02-12-2022, 03:52 PM
(02-12-2022, 02:16 PM)dtkvictim Wrote:(02-12-2022, 01:22 PM)danbrotherston Wrote: Yeah, I think that's the regional plan. I mean, whether they think its the intention, or whether they just don't believe cycling is a thing that will happen (and so create self fulfilling prophecies) I don't know. I first encountered this when I was part of the Moving Forward 2020 plan...where they said that their modeling showed that even if they built a huge protected, comprehensive, and connected network they wouldn't get significant usage....I asked them how their modeling worked and they, completely seriously explained that it's based on what uptick in cycling they get from building one disconnected, mediocre piece of infra. It was around that point, I realized that talking to staff was pointless.
But I was actually talking about the response to this. I know several cycling advocates who are positioning this as a win. I think they feel this is the best we can get, which frankly, I think is silly, we should aim higher. But I think it's also a little bit about the positioning. If this was positioned as a bus/bike lane, how much worse would it be received by the public.
I think most vocal cycling advocates are in the top 10% confident cyclists, which has this unfortunate effect. The reality is almost all of the other 90% get around by car, so they have no reason to call this out for the garbage it is. They will continue to get around the way they always have, even if they would have made use of a proper solution here. The status quo is hard to break out of.
And so what is the actual plan here? We will have the cycling grid on either side of this (NW of Francis and SE of Frederick), and probably some dangerous half-assed transition on either end? I wouldn't use this... It's disgusting how the already modest grid continues to get cut down.
I really really don't think this is the case. The people I am referring to are solid and understanding advocates. They have all reliably supported safe accessible infrastructure. They have never supported any vehicular cycling bullshit.
I believe it is a combination of things, for one, regional engineers are excellent spindoctors. They have pretended this is a bicycle boulevard (a real piece of infra) and pretended they understand what's required, by promising to legally limit car traffic. They also explain that it's necessary because it's "impossible" to do anything better and still accommodate transit (most cycling advocates are also transit advocates, so they are playing transit against cycling here--again, very smart spindoctors).
If they were honest about what this was--a worse than usual because some cars are permitted bus/bike lane--the response would be much more negative.
Yeah, I make absolutely no secret of my utter disdain for our regional engineers. They are entirely unwilling to buy into a vision of less cars, and they are very good at pretending to accommodate other modes while still enshrining motordom in our roads.
I guess we will see how the public consultation goes, I am going to be strongly advocating against it, but as I am moving, I have less skin in the game so to speak.
As for the actual proposal, they will prohibit through car traffic with signage from College to Frederick. Even if drivers obeyed it, it would be a bad idea, but I don't really believe that most drivers will obey it.