Cycling Advocacy ACTIVITIES
"NO CYCLING" BAN ON GOLDEN EARS WAY (MAPLE RIDGE, 2016)
Timeline
Maple Ridge held a design review meetings in the spring of 2015 and again in 2016 to solicit public feedback on their plans to widen a section of Abernethy Way (128th Ave) from two lanes to four. The design included a separated, multi-use path (MUP) on the north side of the roadway and 1.5 metre-wide paved shoulders on both sides of the roadway. I attended the first of these open houses and expressed my appreciation for the presence of those paved shoulders and confirmed with one of the city engineers that there were no plans to prohibit cyclists from using them. "But we encourage all cyclists to use the MUP", he added.
The roadwork began in the fall of 2015, and by the spring of 2016 the western half of Abernethy Way had been widened and the MUP construction was well underway.
April 18, 2016
I was cycling home from work, approaching the new four-lane section of Abernethy Way when I saw a "No Cycling" sign prominently located at the western end of the roadwork. As soon as I got home, I sent off an e-mail to the city engineering department inquiring why this ban was put in when there had been no mention of it in the design reviews. I also posted a photo (along with an appropriate rant) on the HUB Maple Ridge/Pitt Meadows Facebook page to alert my fellow cyclists - this posting generating a considerable number of comments and outrage.
Later that evening, Maple Ridge's Manager of Corporate Communications posted the following to that Facebook page:
"A separated path is available on the north side and the section from 216 to 224 is under tender now. Then there will be a separated paved path from 210 to 232."
I should note here that the MUP construction was not even complete at this time - a section roughly 100 metres long had still not been paved and there were two large backhoes sitting in the middle of the path.
April 19, 2016
The Maple Ridge News picked up on my Facebook page posting and ran an article on their website. I also received the following reply to my email to the engineering department:
"A 3m wide paved multi-use path was constructed on the north side of 128 Avenue from 210 Street to 216 Street for cyclists, pedestrians etc. If traveling eastbound on Golden Ears Way (GEW) cyclists are expected to cross to the north side of GEW at 210 Street and continue riding eastbound on the multi-use path. Continuation of the multi-use path from 216 Street east to the existing multiuse path at Abernethy Way and 224 Street is expected to commence construction this summer."
They did not bother answering my question, instead they just parroted what appeared to be the party line. I sent off another email to the engineering department, asking them again to explain why the ban was put in place. I also sent them a link to the Springbank Decision (thanks, Avery Burdett), reminding them that banning a particular sub-group of legitimate road users was in fact against the law (it's called discrimination).
April 20, 2016
On my way home from work, I found that the sign had been removed, and I found the following email waiting for me from the engineering department:
"The Engineering Department has reviewed the matter and the no cycling signs will be removed immediately. Thank-you for your input. "
On the HUB's Facebook page, the administrator posted that she had received the following email from one of the city engineers:
"I am writing in response to an article published in the Maple Ridge Times regarding 128 Avenue roadworks and the “banning of cyclists” along the roadway. The signs, quite frankly are wrong and will be removed – the engineering consultant included them, the rationale being that the road shoulder width in places is less than the 1.5 m for a marked bike lane. The two signs were not identified in the design review process otherwise they would not have been erected.
I would reiterate that these are paved road shoulders, not bike lanes – cyclists can choose to ride along the roadway, just as they can on Dewdney Trunk Road, and indeed many users indicated that was their preference over the multi-use path. I recollect having discussions with “roadies” at the Open House on this issue and it was made clear that cyclists could use the roadway – full right to do so – but that it was not a cycling facility. Paved road shoulders on this type of cross section are there to allow vehicles to pull to the side, out of the travel lane. The Strategic Transportation Plan identifies the cycling facility on this section of roadway as a separated path and that is what is being constructed. The project is not yet complete and there are gaps in the surfacing and equipment in the way but this will be completed in the very near future. We are currently out to tender on the second phase from 216 to 224 to be constructed this year.
I am aware of social media chatter about this issue and I do not want to get drawn into an online war of words but I would hope that this information can put to rest some of the misconceptions that are out there."
So, in two days, the ban appeared and was removed. I don't believe that this was "a mistake", to use the engineer's own words. If it had been a mistake, the city would have immediately said so when first confronted. They didn't. They didn't even explain why the ban had been put in place, only that a MUP was available (even though a portion of it wasn't even ride-able). I know that correlation does not imply causation, but the city did not admit that this was "a mistake" and remove the ban until AFTER I'd reminded them about the Springbank Decision and that what they were doing smacked of discrimination.
