[Uptown] Erb/Bridgeport/Caroline/Albert Reconstruction

[MidTowner]

With the current limit 50, most traffic does 60-70, and some even faster. I'd rather see the limit at 60 and enforced, perhaps with photo-radar, than at 50 and ignored, both by drivers and the cops. I'll bet average speeds would be lower than they are today. IMO that would be safer for pedestrians. (As would a signalled crossing where Laurel Cr crosses Bridgeport, just as there is where it crosses Erb.)

Again: if most traffic is doing 60-70, and some even faster (which I agree is the case), it's because the road is designed to allow those speeds. Redesigning the road is the only way to prevent those speeds. If motorists are ignoring the current posted speed limit, they will ignore a new posted speed limit.

Unfortunately, realistically, photo radar is for the time being not going to be an option in this province. Earlier this year, the current government said as much when York Region was to request the ability to use it.

Converting these things to two-way traffic would be easy and cheap. Traffic could flow at fifty kilometres per hour as it does on many other two-way streets but, outside of peak hours, motorists would not be faced with a freeway that encourages speeds of 70km/h or faster.

[ookpik]

Converting these things to two-way traffic would be easy and cheap. Traffic could flow at fifty kilometres per hour as it does on many other two-way streets but, outside of peak hours, motorists would not be faced with a freeway that encourages speeds of 70km/h or faster.

That's a very big, expensive and likely highly contentious issue. Even if you could make a good case, it would take many years to get approval, let alone carry out the implementation. And recall that those streets were originally converted from 2-way to 1-way some decades ago in anticipation of increasing traffic volumes. All I can say is, "Good luck with that."

OTOH there are two very simple measures that (thinking) city planners could take that would be cheap to implement and require little or no public consultation:
1. Coordinate the traffic light sensors on minor cross streets like Bluevale to participate in the green wave rather than disrupt it as they now do.
2. Put up signs along Bridgeport and Erb to indicate green wave timing is in effect and remind drivers that resistancespeeding is thus futile.

[SammyOES]

Converting the roads also seems like it affects cars way more than the benefit pedestrians gain.

I honestly have no problem having a few routes that are more car friendly than pedestrian friendly. I know that's super offensive to some people here, but so be it. A reasonably fast route from the expressway to Uptown seems pretty nice to me and there are lots of more important places in Waterloo to focus on being pedestrian friendly.

That's not to say the current set up is ideal. But doing something like ookpik is saying plus dropping one lane from each of Erb and Bridgeport in favour of a dedicated bike lane and more friendly pedestrian walkways seems likely to: improve the non-car experience, have minimal effect on travel time in a car, and be able to be done without significant cost and public arguments.

[Spokes]

Bridgeport and Erb are almost Green Wave done right.

...Except the cross streets aren't integrated properly and screw it all up if just 1 car is waiting on the sensor.

I know the crossing at Bluevale can get messed up with so many students crossing there.

[MidTowner]

That's a very big, expensive and likely highly contentious issue. Even if you could make a good case, it would take many years to get approval, let alone carry out the implementation. And recall that those streets were originally converted from 2-way to 1-way some decades ago in anticipation of increasing traffic volumes. All I can say is, "Good luck with that."

I think contentious is probably true, but converting it to two-way would not be particularly big or expensive. A few new traffic signals would be required, which would be costly, but the streets would not need to be closed for weeks or months for disruptive construction.

It might be possible to get people on board with it, though. As mentioned, Charles and Duke were reverted to two-way, and I think most people would view that as very positive. Certainly downtown Kitchener has not been snarled by traffic as a result.

SammyOES' idea is probably the most realistic middle-ground. If changing these streets back to two-way is unlikely, a lane should be set aside for bicycles and improved walking infrastructure.

[ookpik]

SammyOES' idea is probably the most realistic middle-ground. If changing these streets back to two-way is unlikely, a lane should be set aside for bicycles and improved walking infrastructure.

I have no problem with that. I made the two "OTOH" suggestions primarily because they would be expedient and inexpensive to implement, even if only experimentally. If they help reduce average traffic speeds then by all means let's go further to make those two streets even more friendly to pedestrians and cyclists.

[Pheidippides]

Keep in mind that switching Erb from 3 lanes eastbound to 1 isn't a reduction of 2 lanes, because you would gain one on Bridgeport; the vice versa is true of westbound lanes on Bridgeport it would go from 3 to 1, but you gain one on Erb. So a net "loss" of one lane on both stretches plus the additional of two shared center turn lanes along the both stretches.

The two directional travel is also adding to the connectivity (more ways to get to the same place) of the street network and so if there is a crash or construction there are alternatives.

Consider a simple trip of getting from Royal St to the Waterloo library. Under the current set-up it is a two-way trip of 4.7km by car, but with two-way streets it becomes a two-way trip of 3.3km (a 30% savings in distance travelled). Plus, without two raceways to contend with you're more likely to just walk to the library at that distance anyway. :-)

Are there similar roads in the region (one lane each way + shared centre turn lane) with similar traffic volumes that could demonstrate that it could handle the volume? The only one that comes to mind is Bishop St in Cambridge between Hespler Rd (2014 AADT = 46,680) and Conestoga Blvd (2014 AADT = 21,848). Comparatively speaking Erb and Bridgeport's busiest intersection is at Weber with 2014 AADT's of 39,725 and 31,320 respectively while the average AADT for Bridgeport between Albert and the expressway is about 17,000 (as it is for Erb too). Source:
http://www.regionofwaterloo.ca/en/gettin...ations.pdf
(this would be much more useful to the community as an OpenData GIS layer than as a PDF)

From the limited reading I've done it seems like up to about 28,000 AADT two-way left turn lane (TWLTL) roads can have as much capacity as a multi-lane road without a left turn lane. If that is the case then since Erb and Bridgeport are not near reaching those capacities along the majority of their stretches it would make sense to make them more liveable, safer, and efficient/connected while not reducing the capacity.

