Road design, transportation and walkability

[danbrotherston]

This kind of believe that you can make massive road investments "a win for everyone" just by adding some compromised cycling and walking infra around the thing is like lipstick on a pig, it doesn't change the fact that building suburbs designe exclusively around the car make walking and cycling unpleasant bordering on intolerable. Yes, this road isn't as bad as say Fairway, but it's not a design which makes cycling walking and transit a real option--despite what the regions transportation policy claims to do.

It's unfortunate that you feel MUT's  are "compromised" cycling and walking infrastructure?  I've used them without a problem and think they work pretty good.

Why is it unfortunate.  I'm glad they meet your needs, but perhaps you'd be interested in discovering what their limitations are.

[danbrotherston]

Recreation is great, no one would argue with that. But it's limited. The question, though, is: can you live your life without a car? Walking and biking should be usable as primary means of transportation, not just as recreation.

Recreation is limited?  How?

  Walking and biking could be used as primary means as it pertains to the individual or their situation.  I just wouldn't want to take my son to hockey practice on a 7 am January morning on our bicycles.  Walking or biking down to the grocery store to pick up weekly groceries for a family of five is not something I really feel like doing.  But, I can and have biked down to the neighbourhood Zehrs to pick up a small individual item.  Guess I could cycle the 25 km to work but then I don't have shower facilities when I get there and again I would never consider it in winter.  I commend you for these two modes being able to be your primary means, just doesn't work for me. 
 Even those who are able to have those two modes as their primary means at some point still rely on someone who uses some sort of vehicle to deliver a product or service ( pizza guy, plumber, UPS, service tech etc. ).  Now that I think of it, when I was younger I did try to bring a pizza home on a bicycle.  It didn't look great when I got home but I still ate it.

But limited he meant that it's only one of many possible things you might want to do with a bike.

So because cycling doesn't work for you (and you don't question why), you don't want it to be an option for ANYBODY.

The point is not that cycling is everyone's preference, it's that even if it is your preference, it isn't possible.  I would absolutely ride with my kid to sports practice at 7 am in the morning, but I wouldn't if you can't do so safely, which is the whole point.

The design of our road system doesn't enable choice, it restricts it, you HAVE to own a car whether you want to or not.

Nobody anywhere, besides the most extreme people out there (and believe it or not, I am not even remotely close) are arguing to ban cars everywhere either actually or by virtue of restrictive policy. But plenty of people, including people here, advocate for policies which effectively ban all other modes than car.

[KevinL]

MUTs work well in low density areas - the ones along Homer Watson, for example, will probably never be used to capacity as that road does not pass any dense developments.

However, in more dense areas they are trying to fill the role of both sidewalk and bike lane when those should probably be separate - navigating around pedestrians at bicycle speeds becomes a point of conflict soon enough. I think our planners are too quick to jump on them as a solution when a more thorough implementation would be safer.

[plam]

Recreation is great, no one would argue with that. But it's limited. The question, though, is: can you live your life without a car? Walking and biking should be usable as primary means of transportation, not just as recreation.

Recreation is limited?  How?

  Walking and biking could be used as primary means as it pertains to the individual or their situation.  I just wouldn't want to take my son to hockey practice on a 7 am January morning on our bicycles.  Walking or biking down to the grocery store to pick up weekly groceries for a family of five is not something I really feel like doing.  But, I can and have biked down to the neighbourhood Zehrs to pick up a small individual item.  Guess I could cycle the 25 km to work but then I don't have shower facilities when I get there and again I would never consider it in winter.  I commend you for these two modes being able to be your primary means, just doesn't work for me. 
 Even those who are able to have those two modes as their primary means at some point still rely on someone who uses some sort of vehicle to deliver a product or service ( pizza guy, plumber, UPS, service tech etc. ).  Now that I think of it, when I was younger I did try to bring a pizza home on a bicycle.  It didn't look great when I got home but I still ate it.

As danbrotherson said, recreation is limited means that it's good to be able to use the bicycle as not just for recreation but also for living one's daily life. I do actually have a friend living in downtown Toronto who takes his kids to hockey practice on his cargo bike; it's probably as fast as a car would be. In other places (and when there's no pandemic) there's not the expectation of doing once-per-week groceries. Electric cargo bikes are probably going to become popular for urban deliveries also, and I think there are a lot of urban food-delivery workers that use bicycles. Plumbers probably need a truck.

Depending on where you live, some of these may not be feasible, such as small/remote communities without local stores. But, even then, you could work within walking distance, bicycle to some places and take a taxi once in a while. It's really a continuum.

Sure. Historically there would have been a general store in a village but I think times are tough for such establishments now. The question is around what sort of lifestyle we should build our urban design, where we want most people to live: places where they have to drive every day, or places where there are multiple viable options.

(These are not normal times and this is not my normal life, but I actually was not in a car from March 25 to April 29. It's definitely possible to do so where I'm living in Kelburn, a suburb of Wellington. In Waterloo I can also live my normal life without a car, although getting out of town without a car is slower or more complicated than I'm willing to do most of the time.)

However, in more dense areas they are trying to fill the role of both sidewalk and bike lane when those should probably be separate - navigating around pedestrians at bicycle speeds becomes a point of conflict soon enough. I think our planners are too quick to jump on them as a solution when a more thorough implementation would be safer.

Yep. Even 30 years ago the bike path and walking path along Notre Dame Est in Montreal was not multi-use. There is enough use that you want to keep these uses separated.

[tomh009]

MUTs work well in low density areas - the ones along Homer Watson, for example, will probably never be used to capacity as that road does not pass any dense developments.

However, in more dense areas they are trying to fill the role of both sidewalk and bike lane when those should probably be separate - navigating around pedestrians at bicycle speeds becomes a point of conflict soon enough. I think our planners are too quick to jump on them as a solution when a more thorough implementation would be safer.