So I'm going to chalk this one up as another win for the Springbank Decision.
Timeline
Maple Ridge held a design review meetings in the spring of 2015 and again in 2016 to solicit public feedback on their plans to widen a section of Abernethy Way (128th Ave) from two lanes to four. The design included a separated, multi-use path (MUP) on the north side of the roadway and 1.5 metre-wide paved shoulders on both sides of the roadway. I attended the first of these open houses and expressed my appreciation for the presence of those paved shoulders and confirmed with one of the city engineers that there were no plans to prohibit cyclists from using them. "But we encourage all cyclists to use the MUP", he added.
The roadwork began in the fall of 2015, and by the spring of 2016 the western half of Abernethy Way had been widened and the MUP construction was well underway.
April 18, 2016
I was cycling home from work, approaching the new four-lane section of Abernethy Way when I saw a "No Cycling" sign prominently located at the western end of the roadwork. As soon as I got home, I sent off an e-mail to the city engineering department inquiring why this ban was put in when there had been no mention of it in the design reviews. I also posted a photo (along with an appropriate rant) on the HUB Maple Ridge/Pitt Meadows Facebook page to alert my fellow cyclists - this posting generating a considerable number of comments and outrage.
Later that evening, Maple Ridge's Manager of Corporate Communications posted the following to that Facebook page:
"A separated path is available on the north side and the section from 216 to 224 is under tender now. Then there will be a separated paved path from 210 to 232."
I should note here that the MUP construction was not even complete at this time - a section roughly 100 metres long had still not been paved and there were two large backhoes sitting in the middle of the path.
April 19, 2016
The Maple Ridge News picked up on my Facebook page posting and ran an article on their website. I also received the following reply to my email to the engineering department:
"A 3m wide paved multi-use path was constructed on the north side of 128 Avenue from 210 Street to 216 Street for cyclists, pedestrians etc. If traveling eastbound on Golden Ears Way (GEW) cyclists are expected to cross to the north side of GEW at 210 Street and continue riding eastbound on the multi-use path. Continuation of the multi-use path from 216 Street east to the existing multiuse path at Abernethy Way and 224 Street is expected to commence construction this summer."
They did not bother answering my question, instead they just parroted what appeared to be the party line. I sent off another email to the engineering department, asking them again to explain why the ban was put in place. I also sent them a link to the Springbank Decision (thanks, Avery Burdett), reminding them that banning a particular sub-group of legitimate road users was in fact against the law (it's called discrimination).
April 20, 2016
On my way home from work, I found that the sign had been removed, and I found the following email waiting for me from the engineering department:
"The Engineering Department has reviewed the matter and the no cycling signs will be removed immediately. Thank-you for your input. "
On the HUB's Facebook page, the administrator posted that she had received the following email from one of the city engineers:
"I am writing in response to an article published in the Maple Ridge Times regarding 128 Avenue roadworks and the “banning of cyclists” along the roadway. The signs, quite frankly are wrong and will be removed – the engineering consultant included them, the rationale being that the road shoulder width in places is less than the 1.5 m for a marked bike lane. The two signs were not identified in the design review process otherwise they would not have been erected.
I would reiterate that these are paved road shoulders, not bike lanes – cyclists can choose to ride along the roadway, just as they can on Dewdney Trunk Road, and indeed many users indicated that was their preference over the multi-use path. I recollect having discussions with “roadies” at the Open House on this issue and it was made clear that cyclists could use the roadway – full right to do so – but that it was not a cycling facility. Paved road shoulders on this type of cross section are there to allow vehicles to pull to the side, out of the travel lane. The Strategic Transportation Plan identifies the cycling facility on this section of roadway as a separated path and that is what is being constructed. The project is not yet complete and there are gaps in the surfacing and equipment in the way but this will be completed in the very near future. We are currently out to tender on the second phase from 216 to 224 to be constructed this year.
I am aware of social media chatter about this issue and I do not want to get drawn into an online war of words but I would hope that this information can put to rest some of the misconceptions that are out there."
So, in two days, the ban appeared and was removed. I don't believe that this was "a mistake", to use the engineer's own words. If it had been a mistake, the city would have immediately said so when first confronted. They didn't. They didn't even explain why the ban had been put in place, only that a MUP was available (even though a portion of it wasn't even ride-able). I know that correlation does not imply causation, but the city did not admit that this was "a mistake" and remove the ban until AFTER I'd reminded them about the Springbank Decision and that what they were doing smacked of discrimination.
So I'm going to chalk this one up as another win for the Springbank Decision.