Page 1 of 1
Introduction
Posted: Sun Jun 03, 2018 3:16 pm
by CoreyBurger
Hey all - figured I should create an account here given all the bike-related stuff I do. I am the Policy & Infrastructure Chair for the Greater Victoria Cycling Coalition and as such, I lead our Advocacy team.
The GVCC is always working to be as big-tent as we can be (we were founded to be a coalition, after all) and I am always willing to chat with people about how we can make that happen. Easiest way to reach me is by email:
corey.burger@gvcc.bc.ca
Anyway, cheers and happy riding!
Re: Introduction
Posted: Mon Jun 04, 2018 10:15 am
by Lister Farrar
Welcome Corey!
Top my list on advocacy would be: Widen the goose, wide-ish bike lanes on Dallas/beach/waterfront route, more bike lanes, keep the bike tracks coming in busiest places.
Re: Introduction
Posted: Mon Jun 04, 2018 10:52 am
by POC
I would like motorists educated about safe passing distances when overtaking cyclists.
Re: Introduction
Posted: Mon Jun 04, 2018 10:54 am
by Rolf
Thanks for joining us, Corey!
Our forum is vast and deep (33,000 posts over 10 years), but one of our past discussions you may be interested in concerns law reform and riding two abreast:
viewtopic.php?p=33558#p33558
Re: Introduction
Posted: Tue Jun 05, 2018 3:17 pm
by CoreyBurger
Lister Farrar wrote:Welcome Corey!
Top my list on advocacy would be: Widen the goose, wide-ish bike lanes on Dallas/beach/waterfront route, more bike lanes, keep the bike tracks coming in busiest places.
Widen (and add lights to) the Goose and other regional trails has been a long term aim. Regional Planning staff told us a study is coming next year. Dallas Rd should start soon, but that requires the pipe to the built first, so expect 2019/2020 at the earliest.
POC wrote:I would like motorists educated about safe passing distances when overtaking cyclists.
We sit as part of the CRD Traffic Safety Commission, something to raise for our next round of education, which starts soon.
Rolf wrote:Thanks for joining us, Corey!
Our forum is vast and deep (33,000 posts over 10 years), but one of our past discussions you may be interested in concerns law reform and riding two abreast:
viewtopic.php?p=33558#p33558
We are also advocating for reforming the MVA (you see the whole position paper here:
https://bikehub.ca/about-us/cycling-pri ... provements). Part of that would be a return to allowing people to ride two-abreast (as it was prior to 1943).
Regarding the MVA, if Triple Shot wanted to do a bit of light bike advocacy, sending a letter to Minister Farnsworth in support of the MVA reform report I listed above, that would be fantastic. The more voices we have advocating, the better.
Re: Introduction
Posted: Tue Jun 05, 2018 9:10 pm
by EricS
I love the wide, one way bike lanes such as the one on Johnson St. I would prefer to see these on each one way road downtown. Easy to understand, cheaper that the two-way paths, without the need for complex lights, timing and rule changes. Cyclist don't mind moving over one block to travel in the same direction as the traffic. The new two-way lanes are not my fav. Especially when they end, and you are going the wrong way on the street (and therefore must turn).
Eric
Re: Introduction
Posted: Wed Jun 06, 2018 2:30 pm
by CoreyBurger
EricS wrote:I love the wide, one way bike lanes such as the one on Johnson St. I would prefer to see these on each one way road downtown. Easy to understand, cheaper that the two-way paths, without the need for complex lights, timing and rule changes. Cyclist don't mind moving over one block to travel in the same direction as the traffic. The new two-way lanes are not my fav. Especially when they end, and you are going the wrong way on the street (and therefore must turn).
Eric
A few thoughts on this - we certainly heard amongst more confident bike riders support for Johnson St bike lane over Pandora. What you see when you look at the count data shows the Johnson St bike lane basically had zero impact on the number of people riding either on Johnson or elsewhere. Pandora on the other hand, has dramatically changed the picture.
The complex lights are absolutely required for safety - the only alternatives aren't safe with the volumes of right-turning vehicles (something borne out by other cities that have used all the alternatives).
Two-way is another discussion. Pandora has a very specific context for being two-way - the end of the Goose. Fort lacks that context, the only real reason was sticking within a single corridor.
As for where they end, that is partially a function of the grid not being built all at once and where they chose to end the lanes. Pandora and Fort shouldn't have ended at Cook, they should have gone up the hill to their natural ends at Begbie & Yates respectively. But we have what we have.