03-19-2018, 08:37 AM
With all the car and truck airbag recalls lately I'm not sure I am ready to trust one for my head.
Moving the Erb/Bridgeport cycling lane discussion from the 70 King St N thread over to cycling:
Yes, but that probably won't be the choice of options when the time comes to re-do Erb and Bridgeport.
The anti-bike lane populace will be fighting for the status quo (3 lanes in each direction) when current traffic counts (and future projections) can probably only justify 2 plus turning lanes.
People who cycle will probably be asking for two-way on both to help build a minimum grid.
Both won't fit in the right-of-way; so there needs to be compromise.
Two-way with centre-lane turning and one segregated bikes lane on each allows for such a compromise.
The only thing worse than the status quo would be to rebuild the status quo for another 30 years. If this is the difference of getting some separated infrastructure and a start on a minimum grid versus getting no separated infrastructure then again I will say that something is better than nothing.
Second, it is only a detour if you are only going to be travelling exclusively east-west along Erb-Bridgeport. Most people are going to travel for part of their trip east or west and then also a bit of their trip north and/or south of Erb/Bridgeport.
For example, let's say two-way bike lanes are installed along Bridgeport and you live at King and Bridgeport and work at Bridgeport at Weber. Nice and simple straight commute to and from work.
But with an EB bike lane on Erb, and a WB bike lane on Bridgeport then yes you have to deviate 200m to get to the EB Erb bike lane, and another 200m to get from the EB Erb bike lane to your destination. On the way home you just take the WB Bridgeport bike lane straight home. So yes, there is a "detour" of 400m total for the daily commute.
But, most people who cycle would probably travel along Erb/Bridgeport part way then go North or South at a certain point so the detour is a net of zero on the day. Take an example of living at Lincoln and Weber and working at King and William. Regardless of whether there is a two-way cycle track on Bridgeport, a two-way track on Erb, or a one-way cycle track on both Erb and Bridgeport the vertical (north-south) travel distance is the same. There is no detour distance.
Also, under a conversion to a two-way Erb St and a two-way Bridgeport there is nothing to say you could not simply take the lane to go EB on a re-built two-way Bridgeport or WB on a rebuilt two-way Erb. To travel on Erb or Bridgeport now you have to risk your life to ride on the road and only go one direction or ride illegally on the sidewalk to go either direction. Taking the lane on a rebuilt street with narrower and fewer lanes would be much safer and comfortable for that purpose than the faux-highway we have now. Instead you would have options (as would would motor vehicle traffic in the event of a crash, water main break, etc.).
Moving the Erb/Bridgeport cycling lane discussion from the 70 King St N thread over to cycling:
(03-16-2018, 06:37 PM)jamincan Wrote: If I have to choose between the two, I'd rather have two-way segregated bike lanes over two-way motor vehicle lanes. It's far less of an inconvenience for motorized vehicles to detour than it is for someone on a bike.
Yes, but that probably won't be the choice of options when the time comes to re-do Erb and Bridgeport.
The anti-bike lane populace will be fighting for the status quo (3 lanes in each direction) when current traffic counts (and future projections) can probably only justify 2 plus turning lanes.
People who cycle will probably be asking for two-way on both to help build a minimum grid.
Both won't fit in the right-of-way; so there needs to be compromise.
Two-way with centre-lane turning and one segregated bikes lane on each allows for such a compromise.
The only thing worse than the status quo would be to rebuild the status quo for another 30 years. If this is the difference of getting some separated infrastructure and a start on a minimum grid versus getting no separated infrastructure then again I will say that something is better than nothing.
Second, it is only a detour if you are only going to be travelling exclusively east-west along Erb-Bridgeport. Most people are going to travel for part of their trip east or west and then also a bit of their trip north and/or south of Erb/Bridgeport.
For example, let's say two-way bike lanes are installed along Bridgeport and you live at King and Bridgeport and work at Bridgeport at Weber. Nice and simple straight commute to and from work.
But with an EB bike lane on Erb, and a WB bike lane on Bridgeport then yes you have to deviate 200m to get to the EB Erb bike lane, and another 200m to get from the EB Erb bike lane to your destination. On the way home you just take the WB Bridgeport bike lane straight home. So yes, there is a "detour" of 400m total for the daily commute.
But, most people who cycle would probably travel along Erb/Bridgeport part way then go North or South at a certain point so the detour is a net of zero on the day. Take an example of living at Lincoln and Weber and working at King and William. Regardless of whether there is a two-way cycle track on Bridgeport, a two-way track on Erb, or a one-way cycle track on both Erb and Bridgeport the vertical (north-south) travel distance is the same. There is no detour distance.
Also, under a conversion to a two-way Erb St and a two-way Bridgeport there is nothing to say you could not simply take the lane to go EB on a re-built two-way Bridgeport or WB on a rebuilt two-way Erb. To travel on Erb or Bridgeport now you have to risk your life to ride on the road and only go one direction or ride illegally on the sidewalk to go either direction. Taking the lane on a rebuilt street with narrower and fewer lanes would be much safer and comfortable for that purpose than the faux-highway we have now. Instead you would have options (as would would motor vehicle traffic in the event of a crash, water main break, etc.).
Everyone move to the back of the bus and we all get home faster.