Willis Way Pedestrian only

[bSherwin]

Hello,

Recently I went to UpTown Waterloo and saw that they had closed the street Willis Way from the parking access to Caroline St S to motor vehicles. After going through some of the shops and using the patio Jinzakiya has set up on the closed street I was thinking it would be amazing if instead of the temporary road closure that they could instead permanently close this street as it's not a major connection point for cars and the businesses around them do not rely on vehicle traffic. It was nice to quickly navigate the area without the worry of getting hit and the space could feel a lot nicer if they planted some trees and had more grass in the area.

I was wondering what the communities thoughts were for the idea of keeping this section of Willis Way closed to cars permanently and how could we petition the city to do so?

[Spokes]

Is there access to that parking lot off Caroline?

Why not just close the whole block of Willis

[jamincan]

Perhaps that can be considered in the future. In the meantime, this section of Willis is definitely the more useful part to pedestrianize and doesn't shut off access to the parking from King which would likely piss off a fair number of people and generate opposition.

[ijmorlan]

There is access into the parking from King next to the LCBO, closer to William St. That being said, if a lot of traffic coming from the south tries to use that entrance, it will lead to irregular and unpredictable traffic flow at King and William. On the other hand, the point about generating opposition is a good one.

Another idea to consider would be making Willis Way westbound only. This doesn’t produce a completely non-vehicular environment but does allow reducing the total width of the street to a single lane and using the rest of the space for more sidewalk. This might be appropriate east of King even if complete closure is continued where it is closed now.

[neonjoe]

The Willis Way exit is really the only good way to leave the parking lot during busy periods to head south. The Caroline/Alexandra exit is the only other one where you can legally head south but the left turn there during busy times causes a lot of queuing.

[danbrotherston]

The Willis Way exit is really the only good way to leave the parking lot during busy periods to head south. The Caroline/Alexandra exit is the only other one where you can legally head south but the left turn there during busy times causes a lot of queuing.

It's entirely reasonable to force people to turn right right and right again....

We've got to get used to putting restrictions on drivers...

[neonjoe]

That is exactly what I would do but it does end up being an 800m detour around the mall. If they eliminated the left out of the parking lot at Alexandra to force a RIRO there it would also cut down on all the queuing on Caroline. Theres a substantial amount from Southbound cars trying to get into the lot there since you already could not make a left in on Willis.

[ijmorlan]

The Willis Way exit is really the only good way to leave the parking lot during busy periods to head south. The Caroline/Alexandra exit is the only other one where you can legally head south but the left turn there during busy times causes a lot of queuing.

It's entirely reasonable to force people to turn right right and right again....

We've got to get used to putting restrictions on drivers...

Although it would be weird to change a lot of left turn traffic into increased traffic around the entire block in the name of reducing traffic. That being said, there are other solutions to consider. For example, maybe the laneway beside the LCBO should be an exit to King southbound only, rather than an entrance from King both directions.

Traffic flow through the several blocks around Waterloo Town Square should be studied as a unit, including motor vehicle and active transportation. Parking lot access changes as well as the possibility of changing the allowed directions on streets (to or from 1-way) or even closing them entirely should all be considered, along with all sorts of signalling options, with pedestrians and bicyclists given a large share of the space.

[danbrotherston]

It's entirely reasonable to force people to turn right right and right again....

We've got to get used to putting restrictions on drivers...

Although it would be weird to change a lot of left turn traffic into increased traffic around the entire block in the name of reducing traffic. That being said, there are other solutions to consider. For example, maybe the laneway beside the LCBO should be an exit to King southbound only, rather than an entrance from King both directions.

Traffic flow through the several blocks around Waterloo Town Square should be studied as a unit, including motor vehicle and active transportation. Parking lot access changes as well as the possibility of changing the allowed directions on streets (to or from 1-way) or even closing them entirely should all be considered, along with all sorts of signalling options, with pedestrians and bicyclists given a large share of the space.

I definitely am not saying there aren't other options.

But I think we need to get over the fear of restricting drivers...the Netherlands didn't achieve their livable city utopia by accomodating cars in everywhere all the time in every direction.

Doing things like restricting turns and forcing a few drivers to go around the block has a limited effect on a few drivers, but can potentially make other modes much more reasonable, and can also improve safety.  A good example is Westmount/Glasgow, which does not have room for turn lanes, but the region has repeatedly allowed four lanes of through traffic with turns permitted from through lanes despite this being a known-unsafe configuration...driver convenience has trumped safety.

