09-18-2022, 07:17 AM
(09-18-2022, 01:11 AM)ijmorlan Wrote:(09-17-2022, 10:26 AM)danbrotherston Wrote: I suspect that the suggestion that people on SB 85 accessing the bridgeport area can just get off at University and use surface streets would be considered unthinkable by most engineers and much of council. But that's actually a relatively minor detour. We need to start having serious conversations about this kind of limitation. The idea of making a trip a few minutes longer in order to make our roads safer and saner should be an easy win...
I’m pessimistic, but not quite that pessimistic. Something similar was done at Northfield for the LRT — certain movements are simply not allowed anymore (leading to the could-have-been possibility of a centre bike path on Northfield).
Thinking more about the Bridgeport situation, however, I’m actually thinking that putting the bicycle path (2-way) on the south side might actually work. As it is, the only part of the interchange which would cross the bike path is the east to south onramp; but that could be closed and people making that movement could instead turn left onto the other existing onramp.
This would also eliminate an instance of onramp and offramp (Lancaster) being too close together.
The biggest problem I see is that the bike path on the rest of Erb St. is on the north side, and would have to cross to the south side somewhere west of the interchange. Whereas a north side bikepath on Erb St. is already between the eastbound (Erb) and westbound (Bridgeport) lanes.
I mean...leaving aside provincial involvement for a sec, the LRT is a completely different beast. It's clear there's vastly more investment and vastly more political will for major changes. I don't think it's entirely comparable, but it's a fair point, it isn't without precedent.
I actually came here to also mention the south side option. Removing the single slip ramp on the south and replacing it with a new ramp with a left turn is entirely possible. Leaving aside the province again, it's probably a lot more achievable, regional engineers probably wouldn't have a big issue with it. I will say that they probably SHOULD have a big issue with it. Making a right slip ramp into a left turn at an uncontrolled and high speed intersection significantly increases the danger for people in cars (which, as much as it is a problem we want to solve, is still the majority of people) so this probably makes the road less safe. But of course, safety isn't actually a regional engineering priority...so...they probably wouldn't see that as an obstacle.
But you're right, this is unfortunately in conflict with the design further up the road and would require a crossing (or a major reconfiguration/rebuilt farther back).
Ultimately, I'm not sure what solution I like better, but if I had to guess the regional engineers will recommend putting it on the south side and just cross the slip ramp the way they did on King S. It's probably the least bad option that imposes no restrictions on drivers and requires no provincial buy in, and regional engineers won't even think about the delay imposed on cyclists by crossing the road (they'll have a bigger issue with the shift in the vehicle lanes that such a design will cause).