Cycling in Waterloo Region

[Canard]

Well, I guess I just don't see it as "taking space from people on foot" - I see it as "putting people with a closer speed differential and safety/protection capacity together". I'd far rather bump into a pedestrian at a ~15 km/h speed differential than a car with ~50.

Plus, MUT's are wider, so pedestrians actually get *more* space. The sidewalk on Queen in places is so narrow I can't even walk beside someone on it.

[danbrotherston]

"Multi-use trails everywhere" doesn't make sense. They're a bit wider than sidewalks, but our sidewalks are generally woefully narrow anyway. I don't see why the default would be to take yet more space from people on foot.

They certainly make sense in a lot of places, but not everywhere, and not where there's much foot traffic.

Multi-use trails work here because we have relatively little bike and ped traffic.  If we ever do succeed in building a walkable bikeable community, we'll desperately be replacing them with segregated infra.

The IHT right now is woefully undersized already, and really showing the limitations.  The plan was to go slightly wider which will only improve things a little.  That has of course been watered down into "very slightly wider".

As for "multi-use trails everywhere", a better statement might be "bike AND pedestrian infra everywhere".

As for concrete vs. asphalt, asphalt can be much smoother, if its maintained (which doesn't always happen).  The biggest thing however is that asphalt paths give an indication to users that it is a MUT.

However, what really matters is construction.  Our MUTs vary from poor to awful in design.  Crossings are always illegal for cyclists to use (with one or two exception so far), markings and signage are frequently absent.  Routes are rarely connected.  And, the worst offender, by a large margin is the MUT on Weber St. which from all appearances is just a sidewalk.  The curb cuts are a joke.  It's clear the designers of this gave the following thought to it "What's this 'MUT' they're asking for"...."Oh, a wide sidewalk, got it".

[Markster]

I'm definitely in favour of MUTs on every road.

Which is to say, wide sidewalks on every road, and eliminating the "no bicycles on sidewalks" rule.

[danbrotherston]

I'm definitely in favour of MUTs on every road.

Which is to say, wide sidewalks on every road, and eliminating the "no bicycles on sidewalks" rule.

There's more to MUTs than just "wide sidewalks".

[MidTowner]

What constitutes "wide" must depend on how much foot traffic there is. Most of our sidewalks could be doubled in width, and still wouldn't be wide.

Yes, on streets where there is little foot or bicycle traffic, MUTs make a lot of sense- why put cyclists at risk in mixed traffic or non-segregated lanes to keep them away from people on foot who barely exist? But, as volumes increase, everything should be separate.

[tomh009]

As for concrete vs. asphalt, asphalt can be much smoother, if its maintained (which doesn't always happen).  The biggest thing however is that asphalt paths give an indication to users that it is a MUT.

Me, I would happily take gravel over either one of those.  It would reduce costs, too, and should allow us to have more trail for the same budget.

[Elmira Guy]

/\ Not very accommodating for people in mobility devices though, assuming we care about accommodating such people.

[Canard]

I'm fine with crushed limestone for inter-city trails (ie, a future dream trail between Kitchener and Cambridge!), but for urban environments, I really think it has to be paved...

[Markster]

I much prefer any kind of paving, because I appreciate being able to use my brakes in an emergency, and having a trail that doesn't wash out.

I'm looking at you, Waterloo Park.

[tomh009]

/\ Not very accommodating for people in mobility devices though, assuming we care about accommodating such people.

Quite.  This is just a personal preference.

[danbrotherston]

As for concrete vs. asphalt, asphalt can be much smoother, if its maintained (which doesn't always happen).  The biggest thing however is that asphalt paths give an indication to users that it is a MUT.

Me, I would happily take gravel over either one of those.  It would reduce costs, too, and should allow us to have more trail for the same budget.

I disagree.  For a strictly recreational trail, in a forested area, which provides no through destinations, I can maybe buy it, but in an urban environment, one with snow, rain, and high traffic, definitely not.  It's also pretty much necessitates you not ride a road bike.  Even my skinny tyred hybrid is pretty unpleasant on gravel trails.  As for walking, I get stones in my shoes all the time.  It can even pose a safety hazard, gravel being rather more slippery.  Worse, gravel migrates onto other surfaces and poses a slipping hazard there too.

[ijmorlan]

As for concrete vs. asphalt, asphalt can be much smoother, if its maintained (which doesn't always happen).  The biggest thing however is that asphalt paths give an indication to users that it is a MUT.

Me, I would happily take gravel over either one of those.  It would reduce costs, too, and should allow us to have more trail for the same budget.

If we’re going to save costs by not paving something, we should start with minor residential streets, not paths meant for bicycles or pedestrians. Seriously, is there a single road in the urban part of the city narrower than 6m, or unpaved? Skipping paving even one such road would pay for a substantial bike path paving project.

[timc]

Not that I really agree with it, but we already do a good (?) job of not keeping up with the paving of city streets.

[danbrotherston]

Me, I would happily take gravel over either one of those.  It would reduce costs, too, and should allow us to have more trail for the same budget.

If we’re going to save costs by not paving something, we should start with minor residential streets, not paths meant for bicycles or pedestrians. Seriously, is there a single road in the urban part of the city narrower than 6m, or unpaved? Skipping paving even one such road would pay for a substantial bike path paving project.

So much this.  I cannot stand the enormous waste we have when paving roads.  Unnecessarily wide with huge intersections.

In the Netherlands (which has plenty of money for paving virtually all of their cycle network) most roads are only required width.  Quieter residential streets will be 1 lane-width wide with another car-width for parking.  If you come across across an oncoming car (the rare occasion that it happens, you pull aside for them to pass), it seems totally pointless to pave an enormously wide expensive road and incur the drainage issue with such pavement, (not to mention safety issues), just for the rare case of passing an oncoming car.

The same is true on quiet rural roads, which usually only have space to pass at turnouts...expect to pull over and wait as needed.

So much money spent on such minimal improvements in mobility.

[/rant over]

[KevinL]

One of the surprising factors on road width around here is fire departments. They're accustomed to their large trucks and insist we build roads that can accommodate them in any situation. It's unbelievable how much influence that has had.