+- Waterloo Region Connected (https://www.waterlooregionconnected.com)
+-- Forum: Waterloo Region Works (https://www.waterlooregionconnected.com/forumdisplay.php?fid=14)
+--- Forum: Transportation and Infrastructure (https://www.waterlooregionconnected.com/forumdisplay.php?fid=25)
+--- Thread: Cycling in Waterloo Region (/showthread.php?tid=186)
Pages:
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
61
62
63
64
65
66
67
68
69
70
71
72
73
74
75
76
77
78
79
80
81
82
83
84
85
86
87
88
89
90
91
92
93
94
95
96
97
98
99
100
101
102
103
104
105
106
107
108
109
110
111
112
113
114
115
116
117
118
119
120
121
122
123
124
125
126
127
128
129
130
131
132
133
134
135
136
137
138
139
140
141
142
143
144
145
146
147
148
149
150
151
152
153
154
155
156
157
158
159
160
161
162
163
164
165
166
167
168
169
170
171
172
173
174
175
176
177
178
179
180
181
182
183
184
185
186
187
188
189
190
191
192
193
194
195
196
197
198
199
200
201
202
203
204
205
206
207
208
209
210
211
212
213
214
215
216
217
218
219
220
221
222
223
224
225
226
227
228
229
230
231
232
233
234
235
236
237
238
239
240
241
242
243
244
245
246
247
248
249
250
251
252
253
254
255
256
257
258
259
260
261
262
263
264
265
266
267
268
269
270
271
272
273
274
275
276
277
278
279
280
281
282
283
284
285
286
287
288
289
290
291
292
293
294
295
296
297
298
299
300
301
302
303
304
305
306
307
308
309
310
311
312
313
314
315
RE: Cycling in Waterloo Region - dtkvictim - 02-12-2022
(02-12-2022, 01:22 PM)danbrotherston Wrote:(02-12-2022, 01:15 PM)ijmorlan Wrote: It’s obviously no good for either.
Buses will get held up by bicycles, and many bicyclists will feel rushed or unsafe.
Although I think you were right when you said the actual plan is effectively just not to accommodate bicycles and keep bicycle traffic to a hardcore minority.
Yeah, I think that's the regional plan. I mean, whether they think its the intention, or whether they just don't believe cycling is a thing that will happen (and so create self fulfilling prophecies) I don't know. I first encountered this when I was part of the Moving Forward 2020 plan...where they said that their modeling showed that even if they built a huge protected, comprehensive, and connected network they wouldn't get significant usage....I asked them how their modeling worked and they, completely seriously explained that it's based on what uptick in cycling they get from building one disconnected, mediocre piece of infra. It was around that point, I realized that talking to staff was pointless.
But I was actually talking about the response to this. I know several cycling advocates who are positioning this as a win. I think they feel this is the best we can get, which frankly, I think is silly, we should aim higher. But I think it's also a little bit about the positioning. If this was positioned as a bus/bike lane, how much worse would it be received by the public.
I think most vocal cycling advocates are in the top 10% confident cyclists, which has this unfortunate effect. The reality is almost all of the other 90% get around by car, so they have no reason to call this out for the garbage it is. They will continue to get around the way they always have, even if they would have made use of a proper solution here. The status quo is hard to break out of.
And so what is the actual plan here? We will have the cycling grid on either side of this (NW of Francis and SE of Frederick), and probably some dangerous half-assed transition on either end? I wouldn't use this... It's disgusting how the already modest grid continues to get cut down.
RE: Cycling in Waterloo Region - danbrotherston - 02-12-2022
(02-12-2022, 02:16 PM)dtkvictim Wrote:(02-12-2022, 01:22 PM)danbrotherston Wrote: Yeah, I think that's the regional plan. I mean, whether they think its the intention, or whether they just don't believe cycling is a thing that will happen (and so create self fulfilling prophecies) I don't know. I first encountered this when I was part of the Moving Forward 2020 plan...where they said that their modeling showed that even if they built a huge protected, comprehensive, and connected network they wouldn't get significant usage....I asked them how their modeling worked and they, completely seriously explained that it's based on what uptick in cycling they get from building one disconnected, mediocre piece of infra. It was around that point, I realized that talking to staff was pointless.
But I was actually talking about the response to this. I know several cycling advocates who are positioning this as a win. I think they feel this is the best we can get, which frankly, I think is silly, we should aim higher. But I think it's also a little bit about the positioning. If this was positioned as a bus/bike lane, how much worse would it be received by the public.
I think most vocal cycling advocates are in the top 10% confident cyclists, which has this unfortunate effect. The reality is almost all of the other 90% get around by car, so they have no reason to call this out for the garbage it is. They will continue to get around the way they always have, even if they would have made use of a proper solution here. The status quo is hard to break out of.
