Waterloo Region Connected
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)



RE: Cycling in Waterloo Region - ijmorlan - 12-11-2017

(12-11-2017, 10:24 AM)DHLawrence Wrote: Awfully big jump from cyclists to people in wheelchairs, don't you think?

The point is that the comic factually misrepresents the situation in a way that props up the dominant group in culture, which in this case is vehicle operators. It lies about what typical bicycle accommodation looks like (less-than-half-width lanes, not taking away a full car lane), and tries to paint pro-cycling initiatives as anti-environment, whereas leaving the roads as an all-motorized zone is supposedly the more environmental approach.

A similar comic for wheelchairs would find a way to blame high prices on the requirement for barrier-free building entrances. It’s all about the small cost for the dominant group, ignoring the massive cost of the status quo on the other group.

In principle I could have used any disadvantaged or formerly-disadvantaged group, but the notion of accommodation seems most comparable for wheelchair users. To switch to race for a moment, most accommodations for, say, Black people consist of *removing* accommodations for bigoted assholes — we don’t build stuff specifically for Black people; instead we discontinue segregation of lunch counters and water fountains.

Anyway, the comic is dishonest and does not contribute to a good-faith debate on appropriate road design. It just makes anti-cyclist bigots feel good about themselves and reminds cyclists that they are still not considered first-class road users.


RE: Cycling in Waterloo Region - tomh009 - 12-11-2017

(12-11-2017, 08:44 AM)MidTowner Wrote: It's disingenuous to say that we need arterials (of course we do, but the above configuration works for arterials carrying that volume in many places) because x% of the population commutes by car. That proportion commutes by car at least in part because we have such poor infrastructure. Creating "solutions" for cyclists that involve walking their bike the last few blocks to their destination will not increase cycling's mode share.

I am supportive of better cycling infrastructure (even if I personally walk much more than cycle).

But I also believe in a realistic approach. Proposing to removed lanes from major arterial roads like Weber will be a very difficult proposition to sell, because 90% of the population does commute by car. That's why I think we would be better off improving infrastructure away from such roads. Not all destinations are on Weber anyway. And taking a side street to Weber would only involve half a block on the sidewalk at most (not a few blocks), whether walking the bike or riding on the sidewalk. I think the odds of success on such an initiative would be far greater.

You can't change the region into an Amsterdam overnight. And even then -- even in Amsterdam, there are arterial roads that are not nice for cycling.


RE: Cycling in Waterloo Region - danbrotherston - 12-11-2017

(12-11-2017, 10:50 AM)tomh009 Wrote:
(12-11-2017, 08:44 AM)MidTowner Wrote: It's disingenuous to say that we need arterials (of course we do, but the above configuration works for arterials carrying that volume in many places) because x% of the population commutes by car. That proportion commutes by car at least in part because we have such poor infrastructure. Creating "solutions" for cyclists that involve walking their bike the last few blocks to their destination will not increase cycling's mode share.

I am supportive of better cycling infrastructure (even if I personally walk much more than cycle).

But I also believe in a realistic approach. Proposing to removed lanes from major arterial roads like Weber will be a very difficult proposition to sell, because 90% of the population does commute by car. That's why I think we would be better off improving infrastructure away from such roads. Not all destinations are on Weber anyway. And taking a side street to Weber would only involve half a block on the sidewalk at most (not a few blocks), whether walking the bike or riding on the sidewalk. I think the odds of success on such an initiative would be far greater.

You can't change the region into an Amsterdam overnight. And even then -- even in Amsterdam, there are arterial roads that are not nice for cycling.

I think this suggestion is somewhat more subtle than it seems.  I have no doubt you mean it genuinely.  For example, denoting Regina as the cycling route instead of King.  And you're right, that cycling should be on the "street for people", and that cars can be put on the "arterial road for cars".  Sadly our society at large does a very poor job of distinguishing between the two, virtually all our arterial roads have destinations on them, Weber especially.  In Amsterdam, you'd find virtually all of the busy arterial roads which lack cycling infra have no destinations on them, and are just for transportation.

That being said, I say it is subtle because very many people use this as support this idea as a simply way to oppose cycling without sounding like they're opposing cycling (just like BRT was for rapid transit).  They'd suggest rerouting cyclists down long slow circuitous route far away from their destinations.

For example, observe the majority of my commute here:

https://www.google.ca/maps/dir/Columbia+St+E+%26+Weber+St+N,+Waterloo,+ON/43.4560044,-80.494755/@43.4694624,-80.5256933,14z/am=t/data=!4m9!4m8!1m5!1m1!1s0x882bf3f28e88f283:0xde6eec196501572d!2m2!1d-80.5239027!2d43.4828541!1m0!3e1

Directly down Weber (as I am able to drive in 8 minutes) would take me less than 15 minutes by bike less than 4 kms.

