02-16-2022, 01:36 PM
(02-16-2022, 01:15 PM)cherrypark Wrote: Definitely not as far improved as separated lanes alone. Zero dispute on that.
However, if the really reduced the speeds (30 kph), changed the surfacing and streetscape to be more driveway like than the current roadway, and added bike boxes, etc. I honestly think yes it does improve it for the average cyclist. I would feel more comfortable using it; maybe a stretch to say though it would be enough for kids, nervous cyclists, etc.
I guess my view is that more of these kinds of streets downtown, if we could start building a precedent for it, would help net improve the downtown cycling and pedestrian experience where dedicated cycling lanes are "not possible". I know you have a different opinion of possible, Dan, but sharing a view here of where more of this kind of thing could maybe be an example of better secondary bike routing where there isn't an obvious space for dedicated lanes.
Does seem that College through to the transit hub terminus would be dedicated, which itself is super considering that section of Duke is maybe the worst of it near Victoria.
NONE of that is in the region's proposal. They aren't even considering a 30km/h limit, they are only *considering* a 40km/h limit. They aren't proposing any change to the surfacing, or any bike boxes, or anything like that, they claim that the frequent traffic lights are enough to slow traffic, but those already exist...
I don't care about the average cyclist. I'm the average cyclist, in terms of my comfort level, and I can already ride on Duke. Yes, I might find it less uncomfortable with the proposed changes if they reduce traffic somewhat (although not to the levels they claim IMO) but I don't actually matter. The point of the cycling grid is to enable NEW people to cycle.
I personally don't think those changes will do anything to achieve that. People who are (rightly) afraid to cycle with cars, will not change their behaviour even if our downtown roads see less traffic. This was the motivation behind doing the downtown grid in the first place.
So as a result, my opinion is that the threat of "well if this doesn't work, we'll do nothing" is entirely empty from a cycling perspective, and broadly forcing the region into this position would be net positive, because it forces the region to expend considerable political capital and expose itself as the obstacle to cycling as it is.
I'm not saying that it could have other benefits like improving the pedestrian experience and limiting traffic, but I don't believe there's any added value for cycling.