I'm not a regular on this road, by any means, but I have to say, when I have been out there, most of it doesn't currently function that way. Its currently only a single lane NB, and only 2 short sections of centre turn lane.
Outside of the bit w/the highway interchange (and north to Sheppard), I think it functions in a way that would probably be fine w/protected bike lanes.
Now, here's the thing..............this project is adding a NB lane, AND adding additional centre turning lane. That IS a real problem, because they are actually creating the conditions for far greater speed.
I could live with the one new NB lane..........but going to a 5-lane configuration is just a step too far. It also means the road widening is more about the car than pedestrians or cyclists.
Even currently, the speed limit is 60km/h. I can't say as to how fast cars actually drive, but I can't imagine they drive much slower than the speed limit, and 60km/h is already terrifying for cyclists. I elaborate on this more at the end of my post.
Also, just for some clarification, the link posted earlier by dullturtle06 shows the plan is to only have a centre turn lane north of the strip mall, in order to service the driveways along that section, with no turn lane south of it.
I'm iffy on this one. Unless the trail is curbside, on one side of the road only, I can't see anyway to squeeze it in without removing all the trees on one side.
Just like cyclists, the trees need room; also, if you put a trail in at-grade w/the boulevard, and then salt it in the winter, you will almost certainly kill the landscaping .
You do an MT on Eglinton West, because the ROW was wide enough for an 8-lane expressway; most arterials don't have space that is that wide; certainly Pt. Union does not.
The space is tight in some places, especially on the east side, but I do think it is possible though - A MUT solution actually takes up less total paved width. The current proposal has two 1.6m bike lanes, two 0.5m buffers, and two 2.1m sidewalks, for a total of 8.4m width of paved cycling/pedestrian infrastructure. Replacing that with two 3.5m MUTs is only 7m. Here's a breakdown by section of road:
South of Conference Bl, there's plenty of room for a 3.5m+ MUT on both sides of the road by widening the existing sidewalk.
Between Conference Bl and Lawson/Fanfare, I'd say the west sidewalk has plenty of room to be widened, but the east side is a bit tight. However, the currently proposed bike lanes and buffers take up 4.2m of width, so if the proposed west curb stays in the same place, then the proposed east curb can move west 4.2m, creating the space for a MUT and decent buffer on the east side, without removing any more trees than is currently planned. The existing sidewalk in these locations can be removed, which would actually benefit trees that are currently too close to the sidewalk.
North of that, in most locations, there appears to be room to widen the proposed sidewalk in most places. A couple extra tree removals would be necessary but it looks like this is generally offset by the trees that would no longer need to be removed if the center turn lane and proposed bike lanes are removed. A couple locations are really tight where the proposed sidewalk is squeezed between the curb and the property line or a retaining wall. However, the proposed sidewalk is 2.1m, and the proposed bike lane and buffer is 2.1m. That's total 4.2m of space, which is enough for the MUT that replaces both, with a decent buffer too.
Obviously I'm not a civil engineer or anything, but from an hour and a half of looking at Google Maps and the proposed plans, I'd say it's probably doable, without removing extra trees.
I think MUTs should be the default solution for suburban roads with low pedestrian and cyclist volumes - MUTs, in addition to being safer and more comfortable to use (further elaborated below), have other advantages to bike lanes with concrete curbs/barriers - it's one thing to plow in winter, instead of two, and they don't become practically unusable in winter. Protected cycle tracks get filled with slush in winter.
I also worry that if you isolate cyclists from the road (not separate, isolate); you run the risk of never educating drivers on how to interact w/cyclists; and never educating cyclists how to use the road.
I'm pro high quality, separated bike lanes, but want motorists and cyclists to interact (safely).
I would disagree with that sentiment.
Interactions between high-speed motor traffic and cyclists must be minimized as much as possible, and any interactions must be made as clear as possible as to who has priority etc. There is no way around this. Human reaction times are slow, and at 60km/h, a car will probably travel like 5-10m before the driver can react to something. And as for any collision, it's just physics. Car at 60-70km/h + cyclist = dead cyclist, plain and simple.
And the psychological component too. Human brains know instinctively very well that a car at 60-70km/h + a cyclist = a dead cyclist, so there are not a lot of people who are comfortable with cycling beside high speed motor traffic. It's positively terrifying when a truck or bus zooms past you 40cm away at 60-70km/h while you are on a bike. A 20cm concrete curb or barrier is not going to change that significantly, even if it actually does make it safer for the cyclist.
If we want to make a route that is actually friendly to cyclists and will actually be cycled on by normal people, we have two choices:
1. Slow down car traffic (30km/h) so that drivers have more time to respond to stimuli, cyclists don't feel like they're about to die when being passed by a car, and collisions don't automatically result in the death of anybody cycling
2. Allow high speed motor traffic, but completely separate cars and cyclists as much as possible.
Given that the 401 interchange exists and the fact that Port Union is an arterial and the only continuous north-south route in the entire area, it does not make sense to pick Option 1. If we choose to keep Port Union as a main route for cars, then option 2 is the only option.
The Dutch didn't get everybody from seniors to children on their bikes by getting 60km/h motorists and cyclists to interact. They did it by completely isolating high speed motor traffic from cyclists. Any road in the Netherlands with a speed limit (and a road design reflecting the speed limit) of 50 km/h or more has completely isolated cycle tracks. They're basically like a second sidewalk paved in red asphalt in most cases, and usually have buffer of at least 1m between the cycle track and the road, usually more on high-speed suburban arterials.
It is also important to stress the distinction between high speed and low speed motor traffic. The Netherlands doesn't separate motor traffic and cyclists at all on local roads; instead it implements traffic calming to lower speeds to 30km/h, where it becomes possible for cars and cyclists to interact safely. These are the interactions we can promote, not ones with 60km/h traffic.
www.google.ca
