Comment 85546

By seancb (registered) - website | Posted January 25, 2013 at 17:50:41 in reply to Comment 85544

My map shots are from the tops and bottoms of the accesses, where they carry cars through residential neighbourhoods. I did not comment on the lengths of the accesses themselves. The top of the Sherman cut is in the middle of a residential neighbourhood. The top of the Jolley is especially miserable, as it sits between one of our finest parks and the Concession shopping district - but to walk that length you have to cross two ramps, one of which has traffic completely unhindered by even a yield sign.

But since you brought the accesses up, I do not agree with your argument that they are "not pedestrian areas" and "not cyclist areas". People do ride and walk up and down these accesses on a regular basis despite their lack of infrastructure.

The Jolley could easily accommodate a two way bike lane and wider sidewalk if we limited the downhill traffic to one lane. John narrows to one lane downtown anyways and there is no need for a downbound passing lane (I can understand the need for an uphill passing lane to get around slower buses and trucks).

Claremont could accommodate two way bike lanes, two sidewalks and a dedicated transit lane with no traffic impact along its entire length. It has a greater lane capacity than the 403.

These accesses are all overbuilt - completed in an era where thousands and thousands of people commuted within the city every day. These patterns have changed greatly. Some people still have to use these accesses, but many use them out of habit. It would be just as fast to take the Linc to 403 or RHVP for many of trips.

It would be great if we could at least convince the traffic department to do counts on these routes and commit to changing the designs in order to match volume. At least we would have the data and a plan.

The Claremont is a great example. It has been down a lane for how long now with no impact. Are we going to spend money repairing that lane even though we don't need it? Or will we save some cash and accept that we do not need that lane capacity on that route? I assume that in order to maintain their budget, the roads department has a plan to fix and reopen that lane. Why?

Comment edited by seancb on 2013-01-25 17:52:52

Permalink | Context

Events Calendar

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

Recent Articles

Article Archives

Blog Archives

Site Tools