And so what is the actual plan here? We will have the cycling grid on either side of this (NW of Francis and SE of Frederick), and probably some dangerous half-assed transition on either end? I wouldn't use this... It's disgusting how the already modest grid continues to get cut down.
I really really don't think this is the case. The people I am referring to are solid and understanding advocates. They have all reliably supported safe accessible infrastructure. They have never supported any vehicular cycling bullshit.
I believe it is a combination of things, for one, regional engineers are excellent spindoctors. They have pretended this is a bicycle boulevard (a real piece of infra) and pretended they understand what's required, by promising to legally limit car traffic. They also explain that it's necessary because it's "impossible" to do anything better and still accommodate transit (most cycling advocates are also transit advocates, so they are playing transit against cycling here--again, very smart spindoctors).
If they were honest about what this was--a worse than usual because some cars are permitted bus/bike lane--the response would be much more negative.
Yeah, I make absolutely no secret of my utter disdain for our regional engineers. They are entirely unwilling to buy into a vision of less cars, and they are very good at pretending to accommodate other modes while still enshrining motordom in our roads.
I guess we will see how the public consultation goes, I am going to be strongly advocating against it, but as I am moving, I have less skin in the game so to speak.
As for the actual proposal, they will prohibit through car traffic with signage from College to Frederick. Even if drivers obeyed it, it would be a bad idea, but I don't really believe that most drivers will obey it.
RE: Cycling in Waterloo Region - KevinL - 02-13-2022
I'm reminded of other bad regional bike infra - my local example is Block Line road, which has decent MUTs along it up from the Homer Watson ones - until just before Strasburg, when you get dumped onto painted lanes and have to navigate the intersection. Thanks, no thanks.
RE: Cycling in Waterloo Region - danbrotherston - 02-13-2022
(02-13-2022, 10:58 AM)KevinL Wrote: I'm reminded of other bad regional bike infra - my local example is Block Line road, which has decent MUTs along it up from the Homer Watson ones - until just before Strasburg, when you get dumped onto painted lanes and have to navigate the intersection. Thanks, no thanks.
I think Block Line is actually a city project...and a fairly early one. I wasn't actually involved when it was done, but from what I hear it was controversial, it took most of the city's cycling budget at the time, and despite being bad at Strasburg, it was fairly progressive for the time it was done in.
I'd also argue that it's better than MUTs, it has real segregated bike lanes, AFAIK the intention is to separate cyclists and pedestrians...whether it happens in practice, I don't really know---certainly it is, as I said, a pretty early example, more of an experiment maybe.
RE: Cycling in Waterloo Region - cherrypark - 02-13-2022
I don't know if I call the proposed work on Duke a "win" but I think I share your perspective, Dan, that the regional engineers and planners are really unskilled at incorporating cycling infrastructure and the fact they are even considering changing this route instead of just throwing up their hands and saying "sorry, road and ION only" is where I see it as a small measure of progress. Minor, but something?
If I'm being honest, putting actual execution aside (for which I don't have high hopes), a properly traffic calmed, bus and cycle route with good connections to stubs of the city grid that could really use *at least* one of the other regional roads that dominate downtown and one that side of King St. to change... I think I would rather that over another half assed effort like the Victoria St. MUTs or some of their other recent attempts to be inclusionary, only to waste a pile of money on bad infra that is not connected to anything.
The regional road ownership leading to a lack of wholistic planning and good quality of design isn't good enough so this shouldn't placate anyone, but I guess I would rather just push for them to make this as good as possible. That said, I definitely fall more on the side of compromise for what seems politically possible (even politically courageous given the basis we're working from) vs. the ideal as a means of change. It's ok if that differs from others' views.
I do actually think improved road design and speed reduction/calming downtown would go a long way to making it a more safe place to ride in addition to protected lanes on main routes (though really, Duke is pretty main!). Weber would have been the right spot if the ION ROW takes up too much space but can't go having our new urban highway disrupted.
RE: Cycling in Waterloo Region - cherrypark - 02-13-2022
(02-13-2022, 10:58 AM)KevinL Wrote: I'm reminded of other bad regional bike infra - my local example is Block Line road, which has decent MUTs along it up from the Homer Watson ones - until just before Strasburg, when you get dumped onto painted lanes and have to navigate the intersection. Thanks, no thanks.
I am routinely amazed at how completely unable and unwilling the region (and the city to a lesser extent) is at learning how to and designing for proper cycling interaction with interchanges.
The number of MUTs that unceremoniously narrow to sidewalk standards, zero grading considerations, and brutally bad sight lines at each intersection they cross as got to be >90%. I can barely think of one that doesn't get treated this way. And thats not even considering whatever the hell the design standard is for all the bike gutters they painted onto Ira Needles and their vanishing act at every roundabout.
