Trails

[SF22]

Definitely some gaps in that trail, at the moment! Seems like this might be a decent bit of trail when it's done, especially since it'll be off busy Victoria St, with the opportunity to do a bit of train-watching at the same time.

Thanks for going out and taking all those pictures, @dtkvictim!

[dtkvictim]

Definitely some gaps in that trail, at the moment! Seems like this might be a decent bit of trail when it's done, especially since it'll be off busy Victoria St, with the opportunity to do a bit of train-watching at the same time.

Thanks for going out and taking all those pictures, @dtkvictim!

This trail has finally been paved. Was already seeing a lot more people heading through this area, and that should pick up even more with this trail being in a usable state. Now we just wait and see how long it takes for the Victoria St crossing to get painted and have bags removed from the bike signals (seems like it always takes them 6-12 months to turn them on after hanging - the Weber St MUT bike signals are still covered). The transition area at the Victoria St crossing also looks really awkward, it's just a narrow strip of asphalt that is separate from the sidewalk and on an odd angle.

[cherrypark]

Glad to see this finally getting done but that Victoria St. termination is such typical budget trimming when a proper replacement would have been so much better for everyone. Also would like to know if the people designing these MUTs at right angles like that have ever ridden a bike. At least pave the radius a little so its not just muddy dead grass forever!

[Acitta]

The MUT on King St. near Sportsworld is now complete.

From the Region of Waterloo on FB: 

Good news! King Street near Sportsworld Crossing (Tu-Lane Street and Gateway Park) is now fully opened!

   

[dtkvictim]

Does anyone know if there are plans to close this gap in trails? It's the most convenient way I've found to cycle from downtown to the Williamsburg area, via Lakeside Park. It will be even better combined with the new highway bridge crossing. It would be nice to not have to walk that section (I'm not interested in cycling on and making a left turn on Highland).

I'm assuming this would involve the city and the region though, making it a difficult battle if it's not already planned in some master plan.

Open to hearing alternative routes too.

[danbrotherston]

Does anyone know if there are plans to close this gap in trails? It's the most convenient way I've found to cycle from downtown to the Williamsburg area, via Lakeside Park. It will be even better combined with the new highway bridge crossing. It would be nice to not have to walk that section (I'm not interested in cycling on and making a left turn on Highland).

I'm assuming this would involve the city and the region though, making it a difficult battle if it's not already planned in some master plan.

Open to hearing alternative routes too.

There is no plan beyond what is built now. It was just rebuilt (okay “just” like a decade ago but it’s not changing soon). However the sidewalk is wider there. I believe the intention is to ride on the sidewalk. Honestly my bigger issue with that route is Lawrence. So many turning movements and lanes. It leads to distracted and impatient drivers making sudden lane changes.

As for alternatives, they still have the protectedish bike lanes on Queens and Belmont right? Usually I would use them to connect to the trail into downtown. You can also go across Stirling and go up the trail or even Cortland depending on where in DTK you’re headed.

[cherrypark]

Yeah, the south sidewalk on Highland is one of those "we paved the grass so it's a MUT now" sections, though it unceremoniously spits you onto a zero protection Lawrence between two busy lot exits.

My recommendation from downtown using the new bridge would be to grab Highland or Belmont (though Lakeside) to Sterling and then the bridge. Likely more direct anyways unless you are coming from west of Belmont to begin with (I do this route ~daily from Westmount).

[dtkvictim]

As for alternatives, they still have the protectedish bike lanes on Queens and Belmont right?  Usually I would use them to connect to the trail into downtown. You can also go across Stirling and go up the trail or even Cortland depending on where in DTK you’re headed.

Yeah Queen still has the decent protected lanes. Unless I misunderstood though you mean to take Belmont there, and that has essentially a painted bike lane across the Sobeys driveway, and a slip lane to cross just past that at Highland. Not ideal for my spouses comfort level.

The new Highland Road East bike lanes connect to Stirling now, so that isn't a bad option either. But is it just my luck, or is something stupid always happening at Pleasant Ave? Like a car always hanging out on the bike lane trying to shoot a gap in traffic, not checking both directions properly.

However the sidewalk is wider there. I believe the intention is to ride on the sidewalk.

