07-10-2021, 03:04 PM
(This post was last modified: 07-10-2021, 03:07 PM by danbrotherston.)
(07-10-2021, 02:54 PM)dtkvictim Wrote:(07-09-2021, 09:43 PM)danbrotherston Wrote: I'm confused...how is this supposed to help conflict between trail users? This quite clearly will increase conflict between trail users, who now have to navigate four sharp turns, with no extra width (bicycles require more space to turn). Further, anyone waiting to cross Ring Rd. (perhaps to go from the bus terminal to the DC or the rest of campus--a small demographic I know) will have to wait IN THE PATH of the the trail.
This section was already heavily congested, at peak hours, I fully expect traffic jams. This is beyond a bad design, this is professional malpractice...engineering negligence, whatever you want to call it. If this were a road, this would never have gotten implemented. If it had, heads would roll. But because it's cycling infra, I'm sure we'll be getting a garbage statement about how this meets all current regional standards and is perfectly fine.
I'm sorry, I know this is impolite to say, but it is honest, our regional engineers are incompetent at designing cycling infra and should not be permitted to do so anymore.
I phrased that poorly, I meant conflict between all the competing requirements. I'm completely in agreement that this is bad design, and will increase conflict between trail users. But it does increase visibility between buses and trail users, and (presumably) provides a safe space for buses to wait off the tracks. So clearly those requirements were given a higher priority.
I'm really unfamiliar with the area though, so maybe I'm misunderstanding what's being built.
(07-10-2021, 02:05 PM)timc Wrote: By the way, what ever happened to the proposal to move the traffic signal to the Columbia Street trail crossing?
What's this? Part of the reason I'm unfamiliar with that section of the Laurel trail is because I find it more comfortable to cycle through Philip/Columbia than through the Laurel/Columbia crossing. Lights at the crossing would be nice to have.
I actually disagree with this. Visibility is improved when drivers are not parallel to the trail when turning. While I trust bus drivers more than average to look in their mirror for people coming down the trail behind them, but it remains the case that it is easier to see a trail user at between 90 degrees and 0 degrees from straight ahead, than from 180 (directly behind you) to 90 degrees of straight ahead. This is one reason why Dutch intersection design sets protected crossings back from the edge of the road. It is also the case that this design will upset the flow of trail users making their behaviour much harder to predict. I quite frankly, think this makes the crossing more dangerous in addition to more inconvenient and congested.
This change also has the side effect of upsetting the flow of the trail users. This makes their behaviour harder to predict, which reduces safety. I fully expect this change makes the crossing more difficult for road users to manage the conflict, rather than less. In addition for people crossing RR.
As for buses waiting, yes, this does mean buses can stop for trail users without blocking the LRT tracks. But this was never an issue, before the buses had the right of way over the trail users (even though virtually nobody in the city knows this, but a well designed crossing could fix this). As a result, buses do not have to stop for trail users and block the LRT tracks. The buses *WOULD* block the trail, but this is a) preferable to the new garbage situation, and b) rare, given that traffic on RR is light and so buses wouldn't would rarely have to wait, and c) mitigatable by giving buses priority onto RR by placing a stop sign for cars.
As for the priority, even if the right thing to do is to bring the crossing to the road (which I still don't agree with), that does not justify the utterly negligent design being built.
Yes, staff are consulting on moving the traffic signal from the underused former Rim buildings parking lot to the Laurel Trail. Of course, since that involves impacting drivers, there is extensive public consultation taking place, unlike with this garbage crossing where they haven't spared a thought for the users they're impacting...after all, the real business of the region is moving motor vehicles quickly.