Comment 116380

By js298902 (registered) | Posted February 04, 2016 at 14:15:33 in reply to Comment 116295

Though this would be an excellent connection and clearly there is demand to do so the design wouldnt be as easy as it is stated above.

First, I would be hesitant to consider 3m travel lanes best practice. Given the roadway design speed 3.3-3.5m would be more appropriate. (The City Engineers would not likely be to keen to go below TAC standards)

Second, a bi-directional bike path down the Jolly cut with a minimum width of 3m would likely require some attention. For the portion going up a 1.5m space would be sufficient but going down cyclist speeds would be much greater so the space dedicated to cycling traffic traveling down should also be wider (eg just as the lane width of a collector rd is narrower than the lane width of a freeway because of travel speeds).

Third, depending on which side of the road the pathway is put on their could be issues with sight-lines for those same downhill riders. .

Fourth, mixing cyclist and pedestrian traffic to gain space would not be a good practice because of travel speeds. Separating the two modes would be required.

These are all design challenges that can be overcome, but should be considered.

Comment edited by js298902 on 2016-02-04 14:16:36

Permalink | Context

Events Calendar

There are no upcoming events right now.
Why not post one?

Recent Articles

Article Archives

Blog Archives

Site Tools

Feeds