Welcome Guest! In order to take advantage of all the great features that Waterloo Region Connected has to offer, including participating in the lively discussions below, you're going to have to register. The good news is that it'll take less than a minute and you can get started enjoying Waterloo Region's best online community right away. Click here to get started.

Thread Rating:
  • 4 Vote(s) - 3.75 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
General Road and Highway Discussion
(08-01-2017, 01:13 PM)Markster Wrote:
(07-31-2017, 07:17 PM)sevenman Wrote: According to the design and construction report, there are bike lanes proposed for both sides of this new road.

Ugh.
http://guelph.ca/wp-content/uploads/Vict...Report.pdf

Sure enough, it's bike lanes and a regular 1.5m sidewalk on each side.  It would have been much better for cycling if it were no bike lanes, but MUTs on each side.  But I get it, the bike lanes let them have the asphalt width the engineers want, while also checking off the "bike infrastructure" box.

"Asphalt width the engineers want"...I.e., waste of money.  The flair for one of the onramps starts before the previous intersection, leading to a seven meter or more wide lane approaching that intersection and through it, for a hundred meters or more.  I'm sure that won't affect speeds on that section right.  Great place for a bike lane.

How are we still doing these stupid things.
Reply
Look, you need to have *somewhere* to store snow in the winter. /s
Reply
(08-01-2017, 12:24 PM)p2ee Wrote: The pavement on Weber is in terrible shape for basically the entirety of Waterloo.  University to Northfield is not in much better shape compared to Erb to University.

Oh, no, the part south of University is absolutely awful. I will bike almost anywhere, but not there. Also, Weber Street in DTK is pretty bad.

From what I recall, the part between University and King is actually not a terrible surface. You need a death wish to ride there, but it's manageable.
Reply
(08-01-2017, 04:00 PM)timc Wrote: Look, you need to have *somewhere* to store snow in the winter. /s

I appreciate the sarcasm tag.  Especially ironic given the cities'/region's occasional protestations that they do in fact clear snow from the bike lanes.

Lets be perfectly fair though, there are plenty of roads where if they didn't store snow in the bike lane, they'd be storing it on the sidewalks.  Our roads have a number of issues.
Reply
I emailed the city about the Belmont reconstruction:

Quote:It will be reconstructed almost with the same configuration as before with added concrete curb and gutter. A new left turn lane will be added on Belmont at the intersection of Victoria by eliminating the previous dedicated right turn lane. There will be no bike lane added. A refuge island will be provided for the trail crossing near the creek.
Reply
(08-02-2017, 05:33 PM)highlander Wrote: I emailed the city about the Belmont reconstruction:

Quote:It will be reconstructed almost with the same configuration as before with added concrete curb and gutter. A new left turn lane will be added on Belmont at the intersection of Victoria by eliminating the previous dedicated right turn lane. There will be no bike lane added. A refuge island will be provided for the trail crossing near the creek.

Thank for the clarification.  The crossing island is basically the thing that's required to make this not the stupidest thing of all time.  Merely business as stupid usual.  The road is stupidly overbuilt, but in the future, paint might be able to fix that.

Of course, it would be far more meaningful if Queen is also improved, and would have been even more so if Highland had been improved as well, but that ship has sailed.
Reply
(08-02-2017, 05:33 PM)highlander Wrote: I emailed the city about the Belmont reconstruction:

Quote:It will be reconstructed almost with the same configuration as before with added concrete curb and gutter. A new left turn lane will be added on Belmont at the intersection of Victoria by eliminating the previous dedicated right turn lane. There will be no bike lane added. A refuge island will be provided for the trail crossing near the creek.