[SammyOES]

It's not as simple as just comparing the # of lanes though. Making the roads two-way means poorer light syncronization, I assume at least one extra stoplight (where erb/bridgeport diverge at the expressway), and magnify the effects of single cars turning. For example, one car turning right in a one-lane road that has to wait for a pedestrian now blocks all other car traffic behind it.

It's also not clear how things would work around King st. Now we have two places where cars are turning left off of King. If we only have two lanes to work with on Erb and Bridgeport we can't have both a dedicated left and right turn lane (which is clearly needed - see earlier ITT).

Your example with the Library seems a bit contrived, but yes two way roads are probably better for the people that live in that neighborhood. But like I said, it makes sense to me to make it easier for cars to get to/from the expressway and Uptown.

[BuildingScout]

A reasonably fast route from the expressway to Uptown seems pretty nice to me and there are lots of more important places in Waterloo to focus on being pedestrian friendly.

This.

[MidTowner]

Out of curiosity, where else is it not important to provide a friendly environment to people on foot?

[SammyOES]

On the expressway.

Designing a city is full of tradeoffs - and I find both the car-centric and pedestrian-centric advocates are generally selfish and want everything their way.  The current design of Bridgeport and Erb allows foot traffic.  It's not ideal but its not dangerous.  And it seems like there are a few changes that could be made that could make it friendlier.

But yes, sometimes we sacrifice a friendly environment for people on foot for a better experience for people in cars.  And vice versa.

[MidTowner]

On the expressway.

Designing a city is full of tradeoffs - and I find both the car-centric and pedestrian-centric advocates are generally selfish and want everything their way.  The current design of Bridgeport and Erb allows foot traffic.  It's not ideal but its not dangerous.  And it seems like there are a few changes that could be made that could make it friendlier.

But yes, sometimes we sacrifice a friendly environment for people on foot for a better experience for people in cars.  And vice versa.

Maybe we should make these streets controlled-access freeways then. But they're not. They're city streets that pass through residential neighbourhoods. I would say that, if you admit that the situation is not "ideal," you agree that it should change.

No one seems to want things entirely their own way. If that were true, you would have people saying that these streets be closed to through traffic. That's not the case. As you say, the situation on these streets is not ideal: they do not need to be three-lane freeways, and a safe environment for people using other means of transportation can and should be provided while still allowing reasonable flow of car traffic.

[SammyOES]

Maybe we should make these streets controlled-access freeways then. But they're not. They're city streets that pass through residential neighbourhoods. I would say that, if you admit that the situation is not "ideal," you agree that it should change.

Obviously I think it should change - I said how I think it should change (although my statements have been more based on a limitless funding world - I'm not sure I think the roads should be changed in our limited resources world). I don't think its a big problem now, and the solutions some of you are presenting seem bad to me (again, I outlined why).

It's fine to disagree on how we trade off foot friendly and car friendly designs.

No one seems to want things entirely their own way. If that were true, you would have people saying that these streets be closed to through traffic. That's not the case. As you say, the situation on these streets is not ideal: they do not need to be three-lane freeways, and a safe environment for people using other means of transportation can and should be provided while still allowing reasonable flow of car traffic.

What's the statistics on pedestrian injuries on these streets? It's been mentioned that its dangerous multiple times, I don't know what the actual statistics are, but this is the first I've heard about it being this dangerous to pedestrians.

[MidTowner]

Obviously I think it should change - I said how I think it should change (although my statements have been more based on a limitless funding world - I'm not sure I think the roads should be changed in our limited resources world). I don't think its a big problem now, and the solutions some of you are presenting seem bad to me (again, I outlined why).

It's fine to disagree on how we trade off foot friendly and car friendly designs.

The changes you said you'd like to see (eliminate one lane of car traffic to allow for infrastructure for people on foot and bike) are not only not particularly expensive, but reduce the Region's expenses in the long-run: you will have eliminated a pretty significant ongoing maintenance cost in favour of a lesser one. So it's not a question of funds. Switching these streets back to normal would not be particularly costly, either.

When I hear that this isn't the place (and by place I guess we're meaning maybe a two-kilometre by five hundred or so meter swath of Waterloo) to worry about a friendly environment for people on foot, that doesn't sound like some of us are looking for trade-offs.

[SammyOES]

The changes you said you'd like to see (eliminate one lane of car traffic to allow for infrastructure for people on foot and bike) are not only not particularly expensive, but reduce the Region's expenses in the long-run: you will have eliminated a pretty significant ongoing maintenance cost in favour of a lesser one. So it's not a question of funds. Switching these streets back to normal would not be particularly costly, either.

Lots of things aren't particularly expensive.  That doesn't mean they're worth doing.  I honestly have no sense of what the cost of this would be, but I suspect its at least a couple of million when all is said and done (and probably more).

I'm not sure what maintenance cost we're saving.

When I hear that this isn't the place (and by place I guess we're meaning maybe a two-kilometre by five hundred or so meter swath of Waterloo) to worry about a friendly environment for people on foot, that doesn't sound like some of us are looking for trade-offs.

Who?  I think almost everybody ITT has pointed out that we want it to be friendly to people on foot.  But I think many of us don't take it as fact that:

a) It's particularly hostile right now
b) There are a significant number of pedestrian being influenced by this.
c) This is a priority for spending limited resources to improve pedestrian friendliness
d) Switching to two two-way roads is enough of a benefit to pedestrians to offset the significant disadvantage to cars.