Trails

[danbrotherston]

I've noticed at times that the Laurel Trail through Waterloo Park can become crowded. I've generally been biking in the later afternoon or evening searching for ice cream or a food truck.  Unfortunately it seems like there is not enough room for cyclist to navigate around streams of pedestrian traffic that is either traveling in the same direction or in the opposite direction of travel.  There is a definite pinch point around Perimeter and the Clay & Glass where there is little room for people to step aside to pass each other (or for a bike to bike around them).  Covid-19 distancing also makes it fun.

So go slower, it won't kill you, or take an alternate route if you are in a big hurry. I find it annoying that some cyclists complain about pedestrians the way some motorists complain about cyclists.

We've already had the discussion where we point out that complaining that the infra is insufficient for the users it is seeing is perfectly reasonable, and it's equally annoying for you to tell me that I shouldn't even be allowed to ask for better infra so that I can get places conveniently.

[danbrotherston]

I didn’t see a complaint about pedestrians. The trail is just crowded.

It's a bit busy at peak times, like some parts of the IHT, requiring cyclists to slow down or wait to pass. But it doesn't seem fundamentally different from rush hour traffic for cars in some parts of the city.

That said, I'm not opposed to twinning the trail. I just don't see it as the top priority for cycling infrastructure.

It is fundamentally different from rush hour for cars in the city because there is no planning organization insisting on spending 100s of millions to eliminate the congestion.

If the region considered people, not cars, the intersection of University and the Laurel Trail would get an F for its LOS and would be the most congested intersection in the city.

Instead, it's ignored, and rebuilt with zero improvement.

As for twinning, maybe not, but given that we just chose to rebuild it, and rebuild it to an insufficient standard, that really only highlights the priorities.

The IHT was widened, but those at the meeting said that a 5m width was needed, 1.5x2 for bike lanes and a 2m sidewalk. Instead we get 3.4m which sees significant congestion and conflict. The right of way was not even built to accommodate future widening as they generally do with roads.

Of course, there is an alternative to widening, which is to build parallel routes. One reason the IHT, Laurel, and Spur are busy is because it is the only nearby safe route (although Belmont has helped with this obviously, despite the opposition--I will often take it on weekends when the IHT is too busy).

[ac3r]

There's a new bridge going over Silver Lake:



Not my photograph, just found this on Reddit: https://www.reddit.com/r/waterloo/commen...rloo_park/

[KevinL]

Oh cool, that makes a neat shortcut to avoid the sidewalk on Caroline.

[tomh009]

It's a bit busy at peak times, like some parts of the IHT, requiring cyclists to slow down or wait to pass. But it doesn't seem fundamentally different from rush hour traffic for cars in some parts of the city.

It is fundamentally different from rush hour for cars in the city because there is no planning organization insisting on spending 100s of millions to eliminate the congestion.

Conceptually it's the same: heavy traffic at peak times causes a slowdown.

And, yes, we should be spending a greater percentage of our transportation spend on active transportation and transit.

[timio]

Add the new boardwalk and it's going to be a decent path around the lake when it's all done. I noticed the dam bridge near the bandshell was replaced as well when they remediated the creek.

[ijmorlan]

If the region considered people, not cars, the intersection of University and the Laurel Trail would get an F for its LOS and would be the most congested intersection in the city.

If you can find the right way to say this at a delegation you will make heads explode.

Not saying anybody will actually change, but definitely some cognitive dissonance will ensue.

Excellent framing though regardless. My solution is actually to extend the twinned paths all the way up to and across University and even past that up to the next crossing, with the bike path turning across the tracks and ending at Ring Road. That would mean that at University you would have a path, LRT tracks, bike path, and pedestrian path, in that order from west to east, crossing the road. Add in some slight redesign of what is existing (note to engineers, who should not need this pointed out if they really learned anything in school: paths need to get wider at intersections for reasons that are similar although not identical to the reasons why roads have to be at least a bit wider at intersections), and it should be possible to deal with the crowds effectively.

[Acitta]

So go slower, it won't kill you, or take an alternate route if you are in a big hurry. I find it annoying that some cyclists complain about pedestrians the way some motorists complain about cyclists.

We've already had the discussion where we point out that complaining that the infra is insufficient for the users it is seeing is perfectly reasonable, and it's equally annoying for you to tell me that I shouldn't even be allowed to ask for better infra so that I can get places conveniently.

I am not complaining about you asking for more infrastructure. We are continuing to add more cycling infrastructure in the region and we want more. However, our MUTs are shared between pedestrians and cyclists and cyclists should not expect to be able to go 30 or 40 kmh along them and not expect to have to sometimes slow down for pedestrians. The trails are not racetracks, but I regularly see some cyclists treating them as such, weaving around pedestrians at high speed. This is dangerous. There are alternative routes if a cyclist wants to go that fast.

