Road design, transportation and walkability

[danbrotherston]

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.

To be fair they plan the standard mediocre MUTs along this section, crossing dangerous highway slip ramps and in no way changing the sprawling suburban car dependent policy.

As for a Trussler interchange on the 401, I have no idea, but that’s a provincial project that’s a about 15 km away, I don’t see it having meaningful impact here even if the countryside line was expanded.

[ijmorlan]

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.

Typical poor negotiating skills. The Region should not be entering into contracts with consultants who have secret models. There is no way that their models are so amazing that they justify such a compromise of the public’s right to be involved in decisions.

Yes, I know it’s not really about negotiating skills, but rather priorities. The point is, they signed a contract they shouldn’t have signed.

[tomh009]

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.

To be fair they plan the standard mediocre MUTs along this section, crossing dangerous highway slip ramps and in no way changing the sprawling suburban car dependent policy.

Mediocre MUTs ... because both pedestrians and cyclists? Really, on Trussler, it's far enough on the edge of suburbia that I expect the pedestrian traffic to be minimal, and the MUT usage will be 90% cyclists.

[clasher]

To be fair they plan the standard mediocre MUTs along this section, crossing dangerous highway slip ramps and in no way changing the sprawling suburban car dependent policy.

Mediocre MUTs ... because both pedestrians and cyclists? Really, on Trussler, it's far enough on the edge of suburbia that I expect the pedestrian traffic to be minimal, and the MUT usage will be 90% cyclists.

I've used the MUTs on the section of Ottawa St. that intersects here and goes back into town... there are a few things they could have done better but they aren't too bad, and there are usually a few pedestrians on the path as well. It's better than an on-street bike lane in my experience.

[danbrotherston]

To be fair they plan the standard mediocre MUTs along this section, crossing dangerous highway slip ramps and in no way changing the sprawling suburban car dependent policy.

Mediocre MUTs ... because both pedestrians and cyclists? Really, on Trussler, it's far enough on the edge of suburbia that I expect the pedestrian traffic to be minimal, and the MUT usage will be 90% cyclists.

There are many reasons that MUTs are mediocre, we've discussed them at length here, we don't need to rehash it every time, but in this case I even mentioned some of the problems, so I'd appreciate the courtesy of not minimizing issues like you are with your comment.

[tomh009]

Mediocre MUTs ... because both pedestrians and cyclists? Really, on Trussler, it's far enough on the edge of suburbia that I expect the pedestrian traffic to be minimal, and the MUT usage will be 90% cyclists.

There are many reasons that MUTs are mediocre, we've discussed them at length here, we don't need to rehash it every time, but in this case I even mentioned some of the problems, so I'd appreciate the courtesy of not minimizing issues like you are with your comment.

As I understand it, your main issue with MUTs is pedestrian-cyclist conflict, but in this case it's unlikely to be a major issue. And a MUT has significant physical separation, better than an on-street bicycle lane. So I'd appreciate the courtesy of not dismissing my question out of hand like you are with your comment.

[danbrotherston]

There are many reasons that MUTs are mediocre, we've discussed them at length here, we don't need to rehash it every time, but in this case I even mentioned some of the problems, so I'd appreciate the courtesy of not minimizing issues like you are with your comment.

As I understand it, your main issue with MUTs is pedestrian-cyclist conflict, but in this case it's unlikely to be a major issue. And a MUT has significant physical separation, better than an on-street bicycle lane. So I'd appreciate the courtesy of not dismissing my question out of hand like you are with your comment.

That isn't my main issue with MUTs, others actually care much more about this issue than I do, in many cases I have argued that the ped conflicts on MUTs aren't a big deal in areas like this, I even pointed out that the Netherlands has many MUTs.

I also agree that the separation with traffic is good.

But intersections are generally awful, with some intersections instead being down right dangerous. A MUT going through a highway interchange with slip lanes is almost certain to have dangerous intersections.

