COVID Lanes Results

While the COVID lanes have been removed, their legacy will continue to shape the region. Just what is that legacy.

Feedback collected by staff was largely negative (96% according to their report). Some councillors also reported a large number of negative emails. However others also received positive messages, and messages on social media were also mixed. Further the original public consultation saw thousands of supportive responses, and hundreds of letters written to councillors.

What are we to make of this mixed response. It is hard to know for sure. It is possible that support disappeared. It is also entirely possible that anger and frustration motivates people to call and complain to staff more than enjoyment. Whatever the result, one thing is clear, the project was controversial.

Certainly there were those who opposed the project, but there were also supporters. Some may be surprised that not all supporters fit the narrow definition of “cyclist”.

Many people who bike obviously enjoyed the lanes, but these people too come in many forms. Cyclists, looking for a safe route away from the busy trails more suitable to high speed cycling; people looking for an inexpensive, healthy, environmentally friendly option for getting to work or to the stores while avoiding crowding onto transit; parents riding with children to school or the park.

Many who would not have considered riding on a road like Westmount found themselves having options that didn’t exist before…they would have driven or ridden the bus if not for the lanes.

Data showed that cycling increased 41% over last year. While the baseline numbers for the roads are quite low, such a substantial increase in such a short time, especially in a context where travel demands in general are down significantly is still very meaningful. This matches the experience of other regions which see cycling grow substantially when new infrastructure is installed.

Pedestrians also felt the lanes provided a buffer away from traffic, especially on roads that have so called “curb faced” sidewalks — sidewalks that directly abut the traffic lanes and are uncomfortably close to fast moving traffic.

Residents on the streets converted enjoyed what they felt was calmer traffic. Remember — as many do not as they speed past, including some on council — that these high speed arterial roads are also residential streets for some.

There were some problems as well.

Transit riders did not always have a good experience, sometimes the bus stopped beyond the lanes, making boarding more difficult. GRT tested out several different bus stop configurations. However, they were limited by the temporary, low cost, nature of the lanes. This was confusing to some riders, but hopefully GRT has gained some useful information to help them design better bus stops in future permanent projects.

Others felt that there was no public consultation before hand. In fact, this was an angry and repeated refrain from certain Regional Councillors. It is not a reasonable response however. This was always a temporary project, during an unusual traffic situation and did not warrant the same level of public consultation that project mean to last decades would see. Further, there was a short but very significant public engagement done with thousands of responses, far more than would ever be received for a typical street project.

No matter how big an engagement we have, there will always be those who feel they were not consulted. This is not new, I have sat through council meetings where residents have objected saying nobody told them about the cycling master plan that said cycling lanes would be placed on their street despite robust public consultation processes for those plans as well.

Some pointed out that removing two lanes seems unnecessary, and more, that the pylons were ugly and confusing. They are not wrong, however this is the nature of a temporary project, pylons were the only option for implementation, and that required that two lanes be closed. A permanent project would be done differently. This was a way to gather information.

Many people objected to what they perceived as unacceptable congestion and delays.

However, data from the Region and GPS data showed only a very small increase in travel times, as well as significantly calmer traffic. Calmed traffic can be safer traffic. So while some people did experience longer drives, it was by no means the traffic apocalypse that some feared.

But certainly slightly longer trips do impact some people, and that impact must be weighed against the other benefits such projects. This is exactly what a temporary project like this seeks to evaluate — how big each of these different impacts will be.