[ijmorlan]

But I think we need to get over the fear of restricting drivers...the Netherlands didn't achieve their livable city utopia by accomodating cars in everywhere all the time in every direction.

Doing things like restricting turns and forcing a few drivers to go around the block has a limited effect on a few drivers, but can potentially make other modes much more reasonable, and can also improve safety.  A good example is Westmount/Glasgow, which does not have room for turn lanes, but the region has repeatedly allowed four lanes of through traffic with turns permitted from through lanes despite this being a known-unsafe configuration...driver convenience has trumped safety.

Totally on board with restricting drivers, as long as it’s done in a way which actually achieves the goals.

I have to differ a bit on Westmount/Glasgow. I don’t think either the current arrangement or the arrangement before the temporary bicycle lanes was good for driver convenience. What is good for driver convenience is having at least one through lane whose sole purpose is to move vehicles straight through the intersection, with vehicles waiting to turn sitting in turn lanes. Even without right-turn lanes, I claim it would be an improvement for drivers to make Westmount have one through lane in each direction plus left-turn lanes (total width 3 lanes) at Glasgow. Add in right-turn lanes and capacity would be way higher than it is now, with the width on each side still only 4 lanes, but offset so the total width of the combined intersection is 5 lanes.

We shouldn’t always do what is convenient for drivers, but I think narrowing a lot of our streets to 2 lanes plus turn lanes would actually improve them for drivers while saving a ton of money on maintaining the pavement surface and making mid-block crossings much easier for non-motor traffic. In other words, everybody would benefit. The current designs are just bad, regardless of which modes one cares about.

[jamincan]

I thought the impetus for removing the left-turn lane onto Glasgow was pressure from home owners on Glasgow who don't want traffic on their street.

[danbrotherston]

I thought the impetus for removing the left-turn lane onto Glasgow was pressure from home owners on Glasgow who don't want traffic on their street.

No, it was the result of traffic backups reaching Union St. during the LRT construction which redirected a lot of traffic to Westmount.

Of course, that was a temporary situation, but the dangerous situation it created lives on.

In fact, one possible option was restricting turns onto Glasgow, which was opposed by residents of Glasgow St. (And just to clarify this would not remove access to Glasgow, residents could turn at Westwood: https://www.google.ca/maps/dir/43.446098...m2!3e2!5i1)

[danbrotherston]

But I think we need to get over the fear of restricting drivers...the Netherlands didn't achieve their livable city utopia by accomodating cars in everywhere all the time in every direction.

Doing things like restricting turns and forcing a few drivers to go around the block has a limited effect on a few drivers, but can potentially make other modes much more reasonable, and can also improve safety.  A good example is Westmount/Glasgow, which does not have room for turn lanes, but the region has repeatedly allowed four lanes of through traffic with turns permitted from through lanes despite this being a known-unsafe configuration...driver convenience has trumped safety.

Totally on board with restricting drivers, as long as it’s done in a way which actually achieves the goals.

I have to differ a bit on Westmount/Glasgow. I don’t think either the current arrangement or the arrangement before the temporary bicycle lanes was good for driver convenience. What is good for driver convenience is having at least one through lane whose sole purpose is to move vehicles straight through the intersection, with vehicles waiting to turn sitting in turn lanes. Even without right-turn lanes, I claim it would be an improvement for drivers to make Westmount have one through lane in each direction plus left-turn lanes (total width 3 lanes) at Glasgow. Add in right-turn lanes and capacity would be way higher than it is now, with the width on each side still only 4 lanes, but offset so the total width of the combined intersection is 5 lanes.

We shouldn’t always do what is convenient for drivers, but I think narrowing a lot of our streets to 2 lanes plus turn lanes would actually improve them for drivers while saving a ton of money on maintaining the pavement surface and making mid-block crossings much easier for non-motor traffic. In other words, everybody would benefit. The current designs are just bad, regardless of which modes one cares about.

I mean, I agree, and regional engineers would rather pave over the entire neighbourhood and put in left turn lanes as they proposed (they'd also like to widen the lanes by about 3 meters) but that was opposed by Westmount residents.

But ultimately, regional engineers felt that four lanes improves throughput, and so they chose that configuration, even though that configuration was explicitly removed 20 years ago because it resulted in many "excess" collisions....

Whether it is better for traffic flow or not, doesn't matter, they believe it is.

(FWIW, I don't actually think our policies do a very good job of creating an environment that is good for driving either...which is the real irony, despite it being the only priority, driving is still not great...places like the Netherlands which prioritize every other mode have a better experience for drivers).