Comment 118512

By Sara (registered) | Posted May 13, 2016 at 09:01:15

Kevin, I am completed baffled by your intention with this article. You are confusing the issue rather than giving the community facts they can use to better understand the issue.

1) Headline is inaccurate - cycling is not excluded from LRT plan. Why do you not mention that LRT on Main West will have bike lanes? And Main W is not on the cycling master plan! This is a big step for city, so isn't it worth mentioning?

2) Where will there be car storage anywhere on King/Main LRT? My understanding is that original LRT plan kept one way King (ie 2 lanes LRT, 2 lanes one way traffic) and that would allow at least part-time car parking. But now with 2 lanes LRT and one lane in each direction for general traffic there is no room in the 2 way section for car parking. Even the image you use shows no car storage. There may still be a few car parking spots in the one way sections at Hess and International Village - this would have been useful to clarify so people don't think there's car parking the whole route.

3) As others have noted, comparison to Eglington makes no sense. Eglinton is 8 lanes wide, twice the width of King or James. So how does that set an example for what can be done on narrow sections of our LRT?

4) From your subsequent comments it seems you are criticising James LRT for prioritizing car storage over cycling. So then make that clear - fundamentally this article is about James, so headline and images should be changed to reflect that.

Comment edited by Sara on 2016-05-13 09:05:22

Permalink | Context

Events Calendar

Recent Articles

Article Archives

Blog Archives

Site Tools

Feeds