Yeah, the south sidewalk on Highland is one of those "we paved the grass so it's a MUT now" sections

I wasn't sure there, but I can't say I haven't just biked that part since it's so wide.

[danbrotherston]

As for alternatives, they still have the protectedish bike lanes on Queens and Belmont right?  Usually I would use them to connect to the trail into downtown. You can also go across Stirling and go up the trail or even Cortland depending on where in DTK you’re headed.

Yeah Queen still has the decent protected lanes. Unless I misunderstood though you mean to take Belmont there, and that has essentially a painted bike lane across the Sobeys driveway, and a slip lane to cross just past that at Highland. Not ideal for my spouses comfort level.

The new Highland Road East bike lanes connect to Stirling now, so that isn't a bad option either. But is it just my luck, or is something stupid always happening at Pleasant Ave? Like a car always hanging out on the bike lane trying to shoot a gap in traffic, not checking both directions properly.

....

Yes, I did mean going up Belmont. I do agree the slip lane is pretty uncomfortable there. But at least in the Northbound direction it's pretty decent I think (the biggest challenge is the left turn off Highland then, which when I wasn't brave enough, I would do as a two stage turn, but I now realize you can also cut off the lakeside trail right to the stub end of Belmont where it's a side street and then just go straight through the lights). But of course your comfort may vary.

Oh yeah! I forgot about the Highland lanes, they were built since I left (although I remember they were proposed). I should check them out next time I'm in town. If you want to avoid the Stirling/Pleasant intersection, you can also turn right onto Mausser Ave. and avoid making a left onto Highland as well.

[KevinL]

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

[danbrotherston]

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

[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.

[danbrotherston]

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.

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.

No, I meant Lawrence. It is four lanes at Highland, where this discussion is focused (because dtkvictim was wanting to use the section between highland and the trail). This section is four lanes and has tons of plaza traffic. 

Ironically, Victoria has a MUT now (at least the part past the highway) and this is despite having many extremely wide commercial driveways. This is what I meant by their metric being shit. They consider only the density of driveways, not the nature. A single car wide residential drive that has maybe two very slow car movements a day is counted the same as a wide multi lane commercial driveway with a slip ramp carrying thousands of high speed turns a day. 

You’re right it is a city street, but I think the same applies. They’re both using the same provincial manuals. The city is a little more willing to push the boundaries so maybe it’s more possible but it is still going to involve going against engineering guidance.

[neonjoe]

The additional lanes at highland are just turning lanes but you are correct this could be simplified with a small diet by changing the two dedicated turning lanes into a centre turning lane. The left lanes into Tim’s and Evergreen plaza are probably needed to ensure that left turning traffic into these places doesn’t case the through traffic to block into highland. I don’t think I if this were developed today the entrances into Tim’s would be allowed.

[danbrotherston]

The additional lanes at highland are just turning lanes but you are correct this could be simplified with a small diet by changing the two dedicated turning lanes into a centre turning lane. The left lanes into Tim’s and Evergreen plaza are probably needed to ensure that left turning traffic into these places doesn’t case the through traffic to block into highland. I don’t think I if this were developed today the entrances into Tim’s would be allowed.

I don't think a centre turning lane would work there. Fundamentally the problem is that the density of driveways is too high (e.g., drivers waiting to turn left into Tims would conflict with drivers turning left the other way--or at least I'm sure this is what the "traffic projects" would indicate).

I think a better solution would be to make the driveways right-in-right-out and disallow left turns entirely. This is something engineers in Canada are loathed to do, because drivers feel entitled to go however they please. But it is a very effective strategy for reducing the complexity of movements.

Now, doing so would take a rethink of the traffic flows in the entire area because there are other entrances to the plaza (which should also probably be RIRO, as left turns on the main road are dangerous---as it makes it a stroad). Of course, but even as is, limiting turning movements wouldn't be a problem, drivers can just proceed around the block. But if the 3 minute detour around the block is considered intolerable to drivers (which I'm sure it would be) then simply adding U-turn movements (or roundabouts) in a few strategic places could eliminate that entirely.

But of course, since safety is not the priority, that'll never happen. And of course, this is safety for drivers too...this is a dangerous road for drivers.