Options for Nassau Street

As some of you may already know, Nassau Street, from Gertrude to McMillan, has been made a one-way northbound to accomodate our newly conceived Bike Path Thingy.

This has now caused traffic that formerly went southbound on Nassau to use the lane that paralells Nassau to continue their southward journey. However, the traffic does not proceed slowly but rather at regular street speeds, which makes for a dangerous situation as these lanes are heavily used by pedestrians.

Also, vehicles have ignored the signs and have travelled the wrong way down the street...as this indicates...



The changes have also affected properties on McMillan which are located East of Nassau. Fire and ambulance vehicles must use the back lanes, or go the wrong way on Nassau to get to these houses and apartment buildings. IMHO, this, in and of itself is sufficient reason to change Nassau back to two-way.

In any event, Gerbasi has been gracious in asking for some in-put on the matter.

Well folks....here's our chance eh.

I'll go first.

Change Nassau back to two-way.

If really needed, take out 2' of boulevard on one side of Nassau for a bike section.

Or, alternatively, make the lane a bike path and only local vehicles allowed...or not.

Any ideas?

http://maps.google.ca/maps?f=q&source=s_q&hl=en&geocode=&q=Nassau+Street+North,+Winnipeg,+Manitoba&sll=49.891235,-97.15369&sspn=28.411525,84.199219&ie=UTF8&hq=&hnear=Nassau+St+N,+Winnipeg,+Division+No.+11,+Manitoba&ll=49.874456,-97.14622&spn=0.003485,0.010278&t=h&z=17

one way northbound? ahh.. that would explain why people were shaking their fist at me the other day.

well first thing first... put up better signage?

Like a DO NOT ENTER sign perhaps? heh heh.

But what about the traffic on the lane problem.

I say we need to find a way to make cyclists co-exist on our streets without modifying the streets and inventing new traffic management rules except for widening the street.

Maybe a 3' wide path with a curb separating cyclists from cars and trucks. Or new exclusive lanes. But again, make them co-exist when approaching intersections for example.

License cyclists.
Insure cyclists.
Fine them when they break the rules of the road.

Like an old boss of mine used to say:

"We never have enough time (and money) to do it right, But we always have enough time to do it again".

And they are already $3 million short on the budget for all this crap now.

http://www.winnipegfreepress.com/breakingnews/3-million-more-approved-for-bike-walking-trials-110173284.html

grumpy old man wrote:

License cyclists.
Insure cyclists.

Is this the "they should pay for their infrastructure use train of thought?"

If so, then it is flawed - that infrastructure is paid for the same way vehicle infrastructure is paid for - property taxes. And the wear and tear I cause on infrastructure is much less than when I am driving

grumpy old man wrote:
Fine them when they break the rules of the road.

Agreed - it's called traffic tickets

The problem with this AT strategy is that it is aimed at getting cyclists off sidewalks and putting them on something akin to a sidewalk.

What should have been done is better signage and markings ( diamond bike priority lanes) as well as education for both drivers and cyclists to get them off the sidewalks and onto roads where they belong ( obeying the laws of the road and acting like vehicles).

St Norberter wrote:

grumpy old man wrote:

License cyclists.
Insure cyclists.

Is this the "they should pay for their infrastructure use train of thought?"

Nope. It's the make them accountable for their actions train of thought. Just like me licensing and insuring my car...

That said the notion a cyclist "pay's their share" through property taxes is also flawed. I'm less concerned about wear and tear and more concerned about the construction costs. Look at all the money pissed away on AT infrastructure this year. I can assure you I will not use it at all yet I contribute to its use.

I pay income and property taxes like everyone else. I also pay a significant additional chunk of change when I fill my tank. Argue all you like that you may also fill your tank you sure don't when riding the bike.

I want a level playing field. Fair is fair...

So...any thoughts on this Nassau Street mess?

I have the name and phone number of the project consultant and will be speaking with him later today....so...any input would be welcome.

Ask him why the project is almost 15 % over budget.

St Norberter wrote:The problem with this AT strategy is that it is aimed at getting cyclists off sidewalks and putting them on something akin to a sidewalk.

What should have been done is better signage and markings ( diamond bike priority lanes) as well as education for both drivers and cyclists to get them off the sidewalks and onto roads where they belong ( obeying the laws of the road and acting like vehicles).

mostly right.
the diamond/priority lanes are useless...can you even see the diamonds on the streets now?
and bikes don't need a whole lane...they need maybe a metre from the curb (reasonably maintained)...and even then it makes it deceptive...because it would confuse a cyclist to stay in that "lane" even if they are turning left...which is not the correct way of doing things.

