Cycling in Waterloo Region - Printable Version +- 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 - Canard - 05-25-2017 Well, I guess I just don't see it as "taking space from people on foot" - I see it as "putting people with a closer speed differential and safety/protection capacity together". I'd far rather bump into a pedestrian at a ~15 km/h speed differential than a car with ~50. Plus, MUT's are wider, so pedestrians actually get *more* space. The sidewalk on Queen in places is so narrow I can't even walk beside someone on it. RE: Cycling in Waterloo Region - danbrotherston - 05-25-2017 (05-25-2017, 10:57 AM)MidTowner Wrote: "Multi-use trails everywhere" doesn't make sense. They're a bit wider than sidewalks, but our sidewalks are generally woefully narrow anyway. I don't see why the default would be to take yet more space from people on foot. Multi-use trails work here because we have relatively little bike and ped traffic. If we ever do succeed in building a walkable bikeable community, we'll desperately be replacing them with segregated infra. The IHT right now is woefully undersized already, and really showing the limitations. The plan was to go slightly wider which will only improve things a little. That has of course been watered down into "very slightly wider". As for "multi-use trails everywhere", a better statement might be "bike AND pedestrian infra everywhere". As for concrete vs. asphalt, asphalt can be much smoother, if its maintained (which doesn't always happen). The biggest thing however is that asphalt paths give an indication to users that it is a MUT. However, what really matters is construction. Our MUTs vary from poor to awful in design. Crossings are always illegal for cyclists to use (with one or two exception so far), markings and signage are frequently absent. Routes are rarely connected. And, the worst offender, by a large margin is the MUT on Weber St. which from all appearances is just a sidewalk. The curb cuts are a joke. It's clear the designers of this gave the following thought to it "What's this 'MUT' they're asking for"...."Oh, a wide sidewalk, got it". RE: Cycling in Waterloo Region - Markster - 05-25-2017 I'm definitely in favour of MUTs on every road. Which is to say, wide sidewalks on every road, and eliminating the "no bicycles on sidewalks" rule. RE: Cycling in Waterloo Region - danbrotherston - 05-25-2017 (05-25-2017, 11:25 AM)Markster Wrote: I'm definitely in favour of MUTs on every road. There's more to MUTs than just "wide sidewalks". RE: Cycling in Waterloo Region - MidTowner - 05-25-2017 What constitutes "wide" must depend on how much foot traffic there is. Most of our sidewalks could be doubled in width, and still wouldn't be wide. Yes, on streets where there is little foot or bicycle traffic, MUTs make a lot of sense- why put cyclists at risk in mixed traffic or non-segregated lanes to keep them away from people on foot who barely exist? But, as volumes increase, everything should be separate. RE: Cycling in Waterloo Region - tomh009 - 05-25-2017 (05-25-2017, 11:05 AM)danbrotherston Wrote: As for concrete vs. asphalt, asphalt can be much smoother, if its maintained (which doesn't always happen). The biggest thing however is that asphalt paths give an indication to users that it is a MUT. Me, I would happily take gravel over either one of those. It would reduce costs, too, and should allow us to have more trail for the same budget. RE: Cycling in Waterloo Region - Elmira Guy - 05-25-2017 /\ Not very accommodating for people in mobility devices though, assuming we care about accommodating such people. RE: Cycling in Waterloo Region - Canard - 05-25-2017 I'm fine with crushed limestone for inter-city trails (ie, a future dream trail between Kitchener and Cambridge!), but for urban environments, I really think it has to be paved... RE: Cycling in Waterloo Region - Markster - 05-25-2017 I much prefer any kind of paving, because I appreciate being able to use my brakes in an emergency, and having a trail that doesn't wash out. I'm looking at you, Waterloo Park. RE: Cycling in Waterloo Region - tomh009 - 05-25-2017 (05-25-2017, 02:40 PM)Elmira Guy Wrote: /\ Not very accommodating for people in mobility devices though, assuming we care about accommodating such people. Quite. This is just a personal preference. RE: Cycling in Waterloo Region - danbrotherston - 05-25-2017 (05-25-2017, 02:29 PM)tomh009 Wrote:(05-25-2017, 11:05 AM)danbrotherston Wrote: As for concrete vs. asphalt, asphalt can be much smoother, if its maintained (which doesn't always happen). The biggest thing however is that asphalt paths give an indication to users that it is a MUT. I disagree. For a strictly recreational trail, in a forested area, which provides no through destinations, I can maybe buy it, but in an urban environment, one with snow, rain, and high traffic, definitely not. It's also pretty much necessitates you not ride a road bike. Even my skinny tyred hybrid is pretty unpleasant on gravel trails. As for walking, I get stones in my shoes all the time. It can even pose a safety hazard, gravel being rather more slippery. Worse, gravel migrates onto other surfaces and poses a slipping hazard there too. RE: Cycling in Waterloo Region - ijmorlan - 05-25-2017 (05-25-2017, 02:29 PM)tomh009 Wrote:(05-25-2017, 11:05 AM)danbrotherston Wrote: As for concrete vs. asphalt, asphalt can be much smoother, if its maintained (which doesn't always happen). The biggest thing however is that asphalt paths give an indication to users that it is a MUT. If we’re going to save costs by not paving something, we should start with minor residential streets, not paths meant for bicycles or pedestrians. Seriously, is there a single road in the urban part of the city narrower than 6m, or unpaved? Skipping paving even one such road would pay for a substantial bike path paving project. RE: Cycling in Waterloo Region - timc - 05-25-2017 Not that I really agree with it, but we already do a good (?) job of not keeping up with the paving of city streets. RE: Cycling in Waterloo Region - danbrotherston - 05-25-2017 (05-25-2017, 04:19 PM)ijmorlan Wrote:(05-25-2017, 02:29 PM)tomh009 Wrote: Me, I would happily take gravel over either one of those. It would reduce costs, too, and should allow us to have more trail for the same budget. So much this. I cannot stand the enormous waste we have when paving roads. Unnecessarily wide with huge intersections. In the Netherlands (which has plenty of money for paving virtually all of their cycle network) most roads are only required width. Quieter residential streets will be 1 lane-width wide with another car-width for parking. If you come across across an oncoming car (the rare occasion that it happens, you pull aside for them to pass), it seems totally pointless to pave an enormously wide expensive road and incur the drainage issue with such pavement, (not to mention safety issues), just for the rare case of passing an oncoming car. The same is true on quiet rural roads, which usually only have space to pass at turnouts...expect to pull over and wait as needed. So much money spent on such minimal improvements in mobility. [/rant over] RE: Cycling in Waterloo Region - KevinL - 05-25-2017 One of the surprising factors on road width around here is fire departments. They're accustomed to their large trucks and insist we build roads that can accommodate them in any situation. It's unbelievable how much influence that has had. |