08-29-2020, 08:45 PM
(This post was last modified: 08-29-2020, 09:17 PM by danbrotherston.)
Lol...they claim that in the no cycling proposal, that cyclists would use a yet to be determined parallel route.
That's the usual kind of crap we hear for cycling. There is not a single other through road between King and Margaret (let alone Lancaster) between Erb and Wellington. But they are no doubt only considering the route between Spur line and King, because that's their scope, which means cyclists would be routed down circuitous routes with no crossings.
And it's funny, I complained about the excessively wide King/Union intersection, I still stand by that objection, but in the technical design, that intersection has been narrowed by a solid 3 meters. Where are the fiscal conservatives, why are they not upset about the construction and paving of 3 meters of wasted pavement.
Trying a new thing, a public tweet thread in response.
That's the usual kind of crap we hear for cycling. There is not a single other through road between King and Margaret (let alone Lancaster) between Erb and Wellington. But they are no doubt only considering the route between Spur line and King, because that's their scope, which means cyclists would be routed down circuitous routes with no crossings.
And it's funny, I complained about the excessively wide King/Union intersection, I still stand by that objection, but in the technical design, that intersection has been narrowed by a solid 3 meters. Where are the fiscal conservatives, why are they not upset about the construction and paving of 3 meters of wasted pavement.
Trying a new thing, a public tweet thread in response.
.