+- 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: General Road and Highway Discussion (/showthread.php?tid=335)
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
RE: TEK Tower (30 Francis) | 45 fl | Proposed - ac3r - 10-26-2022
(10-26-2022, 12:39 PM)Joedelay Highhoe Wrote: Ugh..... I use Francis to go between Joseph and Charles every damn day. I really, really hope that section isn't getting closed. Either I'll have to go out to Victoria and wait for multiple lights, or I'm just going to drive the wrong way down Joseph. What a terrible place to live.
I would think at least part of it will be open for pedestrians and bikes. They closed Gaukel during Charlie West but still had the sidewalk open. If you drive then yeah, you'll need to detour.
RE: TEK Tower (30 Francis) | 45 fl | Proposed - panamaniac - 10-26-2022
(10-26-2022, 01:52 PM)cherrypark Wrote:(10-26-2022, 12:26 PM)CP42 Wrote: There is now a city of kitchener sign on Francis street that says the road will be closed on October 31st for approximately 4 years.
That is a while!
I wonder how much the City charges for a four year street closure?
RE: TEK Tower (30 Francis) | 45 fl | Proposed - taylortbb - 10-28-2022
I think the one movement that's likely to encounter issues is drivers trying to get from King St westbound, over to Charles St (perhaps to turn left onto Victoria St S southbound). Water St has a left turn restriction, Ontario St is one way, Victoria St has a turn restriction, and Gaukel St is now closed. With Francis St closed too you'd have to left turn at Frederick or Queen, which is quite a bit before Victoria St and likely to cause some confusion. Not insurmountable, but I think it's where traffic impacts are likely to come from.
RE: TEK Tower (30 Francis) | 45 fl | Proposed - dtkvictim - 10-28-2022
(10-28-2022, 01:31 PM)taylortbb Wrote: I think the one movement that's likely to encounter issues is drivers trying to get from King St westbound, over to Charles St (perhaps to turn left onto Victoria St S southbound). Water St has a left turn restriction, Ontario St is one way, Victoria St has a turn restriction, and Gaukel St is now closed. With Francis St closed too you'd have to left turn at Frederick or Queen, which is quite a bit before Victoria St and likely to cause some confusion. Not insurmountable, but I think it's where traffic impacts are likely to come from.
This one is time based, although it covers basically the entire day. But I was never really on board with time based left turn restrictions. The sign details are too small and contain too much information that you can't parse it fast enough by the time it becomes readable, so people often ignore them. If the point is to prevent blocking traffic, why not have a "don't block traffic" sign, where you can take all the time you want to turn as long as no one is waiting behind you?
RE: TEK Tower (30 Francis) | 45 fl | Proposed - ijmorlan - 10-29-2022
(10-28-2022, 01:46 PM)dtkvictim Wrote:(10-28-2022, 01:31 PM)taylortbb Wrote: I think the one movement that's likely to encounter issues is drivers trying to get from King St westbound, over to Charles St (perhaps to turn left onto Victoria St S southbound). Water St has a left turn restriction, Ontario St is one way, Victoria St has a turn restriction, and Gaukel St is now closed. With Francis St closed too you'd have to left turn at Frederick or Queen, which is quite a bit before Victoria St and likely to cause some confusion. Not insurmountable, but I think it's where traffic impacts are likely to come from.
This one is time based, although it covers basically the entire day. But I was never really on board with time based left turn restrictions. The sign details are too small and contain too much information that you can't parse it fast enough by the time it becomes readable, so people often ignore them. If the point is to prevent blocking traffic, why not have a "don't block traffic" sign, where you can take all the time you want to turn as long as no one is waiting behind you?
Our drivers are not mature enough to handle that. I agree it makes sense conceptually, but the same people who can’t process that if they’re in the left turn lane they need to turn left even if they’ve realized they want to go straight are the same people who wouldn’t be able to resist waiting to turn left and blocking traffic behind them. Also the same people who park themselves in the middle of the exit from a parking lot waiting to turn left, leaving no space for people turning right to move past them to their right.
Back to the original question, I can think of a couple of possibilities: install a left turn lane from King westbound (northbound) on to Water, or promote right on Water, left on Duke, left on Victoria; I think you would want to provide signalized support for the left turn onto Duke. Installing the left turn on King would I think require removing parking from one side of the street, maybe 6 spots.
RE: General Road and Highway Discussion - danbrotherston - 10-30-2022
https://kitchener.ctvnews.ca/waterloo-s-first-woonerf-transforms-local-road-into-a-shared-living-street-1.6130104
Seems the "woonerf" in Waterloo has gotten some press. Which is a little strange, I rode through it the summer before we left, which was...well over a year ago and it seemed done then.
I was fairly underwhelmed though, but maybe I'm being too harsh...maybe it is pretty good, but it was very empty and full of tire tracks when I was there.
FWIW...the "woonerf" concept I think is a bit of a weird one or at least non-specific. I don't think it has a strict definition and people seem to use the word to describe almost anything which deprioritizes cars.
In this case this is a residential street which has deprioritised cars completely. In that regard, it's good. But it still needs placemaking, and obviously it's not a commercial/mixed use street so there is actually little draw to the street itself.
It also isn't a part of ANY through route for bikes, transit, or cars, which means well...frankly, it's a no brainer, no city 'pure residential street' (i.e., a residential street that is not a through route for anyone) should ever look different. To me, this seems like the easiest form of "woonerf" to build.
