In preparation for the release of the Transportation Study, which should be released within the next few months, the SCU has done an analysis of the final recommendations that were presented at the Open House in January 2012. At the Open House, the City presented SMAP and BAP recommendations in map formats, along with other streets/roads that they investigated as possible candidates for routes.

Route recommendations were then presented on a map, without any details as to what infrastructure was being recommended for the routes.

The SCU’s findings are presented in the spreadsheet below.

[gview file=”https://bikesudbury.ca/wp-content/uploads/2013/05/BAP-SMAP-City-Network-Comparison_Final.xlsx” save=”1″]

A few comments on the proposals:

1. There is a reliance on the trail system that is in or will be in place. While this is good for recreational cyclists, it is not good for those who will want routes for transportation at all times of the day. These users required well-lit, well-paved routes. The trails also can’t be used by cycling tourists who may be carting attachments to their bikes.
2. Some of the major arteries have been left out, including Lasalle from Lansing to Falconbridge Rd., the Kingsway, Lasalle from College Boreal to Frood Rd., Big Nickel Mine Rd., Lorne from Regent to Elm, some of MR80 in Valley East. Not putting infrastructure on major arteries should only be done if there are convenient and safer alternate routes. Not many of these exist for our arteries. Our arterial roads are not just throughways – there are many destinations (restaurants, businesses, dwellings) on these arterial roads that need to be accessible to cyclists.
3. On the plus side, many of the major roads are included in the routes network, including all of Maley, all of Barrydowne, all of Paris, all of Regent, all of Beatty, all of Notre Dame,and all of Elm (to Dowling), Southview, Algonquin, and Loach’s Rd. Kelly Lake and Martindale roads seemed to be marked, but they may be marking a trail along the road – it is hard to distinguish.
4. There are some interesting hills in some of their recommendations. No information was provided as to whether the suggested roads were to link things like schools, churches, or whether they were to service major subdivisions, or how they went about deciding where to put the networks. It’s hard to identify why certain routes were chosen over others.
5. On the plus side, many of the recommendations from both SMAP and BAP were presented, although the what was not presented is the type infrastructure that is being proposed for the routes.

An analysis of Sudbury’s major roads is here.

[gview file="https://bikesudbury.ca/wp-content/uploads/2013/05/Arterial-Road-Recommendations.xlsx"]