The same route redirected to safer off road paths:

https://www.google.ca/maps/dir/Columbia+St+E+%26+Weber+St+N,+Waterloo,+ON/43.4560044,-80.494755/@43.469366,-80.509147,15.17z/data=!4m24!4m23!1m20!1m1!1s0x882bf3f28e88f283:0xde6eec196501572d!2m2!1d-80.5239027!2d43.4828541!3m4!1m2!1d-80.5143136!2d43.4849875!3s0x882bf3918e64fb63:0x9e94a048ddb7bde2!3m4!1m2!1d-80.5128041!2d43.4753989!3s0x882bf388fe37412d:0xaf67e9664568f4d2!3m4!1m2!1d-80.5183527!2d43.4686616!3s0x882bf47386c23f7f:0x173efbf3b374c903!1m0!3e1

Over 50% farther and much more than 50% longer.

While it's much safer, far more people will cycle 15 minutes and 4 km than will cycle 25 minutes and 6 km, especially when the alternative is an 8 minute drive.

There are examples worse than this, but this is my personal experience.  I choose to cycle, but I have the luxury of time.

For even shorter trips, the detour can mean the other infrastructure is totally useless. 

It is certainly possible to use the idea of quiet parallel routes (what many places call "bicycle boulevards") to greatly enhance cycling as a mode share, but it isn't for free, it requires a lot of work to make those routes feasible, in quieting side streets, improving crossings, and removing through routes for cars.  This still results in substantial community opposition.

For many people the "alternate routes" idea is simply an easy way to object to allowing cycling on an arterial road.  And I would argue that in our community, because it is fairly modern and lacks a lot of parallel routes (as part of modern road network design) there aren't a lot of a lot of places where the parallel route is "just as good" and only a few where it wouldn't serve as a disincentive for cycling.  Certainly there are places where it makes sense, but I think we must be careful with this idea, which is why I'll rarely publicly support it.


RE: Cycling in Waterloo Region - tomh009 - 12-11-2017

I understand your view. And I think the parallel routes need to be reasonable. For example, for your commute, this route could probably be made reasonable at a reasonably low cost:
https://goo.gl/maps/j41NY92a98D2

20 minutes and 4.7 km is longer, but not all that onerous, I think.

My personal view is that we should consider not only the desirability of the different bicycling infrastructure options but also the probability of being able to gain approval for those. A fabulous infrastructure concept is of little value if it won't get approved: we'll just end up with exactly what we have today.


RE: Cycling in Waterloo Region - KevinT - 12-11-2017

(12-11-2017, 11:24 AM)tomh009 Wrote: And I think the parallel routes need to be reasonable. For example, for your commute, this route could probably be made reasonable at a reasonably low cost:
https://goo.gl/maps/j41NY92a98D2

I think that the Moses Springer Community Centre needs to add a connector trail to Lincoln/Ellis from the Laurel Trail.


RE: Cycling in Waterloo Region - danbrotherston - 12-11-2017

(12-11-2017, 11:24 AM)tomh009 Wrote: I understand your view. And I think the parallel routes need to be reasonable. For example, for your commute, this route could probably be made reasonable at a reasonably low cost:
https://goo.gl/maps/j41NY92a98D2

20 minutes and 4.7 km is longer, but not all that onerous, I think.  

My personal view is that we should consider not only the desirability of the different bicycling infrastructure options but also the probability of being able to gain approval for those. A fabulous infrastructure concept is of little value if it won't get approved: we'll just end up with exactly what we have today.

I totally agree, that would be a perfectly reasonable alternate route (although the hill on Marshal wouldn't be ideal), but it still wouldn't work as is (like just adding signage), reason being there are no safe crossings of Bridgeport, Erb, or Union, so somehow those crossings would have to be improved (given that I cross those roads daily, I know it's possible, but it's certainly not safe comfortable or fast).  You could bypass to Margaret which has crossings, but now you're up to 5.3 km.

In fact, this is the very problem with one of the CoK's planned "signed bike routes" that they're "building", which has people crossing five lanes of traffic (plus two bike lanes) on Fischer-Hallman Rd. at Forest Hill Dr.  It does this to get cyclists on a 'quite parallel route', but makes the route useless.

https://www.google.ca/maps/@43.4247968,-80.5202508,3a,89.9y,178.47h,87.1t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sjUadn-jLWnRI_HrlKhwTyw!2e0!7i13312!8i6656

This is to provide a route for bikes that doesn't go up McGarry, so that they don't lose parking...a road which could easily have no parking.

(On another note, how do you get those shortened Google maps links?)


RE: Cycling in Waterloo Region - MidTowner - 12-11-2017

Ellis is actually a pretty good alternative to Weber already, except for the fact that, inexplicably, it has a light at Bridgeport but not Erb.

“Normal people” (the kinds who don’t map out alternate routes based on quality of cycling infrastructure) are probably not going to get out of their car if the route in their car is to drive up Weber, and the route by bike is a right on Wilhelm, a left on Hett, a right on Blucher, a left on Ellis, a right on Lincoln, a left on Marshall, a right on Marsland, stay right on Marsland, a left on Columbia, then proceed to Weber.

I appreciate the argument about what is politically achievable. I don’t see how it’s politically more achievable to paint lines on University Avenue, say, than it is to put up a few planters or bollards so there’s some actual protection.


