10-31-2023, 12:42 PM
(10-31-2023, 11:07 AM)westwardloo Wrote:(10-31-2023, 09:20 AM)danbrotherston Wrote: FWIW, I do believe these are separated from the pedestrian space. As for whether they make sense to be two way, that's probably a context dependent situation. The Netherlands uses both depending on what makes sense. Which is, frankly far better than the people who ideologically believe there is one true answer (yes...there are people who have religious beliefs about one way vs. two way bike infra). I'll give the city some credit here, their "context" is pretty immature...it basically amounts to "how much space is there"...but building bike infra is new for these folks, there probably should be a two way section at one location here, but I'd have to look at a map to see where.I agree that either one works, I just prefer biking on by-directional bike lanes.
That being said, don't expect this type of infra everywhere, this is getting bike infra because it's in the cycling plan...the city still hasn't gotten to the point of believing there should be bike infra everywhere. (And for that matter the Netherlands doesn't either, but they have a more...advanced view of it...every location has a bike route to it, not all routes are bike routes).
That being said, Bridgeport is a bigger question...I'm not sure where it was rebuilt with no infra? I might have missed something. Bridgeport itself is a blight on the city, but leaving that aside, they were planning on putting bike infra on several sections IIRC...and I do think the region does want to do something to improve the road. I've heard bike lanes floated a few times...but ultimately the real problem is that Bridgeport is a highway and it has no place in the city...accepting that is well beyond the region today.
Sorry, meant to say Bridge St. from Lancaster to University.
https://www.google.com/maps/@43.4829814,...authuser=0&entry=ttu
My understanding is the at the Region wants to eventually building bike lanes on both Bridgeport and Erb and make them two way streets again, but unfortunately inflation and budget constraints have pushed those projects past 2030.
Oh yes...Bridge...right.
Yeah, again this comes down to standards (and also a little bit "I'm an avid cyclist" awful engineers).
The standard were they are going on (which by the way, are specifically substandard by the Ontario traffic manuals that were out during final design and construction) for Bridge St. were terrible.
To fix this, the old guard engineers who hate protected bike lanes (they are so bad that when forced to build them, they intentionally--yes intentionally--build crap) need to get "fired" (or retired, as usually happens to people who succeed beyond their capability--I sure wish I was in a position where I could not be fired).
This seems to already be done I think. Which means the next step is to push to rewrite the design manuals to bring it up with at least the Ontario standards. FWIW...this isn't as necessary, since you can throw the Ontario manual in their face when they fail to meet it. But the point is...the standards have to be there, because ultimately our engineers mostly don't know how to engineer, so instead they usually just copy verbatim what the standards say, so those standards better be right.