02-18-2016, 06:03 PM
Excellent submission. Here is what I sent this morning:
Subject: Bridgeport Road, Caroline Street, Erb Street,
and Albert Street Improvements
I hope it's not too late to add my comments.
Overall I think the proposed changes are a big improvement. I just have
concerns about a few mismatches in capacity between different parts of the
project and some other relatively minor points.
First, you have Bridgeport Rd. Westbound at two through lanes, and Erb St.
Eastbound at three through lanes. This makes no sense; Erb St. and Bridgeport
Rd. together form a single arterial running through town. How many two-way
roads in town have a different number of lanes in the two directions? I would
suggest making both streets have two through lanes. This frees up lots of
space on Erb St. for bicycle lanes and better sidewalks or multi-use trails,
and matches the capacity of the two roads together to Erb St. West of
Caroline.
On a similar note, you still have the right turn from Bridgeport onto Erb at
one lane. This again makes no sense. The turn lane is part of the Westbound
flow along Bridgeport and Erb all the way across the city, which as noted
above form a single arterial. How many other four-lane roads in the Region
have a single intersection at which one of the directions is constricted to a
single lane? Note: please don't respond that the intersection itself is the
responsibility of the LRT project. It's the responsibility of every project
to work together with related projects.
Albert St. should have contra-flow bicycle lanes. With eliminating the
redundant vehicle lanes as you are already planning, there should be space for
this.
There should be a pedestrian crossing of Erb St. at Albert, and Caroline at
Dupont. The justification for not doing so (low pedestrian counts) is utterly
bogus on major wide streets such as these (it's fine for narrower streets
where people will cross in the absence of a signal). If the same
decision-making was used for bridges, none would ever get built because how
many people swim across, using a winch to pull their cars behind them, before
the bridge is built? No, what must be done is an evaluation of how many
people *would* use a crossing if it were built. These signals could be
synchronized with the other signals in the area in such a way that they impose
essentially no additional burden on through traffic.
Finishing on a positive note, I'm very happy to see a substantial pedestrian
island at Bridgeport and Erb. If the right-turn lane could move further from
the intersection, making the island bigger, that would be even better. The
multi-use trail on Bridgeport is another big positive. I'm looking forward to
seeing construction of an improved version of this plan.
Subject: Bridgeport Road, Caroline Street, Erb Street,
and Albert Street Improvements
I hope it's not too late to add my comments.
Overall I think the proposed changes are a big improvement. I just have
concerns about a few mismatches in capacity between different parts of the
project and some other relatively minor points.
First, you have Bridgeport Rd. Westbound at two through lanes, and Erb St.
Eastbound at three through lanes. This makes no sense; Erb St. and Bridgeport
Rd. together form a single arterial running through town. How many two-way
roads in town have a different number of lanes in the two directions? I would
suggest making both streets have two through lanes. This frees up lots of
space on Erb St. for bicycle lanes and better sidewalks or multi-use trails,
and matches the capacity of the two roads together to Erb St. West of
Caroline.
On a similar note, you still have the right turn from Bridgeport onto Erb at
one lane. This again makes no sense. The turn lane is part of the Westbound
flow along Bridgeport and Erb all the way across the city, which as noted
above form a single arterial. How many other four-lane roads in the Region
have a single intersection at which one of the directions is constricted to a
single lane? Note: please don't respond that the intersection itself is the
responsibility of the LRT project. It's the responsibility of every project
to work together with related projects.
Albert St. should have contra-flow bicycle lanes. With eliminating the
redundant vehicle lanes as you are already planning, there should be space for
this.
There should be a pedestrian crossing of Erb St. at Albert, and Caroline at
Dupont. The justification for not doing so (low pedestrian counts) is utterly
bogus on major wide streets such as these (it's fine for narrower streets
where people will cross in the absence of a signal). If the same
decision-making was used for bridges, none would ever get built because how
many people swim across, using a winch to pull their cars behind them, before
the bridge is built? No, what must be done is an evaluation of how many
people *would* use a crossing if it were built. These signals could be
synchronized with the other signals in the area in such a way that they impose
essentially no additional burden on through traffic.
Finishing on a positive note, I'm very happy to see a substantial pedestrian
island at Bridgeport and Erb. If the right-turn lane could move further from
the intersection, making the island bigger, that would be even better. The
multi-use trail on Bridgeport is another big positive. I'm looking forward to
seeing construction of an improved version of this plan.