Report a Comment

I was at the 9/13 meeting and I think David misstates the alternatives slightly with respect to the cycling infrastructure that would be provided.

What I heard explained was that with Alternative 1 putting dedicating transit only lanes on M St. additional vehicle traffic would be routed to I St. To accomodate the increased traffic the bike lanes would be removed and replaced with sharrows.

This is shown on the 9/13 presentation handout Alternative Comparison Handout, pg. 9.

For Alternative 1 the chart lists I St as having "shared bike lanes". In the meeting the presenter properly termed them sharrows. Under Alternative 3 you can see that I St retains it's "exclusive bike lanes". So they are making a distinction.

The impression I left the meeting with, being both a fan of bike infrastructure and dedicated lanes for transit, was that the alternatives, as presently configured , were asking me which I would want to do without.

Alternative 1 I got dedicated transit on M but lost the bike lanes on I.
Alternative 2 I got the cycletrack on M but lost the dedicated transit.

Hopefully, as David points out, the alternatives were purposefully drawn up to present the more extreme possible configurations and there may be a middle new alternative that can arise that gives us both cycletracks and dedicated transit lanes.

by JeffB on Sep 17, 2012 4:27 pm • link • report