[rbt]

This drives me nuts!

The report makes complete sense, and in fact I was nodding my head throughout 90% of that, until that very last line... WTF?! Aren't areas targeted for intensification EXACTLY WHERE you would want queue jump lanes, because of the increased pressure that added density will place on the road network?!

Yes, for transit you want queue jump lanes in the congested areas.

No, as it eats into sidewalk space, reduces tree cover, increases red-light times (lights are timed so pedestrians can cross), etc.

Since we cannot cut into current space dedicated to cars (for political reasons as technically it's really easy); it seems to be a question of transit space versus pedestrian space.

 

[AlvinofDiaspar]

Wonder if "by staff" they meant the city's Transportation Services. If so, it's hardly the first time they are being difficult.

AoD

 

[gweed123]

Yes, for transit you want queue jump lanes in the congested areas.

No, as it eats into sidewalk space, reduces tree cover, increases red-light times (lights are timed so pedestrians can cross), etc.

Since we cannot cut into current space dedicated to cars (for political reasons as technically it's really easy); it seems to be a question of transit space versus pedestrian space.

Only if the width of the ROW remains constant though. If the area is undergoing redevelopment, theoretically the city can ask for a ROW widening of a couple metres as a condition of site plan approval. Then it doesn't become a "transit OR pedestrian" question, because they can make room for both.

In fact, I'd venture to say that it's a bigger problem in areas that aren't being redeveloped, because home owners tend to raise more of a stink if they lose a couple metres from their front lawn than developers do if they're going to redevelop the entire property anyway.