Raise the Hammer

Perhaps I'm misunderstand what you were saying as far as one or the other is concerned. As far as why I favour Cumberland over Dunsurmure, that I think I illustrated. As far as the type of cycling infrastructure...

I feel that completely segrating cyclist and motor traffic, and keeping them on generally seperate infrastructure is more effective for both them having them share streets. Generally having them paralell each other and intersecting at key junctions that make sense (for example Lawrence and Kenilworth intersect, but via a bridge so cyclist traffic on lawrence is uneffected by the higher speed Kenilworth access traffic). With this also comes having points in the infrastructure that favour cyclist traffic over car traffic, like this article recommends, and running it paralell to locations that favour car traffic.

To sum it up, yes protected bike lanes may be safer then unprotected ones or none at all, but bike routes/trails without car traffic (or very little car traffic) are even safer then both and offer the same benefits without running into as many lane reductions that in turn lead to congestion concerns, road widening issues, BRT/LRT lane development concerns and making two way conversion more difficult. You still need some place for at least four lanes of car traffic (two way or one way).

With the abudant lack of cycling infrastructure, this is the infrastructure I would greatly favour and push over protected bike lanes and mixed streets. Not to say there aren't places for mixed infrastructure. Canon is one such place I think needs it. I just don't think that it is as useful and beneficial. It's also something whose installation becomes more warranted after showing large amounts of cyclist traffic being done on the seperate neighbouring infrastucture.

Edit: Cleared up the language of the 2nd paragraph.

Comment edited by -Hammer- on 2013-06-07 11:44:07