RE: Cycling in Waterloo Region - danbrotherston - 02-13-2022
(02-13-2022, 02:49 PM)cherrypark Wrote: I don't know if I call the proposed work on Duke a "win" but I think I share your perspective, Dan, that the regional engineers and planners are really unskilled at incorporating cycling infrastructure and the fact they are even considering changing this route instead of just throwing up their hands and saying "sorry, road and ION only" is where I see it as a small measure of progress. Minor, but something?
If I'm being honest, putting actual execution aside (for which I don't have high hopes), a properly traffic calmed, bus and cycle route with good connections to stubs of the city grid that could really use *at least* one of the other regional roads that dominate downtown and one that side of King St. to change... I think I would rather that over another half assed effort like the Victoria St. MUTs or some of their other recent attempts to be inclusionary, only to waste a pile of money on bad infra that is not connected to anything.
The regional road ownership leading to a lack of wholistic planning and good quality of design isn't good enough so this shouldn't placate anyone, but I guess I would rather just push for them to make this as good as possible. That said, I definitely fall more on the side of compromise for what seems politically possible (even politically courageous given the basis we're working from) vs. the ideal as a means of change. It's ok if that differs from others' views.
I do actually think improved road design and speed reduction/calming downtown would go a long way to making it a more safe place to ride in addition to protected lanes on main routes (though really, Duke is pretty main!). Weber would have been the right spot if the ION ROW takes up too much space but can't go having our new urban highway disrupted.
I mean, I agree in general, the fact they are not outright refusing to do anything can be seen as an improvement, but you must also look at the context. This is supposed to be the premier downtown infra. If this was just *some road*, that'd be a big improvement. But it isn't just some road. They are under massive pressure to deliver here (and more than likely recommended Duke St. over something like Weber on a promise of doing *something*), and they are delivering exactly as little as they believe they can get away with.
Honestly though, this should be a big problem for CoK councillors. They've staked a lot on this project, reputation, success of the downtown, success of climate plans, so they should be the ones standing up to the region, because the region is threatening the success of their project and, ultimately, their careers. I hope they see that this proposal is compromises their project.
It might be less of an issue if they hadn't already caved to the opposition on Ontario St. Between Duke and Ontario Sts. this will be definitively *not* a grid by the end of 2023.
I think there is a general discussion to be had about traffic calming. We should be doing more of it, but I also think we shouldn't confuse it for cycle infra, at least not right now.
There's some interesting perspectives from the Netherlands. One road in the city centre of Utrecht had a protected bike lane, it was built in the ... 90s I think. It was a core piece of infrastructure in the city. Last year it was reconstructed, and the protected bike lane was removed, and the whole road opened to bikes to share with cars. The reason, since the 90s, car usage has shrunk precipitously, and bikes are now the dominant road user, bikes needed more space. Context is everything, traffic calmed streets can be good for bicycles, but we aren't there yet, we have to build ridership first.
Oh, and one caveat to the Utrecht road---it isn't a bus route.
RE: Cycling in Waterloo Region - the_conestoga_guy - 02-13-2022
The discussion around cycling infrastructure and Duke St, to me, really highlights the lack of holistic vision that the city/Region has for the downtown with respect to transit and cycling. Specifically, in the next decade when our buses will be driving at higher frequency headways, will our downtown be able to ensure that downtown traffic won't conflict with the buses? I imagine that we'll see some sort of BRT loop, similar to the one being constructed in London. If this is inevitable (which I think it is), shouldn't we be incorporating that scenario into the cycling grid? Otherwise, we'll just be rehashing these same arguments in ten years.
RE: Cycling in Waterloo Region - danbrotherston - 02-13-2022
(02-13-2022, 04:05 PM)the_conestoga_guy Wrote: The discussion around cycling infrastructure and Duke St, to me, really highlights the lack of holistic vision that the city/Region has for the downtown with respect to transit and cycling. Specifically, in the next decade when our buses will be driving at higher frequency headways, will our downtown be able to ensure that downtown traffic won't conflict with the buses? I imagine that we'll see some sort of BRT loop, similar to the one being constructed in London. If this is inevitable (which I think it is), shouldn't we be incorporating that scenario into the cycling grid? Otherwise, we'll just be rehashing these same arguments in ten years.
I agree completely that our region (little "r" combination of City and Regional governments) has not holistically planned for downtown, and that's a major failing.
I suspect that buses will be further delayed by this bad planning.
That being said, I don't expect a BRT loop. The LRT right of way is the dedicated transit right of way in the core, the London BRT plan seeks to replicate. We're well ahead of London in that regard.
