Peterborough's worst intersection

It seems the police and city staff have known for quite a long time that Lansdowne and Monaghan is the most dangerous intersection in Peterborough. I’m sure city council had that information too.

Knowing then what the Examiner has now revealed to the public, why would city staff and city council agree to create a bike lane that directs new cyclists into this unsafe intersection? And if they had the opportunity, would they change their minds on this?

In a presentation to city council last November I questioned city staff’s proposal to create a bike lane on busy Monaghan Rd., a high traffic, heavy truck route that cyclists would normally avoid. They were unable to show that bike lanes were any safer than riding on roads obeying traffic rules. But claimed one American study showed bike lanes attract new cyclists and that alone is good enough reason, as they have a mandate to encourage alternative transportation.

Competent cyclists who practice and obey the rules of the road are not attracted to bike lanes. But to the young, the inexperienced and the timid are. Bike lanes give a perception of safety as they are designed and recommended by the city. Many parents tell their children to use the bike lane, but what happens when it ends? They are directed into busy intersections such as the above without the experience or knowledge to cycle safely with traffic. There are three schools on Monaghan Rd., and Fleming College students have been directed to use this bike lane to access Crawford Dr. But there is no need for any of these students to use this intersection. There are safer alternate routes.

City police say there were 34 collisions at this junction last year. How many cyclists will be hit this year? Recently a young father was seriously injured while riding through this intersection, and I can’t help wondering if he was attracted to it because of the bike lane.

Transportation manager Jim Kimble says, “The intersection is a perfect example of engineering as much safety as possible.” And, "From an engineering perspective there's not a lot the city could do to make it safer.” I disagree. I would suggest that through engineering, the city is making this intersection less safe, by knowingly directing novice cyclists into an already dicey situation.

The Rotary Greenway Trail

Robinson St. traffic count 516

Douro ST. traffic count 2466

Hunter St. E traffic count 15,931----no curb cut, no bollards, no crosswalk striping,
no flashing amber,no bike xing warning signs for motorists.
Parkhill xing has actuated stoplight with traffic count 16,563....only 700 fewer than Hunter St.

This trail is probably the safest trail in Peterborough barring the new Tollington Bridge extension (see Tollington Bridge Dangers July (/07).
The reason being that it mostly follows the river so there are less intersections to deal with.
It is also the trail most worthy of being called a transportation artery as it is a major north/south route for bicycle commuters, including students and faculty from Trent U and Thomas A Stewart CI
That being said it fails miserably on crossing safety at Hunter St. E. In fact it has no crossing features whatsoever. There are no yellow bollards....no ramped curb cuts......there is no crosswalk striping...... and there are no bike Xing warning signs for motorists!!! Yet this stretch of Hunter has a traffic count of 15,931 !!! Robinson St., the next crossing south, is better marked and only has a traffic count of 516. This is a gross oversight on Peterborough's favourite and most populous trail. For novice cyclists and unwary motorists, this is an accident waiting to happen.

Recommendations to improve safety:

• install bollards at trail entrance each side
• cut curbs and ramp
  
• broad broken crosswalk stripe on pavement
• overhead flashing amber crossing sign actuated by trail crosser
• bike X warning signs installed on Hunter St. at crossing and 1/2 block away in each direction
  

A Critique of BikePaths in Peterborough

Chemong Rd. and Parkway Path Crossing (motorists' view)

Parkway Bike Path at Chemong Rd

Recreational cyclists and those who have not learned to ride on the road according to vehicular cycling principles choose to ride on bike paths and clamor for the city to build more.
They feel they won't have to deal with traffic and they perceive multi-use paths as safer than roads. Parents and school officials advise children to use MUPs.
Other than the fact that cyclists have to deal with little old ladies with little dogs on long leashes, big dogs off-leash, walkers with baby strollers, other uneducated cyclists who don't warn them (or pedestrians) when overtaking from behind, and rollerbladers doing dance moves, the MUP is only safe between road crossings. Most road accidents happen at intersections and many of these people, particularly children, do not have the skills to cross a busy road safely.
If the city is going to design and build MUPs, they must do so safely, taking into account the users' skill levels. This means all paths should have ramped curb-cuts and signage to warn and direct cyclists, and they must have adequate crosswalk markings and warning signs for motorists.

The road crossing at Parkway Trail and Chemong Rd. is probably the newest path crossing and the city has gone to a lot of expense to create an island half-way across this busy 4-lane road, complete with maze to prevent cyclists from riding straight across. Yet a young boy almost died a week ago (he's in Sunnybrook Hospital with serious head injuries), and another of similar age did die last year near this crossing. Can this crossing be improved to make it safer? I think so.

The bike-crossing sign at Armour Rd. and Rotary Greenway Trail is much more explicit, showing an X under bicycle symbol and the crosswalk marking is more explicit too, using a much wider broken line. After motorists have seen the Armour Rd sign, the Chemong sign which shows bicycle symbol with line beneath it is confusing as it is not uniform and could be mis-interpreted. Also, Chemong sign is on pole above traffic light warning sign which could lead motorists to believe, if there is a bike crossing, it is at the lights.
Some cyclists I met and spoke to at this crossing felt they would feel safer with a flashing overhead amber light.
According to City of Peterborough traffic count, this section of Chemong Rd. is used by 22836 cars daily, making it second only to Lansdowne W. in volume. A flashing overhead amber actuated by trail crosser would be a damn good idea. Traffic light warning sign should be taken down and moved past bike X sign. Another bike X sign should be posted further from crossing on vehicle approach.
If these improvements were made at this busy intersection, they could be used as a benchmark for other bike crossings in the city. And the City of Peterborough would be able to say that they've done all they could for crossing safety.

Tollington Bridge Dangers

Letter to City of Peterborough council and staff:

The Tollington Bridge extension to the Rotary Greenway trail shows the city’s lack of expertise when designing bike facilities.
Contrary to what was reported, the bridge does not connect the Rotary trail to the Lakefield trail. It misses by a mile or two, and in-between is trouble. Big trouble.

Before the trail extension, the path ended at a T intersection at Nassau Mills Rd, where, if the cyclist wished to continue north, made a safe right turn and on up over the Nassau Bridge and away they went.
Now, the extension leads them to make a left turn ( LTs being one of the more dangerous manoeuvres), then a right at a 4-way stop (which is quite busy at times).

Then over the Tollington Bridge to Nassau Mills Rd., where they end up having to make another left turn into traffic, this time between two curves where traffic is known to speed. This is still quite a ways south of the entrance to Lakefield trail. Approaching the bridge from the north, there is a right turn from Nassau Mills Rd., over the bridge and onto a contra-flow bike path ( a dangerous design flaw) that ends just before the 4-way stop where a left and a right is required to get back on trail.

Yet Mayor Ayotte is quoted as saying "….this adds a real safety feature to the trail system." Rotary President Storey says "this is a significant milestone" and "everyone should bring out their children and grandchildren to enjoy the bridge". MP Del Mastro says the bridge and trail are a great legacy.

The politicians have had their photo-op and showed they 'seem to be doing something for cyclists'. They want the credit for this project, but will they accept the blame when a young cyclist is injured or killed because of bad design?

With this as an example, the city now wants to add to their folly by creating unnecessary bike lanes when education and wide curb lanes are all that's needed.
I submit that there is no-one on city council or in any city department that knows anything about safe bicycle transportation. I welcome comments from these people and challenge them to prove me wrong.

The best 'bike facility' is traffic education and it should start with city council and staff. If a few of them were to take a Can-Bike course, their decisions might have more merit.
Oh, did I mention the great view from the bridge? It's a pity that we have to pay so high a price in safety.