Posts: 1,709
Threads: 2
Joined: Aug 2014
Reputation:
34
The Iron Horse Trail at Palmer and at Kent is especially horrible. We say we want more bikes to travel more easily and safely, and fewer cars to travel more slowly and safely, and yet at trail crossings in low-traffic neighbourhoods, we put these horrible experiences there for vulnerable road users, and these unnecessarily easy experiences for drivers. Instead of lowering the trail to cross a road and having priority go to the car, the roadway should bump up to match the trail, and give priority to its users.
Posts: 2,002
Threads: 7
Joined: Sep 2014
Reputation:
124
(07-25-2018, 09:58 AM)Viewfromthe42 Wrote: The Iron Horse Trail at Palmer and at Kent is especially horrible. We say we want more bikes to travel more easily and safely, and fewer cars to travel more slowly and safely, and yet at trail crossings in low-traffic neighbourhoods, we put these horrible experiences there for vulnerable road users, and these unnecessarily easy experiences for drivers. Instead of lowering the trail to cross a road and having priority go to the car, the roadway should bump up to match the trail, and give priority to its users.
Riding the Spur Line yesterday, I was thinking the same thing. I can understand having the trail give way to traffic on a busier road like Union, but there are so many tiny back streets that see scarcely the traffic of the trail which should have a stop sign and raised surface so that the trail is the default right of way.
In terms of the Spur Line, really the only roads which should have priority over the trail are Wellington, Weber, Union and Regina.
For the Iron Horse Trail: Park, Union, Glasgow, Victoria, Queen, Mill (eh..?), and Courtland/Stirling (something should be done here, though).
Posts: 7,554
Threads: 36
Joined: Jun 2016
Reputation:
196
(07-25-2018, 10:20 AM)jamincan Wrote: (07-25-2018, 09:58 AM)Viewfromthe42 Wrote: The Iron Horse Trail at Palmer and at Kent is especially horrible. We say we want more bikes to travel more easily and safely, and fewer cars to travel more slowly and safely, and yet at trail crossings in low-traffic neighbourhoods, we put these horrible experiences there for vulnerable road users, and these unnecessarily easy experiences for drivers. Instead of lowering the trail to cross a road and having priority go to the car, the roadway should bump up to match the trail, and give priority to its users.
Riding the Spur Line yesterday, I was thinking the same thing. I can understand having the trail give way to traffic on a busier road like Union, but there are so many tiny back streets that see scarcely the traffic of the trail which should have a stop sign and raised surface so that the trail is the default right of way.
In terms of the Spur Line, really the only roads which should have priority over the trail are Wellington, Weber, Union and Regina.
For the Iron Horse Trail: Park, Union, Glasgow, Victoria, Queen, Mill (eh..?), and Courtland/Stirling (something should be done here, though).
Definitely not Mill, if we go by the standards of auto traffic, I'm pretty sure the IHT has a higher volume of users.
That being said, I don't think that's the standard we should give.
There should only be two options, trail has priority, or fully signalized intersection.
Signalization should be used if the road is too big and too fast to safely implement trail priority. A road like Queen, which could easily have a 40 limit, and is narrow, and one lane at a time, could easily have trail priority with lower traffic impact than a fully signalized crossing.
I don't think we have roads which are too busy to prioritize trail users, but which are safe enough to cross without a signal.
Posts: 252
Threads: 1
Joined: Sep 2014
Reputation:
9
The IHT on Caroline between Allen and William is really bumpy too - there are intersections every 40-50m and except for one crossing at Fullerton they all have extreme bumps on each side.
The intersecting streets are only one block long and have only a handful of houses so car traffic is minimal. That would have been a great place for the path to be raised to prioritize the trail but that doesn't seem to be the way we build cycling infrastructure in this region. At least they don't expect us to walk our bikes at every intersection for this stretch.
I used to ride that part of the IHT every day but I found it's faster and probably safer to just ride the back streets.
Posts: 2,002
Threads: 7
Joined: Sep 2014
Reputation:
124
I think you misunderstand me. I would suggest that every intersection except those listed should be treated such that all traffic on the cross street must stop, and the trail would be raised such that traffic would have to cross at a reduced speed. The intent would be that trail users could cross without yielding to traffic and without being concerned about cross traffic. Other crossings should have stuff like mid-crossing islands, signals, or other traffic calming measures for the crossing, but it wouldn't be full priority for the trail.
