sidewalk with pedestrians for the length of the underpass. That's a fine idea, but as the signage indicates the notion of having cyclists walk their bikes was almost an afterthought. Whenever cyclists and pedestrians share the same turf, unless the bike is being walked, it is dangerous - for both. I can assure you that, having passed this way countless times, I have yet to see a cyclist walking his or her bike through the dark tunnel, but have on several occasions had to dodge a bike.
Is it too much to ask cyclists to walk their bikes when on a dark sidewalk through an underpass?
Here's an interesting commentary piece from the Globe and Mail.
Why aren’t training or tests mandatory for riding a bike?
JULIEN PAPON
Special to The Globe and Mail
Published
Last updated
I drove my first car at age 12 in an open,
hard-packed snowy field. After a couple of hours, I could go forward,
clutch in and out, use the first two gears at low speed, go around cones
and even drive back.
While the
rear-wheel drive ’77 VW Kombi was a great deal of fun at the time, three
years later it would take many more hours beside an instructor before
being able to drive a car safely and legally.
So why does everyone believe, from age 5
and up, that they know how to ride a bike properly? Sure, once you get
the hang of it, keeping balance while going in straight line with no
obstacles and no traffic around is not a hard task. But is it really
enough to say you know how to ride a bike adeptly?
No
way. Like driving a car, riding a bike takes specific skills. Most
parents aren’t equipped to teach their kids the fundamentals of bike
handling. Think of techniques such as proper posture on the bike and
weight distribution, hand position on the handlebars, pre-emptive
shifting and braking modulation, effective use of signalling and
peripheral vision, and so many other bits and pieces that make for a
safe ride.
Unlike driving, where basic
training is mandatory and skills are tested at some point to get a
licence, there is no such thing for biking. Most people have no idea
where to actually learn those skills. Many live with their fears and shy
away from saddling up, particularly in the urban environment.
Here are two experiences I’ve tried that yield skill learning and fun:
Visit
a bike park, a place often packed with kids riding BMXs. I spent quite a
bit of time at one in Markham, Ont., called JoyRide 150. The indoor
facility covers more than 9,200 square metres, is filled with obstacles
of all kinds and offers instruction and rental bikes. You learn to
create stability by properly positioning your centre of gravity and
using arms and legs to anticipate seen or unseen obstacles. Once through
short-loop pump tracks several times using the right techniques, you
will be ready for most things road terrain has to throw at you.
The
second is to ride on an indoor velodrome, an oval cycling track with
steep banks usually made of wooden planks for indoor facilities. The new
Mattamy National Cycling Centre in Milton, Ont., makes this type of
experience more accessible. The track’s learn-to-ride-the-track programs
will safely push you out of your comfort zone and teach great biking
skills. The rental bikes there won’t have gears or brakes; they will not
have free-wheel, either. Managing your cadence – how fast you’re
pedalling – will be a must, and that is one of the many transferable
skills that will do you wonders on the road, trail or path.
Next time you want to saddle up, don’t assume you know how to actually ride a bike.
Google Earth Blue line = pedestrian walk. Red line = bike path
Just up the street from where I live is a lovely park. It's been there for ages, and has seen several make-overs and additions.
At one time, up until the early 1970s, a street ran right through the middle of two green spaces. The decision was made to block the road and have drivers circumnavigate the park. A temporary roadblock was installed, large signs a block away were erected to warn motorists that the street no longer ran through the park.
In my opinion these signs could not have been improved on, yet on an almost weekly basis someone would plow their car through the roadblock, shaking we locals from our beds. As one might assume, for the most part these incidents occurred in the wee hours of the morning and involved the consumption of alcohol by the driver. Eventually a permanent barrier was set in place, landscaping was done and the idea of reopening the street was forgotten. It was a wise decision.
Over time as bicycle traffic became heavier a long stretch of the street on either side of the park was lined with a dedicated bike lane. Once again the issue of the park arose, as now cyclists wanted to continue on in a straight line, but this would require a path through the park where the road once was. And so the two bike lanes were connected via a path through the park.
