I was filling up at the XTR gas station at Guelph and Margaret and noticed the new bike lanes, the sides of the road seemed pretty beat up in spots. I saw 3 or 4 people pass by on bikes... Margaret is a nice street to ride.
I was just noticing that Laurelwood has been fully extended to Westmount, but there's still no way to cross Laurel Creek between Bearinger and Columbia. It seems a no-brainer as a commuter link to put a low-impact trail connection (with bridge) between Laurelwood and Wes Graham. Anyone agree?
Is the extension actually open? As of yesterday morning, it was still blocked off between the YMCA and Westmount.
(10-18-2015, 02:51 PM)jamincan Wrote: [ -> ]Is the extension actually open? As of yesterday morning, it was still blocked off between the YMCA and Westmount.
It may not be, but my proposal would be implemented after it opens in full at any rate, I'm sure.
(10-18-2015, 01:08 PM)KevinL Wrote: [ -> ]I was just noticing that Laurelwood has been fully extended to Westmount, but there's still no way to cross Laurel Creek between Bearinger and Columbia. It seems a no-brainer as a commuter link to put a low-impact trail connection (with bridge) between Laurelwood and Wes Graham. Anyone agree?
I understand that something is in the books possibly as high as road. However, that section of Laurel Creek is still identified as an "Environmental Reserve" in some circles which hinders what can be done. As well, since the property is technically the private property of the University (bounded by Columbia, Fisher-Hallman, Bearinger, and the railway right-of-way), it's not as easy for the City to simply put a road or trail connection in.
(10-19-2015, 01:27 PM)nms Wrote: [ -> ]I understand that something is in the books possibly as high as road. However, that section of Laurel Creek is still identified as an "Environmental Reserve" in some circles which hinders what can be done. As well, since the property is technically the private property of the University (bounded by Columbia, Fisher-Hallman, Bearinger, and the railway right-of-way), it's not as easy for the City to simply put a road or trail connection in.
A road would be a step too far, I think; but a ped/cycle bridge should be able to go in with minimal impact. Obviously the university must be on board with any proposal.
(10-19-2015, 01:27 PM)nms Wrote: [ -> ]I understand that something is in the books possibly as high as road. However, that section of Laurel Creek is still identified as an "Environmental Reserve" in some circles which hinders what can be done. As well, since the property is technically the private property of the University (bounded by Columbia, Fisher-Hallman, Bearinger, and the railway right-of-way), it's not as easy for the City to simply put a road or trail connection in.
A road is in the long-term plan for that area, and it is mentioned in some University documents. I don't know how long that term is though.
(10-19-2015, 01:27 PM)nms Wrote: [ -> ] (10-18-2015, 01:08 PM)KevinL Wrote: [ -> ]I was just noticing that Laurelwood has been fully extended to Westmount, but there's still no way to cross Laurel Creek between Bearinger and Columbia. It seems a no-brainer as a commuter link to put a low-impact trail connection (with bridge) between Laurelwood and Wes Graham. Anyone agree?
I understand that something is in the books possibly as high as road. However, that section of Laurel Creek is still identified as an "Environmental Reserve" in some circles which hinders what can be done. As well, since the property is technically the private property of the University (bounded by Columbia, Fisher-Hallman, Bearinger, and the railway right-of-way), it's not as easy for the City to simply put a road or trail connection in.
I think it would benefit the university (and its R&D park) to connect Laurelwood to Wes Graham Way. The cost wouldn't be that high, either.
(10-20-2015, 02:00 PM)tomh009 Wrote: [ -> ] (10-19-2015, 01:27 PM)nms Wrote: [ -> ]I understand that something is in the books possibly as high as road. However, that section of Laurel Creek is still identified as an "Environmental Reserve" in some circles which hinders what can be done. As well, since the property is technically the private property of the University (bounded by Columbia, Fisher-Hallman, Bearinger, and the railway right-of-way), it's not as easy for the City to simply put a road or trail connection in.