[tomh009]

Thank you for the explanation.

[jamincan]

I don't think that's a good reason to not build MUTs, though. Fix the intersections if that's the problem. On high-speed roads (Trussler in that section being one of them), a MUT is far preferable to on-street options and far more pleasant for pedestrians and cyclists.

[danbrotherston]

I don't think that's a good reason to not build MUTs, though. Fix the intersections if that's the problem. On high-speed roads (Trussler in that section being one of them), a MUT is far preferable to on-street options and far more pleasant for pedestrians and cyclists.

I am in no way suggesting on street cycling infrastructure.

It is entirely possible to build off road segregated cycling infrastructure with safe intersections. The region does not do this. This does not mean when I call the region out for this I am arguing for on road infrastructure...

[Coke6pk]

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.

As for a Trussler interchange on the 401, I have no idea, but that’s a provincial project that’s a about 15 km away, I don’t see it having meaningful impact here even if the countryside line was expanded.

If I recall correctly, the Region of Waterloo was pushing the province for a 401 interchange, however 1/2 of that interchange belongs in Oxford or Brant county, who have no desire to pay a share of the costs.

Coke

[ijmorlan]

As for a Trussler interchange on the 401, I have no idea, but that’s a provincial project that’s a about 15 km away, I don’t see it having meaningful impact here even if the countryside line was expanded.

If I recall correctly, the Region of Waterloo was pushing the province for a 401 interchange, however 1/2 of that interchange belongs in Oxford or Brant county, who have no desire to pay a share of the costs.

Coke

Interesting. I would say that this could be done on the cheap. First, the ramps pointing to the east aren’t needed at all — just use the Cedar Creek Rd. interchange. Next, the westbound on ramp can just continue straight south from the intersection of Trussler and Township Rd. 11 and curve onto the highway. The eastbound off ramp can just branch off before the bridge and end at a right angle with Trussler road. No new bridges, very little construction.

Still, even this minimal version is probably a multi-million dollar project.

[embe]

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.

This makes a lot of sense, so I'm not sure where the disconnect is.  Engineering firm comes up with a proprietary design, arguably better than the competition, and they are bound by contract not to share it.  Not seeing anything shady here other than some IP being protected by the people that are paying, for said design.

[embe]

Side note, how about the Victoria MUT (I heard it was going from from Bruce St. towards Breslau)

[ijmorlan]

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.

This makes a lot of sense, so I'm not sure where the disconnect is.  Engineering firm comes up with a proprietary design, arguably better than the competition, and they are bound by contract not to share it.  Not seeing anything shady here other than some IP being protected by the people that are paying, for said design.

No, that’s BS. We’re talking about public infrastructure that we all have to live with. We’re entitled to understand the decision process that goes into designing it. Also, there is no way that whatever proprietary model (or whatever) they’ve built is enough better than what everybody else is doing that it’s worth giving up transparency for access to the model.

It might be different if somebody could develop a model that was so amazingly accurate that it would allow us to cut in half the cost of our road network by building exactly the roads we need (or whatever), but that is simply not reality.

It’s more likely that staff are happy with the model being proprietary because it means they have a perfect excuse for not engaging in good faith discussion of the details of the resulting designs. They’re terrible at explaining themselves, so having an excuse not to even try is a good thing.

Example of what I mean: I suggested a pedestrian crossing refuge on Union at the Spur Line trail. The planner started mumbling something about signalized crossings and explaining that new legislation allows them to do things with pedestrian crossovers (or crosswalks) that they couldn’t before. No evidence that they understood why I think a crossing refuge is better. No explanation of what specifically the new legislation allows that they couldn’t do before. In fact, as far as I can tell, the new rules just codify standards for building crosswalks, which have been possible since I was a little bitty baby. Spoiler alert: they eventually built a (low-quality) pedestrian refuge at that location. I’d love to know how they decided to do that, given the reception the idea got when I presented it.