(03-06-2022, 09:28 PM)danbrotherston Wrote: Narrowing the driveway and squaring off the entrance would also reduce the speed drivers enter and exit the driveway.

(03-06-2022, 10:33 PM)bravado Wrote:

(03-06-2022, 09:28 PM)danbrotherston Wrote: I am not an engineer, which means that I am not qualified to sign plans.

But I feel that I am more qualified to answer this question than our engineers are, since they actually build stuff like this, that is just utterly incompetent.

The first thing that should happen, is the path should be visually distinct from the driveway.  They are both in asphalt right now, drivers don't have any reason to even know they are crossing paths with other road users.

Visual distinction could be the dotted line you mention, but even better would be a stronger signal using colour (most Dutch paths are red, we prefer green apparently.

Raising the path above the driveway would further strengthen this distinction for drivers.

Narrowing the driveway and squaring off the entrance would also reduce the speed drivers enter and exit the driveway.

Moving the path back from the road, so leave enough space between the path and the road for a driver to wait (allowing drivers to focus on the path, then after focus on the road).

Disallowing driveways on busy roads (which creates stroads) would make getting in and out of the driveway easier so the cognitive load on drivers is reduced giving them more attention to spend on you.

And I mean, this is off the top of my head. It's not like this is rocket science. It's not that our engineers couldn't figure this out (they certainly don't know it), but they don't care...this path meets all their engineering standards, so they aren't liable if you get hit, and it meets the requirements council gave them for active transportation without taking space from cars. That is their ONLY concern, they see this as a major success. Even better, they will later use the poor uptake of this infrastructure to justify NOT building more infra in the future.

What's even crazier is that the gas station has another entrance on the other side, they didn't close a single one to keep pedestrians and cyclists safe. This little miserable plaza has 3 entrances and they didn't get rid of any. The used car dealership next to it still has 2!

(03-07-2022, 08:07 AM)danbrotherston Wrote: It's crazy...I've had this conversation with them, and they literally just repeated the standard back at me. I have zero respect for these folks at that point.

(03-07-2022, 11:01 AM)ijmorlan Wrote:

(03-07-2022, 08:07 AM)danbrotherston Wrote: It's crazy...I've had this conversation with them, and they literally just repeated the standard back at me. I have zero respect for these folks at that point.

Blind rule-followers are bad engineers. Engineering is supposed to have a large element of creativity and thoughtfulness. Isambard Kingdom Brunel is probably spinning enough in his grave to generate electricity for half of England.

(03-06-2022, 09:08 PM)ac3r Wrote: I don't bike in Waterloo Region much because it's still dangerous so I'm not familiar with much of the infrastructure here, but it does indeed seem negligent they would not add some sort of signage or similar to warn drivers.

(03-07-2022, 09:36 PM)timc Wrote:

(03-06-2022, 09:08 PM)ac3r Wrote: I don't bike in Waterloo Region much because it's still dangerous so I'm not familiar with much of the infrastructure here, but it does indeed seem negligent they would not add some sort of signage or similar to warn drivers.

Around here, you're more likely to see a sign warning cyclists of turning vehicles.

(03-28-2022, 07:50 PM)nms Wrote: Or more likely, "Short of a bike activated spike strip, there is no way that we can account for every car coming around the corner, so please be careful"

(04-13-2022, 01:04 PM)danbrotherston Wrote: I haven't looked at the plans recently, but I would think they'd only need to take the two trees on one side...one of which doesn't look too healthy.

But yeah, I suspect that will be the cost.

FWIW...I don't know why they are continuing with the Ontario section, given that they seem to be unwilling to continue it to Duke St. ending it at King doesn't help build a grid.

I think a bigger win would be to negotiate with the region on building a section along Victoria, plus improve the infra and continuity along Young/Guakel.

But that's a pretty hard pivot to make now.

The other ambitious plan would be to build it along Queen St...but that road was just rebuilt and they opted out of cycling infra...which is sad...it really is a good place for it.  Oh well, try again in 50 years....

(04-13-2022, 03:10 PM)dtkvictim Wrote:

(04-13-2022, 01:04 PM)danbrotherston Wrote: I haven't looked at the plans recently, but I would think they'd only need to take the two trees on one side...one of which doesn't look too healthy.

But yeah, I suspect that will be the cost.

FWIW...I don't know why they are continuing with the Ontario section, given that they seem to be unwilling to continue it to Duke St. ending it at King doesn't help build a grid.

I think a bigger win would be to negotiate with the region on building a section along Victoria, plus improve the infra and continuity along Young/Guakel.

But that's a pretty hard pivot to make now.

The other ambitious plan would be to build it along Queen St...but that road was just rebuilt and they opted out of cycling infra...which is sad...it really is a good place for it.  Oh well, try again in 50 years....

Isn't that section of Duke going to be without cycling infrastructure anyways? It's not a grid whether it goes to King or to Duke...

Selfishly this Ontario segment will serve me well in one direction, so I'm happy. But otherwise I share in the disappointment.