Quote:
Originally Posted by Cirrus
- Because curbside bus lanes aren't as effective as a separated transitway, because car drivers ignore the rules and drive in them anyway. Same reason cycletracks with physical separation are better than normal bike lanes.
- Because Broadway is a one-way street, and if we want to have a bus lane going in the opposite direction of cars then it would be good to have some better separation. Pittsburgh has done it with just a double yellow line, but I'd prefer not to.
- Because we already have curbside bus lanes on Lincoln, so if we were going to do that then there'd be little reason to put it on Broadway (except that generally it's better for transit to be on commercial streets).
So basically, if we were going to be happy with curbside bus lanes then we could fit a cycletrack, and there'd be no reason to move the bikes to Lincoln.
What does bunt_q think about that?
|
I like the bi-directional transit way on Broadway with the widened median - that last cross section looks great. I think the cycle-track on Lincoln makes more sense, and is probably a win for both.
We should next look at the corresponding cross-section for Lincoln. If two traffic lanes (plus a third at rush hour) works for Broadway, then we'd presumably do the same for Lincoln. And replace the current parking/transit lane with a full-time cycle track on the sidewalk-side of the parking/peak hour traffic lane.
Fortunately, I think the present day sidewalk situation on Lincoln is okay, so this would be a less dramatic change. Basically, we're just taking a traffic lane for bikes, with no impact on transit because it gets improved on Broadway. The only decision left is whether we want a third traffic lane full-time, or parking some of the day. But that's a car-vs-car decision, so no faction under the urbanism tent should care on that one either way.
EDIT: Gotta say, though, I think this would get criticism from the cycling community. I bet they'd feel slighted by not getting a spot on Broadway itself and would push back.