Trails

[neonjoe]

That is odd. I got curious because I didn’t know about these crossings so I looked on the satellite view and found another oddity: these crossings all have poor connections to the sidewalks on Homer Watson. Also neither side of Homer Watson has a continuous sidewalk. Overall, very poorly designed.

Things are significantly improved with the MUT along Homer-Watson, but that's pretty new so won't appear on satelite maps.

But yes, Homer Watson is a regional epitome of anti-pedestrian, anti-transit, anti-cycling, car dependent planning.

It is interesting that it does have a lot of crossings, although I would argue there are more crossings of the Conestoga Parkway.  While associated with roads, the Lexington Rd. bridge does include a bikeway/trail, fully separated, and later transitioning off road. I think that's a given to be included.

It also has reasonably good crossings at Frederick St. and Eckert St. with full bike lanes and sidewalks on both sides on reasonble traffic roads

(Side Note: Frederick has large concrete barriers protecting pedestrians from the *checks notes*...existing concrete barrier wall...why they didn't put these barriers between traffic and the vulnerable road users, I will never know...okay...I know, but I slam our engineers enough already....)

And, at one point in time, Westmount also was a good crossing of the Expressway...

To be fair, Homer-Watson also has many intersections which have provisions for cyclists and pedestrians, but those aren't grade separated, so are probably less safe (the one grade separated intersection does NOT have provisions for peds, and given the park on one side and the residential neighbourhood on the other, and the excess of space in the underpass, the fact that there is not a pedestrian access is just one more reprehensible oversight by our regional goverment).

Of course, there are also bike lanes on Northfield, Fischer-Hallman, and Ira Needles, but lets be serious, the only function those serve is to make our city world famous for bad cycling infra.

The east side of Lawrence seems to have a large enough boulevard for the sidewalk to be 'trailized'.

There definitely is enough space, but the region would definitely refuse to do this. I haven't measured it, but just a cursory look shows that would likely exceed the allowed driveway density for a MUT. And given that they are commercial driveways rather than residential single family home driveways, I'd probably even agree with regional staff that there is some risk here (even though I still think their metric is utter shit). I do think a MUT would still be better than what is there now, but regional staff seem to feel that "doing nothing" absolves them of liability for the more dangerous situation they allow to persist.

Of course, the region would never consider mitigations like narrowing the driveway and making it right in right out (which would eliminate the need for four lanes on Lawrence). The driveway to the parking lot at my daughters school (which is shared with the shopping plaza) is only 5.5 m wide at the neck. It is also right in right out. And I'm sure someone will question this, a large tractor trailer delivery vehicle navigated the entrance during school drop off this morning, so it is not actually a real problem.

By comparison the driveway on Lawrence is almost 12 meters wide, and isn't actually used by large delivery vehicles (they access in the back, where there are two more driveways).

Of course, narrowing it like this requires that drivers actually co-operate to allow larger vehicles (*cough* too many vehicles in NA) to actually enter and exit the driveway, and if it's one thing that our car culture is known for, it's polite co-operation between drivers..../s

I believe you meant Victoria. Lawrence is already a two lane wide road (and is not a regional road) 
Your points about Victoria are completely valid.