Cycling in Waterloo Region

[Pheidippides]

Also possible to go present at the committee meeting on Tuesday as I plan to do.  Frankly, I'd rather see the "do nothing" plan than the current recommended plan, but I plan on asking council to endorse the original "recommended" plan, or a MUT for the entire length, not sure which yet.

So did you convince them?

Again, I was half listening, but I think the staff person misspoke when they said that there was nothing in the Ontario Traffic Manual that would limit the width of the lane:
 
Page 181:
"Where a designated bike route is identified on a bridge…railings and barriers should not be a more severe hazard than the object or condition from which the cyclist is being protected. The roadside
infrastructure should have a smooth surface and a minimum 0.6 metres of lateral clearance from the bicycle facility"

Page 77:
"Conventional Bicycle Lane desired width = 1.8m suggested minimum = 1.5m"

The staff report recommends a lane width of 1.48m which is smaller than the minimum under regular circumstances and certainly does not allow for the extra 0.6m of clearance; I guess that is allowed because it is just a suggestion.

[danbrotherston]

Also possible to go present at the committee meeting on Tuesday as I plan to do.  Frankly, I'd rather see the "do nothing" plan than the current recommended plan, but I plan on asking council to endorse the original "recommended" plan, or a MUT for the entire length, not sure which yet.

So did you convince them?

Again, I was half listening, but I think the staff person misspoke when they said that there was nothing in the Ontario Traffic Manual that would limit the width of the lane:
 
Page 181:
"Where a designated bike route is identified on a bridge…railings and barriers should not be a more severe hazard than the object or condition from which the cyclist is being protected. The roadside
infrastructure should have a smooth surface and a minimum 0.6 metres of lateral clearance from the bicycle facility"

Page 77:
"Conventional Bicycle Lane desired width = 1.8m suggested minimum = 1.5m"

The staff report recommends a lane width of 1.48m which is smaller than the minimum under regular circumstances and certainly does not allow for the extra 0.6m of clearance; I guess that is allowed because it is just a suggestion.

Sadly I did not.  It was a very personally frustrating experience.

Thank you very much for the links, I didn't actually dig through the OTM Book 18, I know the requirement is in the CROW manual, and also a requirement for roadways.

I got the impression from the responses of the councillors that they actually played a big part in staff's insistence on four lanes of traffic.

Most frustrating was that same staff members statements on the infrastructure. To me, it showed a serious lack of understanding of the entire issue. He did apparently misspeak about the requirements. And now that I know that, I am very tempted to blast an email to all of council. It absolutely drives me bonkers.

The worst thing he said, however, at least in my opinion, is he said that a curb was no different from a wall. Which is pretty offensive to a coworker of mine who is only alive today because a curb is different from a wall. He was hit by a transport truck on an overpass, and fortunately was pushed onto the sidewalk. If it has been this bike lane, I wouldn't be enjoying his company today. And that's not even touching on the part where you need more space away from a wall than you do a curb.

If I was permitted, I would actually go to the actual council meeting on this issue, and argue for a sidewalk instead of a bike lane. Honestly, not out of spite, just reason. For two actually, one, practicality. Pedestrians would be forced to cross the road twice to get around the lack of sidewalk. Cyclists are allowed to use the road, so they don't have to cross if they're comfortable in traffic, and anyone who would be comfortable using that bike lane, would also probably be comfortable riding in traffic. The second reason, as I pointed out, they'd be safer too. I just cannot believe they are removing a sidewalk.

I'm sure not a whole lot of people use it now, but I bet I could get all of them to complain about the loss if I had the time to stand out and survey about them about it.

So I'm not really sure how to proceed at this point. I think if someone else cares as much as I seem too, they could present at council. But I am very tempted to send an email to council, or at the very least that staff member (whose name I did not catch), to point out the inaccuracies of his statements. But maybe I'm just overreacting. It's not like this would be the worst thing in the city, just the newest.

[timc]

It would be better to build no bike lane at all than what is being suggested.

[Pheidippides]

Having lived in the townhouse complex at Weber and Albert I know that I lot of people use the sidewalk to get to retail at Weber and Northfield. It would probably be pretty easy to make the residents more aware of the issue pretty quickly either door-to-door or via their condo associations.

I think that the proposal to remove the bike lane and just keep the sidewalk is a very good idea.

