02-13-2022, 03:35 PM
(This post was last modified: 02-13-2022, 03:36 PM by danbrotherston.)
(02-13-2022, 02:49 PM)cherrypark Wrote: I don't know if I call the proposed work on Duke a "win" but I think I share your perspective, Dan, that the regional engineers and planners are really unskilled at incorporating cycling infrastructure and the fact they are even considering changing this route instead of just throwing up their hands and saying "sorry, road and ION only" is where I see it as a small measure of progress. Minor, but something?
If I'm being honest, putting actual execution aside (for which I don't have high hopes), a properly traffic calmed, bus and cycle route with good connections to stubs of the city grid that could really use *at least* one of the other regional roads that dominate downtown and one that side of King St. to change... I think I would rather that over another half assed effort like the Victoria St. MUTs or some of their other recent attempts to be inclusionary, only to waste a pile of money on bad infra that is not connected to anything.
The regional road ownership leading to a lack of wholistic planning and good quality of design isn't good enough so this shouldn't placate anyone, but I guess I would rather just push for them to make this as good as possible. That said, I definitely fall more on the side of compromise for what seems politically possible (even politically courageous given the basis we're working from) vs. the ideal as a means of change. It's ok if that differs from others' views.
I do actually think improved road design and speed reduction/calming downtown would go a long way to making it a more safe place to ride in addition to protected lanes on main routes (though really, Duke is pretty main!). Weber would have been the right spot if the ION ROW takes up too much space but can't go having our new urban highway disrupted.
I mean, I agree in general, the fact they are not outright refusing to do anything can be seen as an improvement, but you must also look at the context. This is supposed to be the premier downtown infra. If this was just *some road*, that'd be a big improvement. But it isn't just some road. They are under massive pressure to deliver here (and more than likely recommended Duke St. over something like Weber on a promise of doing *something*), and they are delivering exactly as little as they believe they can get away with.
Honestly though, this should be a big problem for CoK councillors. They've staked a lot on this project, reputation, success of the downtown, success of climate plans, so they should be the ones standing up to the region, because the region is threatening the success of their project and, ultimately, their careers. I hope they see that this proposal is compromises their project.
It might be less of an issue if they hadn't already caved to the opposition on Ontario St. Between Duke and Ontario Sts. this will be definitively *not* a grid by the end of 2023.
I think there is a general discussion to be had about traffic calming. We should be doing more of it, but I also think we shouldn't confuse it for cycle infra, at least not right now.
There's some interesting perspectives from the Netherlands. One road in the city centre of Utrecht had a protected bike lane, it was built in the ... 90s I think. It was a core piece of infrastructure in the city. Last year it was reconstructed, and the protected bike lane was removed, and the whole road opened to bikes to share with cars. The reason, since the 90s, car usage has shrunk precipitously, and bikes are now the dominant road user, bikes needed more space. Context is everything, traffic calmed streets can be good for bicycles, but we aren't there yet, we have to build ridership first.
Oh, and one caveat to the Utrecht road---it isn't a bus route.