RE: Cycling in Waterloo Region - danbrotherston - 12-11-2017

(12-11-2017, 11:37 AM)KevinT Wrote:
(12-11-2017, 11:24 AM)tomh009 Wrote: And I think the parallel routes need to be reasonable. For example, for your commute, this route could probably be made reasonable at a reasonably low cost:
https://goo.gl/maps/j41NY92a98D2

I think that the Moses Springer Community Centre needs to add a connector trail to Lincoln/Ellis from the Laurel Trail.

There is actually a trail from the Community Centre up to Lincoln, but there is actually a huge grade separation there, the hill is basically unbikeable for anyone other than a MTB rider.  Perhaps the grade could be eased, but Lincoln actually has bike lanes now, and that's probably the easier way to get up, is to go out the driveway, and then up the road.


RE: Cycling in Waterloo Region - tomh009 - 12-11-2017

(12-11-2017, 11:41 AM)danbrotherston Wrote: I totally agree, that would be a perfectly reasonable alternate route (although the hill on Marshal wouldn't be ideal), but it still wouldn't work as is (like just adding signage), reason being there are no safe crossings of Bridgeport, Erb, or Union, so somehow those crossings would have to be improved (given that I cross those roads daily, I know it's possible, but it's certainly not safe comfortable or fast).  You could bypass to Margaret which has crossings, but now you're up to 5.3 km.

(On another note, how do you get those shortened Google maps links?)

Quite true on the crossings. But I think there would be far less pushback to adding signaled crossings than removing lanes.

Shortened links: click the share icon (assuming you're using a desktop browser) and then click the "Short URL" checkbox.


RE: Cycling in Waterloo Region - danbrotherston - 12-11-2017

(12-11-2017, 11:50 AM)tomh009 Wrote:
(12-11-2017, 11:41 AM)danbrotherston Wrote: I totally agree, that would be a perfectly reasonable alternate route (although the hill on Marshal wouldn't be ideal), but it still wouldn't work as is (like just adding signage), reason being there are no safe crossings of Bridgeport, Erb, or Union, so somehow those crossings would have to be improved (given that I cross those roads daily, I know it's possible, but it's certainly not safe comfortable or fast).  You could bypass to Margaret which has crossings, but now you're up to 5.3 km.

(On another note, how do you get those shortened Google maps links?)

Quite true on the crossings. But I think there would be far less pushback to adding signaled crossings than removing lanes.

Shortened links: click the share icon (assuming you're using a desktop browser) and then click the "Short URL" checkbox.

Ahh, neat!  Thanks.

Far less pushback, from the population?  Absolutely, you're totally right.  People are not traffic engineers, they're generally bad at these things, they get angry about losing lanes that aren't needed, but don't object to added traffic lights.

Sadly, I suspect staff would push back on this, because it would affect their traffic throughput numbers I think, signals have a big impact on this.


RE: Cycling in Waterloo Region - tomh009 - 12-11-2017

If the signals are synchronized, the impact on traffic flow should not be that bad, I should think. And signals would help the pedestrians, too, as well as the motorists using those cross streets.


RE: Cycling in Waterloo Region - KevinL - 12-11-2017

(12-11-2017, 11:43 AM)MidTowner Wrote: “Normal people” (the kinds who don’t map out alternate routes based on quality of cycling infrastructure) are probably not going to get out of their car if the route in their car is to drive up Weber, and the route by bike is a right on Wilhelm, a left on Hett, a right on Blucher, a left on Ellis, a right on Lincoln, a left on Marshall, a right on Marsland, stay right on Marsland, a left on Columbia, then proceed to Weber.

If it's a good enough route, cycling-specific signage can be put in to indicate all these turns. That brings in additional questions about wayfinding and the design around all that.

Speaking of which, the Region and the cities really should get moving on unified wayfinding standards. One shouldn't lose their way because they've crossed the near-invisible city border between Kitchener and Waterloo.


RE: Cycling in Waterloo Region - danbrotherston - 12-11-2017

(12-11-2017, 12:04 PM)tomh009 Wrote: If the signals are synchronized, the impact on traffic flow should not be that bad, I should think. And signals would help the pedestrians, too, as well as the motorists using those cross streets.

I certainly agree, but staff often don't.  Staff have a strong resistance to installing safe ped/cyclist crossings at the regional level.


RE: Cycling in Waterloo Region - Viewfromthe42 - 12-11-2017

Let alone even having road signs at trail crossings. I mean, I *should* know some of the roads our main off-road trails cross, but unless you can see a car intersection's road signs, you're generally out of luck.


RE: Cycling in Waterloo Region - tomh009 - 12-11-2017

(12-11-2017, 12:18 PM)danbrotherston Wrote:
(12-11-2017, 12:04 PM)tomh009 Wrote: If the signals are synchronized, the impact on traffic flow should not be that bad, I should think. And signals would help the pedestrians, too, as well as the motorists using those cross streets.

I certainly agree, but staff often don't.  Staff have a strong resistance to installing safe ped/cyclist crossings at the regional level.

I think the way to do this is to get support for this concept (alternate parallel routes, signage, signaled crossings) at the council level, and have them provide direction to the staff.