06-22-2021, 02:12 PM
(This post was last modified: 06-22-2021, 02:14 PM by danbrotherston.)
(06-22-2021, 10:01 AM)tomh009 Wrote:(06-22-2021, 08:19 AM)ijmorlan Wrote: I didn’t see a complaint about pedestrians. The trail is just crowded.
It's a bit busy at peak times, like some parts of the IHT, requiring cyclists to slow down or wait to pass. But it doesn't seem fundamentally different from rush hour traffic for cars in some parts of the city.
That said, I'm not opposed to twinning the trail. I just don't see it as the top priority for cycling infrastructure.
It is fundamentally different from rush hour for cars in the city because there is no planning organization insisting on spending 100s of millions to eliminate the congestion.
If the region considered people, not cars, the intersection of University and the Laurel Trail would get an F for its LOS and would be the most congested intersection in the city.
Instead, it's ignored, and rebuilt with zero improvement.
As for twinning, maybe not, but given that we just chose to rebuild it, and rebuild it to an insufficient standard, that really only highlights the priorities.
The IHT was widened, but those at the meeting said that a 5m width was needed, 1.5x2 for bike lanes and a 2m sidewalk. Instead we get 3.4m which sees significant congestion and conflict. The right of way was not even built to accommodate future widening as they generally do with roads.
Of course, there is an alternative to widening, which is to build parallel routes. One reason the IHT, Laurel, and Spur are busy is because it is the only nearby safe route (although Belmont has helped with this obviously, despite the opposition--I will often take it on weekends when the IHT is too busy).