Having read the arguments/rationale and I still don't understand the reluctance to narrow to street. The AADT for Weber (between Parkside and Dutton) was 15,492 in 2015 which is less than other 2 lane streets in the region such as Queen St S at 18,235 in 2015 (between Courtland and Mitchell), which while busy, flows very well and at much more humane speeds.

[Canard]

I was thinking about these design changes at Weber while riding my bike to work yesterday, on the Fairway Road Extension:

<blockquote class="twitter-tweet" data-lang="en"><p lang="en" dir="ltr">Posted 80 km/h (so, 90-105 km/h actual) road with tall wall and bike lane in between. Please don't repeat design, <a href="https://twitter.com/RegionWaterloo">@RegionWaterloo</a> <a href="https://twitter.com/hashtag/bikeWR?src=hash">#bikeWR</a> <a href="https://t.co/HBSInSHT0D">pic.twitter.com/HBSInSHT0D</a></p>&mdash; Iain Hendry (@Canardiain) <a href="https://twitter.com/Canardiain/status/900475171131273216">August 23, 2017</a></blockquote>

[ijmorlan]

I was thinking about these design changes at Weber while riding my bike to work yesterday, on the Fairway Road Extension:

<blockquote class="twitter-tweet" data-lang="en"><p lang="en" dir="ltr">Posted 80 km/h (so, 90-105 km/h actual) road with tall wall and bike lane in between. Please don't repeat design, <a href="https://twitter.com/RegionWaterloo">@RegionWaterloo</a> <a href="https://twitter.com/hashtag/bikeWR?src=hash">#bikeWR</a> <a href="https://t.co/HBSInSHT0D">pic.twitter.com/HBSInSHT0D</a></p>&mdash; Iain Hendry (@Canardiain) <a href="https://twitter.com/Canardiain/status/900475171131273216">August 23, 2017</a></blockquote>

I remember seeing this when it opened and thinking unprintable thoughts about the designers. In this location it is absolutely indisputable that the wall should be between motor and non-motor vehicles, not between bicyclists and pedestrians. Even if bicycles are kept separate from pedestrians, either with a line or even with a curb, that would be OK, but the wall should separate the bicyclists from 18-wheelers. It’s just a total lack of actual thinking. I assume the “designers” are just applying some manual rather than actually engaging their brains and analyzing the situation.

[Canard]

I typically break the rules and ride up onto the sidewalk, here - which is really wide enough that it could be thought of as a MUT, for the length of the bridge.

[danbrotherston]

I was thinking about these design changes at Weber while riding my bike to work yesterday, on the Fairway Road Extension:

<blockquote class="twitter-tweet" data-lang="en"><p lang="en" dir="ltr">Posted 80 km/h (so, 90-105 km/h actual) road with tall wall and bike lane in between. Please don't repeat design, <a href="https://twitter.com/RegionWaterloo">@RegionWaterloo</a> <a href="https://twitter.com/hashtag/bikeWR?src=hash">#bikeWR</a> <a href="https://t.co/HBSInSHT0D">pic.twitter.com/HBSInSHT0D</a></p>&mdash; Iain Hendry (@Canardiain) <a href="https://twitter.com/Canardiain/status/900475171131273216">August 23, 2017</a></blockquote>

I remember seeing this when it opened and thinking unprintable thoughts about the designers. In this location it is absolutely indisputable that the wall should be between motor and non-motor vehicles, not between bicyclists and pedestrians. Even if bicycles are kept separate from pedestrians, either with a line or even with a curb, that would be OK, but the wall should separate the bicyclists from 18-wheelers. It’s just a total lack of actual thinking. I assume the “designers” are just applying some manual rather than actually engaging their brains and analyzing the situation.

The ironic and shameful thing about that, is one reason the bike lane is between the car lane and the curb is one of driver comfort.  Traffic engineers require curb lanes (and especially lanes with a full vertical obstruction like a wall) to be wider (0.3 meters for a curb, but look at the Weber St. underpass, nearly 1.5 meters for a wall) in order to make drivers "comfortable".  If they just stick a bike lane in there, they can justify a narrower bridge than if they had to put the bike lane with the sidewalk.  

Very sad state of affairs.

If Mr. Hendry feels this way, which I also agree, please ask him to instead come to Regional Council and say so.  Tweeting about it doesn't do nearly as much as a presence at council would.  As I said, I went to Committee, but council apparently didn't find my presentation compelling, although staff missinformation did not help either.

