02-16-2022, 04:25 PM
(02-16-2022, 02:47 PM)cherrypark Wrote:(02-16-2022, 01:36 PM)danbrotherston Wrote: NONE of that is in the region's proposal. They aren't even considering a 30km/h limit, they are only *considering* a 40km/h limit. They aren't proposing any change to the surfacing, or any bike boxes, or anything like that, they claim that the frequent traffic lights are enough to slow traffic, but those already exist...
Important typo in my message: meant to say *if they* - as in, if this design was at least improved, short of eliminating car or bus traffic two way.
I don't disagree that a dedicated ROW would be better, I suppose I'm just saying that feedback to the engagement should probably both aim to express that as well as what could make this strategy as good as it can be. Not dissuading any chance to the let the region know their priority balance is still not great! I'll be submitting both points - more courageous and creative solutions needed to make that dedicated ROW possible, but if they won't, at least make the half measure a better one.
And I know you say you are the average cyclist - maybe of those on the roads today - though my framing is more that anyone riding in current DTK is above the average person by way of motivation (or means, if they don't have the means for a car). Agreed the point here is net new cyclists, just that I would say the average person is not one, currently.
Exactly, the average person is not a cyclist, so the average cyclist is not the average person.
I guess my general point is I think there is more value in standing against the usual mediocre "compromise" they are offering, I believe this kind of thing does more harm than good to cycling.
Drivers see it, as a "war on drivers" but people also won't bike on it, so next time we go to do infra, they say, "when we build infra, nobody uses it".
This isn't an academic argument either, when the region worked on moving forward 2020, they did a non-car focused plan, but they told me, that based on their modeling, cycling infra wouldn't get much usage, and they explained their modeling was based on when they build a bike lane on a road, how much cycling increased.
I honestly cannot tell if they are just this blind, or if they are actively malicious when using modeling like this...but at the end of the day it doesn't matter...building mediocre crap that doesn't increase cycling makes building a cycling network harder.