09-24-2018, 11:51 AM
(09-24-2018, 10:15 AM)tomh009 Wrote:(09-12-2018, 09:15 AM)danbrotherston Wrote: The other item is slightly misreported. The committee unanimously supported the design for Bedford that involves removing around 1/2 of the 88 parking spaces which saw maximum utilization of 3 spaces by the 14 homes on the street, all of which have long driveways (no sidewalks) and space for minimum 3 cars outside. It's utterly ridiculous for them to complain about parking. So there was no contention there, only question was about what type of protection was provided.
The other street, Sydney, there was much more discussion. The question was substandard trail, or sharrows. Removing parking was never even considered, since staff feel the road is still too narrow. Some members felt that the road was quiet enough that a substandard trail wasn't needed, others felt that a continuous trail was important for the IHT.
A front-page story in today's Record. Residents think building a separated bike trail is overkill and a waste of money. (If the traffic volume of 95 cars per day in the article is correct they may have a point.) I didn't spot any parking complaints in the article.
https://www.therecord.com/news-story/892...dents-say/
Would a painted bicycle lane be sufficient for a street such as Bedford? Would either two lanes or a single two-way lane fit on the existing street without major reconstruction (while keeping two-way car traffic but not on-street parking)?
For it to be a waste of money, you must consider the benefits and costs. There is no sidewalk present, and a painted bike lane would remove all parking, so it really would be about the worst solution. The cost, is as close to zero as makes no difference for a municipal budget, the 80k quoted includes Sydney St. which has paving and such, cost is probably 15-30k.
Just because you didn't spot parking complaints in the article, does not mean that isn't the real issue here.
(09-24-2018, 10:49 AM)robdrimmie Wrote:(09-24-2018, 10:15 AM)tomh009 Wrote: A front-page story in today's Record. Residents think building a separated bike trail is overkill and a waste of money. (If the traffic volume of 95 cars per day in the article is correct they may have a point.) I didn't spot any parking complaints in the article.
https://www.therecord.com/news-story/892...dents-say/
Would a painted bicycle lane be sufficient for a street such as Bedford? Would either two lanes or a single two-way lane fit on the existing street without major reconstruction (while keeping two-way car traffic but not on-street parking)?
My general inclination would be to make Bedford explicitly shared infrastructure. That doesn't work well in places with heavy car traffic, but in a situation like this is seems a reasonable compromise: the residents still get full access to the street and bikes can ride on the street with minimal concern about traffic, and following the train becomes fairly easy. It's one of the few good circumstances I can think of where a bunch of paint on the road could make a difference.
However, in discussing this article with a friend of mine, I came to a personal realization: a MUT or other mechanism to formally include this segment of Bedford into the trail network is also a commitment to maintenance, especially snow-clearing in the winter. It would be quite unpleasant to navigate this section of the trail infrastructure without that commitment, as the very probable outcome is that the street wouldn't get plowed with any degree of priority and it would end up being an icy or slushy mess most of the time, and probably have piles of old snow blocking reasonable trail access anyway.
But with it being explicitly connected to the trail network, there's also an obligation to keep it passable. Whether or not the city does a good job of that is definitely an open question but at least it's explicitly in the books as a trail. Also, a MUT seems like it would be good for the residents since they're going to get sidewalks at some point, and a MUT might be something the city clears for them.
I'm sympathetic to the impact that changing the nature of a neighbourhood has, but given the kinds of changes that are going to come in regardless, being explicitly on the trail network seems like it would have some benefits above and beyond simply getting a sidewalk.
It is already shared infrastructure, it isn't a reasonable compromise, this is a premier trail in the city, it is intended to be used by many people of all ages, some are simply not comfortable riding on the road, many parents with children feel this way. The road, while quiet, still occasionally has aggressive drivers, I've encountered them before, and the situation with parked cars is bad, because when going around a parked car is the very moment an impatient and aggressive driver will put you in the most peril.
Given that the cost of putting a trail here is as near to free as possible, this is a no brainer. This is a major trail, one that should be continuous.
I have zero sympathy for the residents here, they're either afraid of change of any kind, or they're afraid of losing parking, of which there are 88 spaces for 14 homes, all of which have many outdoor spaces already.
Frankly, I'm sick and tired of debating this kind of thing, the cost and impacts are low, its a major trail, we shouldn't even be discussing....pandering....to people terrified of the slightest change.