Cycling in Waterloo Region

[danbrotherston]

That doesn’t explain why he is so negative on the centre track idea, to the point that one of the supposedly conclusive arguments he gave against it actually rules out his preferred solution (a completely separate bridge for active transportation).

Because it's a bad idea when it's possible to build something so much better that doesn't force cyclists to continue to have bad infrastructure. I mean, sure, it might work? But it's possible to design something superior.

If I had the time I could throw together an idea in AutoCAD that could provide cyclists a fairly good alternative. I even showed a very good bridge overpass example in California that illustrates how you can have a safe and aesthetically pleasing piece of infrastructure. I also linked a thesis from a UW School of Architecture grad whom studied how it's possible and ideal to build the best infrastructure we can.

Really, all you'd need is a bridge going over the highway that can bypass all of Northfield and the highway. It wouldn't be hard to design and link up with the rest of the bike lanes. The Kraus development is proposing such a thing even, though it would be superior to have one built and owned by the region to avoid potential conflicts that often arise when private infrastructure is relied on by the public (this can mean things like liability, winter maintenance, potential for them to close it to public use at their will etc).

Like plam said, I'm looking at this from the perspective that can allow the most ideal solution, rather than settling for a bottom of the barrel answer. To me, riding between train tracks and many lanes of traffic is barely a step above riding right on Northfield, even if it's moderately safer. It would simply be an awful way to traverse the area. I think cyclists deserve better at this point if we're collectively going to promote cycling.

Nobody here is arguing that with infinite money and infinite political will that it is possible to design something even better, but that isn't the world we live in. The point of the centre MUT is that--at the time of LRT construction--it would not have cost any more money (at least not a meaningful amount) than what was built, but would not have made us world famous for building garbage.

I certainly am of the opinion that we should demand better, I don't think I've made that a secret, but it is also possible to discuss what is possible and what should have been done with the finite resources (political and financial) that we do have, and the trade offs there.

If you want to make a proposal, you're welcome to, but I do think that we've discussed a large number of alternatives here and all of their pros and cons, and I don't really understand what you are proposing that is different, there are fundamental geometry problems here.

You either, a) remove the slip ramps, b) cross the slip ramps, or c) deviate a significant distance away from the interchange in order to go around the slip ramps.

I believe that a) would be the best option, but I don't think was the political will to do it.