Google Earth Red box = Entry to bike path. Blue box = Entry to pedestrian walk
This is when some problems arose. As the photos illustrate the pedestrian walk and bike path are not only parallel, but are very close to each other. Unfortunately there will always be some who for reasons known only to themselves will walk or jog on the bike path. But a more important concern in my opinion is those who inadvertently find themselves in the midst of bike traffic.
At first the strip of bike-dedicated lane that ran through the park was left unenclosed. Young children and older folks often walked onto the path unintentionally. The former did so not understanding the concept, while the latter group just could not grasp why anyone would be allowed to ride a bike through a park. With time this has been reduced by placing hedges along the edge of the path, not only adding some greenery, but some safety as well (although in some places green snow fence is used, but that's still better than nothing).
Now the main problem with the configuration is cyclists ignoring the stop sign as they enter or exit the park, thereby crossing a sidewalk where, not surprisingly, pedestrians of all ages are to be found.
Here is an editorial from today's Montreal Gazette that addresses the upcoming bicycling season. The original, with functioning links, can be seen here.
Bixi stands are reappearing on Montreal streets and soon they will be stocked with bikes.
Meanwhile cyclists are pulling their own rides out of storage after a long and bitter winter and giving them a spring tune-up.
Within a matter of weeks, if not days, there will be an influx of two
wheelers on Montreal roads. But as a new cycling season dawns, city
infrastructure is ill-prepared to handle and accommodate the growing
number of bikes.
Dangerous conditions persist in places where tragic accidents have previously occurred. The de Maisonneuve Blvd. bike lane near the new McGill University Health Centre is a
complicated mess to navigate — despite years of lead time to have
planned a safe trajectory. New stretches of bike path are oddly designed
and potentially perilous, like an L-shaped curve in the $5.6-million part of St-Laurent Blvd. linking Mile End to Rosemont. Existing infrastructure, on de Maisonneuve or Rachel St., is clogged, overused and no longer adequate. New roads like the Rockland Rd. overpass and the transformation of Robert Bourassa Blvd. are being designed without room of bikes.
It’s not that Montreal has done nothing to give cyclists their due.
Since 2008 Montreal has added 250 kilometres of bike paths — which is
great, except that the city’s stated goal was supposed to be 400 km. The city unveiled plans in late 2014 to double the number of kilometres
of shared and separate bike lanes on the island to 1,200 km from the
current 600 km in five years. But its track record for delays or
projects that don’t materialize suggests hitting this target could be an
uphill climb. The problem seems to be inconsistency, a lack of will or
simply resorting to excuses when the work of implementing bike lanes
proves difficult.
Accommodating the legions of cyclists in the increasingly congested
traffic matrix is no easy task. It shouldn’t become a competition
between proponents of one mode of transport looking to displace another.
Bikes and public transit should complement each other. There needs to
be better coordination with cycling groups to give them input on the
design of new projects. Addressing danger zones should be a
priority. There is a need for bold thinking and experimentation. Why not
try a pilot project giving cyclists priority and limiting traffic to
residents only on some side streets? Not all the solutions need to be
expensive and involve bulldozers.
The city should be supporting cycling as a means of getting around
Montreal. It is both economically and ecologically friendly, part of a
healthy lifestyle, a solution to gridlock and less expensive to
subsidize than public transit or highways. Cycling is here to stay and
it deserves proper consideration when it comes to planning and investing
in Montreal’s transportation network.
With another summer season fast approaching in Montreal, after an interminably long cold winter, the annual battle of the roads will soon, like the temperature, be heating up. I refer of course to the combat among drivers, cyclists and pedestrians that grows in leaps and bounds each year. As one who is, at various times, all three of these - but a walker for the most part, I like to watch things unfold on the streets of Montreal. Last May I wrote a piece that ran in Montreal's The Gazette titled Drivers Are from Mars, Cyclists Are from Venus. From my observations it seems that the same folks can experience the same event, yet have diametrically opposed views of it.