[danbrotherston]

Having lived in the townhouse complex at Weber and Albert I know that I lot of people use the sidewalk to get to retail at Weber and Northfield. It would probably be pretty easy to make the residents more aware of the issue pretty quickly either door-to-door or via their condo associations.

I think that the proposal to remove the bike lane and just keep the sidewalk is a very good idea.

Having read the arguments/rationale and I still don't understand the reluctance to narrow to street. The AADT for Weber (between Parkside and Dutton) was 15,492 in 2015 which is less than other 2 lane streets in the region such as Queen St S at 18,235 in 2015 (between Courtland and Mitchell), which while busy, flows very well and at much more humane speeds.

Yes, I have been tempted to try to recruit people too come yell at council about this from the neighbourhood.  I don't think it would be difficult.  But having a full time job, I'm limited.  It would be nice if staff perhaps actually spent effort on it.  The PUC seems to exclusively attended by drivers, and there is in fact no data that I can find about how busy that sidewalk is (although I can almost guarantee it is busier than any bike lane would be).

As for narrowing, you're absolutely right.  My "reading between the lines" impression from council was that staff were reflecting the wishes of councillors that the road not be widened.  Frankly, as you point out, there is little justification for this.  The road has little enough traffic, as compared with other 2-3 lane roads.  And certain current Engage surveys show a strong appetite from the region for this type of change.  It seems our council however cannot accept such an idea right now, which is incredibly frustrating.  If not on this road, then which road exactly would qualify?

[YKF]

I will be contacting the Clerk's office on Monday and registering as a delegation for this issue. I will be asking that Council endorse the original preferred concept (alternative 4). The staff report concludes that removing a lane in each direction is acceptable based on estimated vehicular volumes in 2031. Alternative 4 calls only for the removal of one vehicle lane, which is still acceptable by staff's estimate.

If reducing Weber Street to one lane in each direction is acceptable to regional staff from an engineering perspective, why are staff making a *political* decision to leave Weber Street at two lanes in each direction, based largely on negative feedback during their PICs. Staff is supposed to provide their professional opinion based on the facts and hard numbers, not based on public opinion - that's council's job. I want Regional Staff to justify why they need 4 lanes on Weber over the bridge when their own numbers say it's not warranted, especially since those 4 lanes comes at the cost of marginally improving the pedestrian and cycling infrastructure.

[highlander]

The Weber St bridge was down to 2 lanes when I went by last night for the current work being done - any anecdotal evidence from members here on what traffic has been like, assuming it's been 2 lanes during "rush hour"?

I've never seen this stretch busy, but I also am only ever there during evenings/weekends.

[danbrotherston]

The Weber St bridge was down to 2 lanes when I went by last night for the current work being done - any anecdotal evidence from members here on what traffic has been like, assuming it's been 2 lanes during "rush hour"?

I've never seen this stretch busy, but I also am only ever there during evenings/weekends.

While this is an interesting experiment, I think it can only demonstrate one direction, if there are limited traffic jams there is no justification for four lanes.  If there are traffic jams, then it only shows that narrowing the road using construction traffic cones isn't a good idea, not that four lanes are needed.

....

[danbrotherston]

I will be contacting the Clerk's office on Monday and registering as a delegation for this issue.  I will be asking that Council endorse the original preferred concept (alternative 4).  The staff report concludes that removing a lane in each direction is acceptable based on estimated vehicular volumes in 2031.  Alternative 4 calls only for the removal of one vehicle lane, which is still acceptable by staff's estimate.

If reducing Weber Street to one lane in each direction is acceptable to regional staff from an engineering perspective, why are staff making a *political* decision to leave Weber Street at two lanes in each direction, based largely on negative feedback during their PICs.  Staff is supposed to provide their professional opinion based on the facts and hard numbers, not based on public opinion - that's council's job.  I want Regional Staff to justify why they need 4 lanes on Weber over the bridge when their own numbers say it's not warranted, especially since those 4 lanes comes at the cost of marginally improving the pedestrian and cycling infrastructure.

Thanks very much for going to present.  I will be attending, but I don't believe I'm permitted to present again, so I will simply be there for moral support.

I know several others are also thinking of presenting, I do hope that many people will consider it, I think it would be worth while, and hopefully, if enough show, council may decide on a slightly less terrible option.

[Coke6pk]

For those who think cyclist's are just an afterthought, here's proof you are more important than motorists!  [facepalm]

   
(Lackner approaching Fairway Rd)

I'm still shaking my head....

Coke

[Canard]

You need to send that to the Region!