Originally Posted by Metro-One
A cycling network is going to be part of the final plan, these are just very preliminary master alignments.
Yah, I know that the cycling network will be there on the final plans but I would like to see as much thought put into cycling route connections as traffic patterns at the same time as these conceptual designs. It seems only fair if cyclists/pedestrians are as important as they make it out to be. Getting the public to choose an preference for an alignment without seeing those details to me is not right as we didn't see the full picture. Some of those options presented may not work as well with cycling/walking as others do.
This new bridge was compared last night to the Golden Ears bridge which has really good cycling except for a few problem areas. I would like to see the problem areas not there right at the end of construction with this one. As much as the Golden Ears bridge and Golden Ears way is great for cycling there is a 5 block stretch in Langley that seemed to be forgotten.
For the Surrey stretch and the bridge there are great bike paths (Google Street View)
but in the Langley stretch there are annoying detours that route you onto 96th Ave with only crappy bike lanes (Google Street View)
and back onto 201st. On the Surrey side there is a really good path that is great for anyone to cycle on, even with kids. But the official route through those 5 blocks in Langley is not very good. Personally I have gone both ways and I prefer going though the industrial area on the north side than going to 96 Ave.
For the Patullo bridge there are a number of routes and considerations for cycling with the preliminary designs that will need to be worked out and I hope we have higher quality access routes that we did for the GEB with that bad Langley stretch when this bridge is completed and not 40 years later or whenever development catches up and we see something of high quality as is the case in Langley. I want high quality bike routes right at the start when construction is finished, I don't think that is too much to ask and I think that means planning up front!
Some things to consider for example:
- I think the New West side option A and B could work best for cycling.
- Will the cycling be adjacent to roadways or below (like the Canada Line)
- What happens when the cycle paths have to cross off/on ramp loops that access the new SFPR? Most cycle traffic will go straight to King George or Scott Road. Do we really need the north loop from SFPR to bridge, can we move vehicle/truck traffic to join with Scott Road from SFPR instead?
- How to cyclists access SFPR since it will be a designated cycle route?
I drew potential routes on my handouts last night and gave it to the Translink reps at my table.
As far as speed limits go get yourselves out of the driver seat and onto a bike seat and consider all users. It is not good to have speeds of 80-90km/hr with bike infrastructure that crosses all of the access roads and access ramps. Vehicles turning can come up to vulnerable users crossing access roads way to quickly as drivers often fail to adjust to speeds that are safe when turning corners off the main road. I think keeping 60km/hr speed limits for a bridge that goes between two urban settings is reasonable.