John Kenny/The Gazette
In the ’90s bestseller Men Are from Mars, Women Are from Venus, author John Gray illustrates how the genders differ. Men and women can experience exactly the same event, and yet have totally different takes on it. Much like cyclists and drivers.
Perhaps Drivers Are from Mars, Cyclists Are from Venus should be our approach to the seemingly never-ending conflicts between these two groups as they duke it out on city streets. Sadly these confrontations often result in more than just the wagging of fingers of accusation. They can be tragic.
In an attempt to create a safe urban cycling experience, many cities have adopted bike boxes at busy intersections. These areas in front of the car stop line at the red light give cyclists a head start so they can gain momentum. An advanced green light ensures they get away from vehicles and get up to speed without cars nipping at their heels. Is it time for a similar alteration to the stop sign law?
I know, it’s a crazy concept, but let’s face it, cyclists are going to
do this anyway. By alerting drivers to that fact, and having them expect
the cyclist to pass through, these potentially fatal altercations can
be reduced, if not eliminated.
Recently, as a pedestrian observer, it became clear to me that drivers and cyclists are on totally different wavelengths. The setting: a three-way stop sign at a T intersection. The driver arrived at his stop sign, came to a full and complete stop, looked to his left, saw nothing, looked to his right and noticed a cyclist slowing down while approaching his stop sign. The driver, incorrectly assuming the cyclist was coming to a stop, entered the intersection to turn left, only to encounter the cyclist already halfway through.
The cyclist had in fact not come to a full stop, but merely slowed down, thus giving the driver — and this pedestrian — the impression he was going to stop, as it was the driver’s turn to go. However he then accelerated once again and proceeded into the intersection, evidently thinking the driver had deferred to him. This time we were lucky: A few toots of the car horn and a couple of angry epithets hurled by the cyclist and everyone was on their way again. What struck me was that I believe both thought they were doing the right thing. How could that be?
Drivers understand that they are required to come to a full stop at a stop sign — even if many don’t — check for cars, make eye contact with any other drivers, cyclists or pedestrians so everyone knows where they stand, then continue on their way when it is their turn. Cyclists apparently have a different concept of what takes place at stop signs: they seem to believe they are required to slow down as they near the intersection, make eye contact with any stopped drivers, but then continue through the intersection in an attempt to maintain their momentum, much like at a yield sign.
It is my hunch that cyclists, regardless of the law, are not going to
desist from coasting through stop signs. So in the interest of public
safety, let’s make certain that all motorists — and pedestrians for that
matter — are well aware of this.
To motorists, the eye contact indicates: “I see you slowing down, you’re going to stop, so it’s my turn to go.” For cyclists, eye contact means: “I see you and I know you see me; now you’re supposed to let me pass through the intersection so I don’t lose my momentum.” Venus and Mars writ large! This is a recipe for absolute disaster; two groups of road users with virtually opposite understandings of what should happen at a stop sign.
Is there a realistic solution to this potentially deadly problem? I believe so. Placing police officers at all intersections to enforce the law might work, but I did note we need a realistic solution. It is my hunch that cyclists, regardless of the law, are not going to desist from coasting through stop signs. So in the interest of public safety, let’s make certain that all motorists — and pedestrians for that matter — are well aware of this.
In keeping with the adoption of bike boxes, I suggest we alter the Highway Code to make this “bicycle stop sign slide” legal, then most importantly educate the public through ad campaigns and road signs. Clearly informing all that cyclists are required to cautiously slow down at stop signs, then proceed without stopping when safe. I know, it’s a crazy concept, but let’s face it, cyclists are going to do this anyway. By alerting drivers to that fact, and having them expect the cyclist to pass through, these potentially fatal altercations can be reduced, if not eliminated.
It only takes an extra second at the stop sign for a driver to let a bike pass, and everyone comes out alive. In fact, many drivers already do this. Think of it like the right of way accorded to public transit buses as they pull into traffic. But everyone has to understand what is expected, be on the same page, sing from the same hymnal, whatever. These different takes on stop signs can be deadly. To cite another bestseller, we could call it the “I’m OK, You’re OK” approach to stop signs.
