07-29-2022, 10:07 AM
(07-29-2022, 08:29 AM)jamincan Wrote: If we're going to the trouble of building a MUT there, why would we shove it in the middle? Why not just put it along the side like it is on Franklin and every other road in the region? It is more convenient for cyclists, connects naturally to the Parkside MUT, and could remain to the right of the slip lane until it can cross more safely at a perpendicular angle.
A major concern I have with the new cycling infrastructure they are putting into place around the region is that there is no clear and consistent form for it. We have bike lanes in some place, we have "protected" lanes in others (ie. Queens Blvd.), we have fully-ish separated in others (King St in Uptown), and we have bi-directional "protected" lanes in others. In particular, the mix of bi-directional tracks with the lanes on both sides is something that I am concerned with as it makes it much harder for people to act in a predictable way because it is harder for people to understand what is happening at any given intersection.
This problem is compounded by the fact that the interfaces between different modes are often completely ignored. Consider where the Water Street bidirectional track ends at, I think, Weber. There is absolutely no hint to cyclists what they are supposed to do if proceeding onward on Water Street, and then there is no clue to drivers then, what the cyclist might do. The saving grace is that most of these problems exist on relatively low-traffic roads.
I'm already uncomfortable with the bidirectional tracks, the idea of adding an entirely new form where cyclists are coming from the middle boulevard just seems entirely ill-conceived to me in the grander scheme of things.
Crossing the slip lane at a right angle is still extremely unsafe. Drivers are traveling at 90+km/h and are not looking for pedestrians or cyclists. These are dangerous locations that simply do not exist in the Netherlands. This is exactly how my partner was hit.
That's why going up the middle is safer.
As for convenience, yes, it is inconvenient, however, there's only room for one MUT on the road, so if you put it on the side it's only convenient for cyclists going one direction. In this case, cyclists are inconvenienced in both directions...which is a trade off to be sure, but it's one I'd easily make. Also, if we were willing to be smarter about our lights we could use half crossings to further optimize the crossing.
"Cyclists coming from the middle of the boulevard"...at a controlled intersection...drivers who cannot deal with this are 100% at fault. There is literally no cross traffic for the entire distance of the proposed MUT, that's why it's a good idea. It's a very rare case that something like this makes sense, and it only makes sense within this specific context and political situation. Like I said, it wouldn't be *MY* choice of infra (I'd eliminate the slip ramps and put in signalized intersections, which would both make the road safe, and make room for separated infra on both sides), but in a political situation where that is impossible, I do think this is probably the best option, but it requires outside the box thinking.
As for consistency, I certainly agree that it should be a goal, but I think it is a secondary goal to making infra intuitive and context sensitive. Here infra is not at all consistent, all those types of infra you describe and many others all exist here depending on the needs and context of the road. But the design is intuitive so their use is pretty clear even without consistent infra. Now, I do think our engineers struggle with that, both a lack of care and interest but also legitimately lack of experience.