09-24-2019, 11:10 AM
(09-24-2019, 07:43 AM)jamincan Wrote: My concern in this case was more about how it was evident of council thinking about cycling routes as something we tuck in where we can instead of a larger network. Young isn't exactly a busy street, so in some ways I personally don't really think lanes are a huge priority there - ideally I'd rather see cars, bikes and pedestrians all use the same space on streets like that where car volume is very low. That said, an E-W cycle route is sorely needed, and this is the route they chose. If it's going to be the primary EW cycle route, it has to be a sensible one, and twisting around to avoid a bunch of parking spaces makes no sense at all.
Yes, this makes a lot of sense. It’s not like they gerrymandered a bicycle route on King St., but it’s the principal. Bicycle routes still don’t get the prioritization that every single car route gets. People still talk about how a route on one street isn’t needed because there is one a block over, and it’s routine to build bicycle infrastructure with no protection from motor vehicles. Even “refuges” are built with no actual “refuge”. When people argue that parking isn’t needed on one street because the next street over has parking we might be approaching parity.
Also, thanks to Dan for the procedural explanation.