RE: General Road and Highway Discussion - Acitta - 10-30-2022
(10-30-2022, 08:04 AM)danbrotherston Wrote: https://kitchener.ctvnews.ca/waterloo-s-first-woonerf-transforms-local-road-into-a-shared-living-street-1.6130104
Seems the "woonerf" in Waterloo has gotten some press. Which is a little strange, I rode through it the summer before we left, which was...well over a year ago and it seemed done then.
I was fairly underwhelmed though, but maybe I'm being too harsh...maybe it is pretty good, but it was very empty and full of tire tracks when I was there.
FWIW...the "woonerf" concept I think is a bit of a weird one or at least non-specific. I don't think it has a strict definition and people seem to use the word to describe almost anything which deprioritizes cars.
In this case this is a residential street which has deprioritised cars completely. In that regard, it's good. But it still needs placemaking, and obviously it's not a commercial/mixed use street so there is actually little draw to the street itself.
It also isn't a part of ANY through route for bikes, transit, or cars, which means well...frankly, it's a no brainer, no city 'pure residential street' (i.e., a residential street that is not a through route for anyone) should ever look different. To me, this seems like the easiest form of "woonerf" to build.
You need at least one example to show people what it looks like, otherwise telling people on some random residential street that you are changing it into a Woonerf will result in a mob with torches and pitchforks.
RE: General Road and Highway Discussion - KevinL - 10-30-2022
It seems the last finishing touches took some time, so the official opening was just the other day.
It's a bit unfortunate that the greenery is not as prominent as it could be (the trees seem particularly small just now); especially as woonerf translates as 'living street'.
RE: General Road and Highway Discussion - jmrappolt - 10-30-2022
I was downtown on Gaukel today for an event and saw that they've installed new traffic lights on Gaukel at Charles. I guess this means they are not extending the pedestrian space up to City Hall? I was really hoping it'd be pedestrian only from King to the Joseph.
To piggyback on the previous comments, it seems like that little section of Gaukel would be an ideal candidate to be woonerf-ed.
RE: General Road and Highway Discussion - ijmorlan - 10-30-2022
(10-30-2022, 06:50 PM)jmrappolt Wrote: I was downtown on Gaukel today for an event and saw that they've installed new traffic lights on Gaukel at Charles. I guess this means they are not extending the pedestrian space up to City Hall? I was really hoping it'd be pedestrian only from King to the Joseph.
To piggyback on the previous comments, it seems like that little section of Gaukel would be an ideal candidate to be woonerf-ed.
I think it’s a good candidate to be closed to motor vehicle traffic entirely. I don’t think it’s actually a great woonerf candidate; it’s only useful at all as a through route, not to access driveways on Gaukel itself. I view woonerfs as a way of providing needed vehicular access to an area which would be closed entirely except for some low-traffic needs.
RE: TEK Tower (30 Francis) | 45 fl | Proposed - GtwoK - 10-30-2022
(10-26-2022, 12:26 PM)CP42 Wrote: There is now a city of kitchener sign on Francis street that says the road will be closed on October 31st for approximately 4 years.
Christ, 4 years. Not to be a complainer, but as someone living in Cedar Hill who regularly needs to get to King St in midtown, that now leaves only Water St as my potential left turn option onto King. Everywhere else is now either no left turns allowed, closed to vehicle traffic, or one-way only, in the wrong direction for me. Kinda ridiculous.
![[Image: ordGXNx.png]](https://i.imgur.com/ordGXNx.png)
RE: TEK Tower (30 Francis) | 45 fl | Proposed - tomh009 - 10-30-2022
I do think you can turn left onto King from Ontario St.
Otherwise, another (slight detour) option is to go down Madison, Charles, left onto Cameron and then left onto King. Or, Benton to Duke, Duke to Francis and then right onto King.
RE: General Road and Highway Discussion - tomh009 - 10-30-2022
(10-30-2022, 06:50 PM)jmrappolt Wrote: I was downtown on Gaukel today for an event and saw that they've installed new traffic lights on Gaukel at Charles. I guess this means they are not extending the pedestrian space up to City Hall? I was really hoping it'd be pedestrian only from King to the Joseph.
They do want to have traffic lights to allow pedestrians to cross. And while I think the upper part is supposed to be pedestrian only, I don't know what the arrangement will be for the driveway access.
RE: TEK Tower (30 Francis) | 45 fl | Proposed - dtkvictim - 10-30-2022
(10-30-2022, 08:45 PM)tomh009 Wrote: I do think you can turn left onto King from Ontario St.
Correct, only straight through is prohibited. Although I don't understand why, if 2 way traffic is being maintained opposite the intersection (not sure if that's the case or not).
RE: General Road and Highway Discussion - dtkvictim - 10-30-2022
(10-30-2022, 07:59 PM)ijmorlan Wrote:(10-30-2022, 06:50 PM)jmrappolt Wrote: I was downtown on Gaukel today for an event and saw that they've installed new traffic lights on Gaukel at Charles. I guess this means they are not extending the pedestrian space up to City Hall? I was really hoping it'd be pedestrian only from King to the Joseph.
To piggyback on the previous comments, it seems like that little section of Gaukel would be an ideal candidate to be woonerf-ed.
I think it’s a good candidate to be closed to motor vehicle traffic entirely. I don’t think it’s actually a great woonerf candidate; it’s only useful at all as a through route, not to access driveways on Gaukel itself. I view woonerfs as a way of providing needed vehicular access to an area which would be closed entirely except for some low-traffic needs.
What? Gaukel has parking spaces that are only accessible from Gaukel, so it is definitely "useful" for that. The point of woonerfing it would be to allow that while discouraging or prohibiting through traffic.