Home › Forums › Module 2 – Linear Infrastructure: Lanes, Paths, and Streets › Let’s explore and discuss local examples of cycling infrastructure › Reply To: Let’s explore and discuss local examples of cycling infrastructure
It looks like your city is on the right cycle track!
A few comments I have:
-The curb was redone recently, the city could have remove the second access to Harvey’s. Right now the bike crossing goes from one pole to another pole, rather than matching up with the path because of the driveway. Plus because of the angle and use of butterfly curb motorists coming from Sherbrooke St. can cut across the path at an angle. This means higher speed and lower visibility.
-Back to the curb again, since the city redid it they could have moved it to create a neck-down. Currently the road is at least two lanes wide and a neck-down would help with traffic calming. This would also shorten the time vulnerable road users are in the roadway as they cross, and make them more visible to motorists. Additionally that space could be filled with low maintenance vegetation saving the city money. The neck-down could be used at the stop sign on Water St. South of Sherbrooke.
-The motor vehicle travel lanes look like they are on the higher side of the standards. Thinning them will free up space for other uses, and help with speed control.
-Speaking of speed, I didn’t see a sign but I’m assuming it’s a 50km/h zone? Lowering that may make it more pleasant for cyclists.
-I think it’s great that the contra flow cycle track is protected by a median, it makes it lower stress and helps motorists understand what is there.
As for the opposition to this improvement, I think there will be three main opponents, the City’s politicians, the Businesses, and the Engineering Department. Harvey’s will be displeased at losing an access 40m from another access. City politicians won’t want to spend more money when they have already spent some because they will look bad. The most insidious opposition will be from professional engineers who design this stuff. They will say the lane has to be 3.5m wide when 3m is plenty because of “standards.” These standards fail to account for human behaviour or generally for non-motorised users. Plus many will have been trained to think of roads as a car space where cyclists are welcome rather than the inverse.