I agree with most of the above in principle, but I don't think it always translates into reality (especially if we consider timeliness of implementation vs. perpetual stakeholder engagement).
I'd argue that some quirky route-planning is pretty much inevitable, regardless of the infrastructure involved. For instance, trying to make a right turn out of a protected cycle lane that's on the 'wrong' side of the road. Or the terminus of a protected lane. And of course the fact that protected lanes aren't actually protected at the most vulnerable places - intersections (of course signalling can help, but often at the expense of timeliness for all involved).
Which as all to say that I'm not sure dedicated cycletracks as we know them are always the optimal solution - though I'm definitely a big fan of car/parking diets in Main-Street scenarios (not really applicable to this stretch of 26th). Protected cycle lanes on each side of 26th? Sign me up (assuming it won't take 5+ years to happen), though it's still going to require full alert at each intersection.
If it were a question between extending painted lanes the rest of the way on 26th vs. painted lanes (or even just 'sharrows') on 25th, I'd prefer 25th. The one block jig is inevitable either way; I think you can mitigate it just as well at 20th st as at 14th.
Good points and I am sympathetic to all this. I also am not too fussed with the how (cycletrack v. protected cycling lanes), apart from minimizing the awkward transitions as you mentioned.
What I am fussed about is every cycling project being compromised and parceled out with dead-ends, weird transitions, unique on/off main street routes, crazy amount of local input in designs/route locations etc. To your point on timelines, we will never build a strong backbone network that is efficient, consistent and direct if we do as we have been.
Case in point is this discussion: what to do for 26th Avenue SW east of Crowchild only exists because of the piecemeal network roll-out on 26th Ave in the first place. Those painted lanes west of Crowchild have been there what - 10 years? This same "what to do east of Crowchild so people don't get upset" question is identical today as it was back then. It wasn't solved because it was too hard back then too to come up with the right compromise.
Had we just painted those lanes the whole way back in 2012 ish, this discussion would be more about how to iron out the quirks or add better protections. Talk would focus on taking a good network and upgrade it - plus you have 10 years of usage data to show you where the pain points or best investments might be. That didn't happened because politics forced a compromised half-solution we are still debating today. But there really shouldn't need to be push for more compromised solutions for a bicycle network.
The push should be to learn to build cycle network the way we build arterial roads. Arterial roads are straight, direct to destinations and largely consistent for predictable and reliable travel. Perhaps most importantly for the over-politicized cycling infrastructure debates - arterial roads seem remarkably immune to local opposition no matter how costly, loud, polluting or traffic-generating they are. They are just seen as a necessary piece of infrastructure to support the proper functioning of a large city.
Cycling infrastructure should be considered the same, especially where we already have a pretty good network spine west of Crowchild, large amounts of redevelopment and destinations in very close proximity to the downtown core. It's the perfect recipe for bicycle usage (apart from the hills).
