Quote:
Originally Posted by markbarbera
I don't think the Jolley Cut is the best option for introducing a bike lane up and down the escarpment. Claremont would be a better option
[...]
I had been using the Jolley cut almost daily over the winter months, and feel the need to debunk a couple of urban myths.
|
I also use it regularly and see speeding quite frequently, both as a driver and a pedestrian (on my bike I tend to avoid all of the road accesses). Perhaps people are more cautious in the winter (which coincides with me being less likely to feel like walking up the escarpment!) Beyond speed though... even at 50km/h the sidewalk is way too narrow and way too close to the traffic lane.
In a perfect world there would be bike lanes on both accesses, since both are wide enough and have a reasonable enough grade. But Claremont is much longer than Jolley, almost double in length if you take into account the ramps leading up to it, when compared to the distance from St. Joe's drive to the pathway at the jolley's curve. One side effect of this is that it's very indirect - you cover a lot of east-west ground using it. Plus the access to Claremont is more difficult to navigate - a bunch of ramps. Also Claremont is not really downtown. TO get from downtown (james/john) to say concession, or even upper james, you have to go something like 5 or 6 blocks out of your way east before you even start your climb.
Jolley actually starts in downtown proper, and ends up at a reasonable destination - sam lawrence park/concession street. On Claremont, with 3-4 lanes in each direction, a cyclist can take an entire lane without affecting traffic or making anyone angry. This is impossible and dangerous on the Jolley, since it has fewer lanes and a giant blind curve. I still think Jolley should receive priority.
ps: why does google think calremont is clarence?