I think it would benefit the university (and its R&D park) to connect Laurelwood to Wes Graham Way. The cost wouldn't be that high, either.
And then connect through to Phillip at the LRT station to allow for a proper bus connection there, as I suggested earlier.
(10-20-2015, 09:30 AM)timc Wrote: [ -> ] (10-19-2015, 01:27 PM)nms Wrote: [ -> ]I understand that something is in the books possibly as high as road. However, that section of Laurel Creek is still identified as an "Environmental Reserve" in some circles which hinders what can be done. As well, since the property is technically the private property of the University (bounded by Columbia, Fisher-Hallman, Bearinger, and the railway right-of-way), it's not as easy for the City to simply put a road or trail connection in.
A road is in the long-term plan for that area, and it is mentioned in some University documents. I don't know how long that term is though.
That is correct. The
2012 Northwest Campus Development Guidelines show a planned road connection and mentions 40 year time to build out.
The last approved campus master plan from 2009 talks of a 25 year time horizon and only show the connection as an
active transportation route and possibly as an
interior bus circulator loop.
There was a discussion here back in July about STOP signs and cyclists who "blow" through them. Some more food for thought:
Let’s put an end to the spread of stop signs
Quote:[STOP signs] create stop-and-start traffic that causes increased air and noise pollution. Instead of calming traffic, they can agitate it. While studies show that drivers do slow around 100 feet before the stop sign and 100 feet after it, they actually speed up in between them to make up for lost time. A proliferation of stop signs can actually increase peak speeds. The result is neighbourhood NASCAR with residents doing their best Dale Earnhardt Jr. impersonation on quiet streets.
Another unintended consequence is that stop signs create a false sense of security among pedestrians. They see the big red octagon and think they’re safe. They’re not. The more stop signs they see the more drivers can become immune – hence the rolling stop.
Perhaps the only group who hates stop signs more than drivers is cyclists. Often lambasted for blowing through them, cyclists argue that 30-pound bicycles should not be treated the same way as 3,000-pound cars. In July, cyclists in San Francisco held a “stop-in” in which they obeyed the law and made full stops at every sign. The stunt brought traffic to a virtual halt.
I'd love to see the
Idaho stop implemented in Ontario, or even just the "stop as yield" part implemented here... my favourite intersection to watch for rolling stops is David and Park/Jubilee, so many people just casually roll through in their cars but insist on stopping and yield their right of way to me on my bike. I'd rather not ride out in front of a car for no good reason, especially when they are yielding their right of way for no reason. Same as people stopping on Queen or Victoria and waving cyclists on without being able to control traffic on the other side of the road.
(10-26-2015, 10:38 AM)clasher Wrote: [ -> ]I'd love to see the Idaho stop implemented in Ontario, or even just the "stop as yield" part implemented here... my favourite intersection to watch for rolling stops is David and Park/Jubilee, so many people just casually roll through in their cars but insist on stopping and yield their right of way to me on my bike. I'd rather not ride out in front of a car for no good reason, especially when they are yielding their right of way for no reason. Same as people stopping on Queen or Victoria and waving cyclists on without being able to control traffic on the other side of the road.
Yep. The Idaho stop makes a lot of sense to me.
Should cyclists be allowed to run red lights?
Cyclists in Paris are now allowed to ride through red lights, and San Francisco is mulling a similar move. With the four main candidates for mayor considering just such a radical rewriting of the rulebook, could London be next?
http://www.theguardian.com/cities/2015/o...-francisco
Why not? There's not a significant difference between red lights and stop signs, is there?
The Idaho rule makes sense. You can't apply the same rules to a one-tonne vehicle capable of quickly accelerating to high speeds as you do to a human-powered bicycle.
The Paris compromise in particular seems like a sensible start. No left turns on red for now, just right turns and straight-through at 'T' intersections. Motorists here shouldn't be able to claim too credibly that that somehow represents entitlement on the part of cyclists.