Putting up simple signs along the roadway (can be the same poles as speed limit, bus stop, etc.) indicating cyclists on the road, and pedestrians on the sidewalk...and you're DONE.

If you REALLY want to paint lines... a simple solid white line about 1m from the curb would be fine...and help indicate a lane marking for the vehicles as well...at least till the snow falls.

grumpy old man wrote:

St Norberter wrote:

grumpy old man wrote:

License cyclists.
Insure cyclists.

Is this the "they should pay for their infrastructure use train of thought?"

Nope. It's the make them accountable for their actions train of thought. Just like me licensing and insuring my car...

That said the notion a cyclist "pay's their share" through property taxes is also flawed. I'm less concerned about wear and tear and more concerned about the construction costs. Look at all the money pissed away on AT infrastructure this year. I can assure you I will not use it at all yet I contribute to its use.

I pay income and property taxes like everyone else. I also pay a significant additional chunk of change when I fill my tank. Argue all you like that you may also fill your tank you sure don't when riding the bike.

I want a level playing field. Fair is fair...

But how does licensing and insuring them make them any more accountable? Sure, if there is an accident and a cyclist is at fault, there should be some level of responsibility. But do you also license and insure pedestrians? What do you do when they contribute to an accident?

And licensing and insuring has nothing to do with infrastructure development. None of the funds collected by either licensing or insurance will go towards infrastructure ( and by definition insurance shouldn't go towards it)

I pay property taxes which go towards rebuilding the Disraeli fwy. I can count on one hand the number of times I have used it in the last five years - should I pay less on that too?

The amount of money spent on AT came mostly from the feds. Insurance and licensing would be provincial areas so you can't connect the two ( unless you are suggesting that licensing & insurance should now be fed jurisdiction?)

And while you are at it, are you also going to propose an additional transit surcharge - shouldn't transit riders pay for the costs of BRT?


I pay taxes when I fill my tank too. But the wear and tear by vehicle ( or any motor vehicle) contributes to transportation infrastructure is far and away more than the wear and tear caused by a bicycle.

If I as a pedestrian walk into your car I'm likely to only damage myself. I don't believe they need to be licensed and insured.

I never suggested licensing and insuring cyclists had anything to do with infrastructure.

A cyclist will never pay the same infrastructure costs as I will. Ever. Period.

I will never use the bike paths. I never have. I don't begrudge their construction though.

Transit is also subsidized by the taxpayer. I don't begrudge this subsidy.

It matters not that the majority of AT funding THIS YEAR cam from the feds. There is only ONE taxpayer.

Spoiler:

"A cyclist will never pay the same infrastructure costs as I will. Ever. Period."

well maybe we should add a tax on all new bikes sold? And all new bike tires.

grumpy old man wrote:If I as a pedestrian walk into your car I'm likely to only damage myself. I don't believe they need to be licensed and insured.

What if a pedestrian walk out in front of you and the collision causes damage to your windshield and other parts of your car[/quote]

grumpy old man wrote:I never suggested licensing and insuring cyclists had anything to do with infrastructure.

Well, you did suggest they should be licensed and insured. Then you went on to say that they aren’t paying their fare share of infrastructure costs. Easy to see where the correlation can be made.

grumpy old man wrote:A cyclist will never pay the same infrastructure costs as I will. Ever. Period.

How do you know? Do you have access to the tax rolls of every household in the city and the amount they spent on both gasoline and vehicle insurance/licensing? Depending on the type of car YOU drive, it could be that a cyclist spends more on infrastructure than you do. All depends on usage/frequency/vehicle fuel efficiency/ property value.

grumpy old man wrote:I will never use the bike paths. I never have. I don't begrudge their construction though.

Transit is also subsidized by the taxpayer. I don't begrudge this subsidy.

So if you don’t begrudge the construction of bike paths, why are you complaining that they don’t pay their fare share of infrastructure costs? Or is it that you believe that only motorized transportation methods should be taxpayer subsidized?

grumpy old man wrote:It matters not that the majority of AT funding THIS YEAR cam from the feds. There is only ONE taxpayer.

And each level of government that you pay those taxes to gets to decide how they are going to spend them.

I drove down Nassua yesterday, I just don't understand why this was done. I turned right at whatever that street is and did see a long stream of cars going down the back alley, I just kept going and went up Daly instead, actually made getting across Corydon and back to Pembina a bit easier. Don't understand why anyone would want to use the alley

It's a short-cut to Corydon and Pembina Hwy.

I'm glad that you saw the line up going down the lane.

Did you happen to also notice the tracks left by vehicles still going south on the one-way?

I saw the tracks, I wonder what kind of plow they can get to fit through there?
It was around 5 and the alley was full of cars.

I appreciate the information. Thanks.