Posts: 810
Threads: 5
Joined: Nov 2015
Reputation:
39
Posts: 7,554
Threads: 36
Joined: Jun 2016
Reputation:
196
Regional Staff have responded to the issues with the bike lane:
https://www.waterloochronicle.ca/news-st...rotected-/
So much BS. Yes, it's an obstacle for cyclists, we *WANT* an obstacle between us and cars. How confusing is this.
Posts: 1,188
Threads: 0
Joined: Mar 2015
Reputation:
34
That makes no sense. Bollards are no barrier to cyclists, but cars parked in the bike lane definitely are.
Posts: 4,297
Threads: 1
Joined: May 2015
Reputation:
178
(07-25-2018, 03:44 PM)timc Wrote: That makes no sense. Bollards are no barrier to cyclists, but cars parked in the bike lane definitely are.
Seriously, what is wrong with these people? He’s not an idiot, otherwise he would be unlikely to be able to manage a project of this nature, but what he said about bollards is completely idiotic. Unless the interview has been cut up — I can see that if one is thinking only about snow clearing and discounting the idea that a separate sidewalk plow would do the bike lane, it might be reasonable to bring up the idea that bollards would get in the way.
Posts: 1,709
Threads: 2
Joined: Aug 2014
Reputation:
34
I think as soon as they made the design to pull the lanes away from intersections, putting traffic lights between the lanes of traffic and of bikes, they lost the ability to use the same vehicle for both, so that point is moot.
Posts: 2,002
Threads: 7
Joined: Sep 2014
Reputation:
124
I can't remember if it was the city or region, but the response regarding the bike lanes on Glasgow was very similar. Almost universal condemnation from cyclists, saying the design was unsafe and unfriendly for cyclists, and then the city/regional planner saying that they know better, actually, and everyone's experience there is wrong and it's safer and better for cyclists. They are doing a good job of spending a lot of money to chase cyclists of certain streets.
Posts: 7,554
Threads: 36
Joined: Jun 2016
Reputation:
196
“(Feedback) really has steered the direction of this project and the outcome.”
This is fully BS. Feedback said more separation, curbs bollstds, engineers are the ones who said no.
Posts: 7,554
Threads: 36
Joined: Jun 2016
Reputation:
196
Mayor Jaworsky has responded to the criticisms, and in such a frustrating manner:
https://www.waterloochronicle.ca/news-st...-jaworsky/
Again, I know of no cyclist who didn't say that the roll curb wouldn't be a problem.
And if education was the problem, the painted bike lanes wouldn't have a problem with parked cars. THEY DO. Drivers who park in bike lanes don't care that they park in bike lanes, they do it anyway.
This happens IN THE F***ING NETHERLANDS. Painted bike lane there, illegally parked cars. People will not change. We have to stop deluding ourselves into believing they will.
Posts: 4,371
Threads: 15
Joined: Aug 2014
Reputation:
120
Jaworsky is right that it's to do with human behaviour, but the choices of his city staff made at his council's direction have reinforced the wrong behaviours. If the under-construction lanes had never been opened for parking, if those who park in them illegally faced actual consequences, the problems we have now would not be such an issue.
The design looked good on paper. But we're now seeing it in the real world, following a real period of construction. Re-evaluation is always appropriate in such a case.
Posts: 7,554
Threads: 36
Joined: Jun 2016
Reputation:
196
07-26-2018, 04:47 PM
(This post was last modified: 07-26-2018, 04:48 PM by danbrotherston.)
(07-26-2018, 04:45 PM)KevinL Wrote: Jaworsky is right that it's to do with human behaviour, but the choices of his city staff made at his council's direction have reinforced the wrong behaviours. If the under-construction lanes had never been opened for parking, if those who park in them illegally faced actual consequences, the problems we have now would not be such an issue.
The design looked good on paper. But we're now seeing it in the real world, following a real period of construction. Re-evaluation is always appropriate in such a case.
Design influences human behaviour...if there were curbs, there wouldn't be parked cars. It's as simple as that.
I cannot comprehend why people refuse to accept this.
I want them to repeatedly walk into a Norman door till they get it!
And all through the development phase I said over and over again, NO ROLL CURBS!
I said it before, I'm saying it again, as a cycling advocate, I will be advocating against any bike lane separated by less than a barrier curb. It's a waste of money.
|
