07-28-2017, 09:36 AM
(This post was last modified: 07-28-2017, 09:40 AM by danbrotherston.)
(07-28-2017, 09:00 AM)timc Wrote: We are talking about Design Alternative 2, right? From what it looks like, the bike lanes end at Albert at the south end, Parkside at the north end, and there is a MUT over the bridge on the east side. At first I was troubled because I usually walk on the west side of the bridge, but that is because there isn't anywhere to walk on the east side. If there is a continuous MUT from Parkside to Blythwood, that seems OK to me.
The plans in the document had things like four lanes going down to three lanes to cross the bridge. Wouldn't that create a bottleneck?
Would it? It depends on traffic volumes. I would guess there might be some slight backup at rush hour, but probably minimal--remember, usually the main cause of congestion is intersections. Of course, I haven't seen staffs actual traffic models, so I can't say for sure. Staff were very cagey but it was implied that in the 20-30 year timeframe (the timeframe this is planned for) volumes would just barely justify 4 lanes.
That being said...so what? Why build roads so they can handle the maximum volume we ever see, such a waste, congestion means your roads are just big enough. There is of course limits, too much congestion costs you, but empty roads are a huge waste of money.
Moreover, is it not worth it for the safety and health (and equality) of our community to enable other modes of transportation even if it means delaying cars slightly. Even more, perhaps some congestion would encourage more cycling. Think about what we did with garbage collection.
The design alternative in the linked document (the one I think is being recommended) has a MUT on one side, and a bike lane on the other. It is truly the worst option, IMO.
But I'll be curious to see what happens in council---I don't think this has been voted on yet---there's a good chance I will choose to speak to this one.