This started with discussion about Fischer-Hallman, I think. And that would likely be a good fit for a MUT, as it will get relatively little either bicycle or pedestrian traffic (for the foreseeable future).

[danbrotherston]

Recreation is limited?  How?

  Walking and biking could be used as primary means as it pertains to the individual or their situation.  I just wouldn't want to take my son to hockey practice on a 7 am January morning on our bicycles.  Walking or biking down to the grocery store to pick up weekly groceries for a family of five is not something I really feel like doing.  But, I can and have biked down to the neighbourhood Zehrs to pick up a small individual item.  Guess I could cycle the 25 km to work but then I don't have shower facilities when I get there and again I would never consider it in winter.  I commend you for these two modes being able to be your primary means, just doesn't work for me. 
 Even those who are able to have those two modes as their primary means at some point still rely on someone who uses some sort of vehicle to deliver a product or service ( pizza guy, plumber, UPS, service tech etc. ).  Now that I think of it, when I was younger I did try to bring a pizza home on a bicycle.  It didn't look great when I got home but I still ate it.

As danbrotherson said, recreation is limited means that it's good to be able to use the bicycle as not just for recreation but also for living one's daily life. I do actually have a friend living in downtown Toronto who takes his kids to hockey practice on his cargo bike; it's probably as fast as a car would be. In other places (and when there's no pandemic) there's not the expectation of doing once-per-week groceries. Electric cargo bikes are probably going to become popular for urban deliveries also, and I think there are a lot of urban food-delivery workers that use bicycles. Plumbers probably need a truck.

....

Not a plumber specifically, but my grandma knows a generaly handyman in her building who doesn't have a truck or car, he rides his bike, with a ladder and cans of paint, tools etc., and occasionally uses the bus. Definitely not typical, but it is good to have options, and given that delivery trucks are being replaced by cargo bikes, bikes are a lot more capable than most people believe.

[danbrotherston]

MUTs work well in low density areas - the ones along Homer Watson, for example, will probably never be used to capacity as that road does not pass any dense developments.

However, in more dense areas they are trying to fill the role of both sidewalk and bike lane when those should probably be separate - navigating around pedestrians at bicycle speeds becomes a point of conflict soon enough. I think our planners are too quick to jump on them as a solution when a more thorough implementation would be safer.

MUTs work well enough in low density areas, and I have certainly argued that they are often sufficient, but they are also a piece of infra that really can't succeed, if we had a meaningful transition to cycling as a mode of transportation, they'd all be crowded pretty quickly (remember, there are far far fewer bike routes, than car routes, so the few bike routes would be overwhelmed with even 1/10 of the car traffic we have.

But there are other limitations, they are often poorly designed, and the intersections are generally...well, garbage...utter garbage...somewhere between negligently dangerous and intentionally bad (and I do mean intentional here, our engineers have occasionally stated they refuse to design an intersection safely because they believe that will encourage *gasp* use of it).

So generally, they're useful for small numbers of recreational cyclists, sometimes for small numbers of utility cyclists (if they actually connect) but are not useful for sport cyclists, and encourage bad cyclist behaviour by being generally poorly designed.

And certainly a MUT does not really negate the unpleasantness of riding next to a massive four lane highway during rush hour. Again, it might be perfectly pleasant on a Sunday recreational ride, but most people need to commute to work during rush hour (those limtiations we talked about). Certainly they lack the sheer terror of of riding on the four lane highway, but they certainly lack the enjoyment of riding a well designed cycleway in a region that hasn't decided that 100% of people must drive a car.

That's what I mean by compromised.  Certainly they exist and meet the needs of some users, a different set of users from on street bike lanes...but they could be vastly better.

[danbrotherston]

Here's an interesting video from a great youtube channel talking about why we have so many cars crashing into buildings:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ra_0DgnJ1uQ

It's rather funny to read the comments in these incidents here, people are often shocked and surprised, and it's like they've never ever paid attention to other drivers.

[danbrotherston]

Just in case anyone thought that the Fischer-Hallman project was in anyway unusual or unique, Trussler road, which currently looks like this:

   

Is going to council for widening from 7/8 south to Bleams. The region talks a good game with their urban boundary and with their "choices" policy for transportation.

But the actual implementation seeks to build car exclusive infrastructure and suburbs forever.

According to the countryside line, this should be the very edge of the city, nothing beyond, there is no justification for a four lane road here, yet we're going to build one. Building infrastructure ensures it will be used, I'll take any bet that the countryside line moves, and why shouldn't it, we've invested in infrastructure there.

[KevinL]

But it's at the EDGE of the city! People IN the city near that edge need to access the highway easily as well!

...is the likely argument.

[danbrotherston]

But it's at the EDGE of the city! People IN the city near that edge need to access the highway easily as well!

...is the likely argument.

I'm sure they have magic traffic models showing the need (in 20-30 years)...but I really really would be curious to exactly what those models contain.

Of course, those models are secret for....some....reason.

[jamincan]

Are they actually secret? Have you asked the planners for more information on their models?

[panamaniac]

Am I remembering correctly that Trussler is supposed to get a 401 interchange at some time in the future?

[ijmorlan]

Am I remembering correctly that Trussler is supposed to get a 401 interchange at some time in the future?

That actually makes sense for access to the west side of the city from the west. But Trussler should remain 2 lanes indefinitely. If it is to be upgraded, it should be to add parallel fully separated active transportation routes while protecting for a fully separate transit right of way.

[danbrotherston]

Are they actually secret? Have you asked the planners for more information on their models?

Yes, they were asked and answered that this is proprietary information, covered under contract with consultants that isn’t permitted to be released. 

I suspect that council could see it if they wanted, but not us.