The long term GRT plan doesn't suggest any more dedicated transit right of way in the core. The only potential dedicated transit right of way is a laughable suggestion that they'll widen Fischer-Hallman Rd. to six lanes (from like Erb St. to Ottawa St.) and that would be used for BRT. I say laughable because during the Moving forward 2020 plan it was pretty clear that suggesting it could be a BRT was just a way to justify to excuse keeping an utterly massive road widening in the plan which was supposed to promote alternatives to driving. As far as I'm aware there is no plan from GRT to actually use that as a rapid transit right of way.
RE: Cycling in Waterloo Region - cherrypark - 02-13-2022
All reasonable points, Dan. I too think more city lobbying region efforts would be welcome and worry the regional standard of the minimum possible is going to handicap our cycling network in KW in the long run.
I don't think calming is necessarily bike infra for sure, but would make downtown more welcoming for all non-car modes. The network is good to get most of the ride on dedicated lanes; I just wish the last stubs could be shared roadways that were built to a standard the average rider might not be so uneasy on. But then again, Utrecht also doesn't fit our enormous trucks either...
RE: Cycling in Waterloo Region - danbrotherston - 02-13-2022
(02-13-2022, 09:50 PM)cherrypark Wrote: All reasonable points, Dan. I too think more city lobbying region efforts would be welcome and worry the regional standard of the minimum possible is going to handicap our cycling network in KW in the long run.
I don't think calming is necessarily bike infra for sure, but would make downtown more welcoming for all non-car modes. The network is good to get most of the ride on dedicated lanes; I just wish the last stubs could be shared roadways that were built to a standard the average rider might not be so uneasy on. But then again, Utrecht also doesn't fit our enormous trucks either...
Stubs?
And yeah, don't get me wrong, I fully support traffic calming. I'm not just about bikes (*snicker*) I think walkability is essential as well, and that really depends more on traffic calming (and sidewalk ploughing).
Utrecht definitely can't fit transport trucks like we insist on doing, but the street is a major commercial street, almost all businesses along it take deliveries from large box trucks that would not be out of place here.
RE: Cycling in Waterloo Region - cherrypark - 02-13-2022
(02-13-2022, 09:57 PM)danbrotherston Wrote:(02-13-2022, 09:50 PM)cherrypark Wrote: All reasonable points, Dan. I too think more city lobbying region efforts would be welcome and worry the regional standard of the minimum possible is going to handicap our cycling network in KW in the long run.
I don't think calming is necessarily bike infra for sure, but would make downtown more welcoming for all non-car modes. The network is good to get most of the ride on dedicated lanes; I just wish the last stubs could be shared roadways that were built to a standard the average rider might not be so uneasy on. But then again, Utrecht also doesn't fit our enormous trucks either...
Stubs?
And yeah, don't get me wrong, I fully support traffic calming. I'm not just about bikes (*snicker*) I think walkability is essential as well, and that really depends more on traffic calming (and sidewalk ploughing).
Utrecht definitely can't fit transport trucks like we insist on doing, but the street is a major commercial street, almost all businesses along it take deliveries from large box trucks that would not be out of place here.
Meaning like, Water St. and others having a connection at Joseph, but no other longitudinal streets in downtown (not counting King St. because sharrows are not bike infra).
RE: Cycling in Waterloo Region - Chris - 02-14-2022
(02-12-2022, 01:11 PM)danbrotherston Wrote: Here is a question for you folks...
How would you be responding to a proposal where our main downtown cycle grid will use shared bus/bike lanes?
Because this is exactly what is being proposed for Duke St.
It's amazing what a little framing will do.
I can't think of anything worse than playing leap frog with a bus. You are in a bike lane and the bus passes, not a big deal. But the bus stops in a bike lane for a stop and you leave the bike lane to go around knowing that in 30-60 seconds there is a good chance it's coming back around and you do it all over again. I can't picture a way to share that lane where anyone wins.
RE: Cycling in Waterloo Region - danbrotherston - 02-15-2022
The Duke St. public consultation is live on EngageWR and the team is presenting it to ATAC right now:
https://calendar.regionofwaterloo.ca/Council/Detail/2022-02-15-1700-Active-Transportation-Advisory-Committee-ATAC/a176a9bd-7e52-4042-81eb-ae3801604a47
RE: Cycling in Waterloo Region - cherrypark - 02-16-2022
Here is the presentation file link.
If this is the way things must go, I would really like to see them make an additional effort to reconsider the road surface type, adding more calming measures, and instead of just dropping to 40 kph and "aiming for 30" to just actually implement the speed limit they want. These are short stubs or roads with the no-through traffic restriction, so there is no reason car or bus needs to be going more than that for these short stretches.
Sharrows suck but at least max 30 would get the speed differential a lot closer. Is there some by-law or road building policy that doesn't allow 30 to be used?