07-28-2017, 10:02 AM
(07-28-2017, 09:36 AM)danbrotherston Wrote:(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.
Excellent points. I just realized I may have misled people — I’ve been referring to one of the design alternatives, which I think is the “recommended” one, but as you point out, not finalized yet.
I agree about delaying cars slightly, especially considering how much space they take up — slightly narrowing a few car lanes or eliminating one frees up an amount of space that is huge in the context of a pedestrian walkway or even a MUT.
Personally I would prefer to see almost all our busy roads reduced to two lanes, with ample turn lanes so through traffic rarely if ever waits for turning traffic. This would probably mean slightly fatter intersections in a few cases, but it would mean narrower roads almost everywhere and only a small (if any) reduction in capacity. In some places it would be a capacity increase, because right now there are 0 through-only lanes: the left lane is also a left-turn lane and the right lane is also a right-turn lane.
Then if a road is getting really jammed up, built transit lanes or an LRT. Those are the efficient way to handle capacity.