[danbrotherston]

If the region considered people, not cars, the intersection of University and the Laurel Trail would get an F for its LOS and would be the most congested intersection in the city.

If you can find the right way to say this at a delegation you will make heads explode.

Not saying anybody will actually change, but definitely some cognitive dissonance will ensue.

Excellent framing though regardless. My solution is actually to extend the twinned paths all the way up to and across University and even past that up to the next crossing, with the bike path turning across the tracks and ending at Ring Road. That would mean that at University you would have a path, LRT tracks, bike path, and pedestrian path, in that order from west to east, crossing the road. Add in some slight redesign of what is existing (note to engineers, who should not need this pointed out if they really learned anything in school: paths need to get wider at intersections for reasons that are similar although not identical to the reasons why roads have to be at least a bit wider at intersections), and it should be possible to deal with the crowds effectively.

I'm not sure exactly that has been said, it is definitely a unique framing.

The frustrating thing is most of it has already been rebuilt, with no planning to meet current capacity, let along future capacity. I don't think necessarily twinned infra is needed, that worked really well through the park because the one pathway is filled with strolling park users, who stop to look at the animals, while the other functions as a through route. That was the justification used to get the twinning supported by council. The other sections are merely seeing a capacity issue which could be solved simply by separating users.

Many bike paths in the Netherlands have a 3 meter bi-directional bike path with a 1.8m sidewalk separated by material, that is plenty. Frustratingly, we even had this in the city on Westmount north of Northfield (where it wasn't really needed) but for some reason, they removed it. I think this is optimal, it makes a trail for all users, but separates them enough that all can be comfortable, and peds can use the cycling space as needed when passing other groups.

[danbrotherston]

It is fundamentally different from rush hour for cars in the city because there is no planning organization insisting on spending 100s of millions to eliminate the congestion.

Conceptually it's the same: heavy traffic at peak times causes a slowdown.

And, yes, we should be spending a greater percentage of our transportation spend on active transportation and transit.

I mean, we're agreeing here, yes, the congestion is like rush hour for cars, what's different is how we react to it. What is also different is how we SHOULD react to it.

[danbrotherston]

We've already had the discussion where we point out that complaining that the infra is insufficient for the users it is seeing is perfectly reasonable, and it's equally annoying for you to tell me that I shouldn't even be allowed to ask for better infra so that I can get places conveniently.

I am not complaining about you asking for more infrastructure. We are continuing to add more cycling infrastructure in the region and we want more. However, our MUTs are shared between pedestrians and cyclists and cyclists should not expect to be able to go 30 or 40 kmh along them and not expect to have to sometimes slow down for pedestrians. The trails are not racetracks, but I regularly see some cyclists treating them as such, weaving around pedestrians at high speed. This is dangerous. There are alternative routes if a cyclist wants to go that fast.

There absolutely are *not* alternate routes, at least not safe ones.

If you want to complain about cyclist behaviour, fine, I don't really care. But personally when I'm a pedestrian, I rarely have complaints about cyclists on trails, and I've never felt more than annoyed by them. Where as I am routinely endangered by drivers...occasionally even on trails!

But what bugs me is the idea that our trails are not transportation...they ARE transportation, and going places at a reasonable pace is not an unreasonable expectation. I think they trails should be improved so they meet the needs of *ALL* users.

And really I don't think 30km/h is an excessive speed for cycling on a trail.

[Acitta]

There's a new bridge going over Silver Lake:

Not my photograph, just found this on Reddit: https://www.reddit.com/r/waterloo/commen...rloo_park/

Somebody posted a video on Reddit.

[Acitta]

And really I don't think 30km/h is an excessive speed for cycling on a trail.

When I am on the MUT on Homer Watson where there are hardly any pedestrians, then I go 30kmh. When I am on the IHT when it is crowded with pedestrians, I try to stay under 20. My heavier e-bike could do real damage if I were to hit a child.

[ijmorlan]

And really I don't think 30km/h is an excessive speed for cycling on a trail.

When I am on the MUT on Homer Watson where there are hardly any pedestrians, then I go 30kmh. When I am on the IHT when it is crowded with pedestrians, I try to stay under 20. My heavier e-bike could do real damage if I were to hit a child.

So in other words, the infrastructure is not appropriate. Bicycles should be able to go at cruising speed on the main trails. This implies wider trails with separate bicycle and pedestrian lanes. The trails often cut across the street network so road-adjacent routes are not a substitute.

[plam]

And really I don't think 30km/h is an excessive speed for cycling on a trail.

When I am on the MUT on Homer Watson where there are hardly any pedestrians, then I go 30kmh. When I am on the IHT when it is crowded with pedestrians, I try to stay under 20. My heavier e-bike could do real damage if I were to hit a child.

30 is kind of fast... even on a non-ebike it would require some effort and wouldn't be great for hitting people at.