04-24-2022, 02:08 AM
(04-23-2022, 11:55 PM)ijmorlan Wrote:(04-23-2022, 11:13 PM)dtkvictim Wrote: Looks like work is underway on the Queen St portion of the cycling grid as well.
To be honest, this segment is incredibly confusing to me, both in terms of its purpose and its design. I don't get the purpose of such a short segment when it's not connecting 2 high quality pieces of infrastructure. Are that many cyclists really using Church St? It would be good if Dan's plans for Benton came to fruition, but that seems very far away.
For someone that understands construction drawings better than me (https://www.engagewr.ca/16695/widgets/65...ents/77658):
- What is happening in front of the existing retirement home driveway, opposite Joseph? I see a triangle next to the elephant feet, but that can't be a concrete barrier blocking the driveway. So the intention for cyclists turning to Joseph street is to float directly in the path on cars with no protection?
- What is happening with the green paint section next to #150?
- How does someone get from Church St to southbound Queen St?
I think the idea is to join the separated lanes on Joseph with Church, essentially making the two one continuous route for bicycles. It’s not primarily about that little bit of Queen, although eventually presumably it will link up with future improvements on that street as well.
Cyclists turning to Joseph St. would wait at the stop line south (left, on the plans) of Joseph. I assume bicycles will get a separate phase so when they are turning left there is no straight-through car traffic conflicting with them.
Do you mean Church St. to southbound Queen on a bicycle? If so it looks like turn left at Queen into the bicycle lane, then jog across Queen at Joseph. Depending on traffic conditions and rider comfort it might be easier to just turn left like a motor vehicle and then take the bicycle lane at Joseph.
This is correct, and I think it's actually more important than it might at first appear. Having clear continuity in infra is important, even when it's a short segment, this makes it very clear where you are supposed to go to follow the route and to be safe (the route of course being Joseph to Queen to Church).
I don't think many cyclists are using Church, but the intention is to have more cyclists use it. It is intended to be a high quality piece of infrastructure. I think it is a pretty quiet road and is probably acceptable, if it was made part of a clear route, it may get that increase in usage. That being said, I think the main obstacle with Church is the hill. I would have been better to route cyclists around the hill, but that means Charles or King and it seems that wasn't in the cards (Courtland is flat enough as well, but getting around the hill takes you really far south).
But ebikes are a thing...so I guess we will see how it goes.
As for 2, I assume you mean the green on the sidewalk at 150 (my old building
), to me this looks like a turn box. A place for cyclists to wait in order to turn RIGHT onto Queen from Joseph, while not blocking traffic going left onto Queen. I am impressed that they are extending the Queen bike lanes right to the intersection. It sure would have been good if the region hadn't built a truly dangerous section past Courtland, and also, not build anything on Courtland....