Thank you. Sounds like it will be a dramatic improvement for the trail, but the fact that they rebuilt with literally the same cross-section without consideration of alternatives means that the City of Kitchener does not have any complete streets policies. This road has no justification for a 4 lane cross-section and yet they stuck with that instead of adding cycling infrastructure or making it otherwise safer.
Reply
I had occasion to walk Belmont from Union to Gage yesterday. It is worse in every respect below Glasgow (to say the least), and it is obvious that the excess width is holding the street back. Reconstructing it with the same configuration is a real wasted opportunity.
Reply
(08-03-2017, 06:36 AM)MidTowner Wrote: I had occasion to walk Belmont from Union to Gage yesterday. It is worse in every respect below Glasgow (to say the least), and it is obvious that the excess width is holding the street back. Reconstructing it with the same configuration is a real wasted opportunity.

Not to mention a colossal waste of money. Every unnecessary lane-km that is paved costs at least enough to pave 1km of high-quality MUT to a better standard than usually used for MUTs.
Reply
Time to advocate for a road diet before painting occurs?
Reply
(08-03-2017, 07:41 AM)timio Wrote: Time to advocate for a road diet before painting occurs?

It's too late sadly, would be easier to redo the painting.


I've said it before, and I'll say it again.  Where are the tax complainers.  This is probably the biggest waste of taxpayer dollars I've seen in the city, yet not a peep from those who complain continually about wasted money.
Reply
Write an op-ed. I think a lot of people who are concerned about waste don't have this on their radar.

Can someone link to the project page (if there is one) on the City's web site?
Reply
Also, include data.

I read a bunch of what you guys claim on this forum as absolute fact and am often pretty skeptical (although in this case, I think you're probably right). Ideally, if you're claiming a lane is unnecessary you'd have both traffic/usage data and cost data to back that up. I realize its not often possible, but in most cases you're making claims about extra capacity based on overall (24/7) cost/benefit of the road to people that mostly use the road at peak times. So they're skeptical of your claim because it doesn't match up with their anecdotal evidence.
Reply
(08-03-2017, 08:18 AM)SammyOES2 Wrote: Also, include data.

I read a bunch of what you guys claim on this forum as absolute fact and am often pretty skeptical (although in this case, I think you're probably right).  Ideally, if you're claiming a lane is unnecessary you'd have both traffic/usage data and cost data to back that up.  I realize its not often possible, but in most cases you're making claims about extra capacity based on overall (24/7) cost/benefit of the road to people that mostly use the road at peak times.  So they're skeptical of your claim because it doesn't match up with their anecdotal evidence.

Good points. Part of what is annoying about this is that obtaining and using the data is what the planners are supposed to be paid to do. Wouldn’t it be nice if, instead of a bunch of part time volunteers, we had a professional group of people who were paid to determine appropriate configurations for roads?

One thing I would say is that there is a big difference between intersections and the parts of roads between intersections. For example, Belmont southbound at Gage should probably have left turn, straight through, and right turn lanes for a total of 3 southbound lanes; but away from the intersection, I’m pretty sure a single through lane would be fine. So if I were redesigning the street it’s actually possible some intersections would end up bigger than they are, but we would save in between those intersections. Poor intersection design causes poor traffic flow, even when the total amount of pavement is quite excessive.
Reply
(08-03-2017, 08:10 AM)MidTowner Wrote: Can someone link to the project page (if there is one) on the City's web site?

The most I've been able to find before (don't have a link handy) is a completely uninformative two-page report to a committee - there was no design considerations discussed from what I recall, just that reconstruction will be done.
Reply


Forum Jump:


Users browsing this thread: 2 Guest(s)

About Waterloo Region Connected

Launched in August 2014, Waterloo Region Connected is an online community that brings together all the things that make Waterloo Region great. Waterloo Region Connected provides a news reporting service, opportunities for event promotion and other user-driven content complemented by a lively discussion forum covering topics like urban development, transportation projects, heritage issues, businesses and other issues of interest to those in Kitchener, Waterloo, Cambridge and the four Townships - North Dumfries, Wellesley, Wilmot, and Woolwich.

              User Links